Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 6 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 30, 1998
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day, in camera, at 8:30 a.m.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chairman) in the Chair.
(The committee continued in public session.)
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, dealing now with mini-budgets, we will go forward to Transport and Communications. Senator Bacon.
Senator Lise Bacon, Chairman, Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications: You have in front of you a budget for the Subcommittee on Communications.
[Translation]
This budget is for the special study by the subcommittee chaired by Senator Poulin on Canada's international competitiveness in the field of communications. The subcommittee already tabled an interim report, which was very well received, in April 1997. Articles published in the Financial Post, La Presse and The Globe and Mail were extremely positive. Last fall, the subcommittee launched phase two of its study.
[English]
In Phase 2, the subcommittee is focussing on issues especially relating to technology and culture, particularly in the context of media globalization. In the new distribution, technologies like satellites and the Internet make globalization a reality.
One of the challenges for national policy-makers is to ensure that domestic culture products find space both in domestic and international markets.
[Translation]
The subcommittee is scheduled to embark on a fact-finding mission to Europe in September to study how the European Community, the OECD, and other agencies deal with communications. It is also planning to table another report in the fall. What you have here are the proposed expenditures for this trip to Europe.
[English]
Professional services, communications consultant, reporting and transcribing services.
[Translation]
Projected expenditures total $191,050. The legislative budget totals $53,650. The subcommittee's special adviser, Mr. Martin Brennan, was a long-time CBC employee. He also served as assistant deputy minister.
Our communications consultant is Matthew Fraser, a professor at Ryerson Polytechnic University who occasionally writes for The Globe and Mail. He is highly sought after by the electronic media as a consultant in this field. Both of these consultants are paid out of the same $53,650 budget.
This year in particular, our committee is handling a rather heavy legislative workload.
[English]
The Chairman: The clerk just raised the point that Mr. Fraser is, of course, really here to help the committee with its work.
Senator Bacon: He assists the Subcommittee on Communications and our standing committee, when there is a bill regarding communications.
The Chairman: Is there is an amount in there, too, for publicizing the work of the committee?
Senator Bacon: Yes.
The Chairman: One thing that we have been concerned about, and continue to be concerned about, is that each committee must have a communications plan, so that the public knows what the committee is doing. The jewel of the Senate, really, is its committees, and we have to be visible. This is the way I think that we get the word out on the Senate.
There is an amount in here for that, is there, in addition to the researcher?
Senator Bacon: We have a $10,000 budget for legislation.
The Chairman: Also, are some of the meetings going to be broadcast? Is there any plan for that?
Senator Bacon: We have had two so far on BillC-9 with CPAC.
The Chairman: It is reported that we have only used about 50 per cent of the space that is available to us as a result of the agreement we have with CPAC. We are not using CPAC to the degree that we could, or should because CPAC provides good coverage, and the Senate committees usually get a better response than many other items.
Senator Bacon: We had a full day on Monday.
The Chairman: I do not want to preach to the converted. I just want to make sure that committee chairs are using the CPAC television facilities because we have spent Senate money to buy the equipment, and we have an agreement with them.
Senator Bacon: It also depends on the legislation that is before us. Bill C-9 is of great interest in various parts of the country, and we thought we should televise our debates and committee work.
The Chairman: Are there any questions?
Senator Bryden: How much time we you have on CPAC?
The Chairman: We have 170 hours.
Mr. Gary O'Brien, Principal Clerk, Committees Branch: Under the agreement, we could have up to 320 hours of broadcast time. As Mr. Chairman said, we have used about 170 hours, which includes coverage of joint committees.
Senator Bryden: When does that period expire?
Mr. O'Brien: It expired on March 31, but we have entered into a 60-day continuance of the agreement. We could have up to 32 hours a month.
The Chairman: I did not want to raise the CPAC issue at this time because we will be raising it as a separate item later. However, I do want to ensure that chairs and committee members are aware of the situation.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Looking here at the Paris travel budget, I see that four persons are traveling economy class, while five are traveling business class. Do we have a policy regarding this matter? Do Senate staffers travel coach, while senators travel in business class? As a rule, staff must begin working well before our arrival. I would like us to discuss this at some point so that we can arrange for these people to travel in the same class as us because they are vital to our operations. It is not fair to treat them differently. Perhaps now is not a time to discuss this, but I would like us to come back to this at some point.
[English]
The Chairman: We could put that down for discussion.
Senator Forrestall: I might just say, from personal experience, that the accommodation that was provided to the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety was most welcome, and we were able to achieve what you were seeking, senator. It is basically up to individual committees to look after these minor housekeeping details.
The Chairman: We will put that on the agenda.
Senator Forrestall: I want to thank this committee and in particular the Chairman and the chief clerk for all of the accommodations and the lengths you went to, to provide assistance to the subcommittee in a time of crisis. It is appreciated.
The Chairman: Any further questions? Is it agreed that we adopt the budget?
Honourable Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
I would call on Senator Maheu from the Rules Committee.
Senator Shirley Maheu, Chairman, Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders: Following along in the same vein that the chairman has spoken about, which is publicizing committee work, I was not aware that we had booked that much time with CPAC. If I did not know that, it is likely that many others also did not know.
I could not agree more that Senate committees must be publicized. We have to stop sticking our heads in the sand and start using the hours that you obtained on CPAC, and start trying to change the image of the Senate.
Pursuant to that comment, I would request a global budget for $10,000 global part or all of which may be used to publicize decisions of the Rules Committee. We do not have a budget. If we want to let it be known that the Senate is paying attention to public opinion, and we are willing to show that we are about to try to correct our image, we must have a budget to hire a responsible person who has Canada-wide connections, and who will be able to help us right across the country with a "war plan", if you will, for communications.
I understand someone has been hired to deal with communications and, although I have asked, I have never been told what that person is doing. We should find out what is going on, what that person is doing, and set out a strategic communications plan for the Senate. Consequently, I would make that request.
The Chairman: What we are dealing with now is communications as it relates to the committee.
Senator Maheu: It is all part and parcel of the same thing, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stollery: Is this the application for it?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Maheu: Yes.
The Chairman: Perhaps Mr. Bélisle would comment on that.
Mr. Paul Bélisle, Clerk of the Committee and Clerk of the Senate: We do have a Director of Communications who has been very active. Although Ms Dianne Salt has only just been hired, many projects are in the works. During the Thomson issue, she was kept very busy. Presently, 19 fact sheets are being prepared. We will have a new brochure, and there have been outreach programs. However, this is a one-person show right now, and we addressed that matter with the chairman and the deputy chairman the other evening. I believe that the next meeting of this committee will focus on communications. A strategy is being put into place. A lot of work has been done.
The Chairman: I think it is most important that the Rules Committee have the advice of a communications person. Is that agreed?
Honourable Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Senator Bryden: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the money allocated to that will be adequate.
Senator Maheu: It is a start. I understand the clerk's office has suggestions and names of people who are capable of this pan-Canadian communications system. If $10,000 is not enough, I will come back, senators.
The Chairman: You can come back for more, if you want.
Senator Di Nino: I think that should be the subject of a discussion, Mr. Chairman, at an appropriate time, perhaps when we are considering the whole question of communications. I have some concern that we may be being penny wise and pound foolish in some cases and, in other cases, we may be spending a lot more and just spinning our wheels.
There must be a communications strategy, and a global cost of that should be determined. However, now is not the time to discuss this issue.
The Chairman: You can come back, if you want. Is that agreed?
Honourable Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
We will now deal with the Security and Intelligence Committee.
Senator Peter A. Stollery, Member, Special Senate Committee on Security and Intelligence: Members, I will speak of behalf of Senator Kelly, the dhairman of our committee. Senator Bryden, Senator Corbin and I are on the steering committee with Senator Kelly. It is a small committee.
Senator Bryden: Senator Andreychuk is also a member.
Mr. Bélisle: Senators Kelleher and Fitzpatrick are also members of the committee.
Senator Stollery: I have been instructed to say that there may be slight revisions. The committee was formed yesterday, chaired by Senator Kelly. He had to attend a funeral today, so he asked if I would put forward the request for a committee budget.
Essentially, the committee is requesting $78,000 for professional and special services.
There was a change in the amount for transportation and communications. Originally, we had an item for two senators to travel to Washington. However, the committee that the entire committee membership, seven senators, should make that trip. This committee will be constituted for a relatively short time-frame.
Mr. O'Brien: We are running a little ahead of the schedule here, honourable senators. The revised budget has not yet arrived.
The Chairman: While we are waiting, we shall clear up some housekeeping matters. Item 4: Report of the Steering Committee. We shall continue in camera.
The committee continued in camera.
The committee resumed in public.
Senator Stollery: Mr. Chairman, this is the application for the budget for the Special Senate Committee on Security and Intelligence for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999. As I explained earlier, the seven senators have been designated. The committee is up and running. The $78,000 is a start-up budget. I believe we will have 14 days of hearings. As I mentioned, the committee does not have a long time-frame to complete its mandate since it will, basically, be re-visiting issues that were discussed in the 1980s.
The total budget application is for approximately $105,000 to cover professional services, conference registration, working meals, et cetera, as well as the expenses for the trip to Washington.
The difference between this application and the previous one is that is application reflects the committee's decision that all committee members should travel to Washington.
That is the budget, Mr. Chairman. Are there any questions?
The Chairman: I notice that you have a communications strategy.
Senator Stollery: Yes, we have.
The Chairman: Perhaps that is particularly important to this committee.
Senator Stollery: That is right. We have a delicate strategy. The committee deals with sensitive security issues and briefings from departments that obviously do not want their briefings to be made public. That is why the committee meetings may be held in camera quite often, otherwise, we will not get the kind of information we require from security officials.
Senator LeBreton: I would argue that you do need a small communications budget because, if you get questions, you will require the services of someone who can properly articulate what the Senate or the committee is doing. It is a communications budget for the purposes of having the information properly disseminated, when asked.
Senator Stollery: As one of the people who has been promoting communications budgets, I completely agree with you. To be perfectly honest, we had to do this relatively quickly yesterday. I will give my commitment that this subject will be raised immediately. We will sort it out, and we will be back, because I agree with you entirely.
Senator Di Nino: I notice, Mr. Chairman, under the first item, "Professional Services" there is $800 per day, included in which are "Consultants for communications". Is that $800 per day for one person, or is that for any number of persons from time to time which may differ?
Senator Stollery: It is for Don Gracie and his staff.
The Chairman: It is a total amount of $60,000.
Senator Di Nino: It is a firm that you have hired then, in effect.
Senator Stollery: I was not on the committee in the 1980s when it met, but these are, I believe, the same people that did the job when Senator Kelly chaired the original committee on Terrorism and Public Safety.
Senator Di Nino: It is a firm which has some communications and technical expertise. It says "Consultants for communications, development of a report, and technical support".
Ms Barbara Reynolds, Clerk, Special Senate Committee on Security and Intelligence: This is how it was presented to the chairperson. It describes communications, development of the report, selection of witnesses, suggestions for witnesses. Mr. Gracie is the person who worked on the two previous reports and he has extensive experience in intelligence matters.
Senator Di Nino: What was the difference between number 1 and number 4 on that budget?
Ms Reynolds:If I might add, Mr. Chairman, number 4 is intended to look at overall communications, particularly the release of the report, and how one might deal with the release of the report.
Senator Di Nino: Then the question asked by my colleague has been addressed by your committee, is that correct?
Ms Reynolds: Yes.
Senator Bryden: The one comment I would make to give some degree of comfort to people is that Senator Kelly informed us yesterday that this budget was developed based on the budget that was required to do the last study in 1989. I accept what he said, that this is about the same amount of money, and he anticipates the same number of days of hearings and so on.
At this stage, it is very much Senator Kelly's budget. We expect that, if we need a revision once we get into this, we can come back.
I would raise a matter that is not really relevant to the budget, and that is the issue of many of these hearings being in camera. I got the impression yesterday, because of some changes in the rules of the Senate, that it is very difficult for a special committee to do that.
Senator Stollery: As Senator Bryden says, basically, this is the budget to get the committee going. It has just been formed and they have to have a budget in order to start operating. Senator Kelly is the person who really knows about the details. I hope this committee will approve the budget since it is to get the committee up and running. If there are adjustments to be made then, obviously, Senator Kelly will have to come back to Internal Economy for any adjustments.
On the question of in camera meetings, I am not privy to any particular information on that subject. How does a Senate committee deal with security matters and sensitive issues of security if anybody can come in? Any senator can go attend any Senate committee meeting, whether it is in camera or not. This is something for the leadership to deal with. Is there a need for a change to the rules? I could think of ways in which it might be done. However, I am not promoting them. I do not have strong feelings one way or the other.
It could be said that, in order for a Senate committee to deal with sensitive security issues, you cannot have people who attend the meetings talking to their friends in the media about information that has been given in committee, otherwise, obviously, the RCMP, CSIS, and others will not talk to us. This has to be dealt with, but now is not the time to do it. This is the time to approve the budget so Senator Kelly can get on with the work of his committee.
The Chairman: Senator Kelly has done this before. He knows the territory.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I want to talk about the difference between item no. 1 which refers to communications and item no. 4 which also mentions communications. It seems that the subcommittee is hiring communications experts to devise a strategy for communicating the results of what the initial communications experts developed. This is somewhat confusing. If I were a reporter, I could write an article about this, arguing that the committee is spending twice as much as it needs to. It seems to meet that if we were to delete the word "communications" from item no. 1, this would simplify the text a little. Perhaps the people who drafted it understand what it says, but I find it somewhat confusing.
Senator Stollery: Does anyone want to try and explain this to Senator Robichaud? As I said, this is the budget for the committee's activities.
Senator Robichaud: I am not questioning that.
Senator Stollery: By all means we can go ahead and discuss the difference between item no. 1 and item no. 4 with Senator Kelly. Perhaps the committee clerk can explain the difference to you.
Ms. Reynolds: You are correct, Senator Robichaud. Item No. 1 refers to the consultant, Mr. Gracie, who advises the committee on communications in general while item no. 4 refers to the consultant or expert who will look at the report once it has been drafted.
[English]
The Chairman: What is confusing, I think, is the phrase, "Consultants for communications". We understand, "development of the report and technical support". Is this communications within the committee, or from the committee to the public?
Senator Bryden: Mr. Chairman, would it be acceptable for me to answer that question, because I think I understand the difference between the two? It looks as though the preamble on number 1 was written from the description of the consultant's business card. They are not being hired for communications. They are there for the development of the report and technical support. Number 4 deals with communications related to the the report and the dissemination of the report. Since the majority of the steering committee is here, I would propose that the steering committee delete from number 1 the word "communications" leaving "Consultants for the development of the report and technical support". That would eliminate any confusion.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is the report agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I see the distinguished chairman of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee is with us this morning. We are very pleased to have her here. Perhaps she would proceed with her report.
Senator Lorna Milne, Chairman, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs: I will go through the budget line-by-line with you.
The first item for professional services and communications, has decreased from last year because we have installed video-conferencing equipment. That is a separate-line item. We are leaving $3,500 in there for communications services.
The second item, "Legal Counsel", is the same as last year.
"Membership and Registration fees" remains the same.
The item for "Meals" has increased by $1,500, mainly because of the change in time slots when the committee meets. We now meet on a Thursday morning at a 10:45 and we may well continue our meeting through the lunch hour more regularly.
The item for "Transportation and Communications" is the same, as are the items for "Ground Transportation", "Per diem", "Hotel" in the event that we send two people to two conferences during the year.
Witnesses' expenses have been removed from the budget.
"Video-conferencing", has been put in as a separate item at $10,000; for a total in that part of $16,000.
Under "All Other Expenditures", the item for "Purchases of books and periodicals" is $500. This has decreased from last year's budget because, last year, we had an allocated money to buy copies of the Criminal Code and the Constitution for all our members. We have dropped that amount to what it was previously.
We have included under "Miscellaneous" an amount of $1,000 in case we need it; for a grand total this year of $35,400. That is up over last year's estimated budget, mainly because of the increase in meals and the video-conferencing.
I should point out that, even though our estimated budget is up this year over last, last year, we spent under $2,000 of our total budget. We spent only money on books and on meals. I am confident that this year we will also come in well under budget, because this is a very frugal committee.
Senator Maheu: Why are there absolutely no expenses for witnesses?
Senator Milne: Witnesses have been removed from all committee budgets and incorporated into the Senate budget.
The Chairman: I notice that you have an item for "Transportation and Communications" and "Video-conferencing", but do you have an item for communications?
Senator Milne: It is under "Professional Services", the first item, $3,500.Under that item, we are in the process of hiring a communications consultant for a very short time, who will cost us about $2,000 to handle the committee's communications on Bill C-220 because, if we do not, I can envision some repercussions against the Senate.
The Chairman: The other issue we should raise is the use of CPAC. We said earlier this morning, and it is relevant to a degree, that we have used only 50 per cent of the time that is available to us on CPAC. The Senate has paid for certain equipment. We have only used 170 hours, whereas we could use twice as much as that. Can you tell us how and when you have used CPAC and what your plans are for any broadcasts of any committee meetings?
Senator Milne: At this point, we have no plans whatsoever because, as you know, legislation has been coming through very slowly from the other place so far this year. Most of the bills we have had before us have been private member's bills rather than government bills.
The next government bill that I expect to see coming before us will be the DNA Identification Act. We hope to receive that fairly shortly so that we deal with it before the summer adjournment.
Unless there is a lot of public interest in what we are doing, or we are dealing with some particularly controversial issue, I do not see any need to use CPAC in our Legal and Constitutional Committee at this point.
Senator LeBreton: I am sure you will want CPAC coverage of your hearings on the proposed DNA identification legislation, Senator because it is a very controversial issue. You could showcase the thoughtful study Senate committees gives to issues such as that. The Canadian Police Association has certain views on what is contained in the bill, and other groups will want to make their opinions known. For Senate committees to be seen to be giving these people a voice in the formulation of this legislation, can do nothing but good for the whole institution of Parliament.
The Chairman: We keep saying, and I think we are right, that the jewel of the Senate is its committees and the work that they do. Our committees do outstanding work, and we should be showcasing them. With that in mind, the Senate purchased the equipment for CPAC. We have a certain number of hours to broadcast. All of that time should be used for good productions. CPAC gets good viewer reaction.
Senator Milne: The Legal and Constitutional Committee will take your advice.
The Chairman: Is the budget agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Milne.
We will now deal with the budget for the Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources, which is on page 11.
Senator Ron Ghitter, Chairman, Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources: Mr. Chairman, the budget before you is a very limited budget. It is higher this year than last year when it was some $39,000 because this is our year to go to Washington. Ever two years, we go to Washington to meet with energy officials, and we will be going during the first week in June of this year. We will attend an extensive list of meetings dealing with the findings at Kyoto, parks, climate change, and pipelines and energy matters. In fact, it is three years since our last visit to Washington. We usually try to go every two years but an election intervened. They are the leaders in these fields.
Other than that our budget is for some of our members to attend conferences that will be held across the country. That is our budget, sir.
The Chairman: Thank you. Is there an item for communications, and, if so, where would I find it?
Senator Ghitter: We have not included one, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: We have a policy that every committee must have a communications plan. It can be $10,000, it can be $15,000, but it must be built into the budget of every standing and special committee. I would encourage you to revise this in some way. Do you need this today?
Senator Ghitter: We would prefer to have it today but, with your permission, we would be happy to incorporate another $5,000 in here for communications. If someone would propose an amendment, then we can include it, if that is the proper procedure.
Senator Stollery: I have no objection to the budget, Mr. Chairman. However, we all agree that what you say is very important. We can certainly allocate money for communications but I think it would be appropriate to have some idea of what communications would be used. I am not suggesting that you sit here and describe a policy.
The Chairman: I think that is a point well taken. We would ask you to revise this and to come back to us again with a communications plan and, within that, you should describe how you will make use of CPAC. We have hours of broadcast time on CPAC. As I said, the jewel of the Senate is its committees which do excellent work, but very few Canadians know what we are doing. We have paid for television equipment. We have only used 50 per cent of the time we have available on CPAC.
Senator Ghitter, you have excellent people on your committee who do excellent work, and we want the public to know about that. When you come back, give us your communications plan. Also address how you will make use of CPAC.
Senator Ghitter: I will be happy to do that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Di Nino: Are you suggesting we not approve the budget?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: I do not know if that is correct. I think you intend to schedule a meeting for next week which would be principally deal with communications.
The Chairman: Not next week; we can meet again at the end of the month.
Senator Di Nino: I have not asked a lot of questions this morning on that issue because I think it is a strategy that should be looked at as a total strategy. I am not sure that it is appropriate for all committees to do their own communications planning. It may be too scattered. I would not want to hold up the work of a committee because a communication strategy was missing from their budget. Perhaps the chairman would consult with the members of his committee at the next opportunity and discuss a communications strategy and return to this committee with a supplementary budget for that.
The Chairman: Would you agree to approve it on the condition that the chairman will come back with a communications budget?
Senator Di Nino: Yes.
Senator Stollery: This committee decided some years ago that, in fact, a general communications strategy for the Senate has been unsuccessful for about 50 years, and that the successful way of doing it is for each committee to have its own strategy.
One does not like to hold up a budget, but we would like to emphasize to the chairman that it is very important that you come back. Indeed, we insist that you come back with a communications strategy.
Senator Ghitter: That is a fair comment. I would be happy to do that.
The Chairman: The budget is approved on the condition that the committee comes back with a communications strategy. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Approved.
Senator Ghitter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee members.
The Chairman: Senator Lewis, our distinguished senator from Newfoundland is here.
Senator Derek P. Lewis, Member, Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons for the Scrutiny of Regulations: Senator Hervieux-Payette is not available, so I am here representing the committee.
This is a joint committee. You have the proposed budget.It is the same as last year, except for two changes. There is a slight increase in the overall budget of just over $4,000. The reason for that increase of approximately 3 per cent is to provide for the likely increase in salaries which represent the major portion of the budget. What we are talking about here is the overall budget of the committee, and then, of course, that is split between the Senate and the House of Commons on a 30-per-cent, 70-per-cent basis. In other words, the overall budget is the same as last year except provision for an increase in salaries, so the total budget is only up approximately $4,000 or $5,000.
The Chairman: The Senate share is $63,690.
Senator Lewis: Yes. For your information, last year, the Senate share of the budget was $61,950. Our portion has gone up by that amount.
What might interest you is, the year before, 1996-97, our portion was $129,578. The actual expenditure in 1996-97 was only $96,000.
Senator LeBreton: Total?
Senator Lewis: No, that was the Senate portion. The Senate portion in 1995-96 was $151,381, and there was actual expenditure of $113,439. Originally, the split between the two houses was on a 50-50 basis but after the new Parliament, because of the increase in the number of parties, the membership of the joint committee was increased to provide for all parties to be represented. It was agreed then that the Senate share would be reduced from 50 per cent to 30 per cent. Maybe one good thing came out of the election: We saved some money.
The Chairman: Is this a committee, Senator Lewis, that could do with more exposure to the public?
Senator Lewis: I think that would be a little difficult because it is fairly technical. The committee is very non-political. If it got publicity, it might tend to provide a platform for different interests.
The Chairman: Any other questions? Is it agreed we approve the budget?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Senator Watt, perhaps you would proceed.
Senator Charlie Watt, Chairman, Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples: This is a simple budget. We have been in a Catch-22 situation in that we could not engage the personnel we needed because of the fiscal year end.
We are requesting $32,000 in this budget. The first budget that was approved was for $27,200. We spent only $5,000 because of the fiscal year end, and the balance went back into the general pot. We are requesting $32,000, $20,000 of which has already been released. In other words, the Chairman of the Internal Economy Committee approved $10,000 in the first instance, and then another $10,000 the second time. That is already incorporated in there.
The Chairman: In the $25,000?
Senator Watt: In the $32,000. We are requesting the difference of about $12,000.
We do have an almost complete work plan now. Next Tuesday, we will have a committee meeting to deal with that plan and the communications portion of it. We will then come back to this committee with a request for the full budget for the year.
The Chairman: You will have a communications plan.
Senator Watt: Yes. The problem I like to highlight to you, Mr. Chairman, is that when we talk of a communications plan, we have to take into consideration communicating in the French language, the English language, Inuktitut, and any other languages that may be appropriate. I do not know how many other languages or regional dialects there are. We are still wrestling with that question
The Chairman: This is one committee that really should get maximum exposure.
Senator Watt: You mentioned the utilization of CPAC. We are very much inclined to utilize that, and to move in the direction of educating the general public.
The Chairman: I encourage you to contact the CPAC people. They are looking for matters of interest to broadcast, and certainly some of your hearings should be broadcast. I would encourage you to contact them and make the appropriate arrangements.
Senator Watt: There is one area where I require direction as to the utilization of CPAC. This committee is slightly different from the others in that we have round table discussions with the aboriginal leaders, rather using the format of calling witnesses. Would that be an appropriate type of format which could be televised through CPAC?
Senator Di Nino: That is your call.
Senator Watt: I was looking for some direction on that.
Senator Di Nino: It is a question of whether you feel it would be of interest, not only to the larger community, but the communities that will be represented around the table. I am not sure that we would be as able to answer that question as well as you and your committee colleagues.
The Chairman: You should talk to a qualified communications consultant, preferably someone who has worked in the aboriginal community. For example, you and I know there is a northern broadcasting network which is part of the CBC. We have broadcast in Inuktitut. There are people who are skilled in broadcasting to aboriginal communities. Having a consultant with some experience in that would be the best way to go.
Senator Watt: When you have round-table discussions, occasionally committee members and leaders lock horns from time it time. There will be the occasional heated argument. That is certainly a healthy exchange, and it would be educational to the general public.
The Chairman: I do not think it is a question that we can settle here today. You are right to raise it. If you hire the right consultant, I am sure that can be worked out. I would encourage you to come back to us with a communications plan.
Senator Watt: We definitely will. It is being worked on now.
Senator Di Nino: This was an interim budget of $32,000, $20,000 of which has already been released, so you are really asking for an additional $12,000; and we can expect something further in the near future.
The Chairman: Hopefully, that will be before us by next week.
Is it agreed that we approve this budget?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: We will proceed with the remainder of our agenda. We have a report from the steering committee regarding the restoration of the war paintings in the Senate chamber. As you know, the paintings are on the walls, and they have been there for some time. They are in need of repair and refurbishing. The idea is that they be taken down, repaired, and put back again. I have had a discussion with the Speaker on that. It would be appropriate to do that at a time that would not inconvenience the Senate. It has to be done.
Frankly, there is a question concerning whether the paintings themselves are appropriate for the Senate chamber, but we do not want to get into that this morning. That is, perhaps, a matter for debate. They are there, and they have to be kept in good shape. That is the purpose of bringing it to your attention this morning.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there should be any question of us undertaking this work. These are national assets. I am not sure whether it is up to us to decide whether they are appropriate paintings for the Senate, at least at this meeting. We can discuss our opinions at some other time. However, these paintings are assets of the people of Canada and they must not be allowed to deteriorate. If we want to have a discussion on the validity of those being in the Senate or elsewhere, that is another question. At the same time, we should be considering other locations. Room 256-S also has some paintings which are assets belonging to the people of the country. One, in particular, is peeling. It will fall to the ground. I do not know if that is the responsibility Public Works or us, so we should instruct our staff to determine who is responsible. We should ensure that these national assets are checked regularly. I would particularly address these comments to the clerk. I would suggest that he take a look at the paintings in Room 256-S where one painting is in dire need to repair. It would be a shame to lose it.
My recommendation would be, Mr. Chairman, that we should proceed with refurbishing these paintings. As the report says, that it will be work in progress while visitors are in the Senate. As the minister said this morning, these belong to the people, not to us.
Mr. Bélisle: We have done preliminary evaluations of this these rooms, specifically Room 256-S. The Upper Canada map is also in dire need of repair. We will pursue that and I will be reporting to you.
I note that Senator Forrestall has left. He initiated the issue of the war paintings. He pointed out to me how badly they were deteriorating.As a result, we called the War Museum and asked them to do an evaluation. They have done so. This will be done during the summer months at the cost of Public Works. They will be taking down three at a time on the floor of the Senate. They will be repaired there this summer, and it will be incorporated as part of the tour. The public will be given an explanation of what is being done. Then, on November 11, Remembrance Day, there will be a ceremony surrounding the paintings.
Senator LeBreton: How long will all this take?
Mr. Bélisle: All summer.
Senator LeBreton: Are they not going to be removed from the chamber?
Mr. Bélisle: No. They will remain in the chamber and they will be cordoned off. When visitors come in they will see what we are doing to try to preserve Canada's heritage.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Employment equity is the next item on our agenda.
Mr. Bélisle: Issues regarding employment equity and access for the disabled have again have been raised by senators. On employment equity, Senator Oliver made a speech in the chamber on this issue. He indicated to me that he wanted to be here for the discussion on employment equity. We have a lot of good news, and we also have some news that is not as good about employment equity. You were given a report a few weeks ago. It it was on the agenda for the April 2 meeting, but meeting was cancelled. Mr. O'Brien has additional copies of the report here.
Senator LeBreton Since Senator Oliver expressed a desire to be in attendance when this matter was discussed by the committee, I think we should put it aside until he can be present.
The Chairman: Madam Grandmaître is here to address this issue, but Madam Beaudoin is absent, and she is very capable of dealing with this.
Senator Di Nino: This has been a pet peeve of mine for many years. I think Senator Oliver, whose interest in this is obviously recognized, should be present. We should inform Senator Oliver that this matter will be discussed at the next meeting, and ask him to attend.
Mr. Bélisle: I agree.
The disabled issue ties into employment equity, so we will deal with both at the same time. We should, perhaps, invite Senator Robertson to be here when we deal with that issue because she had indicated some interest.
Senator Di Nino: I will wait until we have the report before I speak on the issue. I did tell Senator Robertson that I would speak to that issue.
The Chairman: Should that that item stand?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The next item is our security accreditation policy.
Mr. Bélisle: Perhaps before we deal with item 7, we could deal with the minutes of the previous meeting which have not yet been adopted. That is item 3 on your agenda.
The Chairman: Let us deal with all other matters and then revisit item 7.
On the minutes of the previous meeting, are there any questions, errors or omissions?Is it agreed that we adopt them?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Bélisle: The issue of vehicle access to the Hill should be discussed in camera since nothing in that regard has been made public yet. It is a security item.
The next item relates to Senate pins.
Ms Mary McLaren, Usher of the Black Rod: You have all received the round Senate pins that I believe were initiated by Internal Economy last year. I am here simply to clarify two things: First, the new pin and the old pin will be authorized for use until the end of May, if you are agreeable to that. As of June 1, just the new pin will be authorized.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: What do you mean by authorized?
[English]
Ms McLaren: If people wish to wear the old pin that will be acceptable until the end of May. That suggestion is made because, although we have distributed the pins to all the offices, I am not sure if all the senators have worn them. This will give a bit of time for people to get used to the idea.
The Chairman: What will happen if somebody comes in wearing an old pin after June 1?
Ms McLaren: We hope they will not be wearing them after June 1.
Senator Maheu: It is identification.
The Chairman: Everyone has them. They have been distributed to all of the offices.
Mr. Bélisle: It is also identification which is recognized by the House of Commons security staff all over the hill.
Senator Di Nino: I met Senator Gigantès walking on the hill yesterday, and he is obviously under the wrong impression, because he said to me, "I was told that either pin will be acceptable. We can choose." The other thing that I would suggest is rather than the end of May, why do you not make it the end of the sitting?
The Chairman: Perhaps it should be when the Senate rises. That may be better.
Senator Di Nino: That is my second point. Do we have to return the old pins?
Ms McLaren: No.
Senator Di Nino: That question will be asked. That should be part of the information you provide to all senators.
Ms McLaren: That is a very good point. Do you have any recommendations as to whether or not you should return the old pins? I would suggest that is not necessary.
Senator Lewis: We have always worn them.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Why not go with both pins for those who do not like the new one? Security services are aware that there are two different pins.
[English]
The Chairman: An old pin could get into the wrong hands and anybody could walk into the Senate with one of those on. I can see how it might create a problem.
Senator Di Nino: The problem will be not so much in the Senate, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps in the House of Commons where you could access the precinct.
Senator LeBreton: What will happen in the case of to senators who have retired and want to come back into the building? Will they have some kind of identification or will they have to present themselves like anyone else at the door?
Ms McLaren: I will have to ask the Director of Security that question. Are retired senators required to wear an old pin?
Mr. Gourgue: No, they are recognized visually. Most are very well-known.
Senator LeBreton: We do not have to return old pins but they will not be recognized for security purposes.
Ms McLaren: No.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that is good enough. Several senators retired several years ago and they may not be well known to the staff. How will this affect a senator who retired 10 years ago? There are many 85-year-old men and women who are in good shape and who still visit this place. The Black Rod would not know who these people are. The House of Commons members put their pin on and walk around freely. We should give some consideration to that. Perhaps this is something we should not be deciding today.
Ms McLaren: How many pins should we be distributing? The practice in the past has been to give each senator one pin. Because they were purchased by the administration, if you lost them, we replaced them, but I have had several requests for more than one pin. I am recommending that we stick with the original policy simply because it is a unique identifier. I turn this over to you for discussion.
Senator Maheu: In the House of Commons, they gave you a second pin in the event that you lost your first one. Then if you wanted any more, you had to pay for them.
Senator Di Nino: What about spouses?
Ms McLaren: They have their own pin.
Senator Di Nino: Does the spousal pin remain the same?
Ms McLaren: Yes.
The Chairman: The spousal pin is very nice, actually.
Senator Di Nino: I like it better than ours.
Ms McLaren: As a matter of fact, the spousal pin is quite a bit more expensive than your pin.
Senator LeBreton I think that we should just have one. It defeats the purpose if we start issuing extra pins. I think it should be one pin per senator and leave it at that.
The Chairman: The only comment that I have heard is that the circle is a little large. I would suggest that, when this batch is gone, we consider the size of the next batch to be cast.
Senator Maheu: Is it a little larger than the House pin?
Mr. Bélisle: Yes. The red makes it stand out.
The Chairman: That is the design I voted for, but I think there should be a slight reduction in size to match the size of the House of Commons pin.
We will continue in camera.
The committee continued in camera.