Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and
Constitutional Affairs
Issue 49 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 13, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-15, to amend An Act to incorporate the Bishop of the Arctic of the Church of England in Canada, met this day at 11:00 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Sharon Carstairs (Chair) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, we have with us this morning Senator Michael Meighen, who is appearing on behalf of the petitioners for Bill S-15, for the purposes of proving the preamble.
Bill S-15 is an act to amend an act to incorporate the Bishop of the Arctic of the Church of England in Canada.
Senator Gigantès: Is this to incorporate the bishop as a corporation sole, the way we incorporate other bishops and so on?
The Honourable Michael A. Meighen: The incorporation took place in 1934. He is incorporated.
The Chair: Senator Gigantès, this is simply an amendment to the original act which was passed in 1934.
Senator Gigantès: I have objected to corporation sole for every single denomination, even though I am Church of England. We had a big fight over the Dai al-Mutlaq. I must oppose this on principle. I do not think churches should have anything different from other groups.
The Chair: Your objections have been noted, but before we get into further positions from senators, I should like to ask Senator Meighen to make his presentation. We will then have a question period.
Senator Meighen: I live in fear and trepidation of being a witness, having been a lawyer most of my professional life. I realize that it is much more difficult to be a witness than to be a lawyer.
Honourable senators, in my effort to prove the preamble, I can assure you, as I have been assured through counsel for the petitioner, the Bishop of the Arctic, that he does indeed desire passage of this amendment to the original act of incorporation which was passed in 1934.
That act limited the investment powers of the Diocese of the Arctic to securities of the Government of the Dominion of Canada and of the United Kingdom and first mortgages in Canada.
With the passage of time, and particularly in present circumstances, the endowment funds are proving to be increasingly insufficient to provide the interest necessary to subsidize the work of the Diocese of the Arctic which, as senators will be aware, stretches all the way from Northern Quebec into the Western Arctic.
The Anglican Church has been present in Northern Quebec and the Western Arctic since the early part of the 19th century and in recent years has become increasingly controlled by the people of the north, whom the church set out to serve so many years ago. There are an increasing number of bishops and priests who are Inuit and native, and this trend will continue.
However, unless the relief that is sought is granted, it will be increasingly difficult to fund these efforts. What is being sought specifically is simply a flexibility in investment to correspond to the flexibility that exists in most dioceses. For example, I verified that the Diocese of Edmonton, which is also part of the ecclesiastical province of Rupertsland, has the same investment powers as are being sought for the Diocese of the Arctic in the proposed amendment before you.
The investments of the diocese are carried out under the authority of the executive council which is composed of both clergy and lay members of the church. I understand that it meets only once a year and has, therefore, delegated power to approve investment decisions to a small executive committee of the executive council, which is similarly composed of clergy and lay members of the church.
I am informed by Mr. Bailey, counsel to the bishop, that the investment powers set out in this bill are similar to those given to dioceses south of the 60th parallel in the Anglican Church today.
Finally, in addition ti the investment powers, there are --
[Translation]
We are asking for two other changes of a technical nature. Firstly, we would like the word "corporation" in the French version to read "personne morale". Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the expression "personne morale" is commonly used today in place of "corporation". We are also asking that the name in French read "évêque de l'Arctique" since much of the work of this diocese is done in Quebec where French is, of course, the predominant language.
That, in a nutshell, is the gist of my bill. Of course I would be happy to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Meighen.
Senator Adams: I am glad to see this amendment to change the investment process. We now have an Inuk bishop in the north and usually the Inuit run the churches in the small communities.
Will you explain how the bishop will be able to invest in northern Arctic communities under to Bill S-15?
Senator Meighen: Regrettably, the bishop is not here to speak for himself. I have been given no undertakings as to what investments he proposes to make. However, the purpose of this bill would provide him, at least, with the flexibility of making investments in, for example, enterprises of the north, whereas today, except possibly for first mortgages, he does not have that right.
I would expect that with this additional flexibility you would see a desire to preserve the safety of the investment coupled with a desire to enhance the activity going on in the Diocese of the Arctic. While I can give you no absolute assurances, I can tell you that without this flexibility it would be impossible to contemplate investments such as you have mentioned.
Senator Adams: Does any other church have the right to invest money in a private corporation? It is typical that churches in the north experience high costs, including costs of power and fuel. The money must come from some place to enable the church to operate in the community.
If Bill S-15 is passed today, will this church be able to invest in the stock market in order to make money to meet its expenses? Is that the idea behind this measure; or is it to able to get more money to run the church?
Senator Meighen: The idea is to generate a higher rate of return in order to finance the increased demands and increased activities of the church. With interest rates so low at present, the rate of return is limited. This measure would allow for investments which, hopefully, would produce a greater rate of return and, therefore, greater investment.
Senator Adams: Do churches not have a policy like that at the moment?
Senator Meighen: Under the 1934 act, they are limited to investing in securities of the Government of Canada, the provinces, the government of the United Kingdom and first mortgages.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Senator Meighen, you are asking for a great deal more flexibility in terms of managing these funds. Consider the situation in Quebec. When funds are assigned in trust to a parish corporation, the latter must comply with investment standards. You are asking us to grant the corporation a tremendous amount of power. Presently, these funds are administered by an executive committee. Has the diocese at least taken steps to ensure that guidelines are in place so that these funds are not endangered in any way?
Senator Meighen: Senator Nolin, I do not have a list of guidelines. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, investments are carried out under the authority of an executive committee. The church has assigned these powers to the committee which is made up not only of clergy, but of lay people as well.
The Bishop of the Arctic cannot decide on his own one fine morning to invest all of the diocese's money in a particular stock. Investments are carried out under the authority of an executive council, or by the executive committee to which this power has been delegated.
Senator Nolin: How much money is there in the Arctic diocese's investment fund?
Senator Meighen: I do not have the exact figure. I have been told that it is in the neighbourhood of $300,000. We are not talking about an enormous amount of money.
Senator Nolin: We are talking about a parish corporation.
[English]
Senator Gigantès: Can you tell us whether the Bishop of the Arctic is incorporated as a corporation sole, the way other church leaders are?
Senator Meighen: That is my understanding, senator.
Senator Gigantès: Therefore, he is the one who names the executive committee?
Senator Meighen: I do not know the answer to that question.
Senator Gigantès: I would like an answer to that question.
Senator Meighen: I can get that for you, senator.
Senator Gigantès: I would be grateful for that.
Why does the Senate and the House of Commons have to do this? Why can the bishop not be incorporated under territorial or provincial law? We have the case of the Dai al-Mutlaq, which Borden & Elliott were pushing. Finally, Senator Corbin and other senators, including myself, pushed Borden & Elliot to resign from the brief. Those who succeeded them agreed, finally, that it would function perfectly well under provincial and territorial incorporation, and there was really no need to go through the Senate for that.
Other corporations function under provincial incorporation laws. Why should we make this exception for religious leaders? I object to all of them. If I could remove it from the Greek Orthodox, the Ukrainian Catholics, or whomever, I would want to do it because I believe in the separation of church and state.
Senator Meighen: The answer probably lies in the mists of history. As you may know, the Anglican Church was founded in 1893, but many of the dioceses pre-date Confederation. It is my understanding that the dioceses that are within a province are incorporated by provincial statute. Those dioceses which are outside a province had no recourse but to the federal Parliament. Consequently, in 1934, we had the original act. It is that act that we are now seeking to amend.
Senator Gigantès: Is there no territorial authority to incorporate? Do all enterprises in the territories seek federal incorporation?
Senator Meighen: I do not know the answer to that question.
Senator Gigantès: I would like that answer, too.
Senator Meighen: I do point out, senator, that the Diocese of the Arctic is trans-territorial, if you will.
Senator Gigantès: Then it can be incorporated in each of the territories, just as I was claiming that other churches should be incorporated in each of the provinces, instead of having the prelate or head of that church have corporation sole status where he appoints the executive committee which he is supposed to consult.
Senator Meighen: Of course, the Diocese of the Arctic includes not only parts of northern Quebec but the Western Arctic as well. I would assume that it would fall, in the future, largely within Nunavut, but not entirely, which may, indeed, senator, be another reason for federal incorporation.
Senator Gigantès: I am not sure it is another reason for federal incorporation. Why should it not be incorporated in each province or territory where it functions? In other words, why do we make an exception for religious groups? Why should we make an exception for religious groups?
Senator Meighen: I suppose we made an exception for religious groups in the absence of any alternative when they were incorporated in 1934.
Senator Gigantès: At some time this must be stopped. We stopped Opus Dei, which wanted the same thing. Senators Corbin, Le Moyne and I made the life of the Senate intolerable over that issue, and Opus Dei withdrew its request. Senator Corbin and I made the life of the Senate intolerable over the issue of Dai al-Mutlaq, and they withdrew their request.
I belong to the Church of England, which is a fine institution, and the only one to which people should belong. However, I do not see why it should have this privilege. You should give me some good reasons. You should be able to prove to us that it cannot be done by the territories severally and be incorporated in each of the territories.
[Translation]
Senator Meighen: Some of the rights that we are talking about are vested rights up to a point. After all, the original act of incorporation was passed in 1934. You are suggesting that we set all of this aside, take a different approach and disregard the historical context here.
Senator Gigantès: Until Senator Kennedy came along, Massachusetts had a law on the books that permitted the dunking of women. There were some historical precedents to this. Women would be tied to a chair and dunked in the water. The State also had a law whereby women who constantly nagged their husband would be put in the stocks. President Kennedy used his influence to have this law taken off the books of the State of Massachusetts. It is possible to change existing laws. When we struck down the death penalty, this too was an historical occasion.
Senator Meighen: I completely agree with you, Senator Gigantès. However, it seems to me that the example you have given is perhaps not the most fortuitous one. After all, what harm is associated historically with the current legislation?
Senator Gigantès: The situation in our country has evolved and churches no longer enjoy the privileges they once had. Nor should they enjoy them, in my opinion. I believe in the separation of church and State.
Senator Meighen: With all due respect, I do not think that we are endangering this fundamental principle by adopting an amendment to legislation that has been around since 1934.
Senator Gigantès: If you were part of a company and you wished to incorporate, you would not seek to be incorporated under federal law. Instead, you would look to provincial incorporation laws.
[English]
The Chair: We are getting off track here. We are not incorporating the Anglican Church of the Arctic; that was accomplished in 1934. We are amending the articles of incorporation to broaden the authority of the executive committee to borrow moneys in different ways than they did when the church was incorporated in 1934.
In order to do what Senator Gigantès is suggesting, we would have to repeal the statute before we could ask the provinces to take over the responsibility.
Senator Gigantès: There is nothing under law that says that the Anglican Church cannot approach the territories and ask for territorial incorporation, even though the statute exists. I am arguing that it is time we break with this tradition of giving favoured status to religious organization, whatever the religious organization. I am objecting to that for my own church, of which I am very fond.
Senator Beaudoin: I remember the debate of whether churches should be incorporated at the provincial or federal level. However, we are not in a province; there is no debate on that. We are concerned with a territory, and a territory is not a province. A territory comes under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. It is true that tomorrow morning the powers of the territories may change. That is in the Constitution of Canada; it is very clear cut.
Whether we have the right to amend an incorporation by statute made by the Parliament of Canada is so obvious that I do not know why we would discuss it. We may amend our own act. There is absolutely nothing that would prohibit Parliament from doing that.
I should like to discuss whether such power of incorporation was delegated to the territories by the Parliament of Canada. However, to answer the question of my colleagues here, I have no problem as far as jurisdiction is concerned.
[Translation]
The act of incorporation was passed in 1934 and now we are being asked to amend it. There is no question whatsoever that we have the power to do so.
Should this be a matter for territorial law? I am prepared to discuss this point with you. Should this come under provincial or federal jurisdiction? We can discuss it. However, I do not think that we can get into this matter today, what with the bill now before us.
Senator Nolin: All we can do is defeat this bill.
Senator Beaudoin: You can vote against it if you like.
Senator Gigantès: I hope that it what you are going to do.
[English]
I do not want to debate church and state and whether we have the first American amendment here or to what extent, although that is fascinating and I could debate it for 10 hours.
You give a very great power to the corporation sole and I have no objection to that. We should perhaps know, however, whether the archbishop is appointing all the members of the executive. Even if he is, I would not object to the bill.
Senator Nolin: It is very easy to get the answer to that question. We can get a copy of the bill from the Library of Parliament.
Senator Gigantès: That is not what he asked.
Senator Nolin: You asked whether only the archbishop has the power to appoint members of the executive council. I am not sure of that.
Senator Gigantès: We went through this in other debates. In a corporation sole, the answer is yes.
Senator Beaudoin: That is my preliminary question. We have discussed that and it is obvious.
The next question is --
[Translation]
The bill gives the corporation broader investment powers as well as a French designation. I have no objections whatsoever to granting the Council broader investment powers. I support that initiative. As for giving it a French name, I would be the last person in Canada to object to that. That is a very fortuitous development. The use of the expression "personne morale" instead of corporation is probably acceptable. The word "société" would probably be acceptable as well. My question is this: is it already known in French as the "diocèse de l'Arctique"? Is it recognized as a "personne morale"?
Senator Nolin: Are you asking if it has traditionally been referred to by this name?
Senator Meighen: Yes, as a "personne morale" according to the meaning of a corporation.
Senator Nolin: Is there a French designation already used?
Senator Meighen: Yes.
Senator Beaudoin: In English, the reference is to the bishop of the Arctic, while in French, it is to "l'évêque des régions arctiques". Is this the accepted designation?
Senator Meighen: Yes, he works in Quebec and is known as the "évêque de l'Arctique".
Senator Nolin: Then the title already exists.
Senator Beaudoin: The legislation merely recognizes an existing situation.
Senator Meighen: That is correct.
[English]
Madam Chair, I have no problem with that.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I have asked our clerk to look at the original statute. It does not have within it the organizational structure of the present church. That, perhaps, can provide the answer. We are trying to access additional information for the senators at this time.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: I will not go so far as my colleague Senator Gigantès where this bill is concerned. The difference here is that Opus Dei and the Dai al-Mutlaq were asking to be incorporated in Canada for the first time. They were seeking incorporation under federal law, which would give them some prestige or panache. We rejected their request, that is Parliament did, and we advised them to seek incorporation in the province in which their head offices were located, just as all Canadian corporations do.
[English]
May I impose on you, Madam Chair, and request that the legislative counsel, Mr. Audcent, take a seat at the table? I have a few questions to ask of him which would elucidate the matter.
The Chair: We will invite him to the table now.
Senator Corbin: My question to Mr. Audcent is the following: What are the existing vehicles in Canada under which a person, a corporation sole, or a company can incorporate at the federal level?
Mr. Mark Audcent, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel: Senator, at the federal level, the laws of general application in effect are the Canada Corporations Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act.
The historical evolution is that we had the Canada Corporations Act which provided for what you would call corporations aggregate. There was always a requirement for more than one person. After that, the government proposed that we bring in two new regimes, one being the Canada Business Corporations Act and the other the Canada Non-profit Corporations Act.
The Canada Business Corporations Act was adopted. It allows for corporations aggregate or for single-shareholder corporations. The Canada Non-profit Corporations Act did not proceed. For that reason, the provisions of the Canada Corporations Act, the old act, have been left in effect for private corporations such as the one before you today.
Senator Corbin: Madam Chair, as Mr. Audcent was in the legislative counsel office at the time, I am sure he will recall that it was not only senators on this side who had certain reservations about the way corporations sole sought federal incorporation. Senator Flynn also expressed some reservations. Indeed, I think he shared the views of some of the senators mentioned by Senator Gigantès this morning.
The government ought to put some order into the Corporations Act in the way people, companies, and individuals incorporate in Canada. Mr. Audcent has just outlined that successive governments have been lax in putting some order in that house.
The argument invoked by our colleague Senator Meighen, who is presenting this bill, is that we have before us a fait accompli. The Bishop of the Arctic is properly incorporated. It is not for us to debate whether he should be incorporated federally, provincially, territorially or otherwise. It is a fait accompli. He is asking for a reasonable amendment.
This is an opportunity for those of us who think of the problems we have had in the immediate past with requests -- and we will probably be faced with similar requests in the coming months or years -- to send once again a message to the government to put that house in order so that even corporations sole can be incorporated under whatever the title of the act may be. It would afford an opportunity for any group or individual in Canada that wants to incorporate, charitable or otherwise, to do so under a general law of Canada and not under a special parliamentary privilege law, which is what this is all about.
We as parliamentarians ought not to be in this business. We ought to approve a general law which is of general application to all Canadians wanting to carry on business in Canada. That would be highly democratic.
A Fait accompli is a fait accompli. However, as I said, we may be faced with other requests, and I think we ought to refuse them in order to send a strong message to the government of the day to get that house in order. As far as I am concerned, I have no difficulty with the bill as it stands.
The Chair: Senator Corbin, I see some other senators nodding their heads with respect to your remarks. I suggest that, at a later moment today, we discuss adding a recommendation to the report on this bill, if we are disposed to report the bill, which would address that issue.
Senator Beaudoin: I agree entirely, and we have done that before. This is not the first time it has arisen. However, that is not the issue before us today.
Senator Milne: Honourable senators, I empathize with Senator Gigantès when he says there should be a complete separation of church and state. Perhaps, as a Unitarian and an agnostic, I should not be declaring myself on this bill. However, this bill is before us.
How widespread is this practice? Does every other Anglican bishop in Canada already have this power?
Senator Meighen: Yes, Senator Milne, that is my understanding. Each diocese has its own power of investment.
I did make this inquiry of the Diocese of Ottawa. The diocese happens to follow the practises outlined in the Trustee Act in making its investment decisions. It has an investment committee of six members which makes recommendations to the administration and finance committee of 12 to 15 members, which in turn reports to the ultimate governing body, the Diocese of Ottawa, of which the executive committee is comprised of 35 to 40 members. Each diocese has its own investment procedures.
Senator Milne: This brings the Arctic into line with the rest of the Anglican world in Canada.
Senator Meighen: That is correct. The Diocese of Edmonton, for example, had the exact same flexibility.
Senator Milne: Do other churches have the same powers, or is it only the Anglican Church which must go through the Senate?
Senator Corbin: The Roman Catholic Church has a number of northern dioceses which go the same route. They are already incorporated under a special law of Parliament.
Senator Gigantès: The Archbishop in Canada of the Greek Orthodox Church has, in my view, absolute powers which are shocking.
Senator Meighen: This is a list of corporations sole.
Senator Milne: This brings to mind the old method of divorce in Canada. It is time we do something about this. I strongly urge a recommendation, but on the other hand, I will support your bill.
Senator Doyle: My question was dealt with by Senator Beaudoin, but I might note that Senator Gigantès seems not to be arguing for the separation of church and state as much as he is arguing that some other part of the state should be looking after this so that we will not be bothered with it.
Senator Lewis: My questions have already been answered in earlier discussion. However, it is usual that we have confirmation from our law clerk that the form of application for this bill and the procedure is proper.
The Chair: Senator Lewis, I was intending to wait until we had finished with our witness before I put that question to our law clerk. If you wish, I will put the question now.
Mr. Audcent, since you are at the table, can you certify for us that this bill is appropriate?
Mr. Audcent: Yes, Madam Chair. I am pleased to advise the committee that the bill was drafted by my office, it is in proper legislative format, and will, if enacted, accomplish the intent of the petitioner as set out in the petition.
Senator Lewis: And the petition was in the usual form?
Mr. Audcent: The petition was in good form, has been examined by the examiner of petitions, and reported to the Senate chamber.
Senator Beaudoin: I would like to know from Mr. Audcent if the power of incorporation has ever been delegated to a territory in this country.
Mr. Audcent: I do not know the answer.
Senator Beaudoin: I have no problem with the bill, because the Parliament of Canada and the provinces have power, there is no doubt, but territories have only the powers that are given to them or delegated to them by the Parliament. It may be that the Parliament of Canada has delegated in the past the power to incorporate. Do you happen to know whether that has taken place?
Mr. Audcent: Unfortunately, I do not. I would have thought that a group like this would have gone under one of the Canada acts, such as the Canada Corporations Act, and it could not do so as a corporation sole but I do not know whether Canada has delegated to each of the two territories the power to create a Companies Act.
Senator Adams: Senator Meighen, I know this is a private bill. Do you think that if this is introduced into the House of Commons, it will be passed? Do you have anyone over there willing to introduce it in the House of Commons?
Senator Meighen: Yes, I do, a very distinguished parliamentarian in the personage of Jim Peterson. He asked me a couple of questions to which I provided the answers, and he advised me this morning, indirectly at least, that he will be happy to sponsor it.
Senator Adams: Do you have a time limit in which it must come back to the Senate for Royal Assent?
Senator Meighen: As soon as possible.
The Chair: If there are no further questions of Senator Meighen, we thank him for his presentation.
Are senators prepared to deal with clause-by-clause study of this bill?
Senator Gigantès: We asked some questions to which we do not yet have answers. Senator Meighen promised he would get us the answers.
Senator Meighen: Indeed, I did.
Senator Gigantès: Are we going to vote before we get the answers?
Senator Meighen: I believe we have the answer now. Would it be permissible, Madam Chair, since I cannot read his writing, to ask Mr. Tim Wilson to answer the question?
The Chair: Senator Meighen, would you please come back to the table and bring with you your assistant?
Mr. Tim Wilson: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just speaking to the Bishop of the Arctic. He indicated that there is no executive council; that there is an executive committee which makes investment decisions. The executive committee is composed of ex officio members and elected members. The ex officio members are the bishop himself, the chancellor, the archdeacons, the dean, and the treasurer of the diocese. The other members of the executive committee come from the seven regional deaneries. Each deanery proposes one clergy and one lay person. These are then confirmed by the diocesan synod, in order that three lay people and two clergy are, in the final analysis, chosen to represent the deaneries. The bishop has final power to balance representation so that all deaneries are represented on the executive committee, because there are only five and they have to represent seven deaneries. The bishop has the power to choose among the people proposed in order that each deanery is represented.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Gigantès: I feel bound in conscience to oppose this because I have opposed similar things for every other denomination that has come before us. I can hardly take a different attitude toward my own preferred church. So I will vote against this, but I expect it will pass.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Gigantès. Since we have not yet put this to a vote, it is nice to have heard how you will vote.
Senator Lewis: I move that we report the bill without amendment.
The Chair: It has been moved by Senator Lewis that we report the bill without amendment.
Will all those in favour so indicate?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Will all those opposed so indicate?
Senator Gigantès: No.
The Chair: The motion is carried. It is noted that Senator Gigantès is opposed.
Senator Nolin: However, he is happy with the result.
Senator Gigantès: I did not say that.
The Chair: In any event, he is recorded as voting against the motion to report the bill, which I shall do.
We will deal now with whether that report should have a recommendation attached to it. I would entertain a motion to authorize the steering committee to draft such recommendation in accordance with the wishes expressed by the members here today.
Senator Beaudoin: I suggest that you get inspiration from what has been done in the past. We had a formula and if we strike out again, it will be strike three. One of these days, Senator Gigantès will win.
The Chair: We will certainly look at past precedents and draft the report accordingly.
I would like to be able to report the bill back this afternoon with that recommendation, because if we are not sitting for three weeks it will be difficult to get it to the other place. With your permission, I will be in touch with Senator Lewis and Senator Nolin about the exact wording of that recommendation.
We have a couple of other pieces of business, honourable senators. The first is our budget which needs to be submitted for fiscal year 1997-98.
That budget is presently being distributed to you. I would note that there are some changes. We are asking for additional moneys. Last year's budget was $41,800. This budget will be $51,100. One presumes that this is an election year and it may be that we will not be a very busy committee. However, we are relatively assured that Bill C-71 will be referred to us. It is a very large bill. We are expecting a large number of witnesses. We did not put enough money in our budget last year to cover witnesses' expenses and we had to borrow from other portions of the budget in order to come up with that money. We also had to seek additional funding. I think the budget of $51,100 is reflective of the needs of this committee for the 1997-98 fiscal year. It is recommended to you by your steering committee.
Senator Losier-Cool: I move that we accept this budget.
Senator Beaudoin: What is meant by "communications"? That is the major item.
The Chair: That was a budget item that we put in last year at the request of the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. They wished us to spend more money communicating the work of Senate committees. It has been my experience that this committee does not need to hire consultants to publish what we do. The media has been interested in what this committee does. However, I should like to investigate over the next year the possibility of using more video conferencing to hear witnesses from their home communities. It would make our presence broader but would not escalate the costs. In fact, it might decrease the costs.
Senator Beaudoin: You asked for that amount last year. Was it spent?
The Chair: No, it was not spent. We used it to pay the costs of witnesses.
Senator Beaudoin: We have never exaggerated in the past. Compared to other committees, we are not very expensive.
The Chair: We are one of the most reasonable, if not the most reasonable, standing committees in the Senate.
Senator Nolin: We are reasonable and effective.
Senator Doyle: Have we had any helpful suggestions from the internal economy committee about how we should frame this year's budget?
The Chair: No.
Senator Doyle: They did not suggest that we try out our new sound system, or whatever?
The Chair: The only recommendation that we have had from the committee on internal economy, which caused me to introduce the motion yesterday, was a letter from the chairman indicating that that committee had entered into an agreement with CPAC and that committee chairmen should request permission of the Senate to have their proceedings covered.
We tried to make it a general permission, which was the request of the committee on internal economy. That permission was denied by the Senate yesterday and amended to cover only Bill C-71 hearings. It would be appropriate for this committee to debate, at a future time, whether we want to be covered by CPAC in the future. I thought the committee on internal economy had received approval from the Senate, but it had not. Apparently I pre-empted them yesterday.
Senator Doyle: Sometimes senators do not read carefully all the orders that are put out by that committee. I thought that an intervention was probably a good thing yesterday because it would result in a discussion of how general we do want that to be.
The Chair: I assure you that before I move such a motion on another bill, we will have this discussion in this committee.
It was not made clear in the Senate yesterday, but the Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce does have that blanket permission. That was the precedent I was using for my motion yesterday. I think it is clear that that decision should be made by this committee, and at a future time we will have that discussion.
Senator Beaudoin: What happens now? What was the resolution yesterday?
The Chair: We got permission for television coverage for Bill C-71, the tobacco legislation. We did not mention Bill C-71 because it had not yet been referred to our committee. It was a little tricky procedurally.
Senator Beaudoin: Senator Losier-Cool spoke yesterday on Bill C-71.
The Chair: However, it had not been referred to the committee yet.
Senator Beaudoin: As usual, we are before our time.
Senator Nolin: We are reasonable, effective and rapid.
The Chair: My clerk has reminded me that although we have permission from the Senate, we are not obliged to have television cameras in our deliberations of Bill C-71. We can still refuse them as a committee. We only have permission to have them. Perhaps I should put that question to senators right now.
There has been an indication from CPAC that, because of the nature of the tobacco bill, they would like to cover our hearings. What is the feeling of this committee? Do you want to have that coverage?
Senator Nolin: I think it is a good idea. It is important that the work of the Senate committees is broadly delivered to Canadians. Bill C-71 is a good example of how we can achieve that in our committee. Our work has been covered by the media but not by CPAC or other means. I would support that.
Senator Beaudoin: I would not object on Bill C-71, but for some matters I may object. In principle, I am in favour of televising committees, but it is not always good. I can imagine one or two cases in which it may be harmful for our committee. I am glad that we are not obliged to have CPAC cover all our deliberations. We should maintain the right to refuse it for a particular bill or a particular subject matter.
Senator Doyle: I support what Senator Beaudoin has said. We should consider the extent to which television attention would prolong committee hearings and to what extent it would be used by outsiders to dominate what the committee is doing. If the proceedings on some of the bills we have studied in the last 12 years had been televised from start to finish, the appearance of large groups of demonstrators, for example, might have created something of a circus atmosphere. That may be all right, but I would like to have a chance to watch for a while first.
Senator Losier-Cool: We have the power to decide whether to have CPAC televise the proceedings, but what if the witnesses do not agree? Do they abide by our rules?
The Chair: Yes, but that is a very good point.
First, I am hearing something very clear from this committee; namely, that you would like to decide this on a bill-by-bill basis. Once we know that there is potential for television coverage, our clerk can tell witnesses that when setting up those hearings. If witnesses have objections, for whatever reason, we will bring it back to this committee and let the committee decide.
Is that reasonable?
Senator Gigantès: If a witness has objections and we want to hear that witness, we should comply with the witness' wish not to be filmed.
Senator Losier-Cool: Yes. It is our responsibility if we want to hear from them.
Senator Milne: We must protect our witnesses.
Senator Beaudoin: Instead of losing the witness, we should lose the coverage.
The Chair: The witness is more important, as far as our edification is concerned, than the television coverage.
I think we have a clear message from the committee on how we should proceed. That is how we will proceed.
We have approved the budget. I wish to go in camera for a few minutes now, please.
The committee proceeded in camera.