Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 9 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 9, 1998
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:10 a.m.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: First of all, we will deal with the budget of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
Senator Watt: Mr. Chairman, as you know, the last time I was here, it was to have the $32,000 approved. That is what we have been operating from. That money was used to engage the coordinator and one aboriginal advisor. Those two people are still on board.
The objective of special studies on aboriginal governance is to examine the various models for aboriginal peoples, and how those can be implemented in a practical way. You are all familiar with that. The study is to be carried out in close corroboration with the national aboriginal organizations. That is the critical part. It is a very important element of the work that we will to do, and will allow us to have the aboriginal leaders and the leaders of the national organizations directly involved in the process leading up to this study.
The Order of Reference adopted by the Senate lists three specific points which the committee is to examine in the special study. One of those points calls for the examination of the new structural relationships required by aboriginal peoples and the federal, provincial, and municipal levels of government, and also between the various aboriginal communities themselves.
Let me try to describe that part in relation to why there is a need for a direct consultation with the aboriginal communities. On one hand, when you are looking at the modern agreement that has been adopted over the last 30 years, there is a problem area that needs to be visited by us. When you look at the non-governmental organizations which have a special stature, such as non-profit organizations, they also hold the rights and interests of the individual peoples under the collective organizations. That organization, at times, does have a tendency to step on the rights of the individual people, so we have to revisit that. We have to take that into consideration.
The second point involves the mechanisms for implementing such structural relations.
The third point concerns the models of aboriginal self-government required to respond to the needs of the aboriginal peoples, and to complement those new structural relations. On that particular aspect, one would begin thinking that we would be delivering a model, and then the minister would have to look at that model to see how it could fit. One has to begin to wonder if we must start making the federal and the provincial governments more sensitive as institutions, and how those models can actually fit into the existing structure. If they cannot fit into the existing structure, then we also have to highlight how to go about it. A possibility down the road is that there might be some requirement for constitutional changes. We will be highlighting those areas.
The committee recognized such work that had already been done by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, but practical solutions on the issue of self-government for the aboriginal peoples are needed in order to complete its work. The committee, therefore, will be examining the practical ways self-government can be implemented, and the way it fits into the existing structure of the government at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels.
The committee also recognized that there is no single model which can be applied to all aboriginal communities, but rather that different models apply to different communities. The committee will seek the view of the aboriginals themselves as to what is the most appropriate form of self-government for them.
That is basically the background of the reason for my appearance today. I seek approval of a one year budget for the special study to be undertaken. I know the amount is quite high, and that this is probably an unusual request because of the nature of the special studies that have to be carried out. We did our best to reduce the budget down as much as possible. When I submitted it to the committee as a whole, a substantial amount was also cut. I would be prepared to answer some questions, if I can.
The Chairman: I would like to make a number of points before people ask questions. First, I think this is a very important study. All across the country, we are seeing that aboriginal concerns and the land claims issue are becoming paramount in Canadian life -- consider the Delgamuukw decision in British Columbia. If you have been reading the press recently, you know that it is giving British Columbia, in particular, a great deal of concern.
It is not just British Columbia. In my own area of Labrador, we have a nickel mine, and it is oversimplifying matters to say that the nickel mine is not going ahead because of land claims. That is not entirely true, but it is true to a large degree. We must come to grips with this issue of aboriginal rights which the Supreme Court has now underlined, and work out a mechanism for coming to some conclusions there. It is an issue of extreme importance.
I know that people will have concerns about the amount of money here. Perhaps Senator Watt would like to indicate whether, in fact, there can be some reductions. On the substance of the issue, it is an issue that I think is extremely important. If we agree that the Senate can do this kind of job, and that Senate committees can do this kind of job better than any other parliamentary of Canadian mechanism, then that is an important point to consider as well.
Having made those remarks, I would certainly entertain questions.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, as you said, this issue is one of paramount importance to Canada and Canadians. Until it is put to bed, until it is settled and the problem solved, the costs to Canadians over the long term are going to be enormous.
This is one of the largest amounts that we have been asked for by any single committee. It is a huge sum of money, but in comparison to the amount of money which has been spent by other organizations that are trying to do similar work, it is really not a large amount of money. This is a very serious issue, an issue that has ramifications from coast to coast.
My concern is that the studies that have been undertaken in the past dealing with these issues -- including the awfully expensive recent royal commission -- have been put on a shelf to gather dust. I would like Senator Watt to address this issue. Obviously, he will attempt to get the best people possible to do the kind of job that will have some impact, that will have some meaning, and that will be useful in the dialogue on this issue.
Over the years, these studies have been undertaken, and many recommendations have been made. If there were political will power, this study probably would not be needed. The recommendations that have been made in the past three or four reports could probably be implemented, and some of the problems solved. Senator Watt, what is your feeling on my frustration over the fact that many of these things are an expensive exercise in futility?
Senator Watt: Let me start off by saying that being very close to the subject-matter will not make it easy for me to deal with this particular study. I want to state that first. The reason I am saying that is because I have been involved on the outside of the system for quite a number of years. I have tried to drive home the importance of this matter to the greatest extent possible over the years. Also, I was involved in the deliberations that arrived at the constitutional protections for aboriginal peoples back in 1982. Since then, a great deal of frustration has been developing amongst the aboriginal people, mainly because they have constantly been asked to define what they mean by what is important to them, whether in terms of rights, governing ability, or structural matters.
One area that has always been overlooked is the fact that the government -- it does not matter what level of the government it is -- always has its fists closed when a new element approaches. Those are the institutions that we are approaching. They never open their arms; they never open their hands. When you talk of the structure itself, if that structure cannot fit into the existing system, and the two will not interact, nothing will ever work. We are trying to move towards coexistence, and to develop a genuine partnership arrangement.
As you know, certain elements are very important, and they are critically important to our people. There are certain sets of values, and they cannot be implemented through the municipal structure. The municipal structure delivers goods and services in a community. Unless they have been empowered by other governments to take care of the social problems, economic problems and environmental problems, they do not deal with that. To me, that will be quite a challenge.
At the end of the day, what is and is not implemented will not be up to the committee. After we finish our study, it will be up to the government to determine how it will deal it.
Senator Di Nino: Will the experts and consultants mainly be from the aboriginal communities, or will they be from a wider group?
Senator Watt: In order to reduce the cost as much as possible, we will use existing leaders from the organizations, and we will hold round table discussions between the committees and the aboriginal leaders.
The expertise that we have hired is from the aboriginal peoples, but that does not prohibit us from accessing any outside expertise that we might need. There are only a certain number of experts on the issues with which we will deal. I know of less than ten people. I have dealt with those people before. There are very limited numbers. We intend to engage them only on an as-needed basis. The reason for that that, once again, is that we wish to reduce the cost.
Senator Di Nino: I gather this expenditure will be over two fiscal years.
Senator Watt: This expenditure on the budget itself is one year.
Senator Di Nino: Only for this fiscal year.
Senator Watt: This is one year's budget.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of the staff. I certainly am disposed to approve the budget simply because I think, as you said at the beginning, that this issue needs to be resolved. The question and concern that I have is that we keep on addressing it and addressing it, and it is never resolved. At some point in time, we must bite the bullet. The question I have to the staff, through you, is: Do we have this kind of money to spend?
Mr. Paul Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate, Clerk of the committee : The answer is no. We have $770,000 dollars for all committee budgets. Last year we knew that our estimates would not be enough. If we include this committee, we will have a shortfall of $1.3 million. I am including the possibility of two other committees coming forward.
Senator Di Nino: You expect that that will grow as the year goes on?
Mr. Bélisle: Yes. There are two major committees. The Banking Committee will be looking at bank mergers, and I believe that the Social Affairs Committee will be looking at infotechnology.
Senator Di Nino: We could be out by 300 per cent on our estimates.
Mr. Bélisle: You would be out by perhaps $2 million, yes.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I agree that a number of studies have been undertaken on aboriginal peoples and that regrettably, they have failed to produce hoped-for results. New Brunswick is contending with some serious problems which we have not yet examined and which we could consider, notably that of aboriginal communities. Much has been done, but there is still much do. Getting back to the figures we have here, when I look at all of the committees and associations involved in relations with other countries or other groups, I hesitate to cut the amount requested by this committee for a study of aboriginal peoples. On the one hand, we claim not to have the money to address the problems of aboriginal peoples, whereas on the other hand, we do have the money to go on international junkets. If we must cut back, I think we should target other committees, but not this one.
[English]
Senator Taylor: As a member of the Aboriginal Peoples steering committee, I am a little bit torn on this issue. As Senator Di Nino and others have said, it is a very important study, although as you know, we spent a huge amount of money on the recent study. Money is not the only thing that can solve things.
Another thing that bothers me is that it seems to me that we are doing something backwards here if we overspend our budget by 300 per cent. Are we not supposed to take the amount of money we have, apportion it out amongst the committees and tell them, after listening to them, how much they cut?
It does not seem right to me to vote "yes" or "no"; everybody want to be good guys, and we will go 300 per cent into the hole. That is not going to play too well, regardless of whether we spend it on Aboriginal Peoples or anything else.
We can say how important it is. I am speaking as a freshman here. This is only my first year on the committee and my second year as a senator, but one of the images we want to create besides that of sober second thought is also sober second thought in handling money.
We seem to be saying, "That looks good. We will give it to you," and then all of a sudden nothing is there. That does not seem right. It seems to me that we should look at everybody's budget, then say, "Can you get by with this?"
The Chairman: That is a valid point. On the other hand, I think politics is issue-driven. You should never predict what is going to happen in public life, because you can never be quite sure. From time to time, I think that we have to respond to public events. I think that this is one such event.
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce is responding to public events. The bank merger is a big issue in this country. When we made up our budget, nobody ever imagined this issue of the merger of the banks. Yet it seems to me that a Senate committee can perhaps do the most good here in mobilizing public opinion, listening to people, and coming up with recommendations.
I accept what is being said about the purity of the budget, but I would remind all of us that we are in politics, and that politics is issue-driven. In public life you never know from day to day what issue you will face, and you should be prepared to have the resources to deal with that.
I hope that put some balance into the equation.
Senator Taylor: Certainly, I like this budget and I think we should spend money on aboriginal affairs. I do not, however, want to keep loading up until we are in the hole by 300 per cent. I still think that in politics, as always, much good can be done out there. If anything, the public has told government to curb its charitable tendencies, and to start operating within a fence of some sort. When we are looking at $559,000 out of a $700,000 budget, I am just wondering if we can massage it a bit somehow.
The Chairman: Yes. It is important to remind ourselves, too, that we have to go to supplementaries almost as a matter of course every year.
Senator Di Nino: We have done so for the last three years. We did not do so for the previous three or four.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: I would simply like to add to what my colleagues said about the importance of this study. I realize that numerous studies have already been done. I have discussed this with Senator Watt and I know that he wants this particular study to produce some tangible results. We are all agreed on this study's importance. My comments are directed primarily to your employees because they are the ones who draw up the budgets. I am looking at this strictly from a financial planning perspective. If I understand the application, the work would begin around July 1 or September 1. Is that correct?
[English]
Senator Watt, you are asking for approval for a budget for 1998-1999. We have already begun this year. When would the actual work of the committee begin? I am looking at it purely from a financial point of view. When would the actual work begin, what month of the year?
Senator Watt: The work has already started. As I mentioned earlier on, I was here in front of the committee some months ago, obtaining $32,000. We have spent that amount on two people. It is anticipated that the other people will begin in July.
Senator Poulin: July 1.
Senator Watt: Yes.
Senator Poulin: If we calculate July 1, that means that your budget for this year would be four nine months.
Senator Watt: Yes.
Senator Poulin: That means that you will be returning for a budget to finish the study for the following year. Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly. I see this as having been done on a 12 month basis financially. For example, when we make a budget for 210 working days, that is 210 working days out of 12 months, usually. That is the practice. On page 3 of your proposed budget I see at 1(a), 210 days, at 1(b), 210 days, then at 1(c), 60 days, then 10 days for 10 months. It is already nine months. It is then 200 days for the assistant. Could we simply review it to ensure that it is consistent? That might bring some substantial changes to certain amounts here.
I would like us to be above board when any person oversees this, but purely from a technical, financial point of view. I am not really addressing my question to you, but rather to your clerk.
Senator Watt: That is why I intend to have him answer you.
Mr. T<#00F5>nu Onu, Clerk of the Aboriginal Peoples Committee: The budget was drawn up some weeks ago with the idea that ten were months left in the fiscal year. Senator Watt mentioned we received an amount of $32,000 dollars, with which the two staff have prepared quite a detailed work plan. Those two people are still working for us. At least two people will definitely be working for longer than the nine months that are left. You are looking at the possibility that there will be only nine months left by the time we hire two more people -- but two people already have been working, are still working, and will be working.
The figure of 210 days is based on the fact that we still had ten months left in the fiscal year when the budget was prepared a few weeks ago. We took into account that we had received some money, so it was not based on a 12-month fiscal year, but on the 10 months left in the fiscal year.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: You are telling me that you prepared this several weeks ago, based on a period of ten months. Does this mean that there are really only nine months remaining?
Mr. Onu: Practically speaking, yes, since it is already the middle of June. We already have two aboriginal advisers on board and we would like to hire two more.
Senator Robichaud: Would it be possible to trim the budget for these two months?
Mr. Onu: Yes, I suppose so. A coordinator has already been hired, along with one aboriginal advisor. We plan to hire two more people. We can play somewhat with the figures because it will be difficult to hire someone before July 1.
Senator Robichaud: When you say that we can play with the figures, we would have to know exactly how much you require until year's end. I have no problem with that. I realize some colleagues feel that we must examine spending requests and not merely give them our blanket approval. We have already approved $455,000 this year for the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee. I heard that the committee has not yet completed its work and that a further request for funds could be forthcoming. I do not recall whether we scrutinized those budgets as carefully as we did the deficit or this particular budget. If the necessary adjustments can be made, then that would be fine with me.
Mr. Onu: This is the only place where we can make some adjustments. Other expenses will not change because they are for the entire year. You are correct in saying that we have nine months left to hire two persons and this is where we can make some adjustments.
[English]
Senator Nolin: $12,600.
Senator Di Nino: I do not think that is the issue, Mr. Chairman. It is nickels and dimes. I understand what they are trying to do here. We have to get our minds around two major things here, Mr. Chairman. One is that I think we all agree that this issue has to be put to bed in some way; that at some point in time we stop doing studies and we take some action. Two, I think we have to deal with the issue that Senator Taylor and I talked about. I am not sure that it is appropriate for us as a group to sit here and not have some responsibility on budgets on an annual basis. We could be $5 million over this year. I would not want to defend that in front of the public.
For a number of year, we have asked Canadians to tighten their belts, to not spend money. Without making any reference to this study or to any particular study, at some point in time this committee has to say we can only do so many things at one time. If an important situation arises, then I think we have to look at that as a one-off situation, have a good, strong debate on it, and find out whether we want to do it or not. Those are the two issues. An amount of $10,000 or $12,000 is not going to make much difference.
Senator Poulin: I have a question following up on Senator Di Nino's comments. There are issues that develop during a given financial year; sometimes a specific need is identified, and we do not have as much political freedom as we would like. This is a good example of that. Is there not a tradition, Mr. Chairman, that we go back for supplementaries according to the needs that we have identified as a group here?
Just for this item of the budget, Senator Di Nino, this is not what I would call part of our operational budget. I believe it is truly a different budget.
I am directing my question to Mr. Chairman and Mr. Bélisle.
Senator Di Nino: We knew about this months ago. This is not something new.
Senator Poulin: I know that. I am saying that there has been a tradition that we go for supplementaries. I am looking at the clerk here. What has been the tradition during the last years been for committee work?
Mr. Bélisle: When you have joint committees where potential costs can never be foreseen, such as the study on child custody, the practice is usually to go for supplementaries. If you have a major special study such as the one on the Pearson airport, the practice is also to go for supplementary.
The Chairman: Are you suggesting we should go for supplementary on this particular item?
Mr. Bélisle: Yes.
The Chairman: We will go for supplementaries as a general practice, but I thought the point that Senator Poulin was making was that on specific items you should go for supplementary.
Mr. Bélisle: Specific items such as an unforeseen study.
Senator Poulin: Yes. That is what I am saying. I was told by the clerk that this has been done over the years. Therefore, would it be appropriate that we go for supplementaries for such an important study?
The Chairman: Senator Nolin points out that the Order of Reference was December 9, which was after our budget was made.
Senator Di Nino: We actually knew about this several months before.
Senator Nolin: We did not know the volume.
Senator Di Nino: I do not think we can hide behind the fact that we did not know anything, because we certainly expected this to be coming forth. We should have been able to predict it in our budget discussions.
The Chairman: Do we roll this into supplementaries as a general amount, and go for supplementaries at some point, or do we go for supplementary on this particular study?
Senator Forrestall: Other work will come along, Mr. Chairman. For example, the Transport Safety Committee will want to finish its work. How do we know how much money we will have to ask for? Does the clerk keep track of these things? Do you, Mr. Chairman? I hate to ask for a supplementary now to accommodate very useful and necessary work, and have to do it again in September. We only have one supplementary. When does that go in?
Mr. Bélisle: If we go in for Supplementary Estimates B, we would have to go in the fall. If not, you would meet in January to apply for it, and you would receive the money in late March, which is almost too late.
Senator Forrestall: Can we finance from existing revenues until such time as there is another supplementary?
Mr. Bélisle: We would go in September. Even without this committee, we still have to go.
Senator Forrestall: You still have to go in any event. I am aware of that. Can we finance up until October?
Mr. Bélisle: Yes.
Senator LeBreton: I have been listening to the conversation around the table. This is a huge issue, and it is a very troubling one. We only had to watch question period yesterday on the situation in British Columbia. This is such a huge sum of money, and the Canadian public who watch all of this know that a huge sum of money was spent on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. There were some direct recommendations. Now we are asking the public to expend this money to report on a report and bring it to some conclusion.
Of course, with Senator Watt leading the initiative here, it falls to the Senate and they present this budget to the Senate and the Standing Committee on Internal Economy. This goes back to Senator Poulin's point and Senator Taylor's point. We are going to be facing this issue again, because this is not a complete budget. We do not really know what the amount is going to be.
Have you explored the possibility of someone else helping to share this expense, such as the House of Commons in a joint committee? We are talking basically about our whole committee budget in the Senate. It is a very confusing issue. Most Canadians do not understand it. It is so complex, and it has so many different facets around the country. I have a huge problem sitting trying to justify having this all land on the Senate.
I realize the importance of Senate committees. They do get some results. The bottom line is that these are taxpayers' dollars. We have a public out there wondering what guarantee they have that this will bring some conclusion. Will we have one report after another, after another? I am not at all comfortable with this.
The Chairman: Those are valid points. What is envisaged here is a follow-up on the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples; perhaps more of a dialogue.
Senator Taylor: In support of this concept, one thing we thought of in the committee is that the report has been done on one side -- the government side. We spent a lot of money, and we got the report. Now it is in the government's hands. It is in cabinet's hands.
This is a place where the Senate can do a lot of good. In effect, Senator Watt, the advisors, and the steering committee have modelled this to get the information that we want. We are only looking at the self-government sector.
The government needs to be prodded or pushed to get something done. Things such as sticking up for minorities are in the best tradition of the Senate. If you put that budget for Aboriginal Peoples into the budget with a Reform opposition and a cabinet that is not too interested in picking fights anyhow, you have yourself a recipe for doing nothing.
I am the first to complain about money, but there is another possibility we can look at. This type of study is not like planting a garden, where you might lose it if you do not get it in before the rain comes. It might be possible to work along for four months or five months at the rate we are going, and if the budget money is not there, suspend it into next year. In other words, it is not the type of study that you have to build one brick on top of the other. You can stop for a time, provided we do not stop for years or something like that. That might be one way of approving the budget but we have to come back for a second tranche -- do it in tranches -- to try to fit something in. We might have quite a time coming back and getting some more money. I think the study is necessary, because the government is going to need a little jab to get something done on this issue of aboriginal peoples. This might be an idea.
Senator Callbeck: Mr. Chairman, I agree that the work that this Committee on Aboriginal Peoples wants to do is important, and it is something that should be dealt with. As a new senator, I am having a problem with the process. I think it is important that we be fiscally responsible.
We put an amount of money for committees into the budget, and then budgets come in here piecemeal. Where does the amount that goes into the budget come from in the first place? Are committees asked to submit amounts? It does not seem to have any bearing on what we budget. We deal with budgets, as I say, on a piecemeal basis. Do we ever look at them all together? What is the process?
Mr. Bélisle: The process is held in the month of December when we look at the Main Estimates. Last year, the fiscal year 1997-98, we only had $400,000 for committees, but it was an election year.
Last year at the Estimates we recommended to this committee that this amount was not sufficient. At that time it was suggested we bring it to $770,000, knowing that it would not be enough, but in anticipation that there would be special studies, joint committees, and we would go for supplementaries.
Next year, or in December of this year, when we examine the Main Estimates, we will have to consider the amount that is necessary. In the past, we only spent 70 per cent of the amount that was budgeted. Let us say if you went for $500,000, only 70 per cent, on average, was spent of that requested amount.
Senator Callbeck: Of the $770,000 that was put in, was that broken down -- so much for Banking, Trade and Commerce, or what is proposed?
Mr. Bélisle: No, not in December. We never know.
Senator Callbeck: Where does this figure come from?
Mr. Bélisle: It comes from what was necessary in previous years. We have always operated at about $800,000. This year, we have gone over. We never know what to expect. If there is another major joint committee or whatnot, we never know what the amount will be, but it is done at the time of the Estimates.
Senator Callbeck: So we just put an amount in there and every committee comes in and asks for money.
Mr. Bélisle: Yes and no. In the past, Mr. O'Brien has had all of his committee officers talk to their chairs as to what the expectations will be in the forthcoming year. Those amounts are taken into consideration. Then the $700,000 has to be taken in relationship to other items in the budget. If we are increasing another aspect, we say keep it low and there might be a need for supplementaries.
The Chairman: There is a pattern here, senator, if you want to look at figures over the years. There is a pattern of what we have spent.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I do not wish to belabour the point, but as far as the Aboriginal Peoples Committee is concerned, we should not expect to achieve results in one fell swoop. This is a long-standing problem that several governments have tried to resolve. The going has not been easy. We cannot single anyone out for having failed to resolve the problem. To do so, we will have to proceed one step at a time. The committee has chosen to move toward some kind of resolution. We can expect to continue this work next year when other committees will be examining and reporting on other timely issues. I do not see this committee taking this approach.
[English]
The Chairman: Senators, I have heard essentially two things. I have heard concerns about the budgetary process and the need for some modification of that and responsibility for it. I have heard that. I think I have also heard a consensus for funding this committee. I know there are concerns. I know people are a little uneasy but, overall, I think there is a consensus that we should approve this. If you are agreeable, I shall call that consensus.
Senator Losier-Cool: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Senator Watt: Can you enlighten me? Are you saying go ahead?
The Chairman: Yes. Your budget has been approved. We have to report to the Senate, but we have given approval.
Senator Robichaud: There was a little adjustment to it according to the recommendations we made, the ten months versus nine months.
Senator Watt: That will be done.
The committee continued in camera.