Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 7 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 14, 1998
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:30 a.m.
Senator Pierre Claude (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Good morning. This morning we will deal with budgets.
Senator Taylor: Mr. Chairman, the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources is requesting a supplement of $5,000 to its budget for communications. We did not include an amount for communications in our original budget, but the committee requests that we do so now.
The Deputy Chairman: Is that agreed, senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Taylor: The Subcommittee on the Boreal Forest started its study last year. Although the full committee is the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, it had been ten years since we studied forestry. Last year we started to do so, and it evolved into a study of the boreal forest, which is the huge, poplar, aspen, and evergreen forest that goes around the top of the world like a shawl. It is a particularly complicated issue, because we must consider not only the fact that the boreal forest absorbs carbon emissions, but also the fact that about 75 per cent of the aboriginal peoples in the world live in the forest.
The boreal forests of Canada belong to the provinces. Since aboriginal people and the environment are national responsibilities, it becomes a provincial-federal matter. There have been grants of boreal forest areas as large as the province of New Brunswick.
We are approximately half way through that study. We have completed our Western tours. The purpose of this budget request is to travel to the rest of Canada. We will hold hearings in Ontario, the Saguenay area of Quebec, the Miramichi, and also in Ottawa.
The budget request is for $125,700.
Senator Di Nino: The explanation for your request indicates that five senators will be travelling with 11 support staff. Even though some of those people will be with you for things like interpretation, that still sounds like a large contingent. Can you explain that?
Senator Taylor: Many of those people -- six, in fact -- will be reporting, transcribing, and translating for us. This is particularly important because we going into Quebec and northern New Brunswick, which is Acadian country.
Senator Di Nino: That will be the case in each area to which you travel?
Senator Taylor: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: The committee should do a full and proper job, but it sounds like a lot people.
Senator Taylor: I thought so too, but we cannot have half measures when it comes to interpretation and reporting. We have to either provide for the entire interpretation and reporting process, or for none at all. We have to take them with us. It is, however, only three trips, and we covered Western Canada with three trips as well.
The Deputy Chairman: Returning to the communications issue, I hope that this study will not remain a secret when you return from your field trips. Also, you should prepare your communications strategy before going on the trip.
Senator Taylor: We have a communications strategy for the duration of the trip, at a cost of $5,000. You will notice that we have also included the amount of $5,000 for communications following the release of the report.
It might be a bit egotistical to think that the open line programs and the national press will want to talk to us after the release of our report, but we have included a request for the money, in order to allow us to follow up. I may be wrong, but I think that this will be, if not contentious, at least of wide interest. For the first time we are looking at the forests as a whole unit, not just as a lumber depot for the provinces.
The Deputy Chairman: We already have committees on the road, doing important research and holding important hearings. We know about it, but the rest of the world is not aware of that. I am thinking of Agriculture and Forestry, or Banking. The coverage in the financial literature on it was fine, but the ordinary public was not informed. That is exactly why we want all of our committees to invest in communications, to ensure that the public learns of these good stories.
Senator Taylor: You are quite right. I have just returned from the Agriculture and Forestry tour of Western Canada, and we made a horrible mistake. We turned down televised hearings, and the hearings were very good. They were as good as any U.S. Senate hearings.
Senator Maheu: As a point of information, with respect to both the strategy and the money allocated to publicity and communications, I hope that it will be totally bilingual in every case, but very especially in your case.
Senator Taylor: As a matter of fact, you are sitting beside one of the committee's key francophone spokesmen.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: You mentioned the agriculture committee. During our recent swing through western Canada, even though our hearings were not televised, we still received excellent media coverage. Articles appeared in the newspapers about the committee's work because we had someone handling communications. People were aware that the Senate committee was holding hearings in the area.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Do we agree to that budget?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: The next item is the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. Senator Kirby, you have the floor.
Senator Michael Kirby, Chairman, Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce: There are two budgets before you. One is for legislation, and the other is for our ongoing examination of the financial system. Let me deal with the legislation first.
The legislative budget is identical to the budget that you had before you last year, although we did not spend it all. Basically, the only item that the legislative budget includes is one week of hearings on a bill as yet to be determined, and the only reason I give it to you is so that you have some reasonable forecast. During each of the last three years, the committee has ended up going on public hearings on a highly controversial bill. In 1996, we did the HST, and in 1997 we dealt with the CPP bill. In order to allow you to plan reasonably, I have included a week's travel. I assume that I will come to this committee to get approval for that, when and if a bill comes along that requires it. If I did not put it in, it would mean that you would have to deal with it in a supplementary budget, and that is probably not the best way to budget.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you for that.
Senator Kirby: Our second budget deals with our ongoing study of the financial system in Canada, and we have an overlapping year problem. You will remember that you authorized $255,000 a year ago. We only spent $123,000, because part of the $255,000 involved a trip to Washington which you have approved for this fiscal year. In fact, we went in April, which was the beginning of this fiscal year instead of the last fiscal year. This is why we were so short last year, and we only spent about half of the money last year. We thought that we would do some things before March 31, but we did not.
We have already gone on the Washington trip, and you approved two days in New York, when the Washington trip was approved. We have also built a week for travel in Canada into the budget. Again, this is on an as-yet-to-be-determined basis, but in the last three years something has always come along. If I had to guess, I would say that this year it will likely be in July, and we will deal with the Small Business Loans Act, because the government will ask the committee to give it advice with respect to what changes ought to be made there. We have included this in the budget for study, because it is not legislation, as the legislation has not been drafted yet.
I am happy to come back for formal approval of those hearings, once we know precisely what the topic is. Based on past experience, though, there will be a week in Canada on some non-legislative -- or pre-legislative -- issue on which the government is seeking our advice. I put it in the budget for your planning purposes.
Senator LeBreton: Do you not anticipate that, because of the bank mergers issue, you will probably have a lot more work to do on Banking, Trade and Commerce?
Senator Kirby: That is a good question. I did not budget for hearing on the bank merger question, or on the broader question of the McKay Task Force, because I keep hearing rumours that it is likely to be done by a joint committee.
To the best of my knowledge, nobody has decided what the process is. If it is a joint committee, there is no budget in here. If it is not a joint committee, we absolutely will be doing that, and we will be back to you for a substantial increase in the budget. In my view, those hearings would require a month of travel. They are not budgeted for here, because I do not know what the process will be.
I do not know how joint committees are funded, but I assume that we pay our share.
The Deputy Chairman: Yes. We pay 30 per cent.
Senator Kirby: I can guarantee that even a joint committee will have four to five weeks of hearings, five to six days a week. These will all take place outside of Ottawa, likely for the month of November, and that ought to be built into your budget, although I have not built it into mine.
Senator LeBreton: On this particular issue, I can envisage the committee travelling very extensively, because this issue interests a great number of Canadians.
Senator Kirby: Hearings will be held five days a week, and we will be on the road for five weeks.
Senator De Bané: When it comes to an issue such as bank mergers, I can see why it is essential for the committee to travel across the country. For the issue that will be discussed here, however, I wonder if enough consideration has been given to video conferencing. The committee would stay in Ottawa, and the people who would like to make a presentation would also be in a special room, having a dialogue with the members of that committee. Instead of spending $150,000 on travelling for a topic that interests some people, why not use video conferencing? You could then take an extensive trip to deal with bank mergers, which is a topic that really interests the general public.
Senator Kirby: Senator De Bané is correct, with one caveat. We did a video conference two nights ago with people from New Zealand. The technology has improved a great deal in the last two years. However, my experience tells me that travel really makes a difference when you are dealing with witnesses who are not professionals. In other words, I think that you can have a video conference with a lawyer or a senior business person. I think that Senator De Bané was making that same distinction when he was talking about the bank merger question. I think that the Small Business Loans Act issue meets that same test.
If you go into the Maritimes and the Prairies, there is a real difference in perception when the Senate is seen talking to ordinary people, as opposed to talking to the elite.
We have already spoken about getting additional witnesses for something else via teleconference. However, a different presence is created if you are dealing with the very small business community or ordinary citizens, and that is a legitimate distinction.
I should note, however, that our experience with the technology the other night was extraordinary. The picture and sound quality were wonderful. This committee ought to consider whether one of our conference rooms should not be set up permanently. As I understand it, the equipment is only in the room that we used for one month. We will use it again in two weeks, in order to speak to some witnesses from Australia. It seems to me the technology works so well that I we should reconsider renting the equipment. Your committee ought to consider encouraging all committees to use it, and having a facility available for that.
The Deputy Chairman: This committee looks into every request for budgetary allocation. That is why we are asking those questions. We will do that on an ad hoc basis.
Senator Kirby: I am making a distinction between professional witnesses and average people.
The Deputy Chairman: Could we look at teleconferencing as a better tool than travel?
Senator Kirby: Professional witnesses are accustomed to testifying, and not just before our committees. They also go to committees of town councils, cities, et cetera. A teleconference appears impersonal to the average citizen, who is not used to dealing with this kind of technology. There is something to be said for making the witnesses feel comfortable, and making the witnesses feel that we went to some effort to come to them.
I have no difficulty making that sort of distinction.
Senator Di Nino: That was the point I wished to raise as well. I wanted to ask specifically about your New Zealand experience. What did that experience cost? How long did the conference last?
Senator Kirby: The equipment was already there and someone else was paying for the rental; is that right?
Mr. Gary Levy, Clerk of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce: We will pay a portion, and it will be prorated. It would be under $1,000 for the New Zealand conference. We paid $400 for the room in New Zealand. That was the largest expense. We also paid about $175 an hour for the technician, and there is an administration fee of about $200. Other committees are also renting that equipment. I do not know what our share will be, but I expect that it will be around $300.
Senator Kirby: What does the telephone line cost?
Mr. Levy: We also have to pay for the length of the conversation, which was about 90 minutes.
Senator Di Nino: Do you pay normal long distance charges?
Mr. Levy: Multiplied by four.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, we should heed Senator Kirby's request, and look at teleconferencing as an alternative to travel when dealing with witnesses of a certain type. Those witnesses might themselves be more inclined to participate, because of the reduced time commitment.
Senator Kirby: To give you a specific example, Bill C-28 is soon to come to committee. A number of senators wish to hear from an aboriginal group from Athabaska. As a result of my experience last evening, I had the clerk get in touch with them, to invite them to go to Edmonton and participate in a video conference. I do not know if they will agree to do that, but the technology works.
The amazing thing to me was the quality of the sound and the quality of the picture. I would call it television perfect.
The Deputy Chairman: We take good note of your recommendation, and we will direct the committee to look into that.
Senator Kirby: It is important to bear in mind that many Canadians find that appearing before any parliamentary committee is a stressful exercise, because they are not used to doing it. The relatively impersonal nature of television might raise that stress level. They would not be able to see that you are really just ordinary people with whom they can communicate. You will have to be very careful on that in developing the policy. That is why I made the arbitrary distinction between professional and otherwise.
Senator Di Nino: We should take these words and deal with them carefully. We have had some positive experience, and we should try to learn from it.
In this committee, we are asked to extend huge sums of public funds for public benefit. It is important to put the nature of those benefits on record. The Banking Committee is one of the committees which expends large amounts of dollars on an annual basis.
You are saying that these expenditures are essential if we are to involve Canadians in the dialogue which is necessary to make rules and legislation for their benefit. Could you tell us about that, please?
Senator Kirby: That is exactly what I am saying. It is fair to say that the banking committee has become the forum in Ottawa -- and I include all House committees when I say this -- for the discussion of business policy issues across a wide range of fronts.
One of the reasons that the committee receives the press coverage that it does is that the results and reports of the committee are always unanimous. They are not at all partisan. The committee is regarded as a thoughtful forum for business issues.
As a consequence of that reputation, the committee is increasingly being used by the government as part of what I would call the legislative development process, as opposed to the legislative process. We have almost finished with one example of this, and another one is coming up. We have almost finished looking at the issue of joint and several liability, and how that policy should be changed. The government came to us and asked us to consider what the policy on this evolving issue should be. We have gone through a process of extensive consultation, and our last phase will be finished by June 22. We have effectively been told that whatever we recommend will become law. It is not yet the law; they must write a bill, and then we will do the bill.
We have not yet begun to look at the second issue, which is the small business loans legislation which expires at the end of March. It was extended for a year while the government rethought the policy. The committee has now been asked to do two things. Firstly, we are to go out and find out what people think of this. Secondly, we are to determine the right public policy.
We have agreed to take some time in July to develop a new small business loans policy. The government will then consider our report. It has been calculated that 82 or 83 per cent of our recommendations ultimately end up in either regulation or law.
We have become a think-tank, a pre-legislative forum, as much as a legislative forum. Most of our money is not spent on bills -- most of it is spent on developing ideas that ultimately lead to bills.
Senator Di Nino: The investigative part.
Senator Kirby: The important thing is that the investigative part typically comes up as a request from the government.
The Deputy Chairman: Can we stick to budgetary matters?
Senator Di Nino: I think that this is important. This committee is being recorded. Too many people have the impression that all committees do is go out on junkets, and that is the last thing we would want people to believe. These are very important consultation processes with Canadians. It is important to have these well-articulated positions recorded in a public meeting, so that those who may be interested in what the committees are doing can at least have an opportunity to assess the positions presented.
Senator LeBreton: Teleconferencing can be impersonal. I am thinking of the bank merger issue. This will be a huge issue in small town and rural Canada.
Senator Forrestall: We must not lose sight of the value of committee travel. The work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs immediately comes to mind. Its tour of the military bases could never have happened by way of teleconferencing.
On the other hand, there are some examples in New Zealand that I very much want to examine. We are very interested in how New Zealand was able to reduce the death toll on highways so dramatically. For that, teleconferencing is ideal, because we will be talking to professionals in the New Zealand government. We cannot easily go on the road to do that; we would need quite an active agenda to warrant it.
Within Canada, I think that people like to see committees. The new technology is very welcome, and it is excellent, as we know. If we want to talk about lighthouses in Langara, however, we had better go to Langara, because they do not want to talk in television studios.
Senator Stollery: Let us approve this. I move that we approve this budget on legislation.
The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: There is another budget on the financial system in Canada for a total of $281,000. Is that your request, Senator Kirby?
Senator Kirby: That is right.
The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Kirby: Let us return to Senator LeBreton's point about the bank mergers issue. Whether a joint committee examines this issue, or the Senate committee does, we will have to pay some money for a five-week tour in the fall. If there is a joint committee, it will be 30 per cent. If not, it will be 100 per cent.
The Deputy Chairman: I think it is proportionate to the number of people that we have on the committee.
Senator Kirby: You will have to deal with an amount that is not insignificant. You may want to build that in somewhere, although not in my budget.
Senator Lowell Murray, Chairman, Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology: In the last two or three fiscal years the expenditures of this committee were nil. This year, we are coming to you with a budget of $25,000.
I must acknowledge that this budget is a contingency budget. We have no particular plans to spend any of this money. It obviously makes sense to provide for possibilities such as professional services and meals, however.
There is a possibility that we will be doing a special policy study of some kind in the fall. This is a matter I wish to discuss with members of the committee in private. If we decide to recommend it, and if the Senate agrees to it, I will be back in the fall for some real money.
[Translation]
Senator Maheu: I do not see a separate budget item listed for communications, Senator Murray.
Senator Murray: A total of $2,500 has been budgeted for communications.
[English]
Senator Maheu: You do not have as much for communications as other committees do. This committee has a strategy in place to ensure that communications are done on every committee. I wonder if you should not look at a modification there.
Senator Murray: Senator, this committee has had 24 meetings since Christmas.
Senator LeBreton: We know that.
Senator Murray: You know that. You are a member of the committee. We have been dealing with the child support guidelines, and we are now ready to make a report. We have had a number of bills, most of them private members' bills, but important bills. We have a few government bills coming up. Frankly, there has not been a need for any special communications effort on our part. If and when such an effort becomes necessary, I will not hesitate to engage consultants or experts in the field.
In the meantime, I think that it is open to the committee, or to myself as Chairman, to move $1,000 or $2,000 around if I were to need more money for communications.
Senator Maheu: It should be consistent with the other committees, and with the policy that Internal Economy has set up.
Senator Stollery: Mr. Chairman, I was at the committee meeting last night, and I thought that it was well handled. The cameras were there.
Senator Murray: The studies of Bill S-13 were televised. The hearings on Bill S-10, which removes the GST from reading material, will also be televised. Perhaps we will get more communications than we need or want.
Senator Maheu: No, it is good.
Senator Stollery: At some point in time we will have to deal with the issue of committees that get a budget for communications, and do not use it. I think that this is getting out of hand.
Senator Forrestall: Perhaps I will be raising this question more and more frequently. We have CPAC, and we have many hours. In some committees, we have been guilty of not using all of the hours that are available to us.
On two or three occasions, I have checked the CPAC channels at a convenient hour, such as 7 o'clock in the evening or 2:30 in the afternoon. I have seen Oshawa City Council, Toronto City Council, and a conference somewhere else in Canada. Lo and behold, I woke up at 2:30 in the morning the other day, and saw the transport committee meeting with the minister. That is no good to us whatsoever.
Senator DeWare: At 3:00 this morning it was showing custody and access hearings.
The Deputy Chairman: I suggest that we discuss that at our in camera meeting.
Is this budget approved?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Carried.
The foreign affairs budget is postponed to another meeting. We will hear now from Senator Cools on behalf of the finance committee.
Senator Anne Cools, Deputy Chairman, Standing Senate Committee on National Finance: Honourable senators, I am here in Senator Stratton's stead.
The work of the committee is somewhat under-estimated by most, and it may not seem terribly interesting. Our work is very important to the institution of Parliament itself, however, since this is the committee which examines budgetary issues and the Main Estimates, and which brings forth supply bills.
In any event, before you is an application for budget authorization for the fiscal year 1998-1999. The committee is asking you for a total of $17,000. It is a very modest budget of three items: professional and other services at $7,000; $8,500 for transportation and communications; and $1,500 for three other expenditures.
Nothing here that is unusual or startling. I would invite questions from senators and colleagues.
The Deputy Chairman: Do we approve the budget?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: It is approved.
Senator Cools: In support of the remarks regarding CPAC, Senator Stratton and I are endeavouring to make the work of our committee more interesting to members.
The committee proceeded in camera.