Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 14 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 24, 1997
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 10:00 a.m.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the first item on our agenda this morning is the approval of the minutes of April 17, 1997, pages 20 and 21.
Senator Carstairs: Senator Wood would like the verbatim comments on official languages.
The Chairman: Yes, we can provide that today.
Senator Wood, you will have them in your office today, as will any other senator who wishes to have them. We will get them out quickly.
In light of Senator Woods' comments, can we approve the minutes, please?
Senator Wood: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Item No. 6 on the agenda relates to committee budgets and approval of the budget for the committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, pages 22 to 27. Senator Lewis is on his way to this committee to deal with this matter.
Under "Other Matters", we have some Senate pins to pass around. Put a check mark underneath any pin you think you might like to have as a Senate identification pin.
The criticism of the existing pin is that it looks like it came out of a Cracker Jack box. I do not know if that is a fair criticism, but I some senators have described it to me like that. With Burke's, I have been trying over the last eight months to come up with something that might appeal to senators.
Senator Cochrane: It is a process of elimination.
Senator Wood: What would they charge us for the pins?
The Chairman: It depends how you want it to look, but it would work out to around $12 to $15 for the standard pin. If if you wanted your pin made out of gold, it would go up to $150. The price depends on the metal from which the pin is made.
Senator Carstairs: The one I have is certainly not worth $125.
The Chairman: The intention would be to issue the Chevrolet model. If people wanted to buy the Cadillac model, they could do that on their own. The spouses' pin is the nicest pin of all. We should take the spouses' pin away from them and give them one of the other ones.
Senator Cochrane: No one recognizes the spouses' pin.
The Chairman: The guards all recognize the spouses' pin promptly. Some senators have commented on the size of the pin. Quite candidly, I like the middle one best.
Does anyone have any suggestions about how we should deal with this matter? We could put this up on a board in the reading room and let people write their names underneath it to ask what they think.
Senator Carstairs: That is good enough.
The Chairman: Do you want to decide in the committee?
Senator Carstairs: We should let the senators decide.
The Chairman: No one decided about the first one.
Senator Cochrane: Perhaps we should just decide here.
The Chairman: Perhaps we could resolve on one and then suggest to senators that, if they prefer the Cracker Jack box model, they can continue to wear it for the duration. Those who like the new one can put it on. It will evolve over time.
Senator Carstairs: I do appreciate you going to Birks' Jewellers because it is a good old Canadian firm, but there are some wonderful young jewellery makers out there. A jeweller in Manitoba did a pin of a crocus for our centennial. He did it in sterling rather than gold. It was quite special. He also did it at a very reasonable price.
One of the objections I have to our current pin is the roughness. It is so bad that it ruins my suits. I just quite simply did away with it. I stopped wearing it.
The Chairman: The clasp is important. Some of the pins have the type of clasp which is more suitable for the clothing to which you refer. We could arrange to have different clasps to suit what you are wearing. This sort of thing is ideal for a jacket or blazer, but does not work at all on a shirt or dress.
Senator Carstairs: Let the senators vote on it. Let them have some fun. We are in the silly season.
The Chairman: I leave that in the good hands of Mr. O'Brien.
We now have with us the distinguished Senator Lewis who has a budget he would like to bring before the committee.
Hon. P. Derek Lewis, Joint Chairman, Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons for the Scrutiny of Regulations: This is the original budget.
The Chairman: Are copies available of this as of now?
Mr. Bélisle: Yes, they are on page 22.
The Chairman: You did not raise it again?
Senator Lewis: We did not raise it. If I had thought of it, I might have tred. The budget is the same as last year.
The Chairman: Would you please describe for the benefit of the committee what your committee does, sir, and why you need this money?
Senator Lewis: Our joint committee deals with scrutiny of regulations under section 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act. It has the responsibility of reviewing and scrutinizing statutory instruments. We have been extremely busy during the past session. We have met 25 times, including 12 meetings on Bill C-25 with which you are probably not familiar yet, which is the Regulations Bill. The committee had a number of concerns about the bill and its impact on the regulatory process and the powers of the committee to examine regulations. Since our committee is the only parliamentary committee with the power to review government regulations and recommend disallowance, concern has been expressed by a number of observers that the bill may reduce the role and authority of Parliament to scrutinize regulations. This is the proposed Regulations Act.
Therefore, the committee invited officials of the Department of Justice and outside observers before the committee to give their comments on the bill. It is worth noting that the bill and the committee's examination of it has attracted the attention of the press, notably editorials and articles in The Ottawa Citizen.
Another example of the committee's parliamentary watchdog role is its present review of the regulation of the RCMP which prohibits its members from engaging in any political activity or running for elected office. A concern has been expressed that such a prohibition is contrary to the Charter of Rights. We have just dealt with that this morning and deferred the matter until the fall because the Solicitor General has undertaken to have a review done by that time.
If there is a dissolution of Parliament, you must remember that the work of the committee and its legal counsel continues during the time of the election. The work goes on 12 months of the year. That is why we must have the budget now to provide for the salaries of the two legal counsel and the administrative assistants who would be on staff during this time.
The Chairman: Senator Lewis, we have just discussed that. We were proposing to the intersessional authority that $30,000 be set aside over the period of the summer months for your committee. I believe you had been consulted on that and found it to be sufficient to carry your costs through; is that correct?
Senator Lewis: Yes, that should cover the summer months. I do not know what happens then.
The Chairman: In the event it is a longer dissolution, we hope you will come back and visit us again.
Senator Lewis: Very good. I look forward to seeing you.
The Chairman: Does anyone have any questions?
Senator Wood: Would that $30,000 be met by the House of Commons as well?
The Chairman: It is 50/50.
Senator Wood: Why is it 50/50 for this committee when most of them are one-third?
Senator Lewis: We have a membership of 16, eight from each house.
The Chairman: I should like all of the joint committees to be 50/50 committees, but that is a battle to be fought another day.
Senator Wood: The $30,000 we are approving today will be matched by the house.
The Chairman: We are approving his entire budget today, but we anticipate it will fall off the table soon. A few months ago we approved the $30,000 that we will have to reapprove again next Tuesday, we assume.
Colleagues, are there any other questions? We are in accord with this budget, then, Senator Lewis. I would ask you for other reasons if you would just stay in our place for a moment. That would be most helpful. Thank you.
There are two items I should like to deal with quickly before we lose a quorum. The first is additional funding requirements for parliamentary associations, and it is on page 28 of your document.
In a nutshell, the CPA had a surplus. The other board returned the funds to the Consolidated Revenue Fund with an undertaking to reappropriate them to the JIC, which in turn allocates the funds to the various committees. We are suggesting here that we match what the other place has already done. If we do that, it would mean a total expenditure of $125,000. This is a one-third, two-thirds deal. Their two-thirds have already been approved, and this would be our one-third.
You will also notice that I am saying we may have to go for a supplementary for it. They are going for a supplementary for their two-thirds because it was unanticipated. We are taking back the same money we put into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is a silly accounting game that we are playing here.
Senator Cochrane: It is six of one and half dozen of the other.
The Chairman: Yes, but I need board approval to do that.
Senator Milne: I am still confused.
The Chairman: We are being consistent with the other place. These are funds that went back into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and now we are taking them out again so Her Majesty is not being dinged twice on this.
The last issue I have here under "Other Matters" is a request from the Library of Parliament to use one of our committee rooms during the summer while we are not using it. We are talking about 256-S. Because of the higher volume of tourists, they would like to use that committee room to sell souvenirs. They would also like to use a place by the old doorway in the East Block, the north-east door. Right now, you come in the Governor General's entrance, which is the centre-west door of the East Block. We are talking about the north-west door, the door closest to this building. They would like to use that area as a souvenir shop during the summer period.
Senator Cochrane: This is just for the summer.
The Chairman: Just the summer.
Senator Wood: Is that staffed by the House of Commons?
The Chairman: It is staffed by Library of Parliament. The tour guide people do it. Are we comfortable with that?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chairman: Colleagues, is there any other business you would like to bring before the committee?
Senator Milne: I have a note on messengers which perhaps we should put on the agenda. I will pass over to you to consider. This was brought to my attention the other day, and I will give it to you. Perhaps you can send it around to all the committee for their concerns about it.
The Chairman: We will see that it is circulated and dealt with. Is there anything else, honourable senators?
Senator Nolin: Did you deal with the question of the pages?
The Chairman: Senator Nolin, the document we had originally has been reviewed by Mr. O'Brien with Senator Carstairs. Senator Carstairs said she was pleased with the meeting she had, and Mr. O'Brien has undertaken to prepare a new paper for our consideration at the next meeting of the committee.
Senator Nolin: Good.
Senator Cochrane: Now that Senator Nolin is here, perhaps we should discuss with him our caucus meeting yesterday, and the information that you gave to your caucus regarding senators' travel during the election campaign.
The Chairman: Yes, of course.
Senator Nolin: Instead of raising with the entire caucus this issue of travel during the writ period -- it is really just an issue of perception -- I decided to speak to those colleagues --
The Chairman: This is on the record, senator.
Mr. Bélisle: We can go in camera.
The Chairman: I will adjourn the meeting. We can discuss this better that way.
The committee adjourned.