Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 3 - Evidence - May 12, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 12, 2016
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, pursuant to rule 12-7(1) of the Rules of the Senate, met this day at 9:03 a.m. in public for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, I call the meeting to order. All colleagues, good morning. If we can get everybody else on board, we're good to go.
First item on the agenda, colleagues, is the adoption of minutes of proceedings of the April 21 and May 5 meetings, the public portions. Are there any questions on those minutes?
Next, I'd like to welcome Senator John Wallace who is here this morning in place of Senator Campbell. Welcome, Senator Wallace.
Are there any questions in regard to item one of the minutes? If there aren't any questions, could I have a motion to pass the minutes?
Senator Tkachuk: So moved.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Tkachuk, seconded by Senator Lang. No opposition, I assume? Passed unanimously.
Item two is an item from the Joint Interparliamentary Council in regard to a funding issue. We have asked Colette Labrecque-Riel and Gérald Lafrenière to come before us a second time to make their presentation. Bonjour. The floor is yours.
Colette Labrecque-Riel, Acting Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate, Senate of Canada: Good morning, honourable senators. As noted at the last meeting of this committee, the issue before you concerns the Joint Interparliamentary Council, JIC, and more specifically the 2016-17 budget allocation to parliamentary associations. The document before you provides a concise and I hope useful overview of the issue.
As you know, the JIC's mandate is to allocate budgets to the 12 associations. For this fiscal year, as is its usual practice, the JIC heard from all chairs and co-chairs before deciding on how to distribute the funds. Due to continued pressure from high international membership fees and significant budget requests from associations to carry out their planned activities, the JIC agreed to over-allocate $122,000 subject to the approval of this committee.
With the usual 30-70 formula for the Senate, this translates into an over-allocation of $36,600. Thus, the JIC seeks the approval of this committee for this over-allocation.
I wish to point out that the 2014 over-allocation mechanism referenced in the information note before you is applied differently by the House of Commons. The authorization from the Board of Internal Economy granted in December 2014 to the JIC to over-allocate up to a maximum of $550,000 remains available to the JIC from the house's perspective.
The application of that mechanism is different for the Senate, which is why this request for authorization is coming forward today.
Senator Tkachuk: Could I ask a question?
The Chair: Senator Marshall and then Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much for your presentation. If we approve this over-allocation, does that mean at the end of the fiscal year we might be over in our budget and we will have to look for the $36,000 from somewhere else?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: I did do an analysis of the last five fiscal years, and every single year the JIC leaves money on the table, so it doesn't even spend its normal envelope, by some significant amount. It varies between actually $900,000 and $155,000. If I were to be asked if this year will be the same story —
Senator Marshall: We don't know.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: — I wish I had a crystal ball. I don't know. I suspect if we don't go over, we will be really close. I don't want to mislead anyone. There is a chance that this will actually become an expenditure.
Senator Marshall: Okay, because we over-allocate for committee travel sometimes too, right? Okay. Thank you.
Senator Doyle: I'm just wondering, we hear an awful lot about membership fees. Could you give us a little bit of information about how Canada's membership fees were established? Is it done on a per capita basis, or what is it?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: It actually depends on the multilateral association that we belong to. A lot of it has to do with per capita, yes, the size of the country, and the formulas differ. I can say that of the total budgetary envelope for the JIC, $3.5 million, 30 per cent is spent towards membership fees, and that's going up slightly every year.
The exchange rate of the Canadian dollar affects it as well because a lot of the membership fees are paid in foreign currency, so that leaves less and less every year for activities.
Senator Doyle: How do our membership fees compare with the other members of the JIC? Are we well above? You hear the continual criticism of it every year, that Canada should be out of it or what have you.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: The membership fees have remained stable for Canada for a number of years. Like I say, the increase is often due to exchange rates. How we compare to other countries is all fairly relative. The same formula is set up by the international secretariat of those associations, if you like, and the membership fees vary depending on the association. ParlAmericas, for instance, has very low membership fees, $20,000 per year, whereas the IPU for this fiscal year would be roughly around $450,000. So they're a significant chunk of the budget that the JIC has to play with.
Senator Doyle: Thank you.
Senator Tkachuk: That $900,000 in the expenditure, the money that was not spent, was that for an election year? Was that an election year?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: The year where we left almost $900,000 on the table was 2011-12. I should point out that the budget was higher during that fiscal year; it was actually $4.4 million. The JIC's budget has been reduced by $900,000 over the last five years.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes. Just so that I'm clear what this is, from my understanding, what happened is the JIC recommended on a number of occasions that we would not participate in the IPU. And then the two Speakers I think recommended that, okay, if you run out of money, we'll divvy up the half million bucks.
So is this because you ran out of money, or are you trying to make this a permanent fixture of the JIC budget? How much are you spending on travel and membership fees?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: The mechanism you are referring to is actually the letter that's in the back of the briefing note.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: This is the first time the JIC is attempting to invoke that mechanism, if you like. And as I said, it's applied differently in the house than in the Senate.
The amount of money left of the total budget for activities — as I mentioned, the contributions or membership fees are 30 per cent this year, so 60 per cent of that budget, $2.2 million, is left for activities as opposed to its total budget of $3.5 million.
I know these are not expenditures at this point. The associations have come forward with their budget requests, and their requests were actually twice as much as the actual budgetary envelope.
Senator Tkachuk: That's normal.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: And the JIC came up with a formula. We had prepared a number of scenarios to cut everyone down. Almost everyone, almost all the associations received only half of what they requested. Again, the pressure of the significant membership fees is usually the theme of these discussions at the JIC, leaving little for the actual activities. The arguments being made are that we are investing so much in membership fees, we have little money left over to actually participate in these associations for which we pay membership fees.
Senator Tkachuk: That is part of the problem. I think IPU was just so high. It was over $400,000, if I'm not mistaken. And I know that the JIC tried for years to get IPU to cut their costs to some manageable amount. Let's put it this way. They did a little, but it was not what everybody else had to be doing to be in the ball game.
Anyway, if this is another way to just get more money out of us on a permanent basis, I thought it was a one-year allocation, not a permanent allocation, this extra $500,000. If JIC wants to get back on the table with IPU, they should make that decision that we're back with IPU and fund it out of that money and then we won't have to deal with this matter again.
Senator Downe: The overarching question for me, and I'm concerned with what I heard, that half the associations who requested funding — or they were half funded for what they requested, in other words, the proposals that they thought were legitimate and the money wasn't there. I'm wondering if the government liaison who is at the meeting here, Senator Mitchell, could find out and report back to us what the intention of the government is. It seems to me the new government has a very international participation bent, and these parliamentary associations certainly fit into that framework.
To find out that we're not having the additional funds that people required, we want to participate, but when somebody presents a cheque, we get up and leave the table to go out for a few minutes and have a smoke or something. We should find out what the government intends to do about this and do they intend to give an additional allotment to the House of Commons and Senate to fund it, and maybe Senator Mitchell, the liaison of the government, could find out and report back to us.
Senator Mitchell: I would be more than happy to do that. I would also say that it, of course, raises the issue of the participation, full participation of independent senators on parliamentary associations. They're not now structured so that they have — so that independents would have full status, equal status, and I think given the changing configuration of the Senate, where we now have an increasing number and a significant number of senators who are excluded from full participation in parliamentary associations, trips and delegations, that's not fair, of course, and we are all interested in creating equality in that regard. And so I'm glad you raised it, because we should start to debate what we do with JIC to keep that equality.
Senator Downe: I think it's an important point Senator Mitchell made, but he's really talking about the Rules of the Senate, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about funding.
Senator Mitchell: I haven't spoken with them, but I would think the government would want to know they are funding an organization where all senators are treated equally.
The Chair: Before I pass the floor over to Senator Munson, maybe I can weigh in as well given the fact that I was co-chair of JIC until last week when I was kindly replaced by Senator Manning, but there have been discussions at the last couple of JIC meetings by parliamentarians from the other side expressing exactly the view that Senator Downe has, that there seems to be a greater eagerness on their part to exercise parliamentary diplomacy, and I think we have to prepare ourselves because there is talk of expanding the JIC budget by 20 per cent, and the argument they use, just as the parliamentarians on the other side decided to increase their budgets 20 per cent across the board, they think they would like to reinstate all the budget cuts that were done to JIC over the last decade, I guess it was.
So that discussion has been put on the table, so I'll pass it to Senator Munson, who is also a member of JIC, and then I'll go back to Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Munson: I'll echo what you just said. That's what I was going to say, that I also sit on the JIC, which is just a wonderful place to work. Exercising budgets, but we do go through this process, as Senator Downe said, that there are chairs of these committees who come before us, and they know right off the bat that they are only going to get half of what they want, each and every year.
And sometimes there are winners and losers, but the idea of JIC revisiting this whole issue has been brought up. In fact, Wayne Easter on the other side brought it up, the idea that there are 30 more new members of Parliament as well, and there is an activist agenda that's taking place on the other side.
There are parliamentarians who want to participate. They also want to increase perhaps to have a Canada-India, which seems to be a no-brainer association, and we don't have that.
So there are different things taking place, and I think that we're living in a new world where JIC and/or others are going to have to sit down to hammer out new budgets as opposed to going through this — well, it's a shell game that happens. Most people get their money, but they don't get anywhere near enough; they really don't, particularly those associations who do not have all these fees that have to be paid — Canada-Africa. We don't do that, and that sort of thing.
And I think that has to be revisited as well, because Canada is paying a great share of funding the work of the IPUs of the world. And so with the extra parliamentarians, what Senator Mitchell brought up about the other senators who don't have any means of — well, they can be on these associations, but they'll never travel. Thank you.
Senator Tkachuk: Just so that everybody understands, there was no decrease in travel. It was an exercise that we instituted to lower the costs of travel — in other words, making sure the whips let the delegations know well ahead of time so we could book cheaper tickets. There was a whole sort of menu of items that we addressed so we were able to cut the budget substantially without a decrease in travel.
The agenda was the same. There was an activist agenda. Everybody was travelling everywhere, but the question of India and other associations, it was hard for us to justify the fact that we were looking at India and other associations, and so we thought, well, maybe we should look at dropping one IPU. In other words, instead of keeping the whole menu, let's get rid of this so we could do this, this and this. But if you want to increase the overall budget, well, that's a whole separate item.
Anyway, just so that that's clear, it's not that people had less travel. It just cost them a lot less money.
Senator Lang: I wanted to echo Senator Tkachuk to some degree with respect to the IPU and our conversation. It's two years ago now, and the concern was basically our membership fee and the amount. It seems to me that we haven't come to grips with that. Of what value is it to us as a Parliament in respect to other commitments we have? And I would suggest to you that if we do agree with this, that we have a caveat, that it be revisited by JIC and see whether or not how much we're prepared to pay to be in membership. If it's too much, then I think we have to ask ourselves are we going to be part of it. So I would ask that that be the caveat if we proceed with the commitment.
Senator Martin: Just a couple of comments. I am the vice-president of IPU at the moment, and understanding Canada's membership at the IPU for over 100 years and the multilateral work that can be done, I will say that in defence of our participation in the IPU. However, I do agree with Senator Tkachuk and others that we must be very prudent in how we allocate, you know, budgets and spending and making sure we are being as efficient as we can with the money that is there.
Perhaps asking members of JIC — which I am not one — and both houses to do another assessment, but I will say that comment about the IPU.
The other thing is Senators Munson and Tkachuk have talked about Canada-India, but as co-chair of Canada-Korea and the only free trade agreement that we do have in Asia, I want to say that if there are going to be any additional considerations I hope that it will be a fair and clear process so that people of these different friendship groups can participate.
I have heard, too, that there could be an increase potentially, but again, I would only support that if that is what is in the best interests of Canada. As a member of various parliamentary friendship groups and associations, I do see the value of it, but I think that, above all, we need to be very prudent in our spending.
The Chair: Duly noted. I also want to remind colleagues that JIC has launched this year, or is in the process of launching, a new review in terms of the membership of JIC. So I guess, by the end of the year, I suspect there's going to be a report in terms of going forward with objectives. And if there would be new members, clearly, I think, colleagues, there will be a request for more funds at some point. Also, I remind our colleagues that, if there are any questions with regard to this, that the co-chair from the Senate side is Senator Fabian Manning, and senators Munson and Plett are representatives on the committee.
Appropriately, the last word goes to Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: A few weeks ago, when I was asked to be co-chair, I'm not exactly sure now what I took on, but we'll wait and see. I haven't attended a meeting yet.
I have a couple of questions, if I could. When I look at the background information here in relation to the requests for extra funding, it says here that, on three separate occasions, JIC recommended to both IEC committees that Canada withdraw from the IPU due to high membership fees and that, in December 2014, both the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the Board of Internal Economy agreed to authorize JIC to temporarily over-allocate funds for association activities. The mechanism provided JIC with an authorization to temporarily over-allocate up to $550,000.
So I'm wondering, when you use the word "temporarily,'' you think it's short term, but it seems like we're here on a long-term basis now. Now, we're back seeking the approval of this committee for the over-allocation of another $120,000. Well, $36,000 would be our share. Number one, the 550 is separate from the 36,000, would that be correct? Or is it part of the 36? The 36 is part of the 550.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: You can view it as the $36,000 would be taken from the 550 mechanism.
Senator Manning: Okay. So is the 550 already approved?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: It depends where you sit. On the House of Commons side, as I said, the interpretation or the application of that mechanism is different. The interpretation there was that the authorization remains. The word "temporary'' is being used in the context of it is not a permanent increase to the budgetary envelope. It has to come from surplus funds at the end of the year if those are expenditures.
On the Senate side, this is the first time this is being done for this over-allocation mechanism, and this perhaps explains why there's a difference in interpretation of application between the two houses. The first time the over-allocation was being drawn upon is now and it was felt that the authorization of this committee was required.
The Chair: Senator Manning, if I can add to that answer, essentially, when I read the two motions from the house, it was clear that the house has given pre-authorization to go into this surplus budget if required. When I read our motion, from whenever it was done by Internal Economy, the way I read it and comprehended it is that, whenever there was a need to go into this surplus budget, this committee would have to revisit it.
So there was a discussion, but that's the way I interpreted that motion, and Senator Tkachuk confirmed to me that that was the spirit in which the motion was passed. Thus, we're back here approving this amount of money.
Senator Manning: Okay, so it is part of the 550. My only concern is that, if anybody has learned a lesson from the interpretation of rules, it should be here in the Senate. And trying to have a different interpretation in the house than we have in the Senate for the same pot of money really raises eyebrows.
The Chair: That's why I went with a more cautious approach.
Senator Manning: Okay. On the membership fees, you're saying about 30 per cent of the budgetary envelope is the membership fees. Of the remaining amount for parliamentary associations, for travel, as I said, I'm the co-chair, but I haven't attended a meeting as of yet. How much of that budgetary envelope that's put aside for travel has been allocated?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: 100 per cent; plus they're trying to get an extra 122. The entire budget is 3.5. Contributions are 1.3, and so the leftover 2.1 is entirely allocated currently. Plus, there's a request for an additional $122,000, or $36,000 for here.
Senator Manning: It's totally allocated for this fiscal year?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Yes.
Senator Manning: Okay, now, Mr. Chair, the witness is telling me that the budget for this year is totally allocated for JIC.
The Chair: Right.
Senator Manning: We're in May month, and you asked me to co-chair a committee that has all of their money spent for the rest of the year. Therein lies a problem for me. I don't know what I'm co-chair of right now because there's no money left. I wanted to get that point across.
Senator Tkachuk: It's actually the best time to be the co-chair.
The Chair: Well, Senator Manning, indeed, the committee has done all the heavy lifting already. I do point that out.
Senator Manning: But when the request comes back for over-allocation —
The Chair: But, colleagues, keep in mind that the tradition and the history has been that the budgets get allocated at the beginning of the year, but, from what I understand, every year, everybody comes in way under budget.
Keep in mind that this over-allocation right now is really a buffer because, again, based on our previous experiences, they should be coming in under budget, and, when we're talking about the review and adding new associations and increasing spending going forward, these are two different items. That will probably occur next year under your leadership, senator.
Colleagues, I would ask for someone to move the following motion:
That the JIC be authorized to over-allocate budget funds for parliamentary association activities this fiscal year by the amount of $121,310; and
That, if, during this fiscal year, it is determined that JIC will end in a deficit situation, the costs of the shortfall will be offset from surpluses elsewhere to the maximum amount of $36,393, which is reflective of the usual 30-70 cost-sharing formula between the House and the Senate.
Do I have anybody moving the motion? Moved by Senator Jaffer, seconded by Senator Doyle. All those in favour? Anyone opposed? So we'll have a vote.
Actually, the motion does pass, but let it be noted that we do have two opposing senators on this issue.
Thank you, colleagues.
Item three on the agenda is the third report of the Subcommittee on Budgets, and I'll ask Senator Tannas to speak to that.
Senator Tannas: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the third report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, which includes the recommended allocations for three committee budgets. Before reviewing each budget, I want to provide some context.
The total funds available for all of 2016-17 are $2.382 million, less $500,000 that we've allocated for witness expenses, leaving $1.882 million for release for individual committee budgets.
To date, $1,491,305 has been committed for travel by eight different committees. The bulk of this travel is expected to occur before the end of June 2016.
Your subcommittee has also previously recommended the deferral of a further $389,660 in funds requested by two committees who wish to travel in the fall.
Today, the subcommittee is presenting you with a request to release an additional $178,122 for two standing committees, along with $3,540 for a budget for a joint committee.
In meeting with the individual committees, we wanted to be sure that each one had clear objectives for this genre of expenditure and that the strategy would effectively reach its intended audience. Your subcommittee took special note of each committee's intended travel dates, communications plans and expected reporting dates and commends those who provided us with specific plans that were quite detailed.
Your subcommittee met with the chair and deputy chair of the Human Rights Committee, the budget of which contained a proposed expenditure of $54,794 for one activity, which is fact finding and public hearings in Montreal and Toronto, to take place before the end of June 2016. This activity is in relation to their study on the integration of newly-arrived Syrian refugees. Based on the information provided for this budget application, your subcommittee recommends the full release of the funds for this activity.
Your subcommittee also met with the chair and deputy chair of the Official Languages Committee, whose budget application contained a proposed expenditure of $123,328 for one activity, that being fact-finding and public hearings to take place in B.C. in the fall of 2016. This activity is in relation to their study on access to French-language schools and French immersion programs in British Columbia. Based on the information provided for this budget application, your subcommittee recommends the full release of funds for this activity.
Your subcommittee also received a budget application from the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, that is requesting a modest budget of $11,800 in total, of which the Senate's 30 per cent portion is $3,540. This budget is to cover witness expenses, working meals — specifically the snacks at the meeting — as well as books, subscriptions and printing.
Past practice for joint committees has been to obtain budgets from their respective chambers with a cost-sharing arrangement between the House of Commons paying 70 per cent of the expenses and the Senate paying 30 per cent.
Normally, standing and special committees in the Senate receive funding to cover witness expenses and working meals from a central budget that is administered by the Principal Clerk of Committees. All other funding requests are submitted through the normal process to the Subcommittee on Budgets for approval.
While the subcommittee has no issue with the amount of the funding request, the joint committee is following an old practice for committees requesting funds that is no longer consistent with the current budget process for standing committees.
Therefore, your subcommittee recommends that the expenditures for working meals and witness expenses of this joint committee, and, in fact, all joint committees, also be funded from the central budget that is administered by the Principal Clerk of Committees.
Based on historical expenditures by the joint committees, no increase to the total envelope for committees is required, as the total expenses for joint committees are quite modest. The billing arrangement with the House of Commons and the reporting requirements of the joint committee to the Senate would then remain unchanged.
Your subcommittee also considered a request from the Agriculture and Forestry Committee to include a communications officer in the place of a cancelled participant on their upcoming trip to Calgary. After reviewing the committee's communications plan, your subcommittee recommends that this request be approved, provided that the expenses are within the budget amount that was previously approved by this committee on Thursday, March 24, 2016.
Your subcommittee also undertakes to bring forward any further requests of this nature to this committee.
With the release of the funds recommended to date, $1,672,967 of the $1.882 million will have been committed, along with the $389,660 that we had recommended be deferred. There are still a few committees in the planning stages for their activities and there may be new orders of reference for work plans to come in the fall. We recognize that because committees are budgeting for full participation, planned spending may appear high.
However, it is well established that the full participation rarely occurs and that our committees use every opportunity to reduce costs and unnecessary expenses, so we expect that, of the funds that we have previously approved, much will be clawed back upon completion of these trips. Based on all of this, your subcommittee feels comfortable recommending the release of these funds.
I'm happy to take questions, colleagues. Otherwise, I recommend the adoption of the report.
Senator Marshall: Could you tell us, for the Human Rights and Official Languages studies, how many senators and how many staff are budgeted for each of the projects?
Senator Tannas: I think it was nine, but let me just check. Was it nine and nine? It is nine senators for each.
Senator Marshall: What about staff?
Senator Tannas: Nine senators and eight staff, which includes a clerk, an analyst, an administrative assistant and three interpreters. This is for the Syrian one. There will be a third interpreter there who will do Arabic translation.
Senator Marshall: There are nine senators and eight staff, each, for Human Rights and Official Languages?
Senator Tannas: It is nine senators and nine staff. That includes a communications officer travelling on that trip.
Senator Marshall: These are all Senate administration staff?
Senator Tannas: That's correct.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Tannas, seconded by Senator Tkachuk. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Anyone opposed? It passes unanimously.
Item 4 has been deferred to the next meeting, but this is a point of information. We will be creating an advisory working group to finalize the review of policies and rules.
Over the last year, steering and, primarily, actually, the administration have worked on reviewing our rules and policies. There has been a wide scale of recommendations and, I would say, adjustments made to the rules to fit the various circumstances that we've learned from over the last few years. We're looking for a number of senators who would be kind enough to participate on that committee, keeping in mind that it will work throughout the summer. It will be an intense working committee, because there is a large number of rules and policies and they need intense scrutiny.
We're looking for a number of senators from a wide range of places in the country to make sure there's a good representation of the requirements needed, as well, to make sure senators are doing their job. That committee will be asked to finish its work and report by late September to this committee, where we will have a special series of meetings to go through, of course, the changes, reviews and discussions of those presentations. Senator McCoy, you have a question.
Senator McCoy: I do, thank you. How many senators are you looking for?
The Chair: Senator Cordy, what's the formula, four, two and one?
Senator McCoy: Seven senators in total?
Senator Cordy: Yes.
Senator McCoy: Four Conservative, two independent Liberals and one independent, non-partisan.
The Chair: Colleagues, again I want to highlight that this committee will be working throughout the summer, so we will require some people to make some sacrifices and be available to do this work. If anybody is interested, come and see me or Senator Cordy before next week's meeting.
Senator Mitchell: Thanks. Listening to the configuration, there's no provision there for somebody in the government representative group, and yet we will have an interest in those rules and changes.
The Chair: We always understood the government is independent. They have a stand-alone representative in the chamber who is an ex officio member of this committee.
Keep in mind, colleagues, all recommendations from that committee will come to this one and the Senate, obviously, but this committee will be doing the final sign-off on whatever recommendations are made, so rest assured everybody will participate.
We'll put that working group on the agenda for the next meeting.
Item 5 has also been deferred. The last item on the agenda is the adoption of minutes of proceedings of the in camera portion of the April 21 meeting. Consistent with our objective in holding all our meetings in public, unless somebody sees otherwise, I don't mind having these minutes reviewed and passed to the public, unless somebody has any difficulty with that. Does anybody have any questions with regard to these minutes? Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: There's a typo in the last item of those minutes. I was just writing Nicole a note.
The Chair: Let's correct the typo.
Senator Batters: It's all right. I'll just give Nicole a note about it.
The Chair: Colleagues, do I have a motion to pass the minutes with that typo? Senator Lang has a question.
Senator Lang: So we make this clear that every time we have a meeting in camera, I think that's a decision by itself with respect to dealing with the minutes. Sometimes you have a meeting in camera and some of them have to do with personnel and other things that shouldn't be part of the public record for a number of reasons. I want to make it clear this should be dealt with every time we deal with in camera minutes.
The Chair: No doubt, senator. That's been duly noted with regard to any labour or legal issues, obviously. Of course, senators around this table reserve the right to go in camera whenever senators deem it necessary.
Senator Lang: I guess the point I'm making is that when you have in camera minutes, they're not distributed as part of the public minutes until such time we decide they're going to be dealt with.
The Chair: I do agree. If there's a reason to go in camera right now, we can easily do so. But if there isn't, we can still adopt these in public. That's all I'm saying. There's a motion to move the minutes by Senator Manning, seconded by Senator Doyle. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Is there any other item, colleagues, that needs to be addressed? If there isn't, I adjourn the meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)