Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 3 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 2, 1997
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:45 a.m.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, our first order of business is to hear from Senator Hervieux-Payette about the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: The mandate of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations is defined in section 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act pursuant to which statutory instruments are referred to the committee for review and scrutiny.
The role of the committee is to ensure a better parliamentary process in government. Furthermore, criteria are set out in the committee's first report tabled to the Senate and to the House of Commons at the start of each session of Parliament. These criteria relate to the legality and to the procedural aspects of regulations, not to their validity or to the decisions that are implemented. This enables the committee to maintain a non-partisan approach to its work.
The $206,500 budget adopted by the committee primarily covers the salaries of committee staff. Given the sheer volume of regulations that the committee must examine, it relies on four counsels who work for the committee even when Parliament is not in session. The committee reimburses the Library of Parliament for covering the salaries of two of these counsels.
I would point out that this year, unlike previous years, budget expenses are split 30/70 between the Senate and the House of Commons. At the start of this session, the House of Commons appointed 17 members to the committee, whereas the Senate maintained its complement of members at eight. In the past, the Senate and House of Commons had an equal number of members on the committee and also shared expenses equally.
The House of Commons approved 70 per cent of the committee's budget, or an amount totalling $144,550. The Senate will make up the difference.
Do you require any further explanations regarding our budget?
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any questions regarding the Scrutiny of Regulations committee?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I made a saving of 20 per cent for the Senate by sending the bill to the House of Commons.
Senator Phillips: Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, today I am presenting the budget for the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. Formerly, this would be presented by the chairman of the main committee. However, Senator Murray telephoned me to say that he would not be available this morning, and asked me to present it.
Briefly, it is a request for funds for the committee to study health care for veterans. We are asking for permission to go to Sunnybrook Hospital to look at the veterans wing. As you recall, I believe it was back in March, there was a fire there. Three veterans died and a number suffered injures as result of that fire, which was set by one patient.
We would go to Sunnybrook on a Wednesday. We would fly that night to Montreal, where we would look at Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital. There is a proposal to hand it over to the Quebec government. A number of veterans' organizations are concerned about the hospital, which is the only remaining one operated by Veterans Affairs according to the Quebec government.
Thursday evening we would fly to Charlottetown where, on Friday, we would meet with the officials of the department and ask various questions of them. Hopefully we will be reporting early in February through the main committee.
Senator Wood: Is it necessary to have nine staff?
Senator Phillips: That includes the interpretation and reporting staff, I believe.
The Chairman: Are there three researchers?
Senator Phillips: Yes, there will be three researchers: my assistant, Senator Bonnell's assistant, and a staff member from the Library of Parliament. The researchers will be starting to work on the report right away.
Senator Nolin: Does the budget cover only that one trip, or is it for the whole year?
Senator Phillips: It covers only that one event, the trip.
Senator Nolin: That event only.
Senator Phillips: We have not drawn up a further budget, because the committee is being held in Ottawa, other than the travel portion I have just described. Therefore, I see no need for financing.
Senator Adams: I heard something on the radio the other day about the new museum exhibit. This has nothing to do with that, does it?
Senator Phillips: No. And as I say, I do not anticipate that we will need a travelling budget, because the committee will hold its hearings here in Ottawa.
Senator Wood: What do you think will happen to Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Hospital? It will be taken over by the Quebec government anyway. Will you have any influence on that process?
Senator Phillips: We would hope to. We will be hearing from members of the Legion before we set out on our trip. They are expressing concerns and we would like to pass those on.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I believe there is a motion to approve the budget. Is it agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Senator Phillips: If I may say so, the attendance at this committee is much greater now than it was over the 17 years I spent on the committee.
Senator Stratton: The National Finance budget is huge. I am here to answer any questions related to that budget.
The Chairman: You have no opening statement?
Senator Stratton: I have no opening statement.
Senator Di Nino: What conferences are you referring to in the budget?
Senator Stratton: It depends. We do not know as yet. We are beginning an exploratory look.
The Chairman: Are you looking for conferences?
Senator Stratton: No. Believe me, I do not like travelling. We are not sure but we want to make ourselves available should one arise because we are looking at studying the senior levels of the Civil Service. We have lost 33 per cent of them and we are concerned about their ability to continue in their development of policy. We want to avail ourselves of any conferences that might result as this proceeds. I believe the government will be coming out with how they will be handling that situation and we want to be able to attend any conferences related to this issue, should any arise.
Senator Di Nino: That is very commendable but are we being asked to appropriate money without a specific understanding of how, when, where?
Senator Stratton: Yes, essentially, because we are not sure we are going to travel out of Ottawa. We think that we will be holding our hearings right here in the Senate, but there may be occasion when we want to go to a department to look at it. I cannot tell you which department right now; we want to leave that opportunity open as to where this study takes us. We are not sure right now.
Senator Di Nino: Is that a normal request that committees make? I do not recall having approved this kind of request in the short period I have been around. I have no problem with the expenditures. As a matter of fact, I think that the senator was a little facetious when he was talking about the great amount of money. The issue really is: Should we be approving expenditure of funds without a targeted specific purpose?
Senator Stratton: If you are studying the effects of early retirements and leave-taking by senior civil servants, you are not sure where that study will take you. We have requested Minister Massé to appear before the committee. Following his presentation, we will then choose a department that we want to take a look at and from there we will be able to determine whether or not we will spend money at all.
The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien, do you want to comment on Senator Di Nino's point?
Mr. Gary O'Brien, Principal Clerk, Committees Branch: I must admit that yesterday Senator Stewart gave me a call; he, too, had included in the Foreign Affairs budget anticipated conferences, to be attended by staff and/or senators. As a result, we did do an analysis of the budgets that have been presented this session and certainly there have been instances where committees have anticipated conferences. The committees to which I refer had not quite decided on specific conferences, but they had made provisions in their budget to attend.
The Chairman: Can we approve a notional amount and then have the committee come back to us with specific proposals? Is that in order, or not?
Senator Nolin: No, we approve the budget or not. I recall, regarding your question, Senator Di Nino, that on the Energy Committee it is normal practice to request funds for conferences; that it is not necessary to be specific with respect to the conferences.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, my discomfort with this request is that although we are being asked to approve an insignificant amount at this time, we could be hit with a request for $300,000 from a committee in the future. In that regard, if we have established a precedent, we must live with it. I am just uncomfortable in doing that.
Senator Nolin: Regarding the bus that you want to rent, is it possible, before doing so, to make sure that the Senate bus is not available?
Senator Stratton: Of course. We are not anticipating that we will use this money. However, rather than coming back to this committee for approval of funds in the event of an upcoming conference, we would like to leave it in the budget. That is the intent of this money.
Senator Adams: I see that there is no provision for hiring any staff or researchers. How do you expect to get the report back to the Senate?
Senator Stratton: The Library of Parliament provides the researchers.
Senator Adams: So you do not have to fund it.
Senator Stollery: I just want to bring to the attention of the committee that we have had this practice for some time. If committees do not make some form of provision, such as what we are being asked to approve here, emergencies can arise, or a conference may come up, and Internal Economy may not sitting. This in fact happened recently at Foreign Affairs. The provision of funds allows the committee to have the flexibility in the event that Internal Economy, for one reason or another, happens not to sit.
I was caught in a situation where I was out $5,000 because I had to go to a conference. Circumstances at the time prevented us from coming to Internal Economy prior to the conference. There was no question that the funds would have been approved. For that reason, I think it makes sense to approve the budget.
Senator LeBreton: Has your committee decided to take on the issue of the brain drain in the Public Service?
Senator Stratton: Yes.
Senator LeBreton: Really what you are saying then is that your committee has decided to take on this issue but that you are not yet certain how much money is involved. The committee will obviously hold most of its meetings in the National Capital Region, so it is not a question of just giving some money for an unspecified event; it is specifying the event and trying to put a figure on what you think it will cost.
Senator Stratton: We are just getting started on this so we are not anywhere near knowing where this will take us.
Senator LeBreton: The fact of the matter is that it is not like money that you have just picked out of the air; you have actually decided to discuss the issue so it can be related to that specific issue then.
Senator Stratton: Yes, it will be related. We will report as to what the specific expenses were and what the event was.
Senator LeBreton: It is an important issue.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I am sensing consensus around the table. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Senator Whelan: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I do not have an opening statement, only to say that the Agriculture Committee, as you know, has been very active in the past year. One of the main items is monitoring agriculture issues such as non-pasteurized dairy products, trade irritants with United States of America, and grain transportation.
The coming issues are trade irritants, again, with the United States of America. Should the committee do any travelling, it will probably be one trip to Washington with a small group. Another issue involves the effect of climate on agriculture change. We are all concerned about that.
There is the issue of promoting new enterprises. As you know, one of our senators has been very active in the Senate on the issue of producing hemp and then, again, trade irritants with the U.S. and Europe.
The committee did not finish its study last year on the boreal forest.
The Chairman: Are there any comments? I hear no comments.
Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Mr. O'Brien: There was, honourable senators, one application for the Fisheries Committee for both the chairman and deputy chairman under emergency funds for $5,000.
The Chairman: We can approve 10,000, can we not?
Mr. O'Brien: You can do it yourselves.
The Chairman: We can do it ourselves.
I would ask to stand the questions raised on travel policy because Senator Poulin, who raised that a number of times and who is not here, would like to be here for the discussion.
Honourable senators, is it agreed to let that stand until a future meeting?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. O'Brien: We have the JIC issue, which we can do in public.
The Chairman: The Joint Inter-Parliamentary Council, item 4, pages 19 to 22: Ms Aghajanian, are you speaking to that?
Ms Siroun Aghajanian, Director, Finance, Senate of Canada: Yes. The paper was prepared by the clerk of the Joint Inter-Parliamentary Council and it deals with four issues. The first one is to do with membership. As a result of the last federal election, the number of political parties has increased; thus, the membership needs to be amended. There were seven members, two from the Senate and five from the House of Commons. Now, to be able to reflect all the parties, it is recommended that we increase the membership. This is what is in front of you.
Do you want to deal with this one at a time?
The Chairman: Let us deal with it one at a time.
Ms Aghajanian: We can deal with the membership first.
The Chairman: We need one other member on the committee. Senator Nolin and I sit on the committee. I co-chair it. Senator Nolin and I sit on the JIC, but we need a third from the Senate.
Senator Di Nino: May I make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman. Just so that it does not appear to be partisan, perhaps the member could be, for example, a Liberal for a certain period of time and then he could be replaced by a Conservative.
The Chairman: We need a name though.
Senator Di Nino: Each of you, from time to time, could invite a different member. I am happy to make that motion.
Senator Nolin: All right, we will draft it.
The Chairman: It is left to us. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms Aghajanian: Back in April 1997, the Senate came to the Internal Economy Committee with a background note which covered items number 2 and 3. I have that piece of paper in front of me. We asked for your approval to go for Supplementary Estimates and at that time it was approved. If you wish, I could read the explanation.
The Canadian region of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association hosted the fortieth annual CPA conference in Banff, Alberta. A major source of funding for this conference was provided by the federal branch; $120,000 from the Senate and $280,000 from the House of Commons. After all the conference expenses were paid, there remained a surplus of $207,000 to be refunded back to the federal branch. Since these funds were paid from the 1995-1995 Main Estimates, they must be returned to the consolidated revenue fund. They have been returned to the revenue fund now.
What the JIC is recommending is that we now put it back into this year's budget. We will access that amount from the Supplementary Estimates. This committee approved it and we have actually included it in the Supplementary Estimates. This action has already been approved and taken. But because the house itself had not done it, they are proposing it again.
The Chairman: There was slippage. There were unused funds from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which would normally go back into the reserve, however, we need to put that amount in this year's budget. It was an unspent amount from last year that we need to cover out of this year's budget essentially.
Senator Di Nino: Has the board and the house approved it, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Yes.
Ms Aghajanian: That is why this paper was prepared really, for the board, because ours has already approved it.
The Chairman: The house board has approved it and we need this board to approve it. It is not new money; it is slippage from last year that we need to put in this year's budget. It is not new funding.
Senator Di Nino: It is principally House of Commons money.
The Chairman: Principally.
Senator Di Nino: It is mainly their responsibility. We are basically going along with their decision.
Ms Aghajanian: It is 70-30. The House of Commons has a 70 per cent share; the Senate a 30 per cent share.
Senator DeWare: Carry over.
The Chairman: Carry over, yes. Any comments?
Senator Forrestall: It will carry over to the year 2001 and build up with interest.
The Chairman: Any comments? Do I have agreement on that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms Aghajanian: Number 3 has also been approved. It deals with the AIPLF international presidency. This is a two-year international presidency. The candidate is a Canadian and, therefore, what they have recommended is that the budget for that be allocated over and above their normal expenses. This is our share of these expenses and, again, this was approved back on April 22 by Internal Economy. This is just a reconfirmation of that approval really.
The Chairman: Senator Gauthier was elected as the chairman of what is essentially the Francophonie; is that right?
Ms Aghajanian: Yes, and it is our share of the expenses.
The Chairman: Our share of expenses for the international president.
Ms Aghajanian: Usually, international conferences are over and above the normal expenses. So this is very regular; this is what we normally do. This is what was done in 1991, the last time the president was a Canadian.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Perhaps I can speak to recommendation number 4.
Really what we wish to do is get your approval to begin to explore the possibility of hosting the annual meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly in the year 2001. The North Atlantic Assembly is the parliamentary arm of NATO. Each of the 16 regular countries hosts the annual meeting from time to time. We last hosted an annual meeting in Banff 1988 or '89. No, it was before that.
What we are proposing now is that Canada host the annual meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly in the year 2001 and we wanted to make you aware of that proposal and seek your approval to proceed with making some initial plans that we would bring back to you at a later date. There is no money involved at the moment; it is simply approval that is needed, so that we can continue to explore. We are making you aware of this event.
Senator Taylor: What is the ultimate cost likely to be?
The Chairman: I cannot remember the figures. We will come back with a budget.
Senator Taylor is asking for a notional amount of what something like that might cost.
Ms Aghajanian: About $70,000.
The Chairman: Seventy thousand dollars. I think Banff was expensive, though.
Senator Forrestall: When you come to Nova Scotia it will be a lot cheaper.
The Chairman: The last one was in the order of $70,000, our share of it. What we try to do, if we can, is to make use of other government departments. For example, we would make use of the Armed Forces' buses, if we can, or whatever else we can use.
The other thing is that we have been talking about getting the private sector involved. There is some controversy there but there have been some discussions about seeking financial support from the private sector.
Senator Forrestall: I am wholeheartedly in favour of this; I have no objections whatsoever. I think it is a good idea and I urge you to start your planning now. You start with this tacit approval, because that is what it is. We are saying yes, go ahead, and eventually we will approve it.
I would ask you very seriously when you are considering the private sector to consider the services that can be offered to you by the Pearson Peacekeeping Institute at Cornwallis, Nova Scotia. If you want to work and then relax, it is an ideal setting for this type of conference.
Senator Di Nino: He is putting in his digs for Cornwallis. He is saying that it will cost half of what it would cost at Banff, or maybe less than that. So I will second my colleague's motion, that you consider very seriously going to Nova Scotia, particularly Cornwallis. Is that what you want, senator?
The Chairman: I will not call for a vote on that at this time. But do I understand that we have approval to go ahead?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chairman: Approved.
That brings us to the end of our agenda for the morning. We will meet next on Thursday morning.
The committee adjourned.