Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 10 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 18, 1998
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:00 a.m.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Before we begin, Senator Bryden has asked for the floor on an issue that he thinks should be addressed here. I agree with him, and I will give him a minute to make a short request to us.
I would remind you that we are not in camera.
Senator Bryden: That is fine. I have nothing to hide from the public of Canada.
I am sure all of you have thought of this, but I felt that this was the only place where I could raise this question. We have a new senator who is legally blind added to our ranks, and he needs help and assistance. I do not know this gentleman, although I have met him. I believe that we, as an institution, should extend every possible assistance and advantage to him to allow him to fully participate with us, to discharge his duties, and to make the contribution that he can make. I do not have any suggestions to offer at this time, but perhaps you could charge your staff or your subcommittee to do that.
One possible solution involves the vacant offices next to the Senate chamber. Senator Bonnell's office was vacant, and so was Senator Stanbury's office. Perhaps they have all been taken now.
We now have pages -- we did not have them until this year -- who come to every Senate committee for the purpose of serving coffee to those of us who are capable of serving ourselves coffee. One idea would be that, on a rotating basis, when we are in session, someone would be assigned to ensure that the senator is comfortable in our facility.
That is the only point I wanted to raise. I will leave it with you. It is a wonderful thing to have someone who is disadvantaged join our ranks. I think we should make it possible for him to participate as fully as you or I do.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I will ask the clerk to respond briefly.
Mr. Paul Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate, Clerk of the Committee: From the day that he was appointed and we were told that he was visually impaired, I called his residence to find out what his requirements were in terms of his swearing in. We had to start with something. We had everything in place for Braille, but he told us that he did not read Braille. He then wanted big letters. We tried but he said, "No. It will not work." He is always accompanied by his wife. We took every step. Finally, he said, "Paul, just read the text for the swearing in. Read everything to me." In the mean time, the constables and the pages have been warned, but we must do a lot more. That is being reviewed.
The new senator is hesitant to ask for too much. I have tried to speak with him. He wants to be treated like everyone else. I have called his wife, who is here in Ottawa, to arrange a meeting with her so that I can be informed about what, exactly, he will feel comfortable with, and how we can assist him.
We are looking at every possible initiative to help him. I think his wife will be able to help us more in that regard, because, as I said, he himself is hesitant to ask for too much.
Senator Bryden: I was intimidated when I first arrived here. Some of that intimidation stems from things that can, in fact, be done or explained. I will give you a ridiculous example.
Senator Moore is not on this committee. He was appointed two or three years ago. Do you know that he only found out that there is a liquor store on the Hill last month?
Besides the staff, some people -- and I will undertake to do this -- could try to help. There are helpful things that staff can do; there are other things that a person should know. You have to find out a little bit at a time.
I just wanted to make that point. I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to put this matter in your Bring Forward file. Before we come back in the fall, check with the clerk and the staff and ask what we have done to help this gentlemen without being intimidating or condescending.
The Chairman: We will take that as a representation, and ask the clerk to give us a report later detailing what he has been able to come up with.
Our first item on the agenda is approval of a budget for the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.
Senator Michael Kirby, Chairman, Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce: Mr. Chairman, you will recall that when we dealt with the committee's budget a while ago, I indicated that one item was not included in that budget. For your planning purposes, I warned you that the Senate might have to pay for either a joint committee or a separate set of hearings by the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce into the report of the task force on the future of the financial services sector, which will present its report in September. Included in that set of hearings, either through two committees or through a joint committee, would be the bank merger question, which appears to be getting a huge amount of press these days.
The government has not yet made an official decision as to whether there will be a joint committee or two separate committees, but I recently indicated to the chairman of this committee that there is a 98 per cent probability that there will be two separate committees. He suggested that it would be appropriate for me to come back to this committee on that assumption, and to present a work plan and a budget. With the task force report coming out in September, and with the government and the committee wanting to complete hearings and the analysis of that report by Christmas, we need to start planning our hearings before the Senate returns at the end of September. In the absence of a budget, that would be difficult.
The budget before you contemplates six weeks of hearings. The first week and the last week are in Ottawa, and are therefore not covered in the budget. The other four weeks would be hearings across the country. The rationale for going across the country is that very few industries clearly affect the lives of every Canadian as thoroughly as the financial services sector.
May I remind you that the task force report does not simply deal with the bank merger question. In fact, the bank merger question is not even in the task force's terms of reference. It will inevitably be touched upon, but the purpose of the task force is to look at what is happening to the insurance industry, the leasing industry, the banking industry, and the trust industry across the world. It will look at the implications of changes driven largely by technology and what Canada's new policy should be in relation to those industries.
Our experience with the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce is that it makes sense to hold hearings in Ottawa when our only witnesses are large national organizations. However, when we are holding hearings on issues that clearly affect either individual Canadians or small businesses, it is important to go out across the country simply because individuals, seniors' organizations and small businesses do not have the resources to come to Ottawa to attend hearings. When we studied the harmonized sales tax, that is why we went to the Atlantic provinces. When we studied the Canada Pension Plan, that is why we went to different parts of the country.
Clearly, there will be very strong views on a number of the issues upon which the task force touches. We think national hearings are important, and that justifies the budget.
The costing has been done by the staff. I believe the costing is consistent with what it has cost in the past when we have done a week or two weeks of hearings. This time we are talking about four weeks of hearings. We have to go to every province, and I do not think we can do a perfunctory job. We must give people the honest ability to be heard, and that is the rationale for the budget.
The Chairman: We have stated consistently that committees are the jewel of the Senate. This is where we do our best work, and I think this is one of our better committees. It has shown in the past that it has done a good job, and it has brought credit to the Senate. It has received a lot of attention for the work it has done.
I agree with the travel. It is very important to get out and allow as many people as possible to come before the committee.
Senator Nolin: Senator Kirby, I am looking at your budget, and I do not see any mention of the word "communication." Do you want to keep that as a big secret?
Senator Kirby: That is very good point. The reason there is no mention of that is twofold. First, I was so focused on putting together the travel portion of the budget that I did not focus on that issue. Second, when I was here last time, there was some discussion about whether committees would fund communications or whether a Senate officer would do so. It may well be that because we are on the road we should have a communications expert with us. You would have a better sense than I of what that would cost, but we would need some money to do that.
When we studied the HST, we had a communications expert with us. This is an oversight on my part, frankly.
Senator Nolin: Will you come back to the committee for that money? I am convinced that a communications expert should travel with this committee, and $5,000 is not enough.
Senator Kirby: I am happy to be guided by whatever amount you think is best. Frankly, I have not looked at this as a budgetary item. We will be on the road for four weeks.
Senator Kenny: I would say $20,000 is reasonable, to pay them and to cover their expenses, hotel and travel.
Senator Nolin: We will increase your budget.
Senator Kirby: Thank you.
Senator Robichaud: Last week, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Affairs came to this committee for extra funds, and we made a big fuss about that committee having gone over budget. I would not want them to bear the full brunt of our reflections on budgets.
Could there be a joint committee with the House of Commons?
Senator Kirby: I have to be careful with respect to how I answer this question. The fact is that no official decision has been made. A number of members of the House of Commons are very unhappy about the notion of having a joint committee with the Senate in general, and on this issue in particular. The government is receiving advice from industry groups and others that do not want a joint committee, and the House of Commons members do not want a joint committee. Frankly, most members of our committee do not want a joint committee. Therefore, I am absolutely convinced there will not be a joint committee. No official decision has been made, but I would be stunned if there were a joint committee.
The task force report will cover a lot of very difficult business issues, as opposed to just the political issue of the bank merger question. The industry groups, on the one hand, and the government, on the other hand, want an analysis from a parliamentary committee of the business issues; not merely on the high profile political issues. That is why we will end up with the two committees, not a joint committee.
Senator Callbeck: The budget outlines a cost for official reporters and contract reporters for public hearings, plus the transcript. What do the reporters do?
Senator Kirby: They write down the words and keep the record.
Senator Callbeck: Two reporters at $300 per day for 20 days of testimony, plus $1,000 per day for transcript.
Senator Kirby: The reporters are the people who sit in the committee room and write the proceedings. They produce the transcript after the fact, so to speak. The transcript must then be edited and printed. That is the difference between the reporter and the transcript production.
Senator Callbeck: Fine.
Senator Kenny: As a general observation, and to put it bluntly, the quality of the work is significantly better in the Senate. I am glad this is a public meeting, because I want to say this on the public record. I think we are severely disadvantaged when we have joint meetings. I felt that the defence committee would have done far better had we had a separate committee. The quality of work would have been much higher. I feel that joint committees always put the Senate at a distinct disadvantage, and that the quality of the work suffers.
The Chairman: There being no other questions, is the budget approved with the caveat that we add $25,000 for communications?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: That is agreed. Thank you, Senator Kirby.
We will now deal with the Joint Committee on Official Languages.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Senator Kenny would say, I am severely disadvantaged. I have to follow the banking committee and, what is more, I am here to request approval of budget funds for a joint committee.
The Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages is requesting funds to carry out a study on the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. According to the provision in question, the Government of Canada is committed to, and I quote:
-- enhancing the vitality of the -- linguistic minority communities --
-- primarily outside Quebec. There are nearly one million francophones living across Canada and thousands of anglophones living in Quebec.
-- and supporting and assisting their development; and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.
Part VII of the Act requires the government to do more than merely provide services. In order to draft a fair report on the status of these linguistic minority communities, the committee wishes travel to various regions of Canada to observe their situation and gauge their expectations and requirements in the area of official languages. The committee could then recommend, following these hearings, ways of better implementing Part VII of the Act.
The committee is proposing to travel in October, but is submitting its request for funds at this time in order to schedule its meetings. The House of Comments has approved only one part of the budget, specifically the portion covering the swing through Western Canada. We will be submitting another request in the fall. All committee members will not be able to make the trip, however. There are approximately 25 or 26 members on the committee and we must take into consideration the opposition. The committee has therefore agreed to designate nine members to take part in these travelling proceedings. This includes five Liberal members, one member from each opposition party, plus staff members, for a final total of 16 persons.
We wanted to visit a number of regions, but we had to limit ourselves. Therefore, we settled on those regions which have official languages offices. We are planning to travel to Atlantic Canada, to Western Canada, to Ontario and to Quebec.
What you have here is the Senate's portion of the budget, which represents 30 per cent of the overall budget.
[English]
The Chairman: I see no indication of a communications plan or a budget amount for communications.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: I mentioned several times to the clerk that you would likely ask me that question. The committee has not discussed the specifics of a communications plan. We really do want to emphasize communications when we visit the regions. Once we have decided how we are going to proceed, we will come back in the fall and discuss the details of the plan with you. I want to make that clear.
[English]
The Chairman: When we last discussed CPAC and the communications plan, it was emphasized that this committee should insist that every committee have a communications plan and a budget amount for that. We must start to do that.
Senator Losier-Cool: My plan is to submit a plan for communications when we resume sitting in the fall, after having discussed it with the committee.
I should also like to say that in the House of Commons travel has to be unanimously approved. Members of the Reform Party are not too keen on having this committee travel. They believe that it is a waste of money. We want to travel so that they will see the country.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Further to your comments, senator, I think that we need to take a firmer approach and not simply agree with you. I do not intend to approve this budget request. I would ask you to go back and do your homework with your House of Commons counterparts. I do not care whether Reform party members agree or not, but I have no intention of approving this budget until such time as the committee has adopted a responsible communications plan.
I want you to tell the House of Commons members on the committee that this is how the Senate operates now. A communications plan is needed. That is my position on the matter. It is nothing personal. This attitude is reactionary and contrary to our country's fundamental rights. I have no intention of approving this budget.
Senator Robichaud: I disagree with my colleague. By not approving the budget, we would be penalizing the senators on the committee for their counterpart's unwillingness to do their homework. To show them that we can get things done, we should approve the budget and ask Senator Losier-Cool to come back to us later with the details of the communications plan, and at the same time demand some input from the House of Commons. If we tell them to go back and do their homework, then we will have to start the approval process all over again, whereas if Senator Losier-Cool presents them with the approved communications budget, we can request comparable amounts from them. I do not think that we should hold senators responsible for the shortcomings of their counterparts in the House.
Senator Nolin: It was certainly not my intention to criticize Senator Losier-Cool. At some point, we are going to need to put our foot down, particularly where this committee is concerned. I think the House of Commons is guilty of acting in bad faith. If we are looked upon solely as a source of one-third of their budget, then I cannot go along with that. This has nothing to do with the quality of the work done by our colleagues on the committee, quite the contrary in fact. Their responsibilities are substantial and we must support their efforts.
Senator Robichaud: We have to give them the tools with which to do their work.
[English]
Senator Kenny: Mr. Chairman, I have put up with this for 14 years, and I am fed up with it. The budgets come down from the Commons. They give us a fixed budget, and they say, "Now you provide your one-third." There is never any discussion that is helpful to us. The proposal simply comes to us, and historically we have said, "Fine, we will provide our one-third."
I do not agree at all that we are penalizing the senators there. I think we are empowering them by having them go back and say, "Look, until we get some of the things we want to see happening on this committee, we will not fund it." I would be happy to fund the senators to go out individually or as a separate group. This is an important subject that is crucial to us and must be pursued. The very fact that the Reform Party is not anxious to go out and deal with official languages needs to be driven home to them in a very profound way. The way to do it is with the power of the budget. This is our tool and our weapon.
I think this committee would be well-advised to follow Senator Nolin's proposal. If, in fact, Senator Losier-Cool is not successful when she goes back, this committee should consider funding senators to travel and let them carry the message out to the population.
Senator Forrestall: I share Senator Kenny's point of view. I was shocked to hear the blatant statement that these Reformers do not want to travel, do not want to get out and discuss this, and believe that it is a waste of money.
If we want to do something that would shake the joint committee system up, we could withdraw publicly and say, "We will not be associated with the public comments of the Reform Party of Canada, and we take this matter seriously and will do it ourselves."
Senator DeWare: We may give our co-chairman another avenue. We may decide to give her an amount for communications and say, "We agree that you have overlooked this. We want to put this in," and therefore they must come up with their 70 per cent. It would give her something to go back and say, "Look, our committee feels we need another $6,000."
Senator Nolin: It is more than the amount. Owing to the discussion we had a week ago, and because of the attitude of some members on that committee from the other place, I think we need to see a plan. It is not only an amount. It is a plan. Without a plan, no money.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I do not totally agree with that. I do not believe that the budget is imposed on the committee by the House of Commons. Surely the matter was debated. We have to trust that senators here have made their position and their wishes known. If they felt it was necessary to plan their October trip in advance and to request budget funds before all of the plans were finalized, then perhaps we could wait a little. I concur with Senator DeWare that we should approve a certain amount, that senators on the committee can discuss the matter with their House counterparts and that a communications plan could be presented to us later. Otherwise, we could encounter some problems.
Senator Poulin: I can understand somewhat the position of certain colleagues who argue that this cannot go on. We must find a way to get a message across to our colleagues in the House of Commons. The Joint Chair of the Official Languages Committee must have the tools to negotiate rationally with a view to achieving the same objective, before we even get to this stage of the process. Instead, we should be thinking about ways of helping the Joint Chair this year. If our House counterparts do not want to play by rules which we deem important, she must be in a position to say to them that if the objective is not met, funds will be cut. We must trust that the Joint Chair and the senators on this committee will be able to agree on the best approach to take.
[English]
The Chairman: Could we agree on putting in our share of a communications plan, making it conditional on the House of Commons approving its share, and coming back to this committee with a communications plan? Is that a reasonable course of action?
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: When the budget was discussed, the members of the Official Languages Committee did not reject the idea of drafting a communications plan. Perhaps we did not make ourselves sufficiently clear. Our problem stems from the fact that Reform Party members want absolutely nothing to do with an Official Languages Committee. They are not interested in bilingual services. If that shocks you a little, I invite you to drop by the committee and listen to their comments week after week. It is always the same old thing. All the more reason for them to travel with the committee and see for themselves that there are francophones living everywhere in Canada, that there are anglophones in Quebec and that some minorities do not receive services in their own language. They are always singing the same tune and I think they should come and view the situation firsthand. Perhaps I could get a few committee members to see things differently.
[English]
The Chairman: Are all parties in the house represented on the committee? Are the Conservatives, the Liberals, and the NDP on the committee?
Senator Losier-Cool: Yes. That is why it is such a big committee. All parties must be represented.
The Chairman: Surely there must be people in those parties who do not feel the same way as Reform.
Senator Losier-Cool: I would say most of the other parties do not feel that way.
Senator Nolin: I would suggest that this committee empower a group of us to look at the plan that they come up with, because conditional approval of it is just like approving it. They will say, "Okay, we will give you the money."
The Chairman: The plan must come back here. We need to see the plan.
Senator Nolin: I am concerned with what Senator Robichaud has said, if they want to travel in October and we meet only at the end of the September.
The Chairman: Perhaps the committee would agree to having the steering committee approve the plan?
Senator Forrestall: Including withdrawal.
The Chairman: I understand the position of the committee, clearly.
Senator Nolin: It is more than communication. We have now a tool, a weapon, that we can use to show that there is a law in this land, and we must respect it.
[Translation]
We have no desire to let a political party that does not wish to comply with the legislation use this committee as a platform for its views.
Senator Losier-Cool: Absolutely not.
Senator Nolin: I think we have the tool and we must use it. If we grant you a conditional budget, my impression is that a communications plan will be hastily drawn up. However, we need more than that. You have to understand that the one million or so francophones outside Quebec are without direction. When a committee such as yours travels outside Ottawa and beyond Quebec, where most of the country's francophones reside, it is important for people to be able to follow your work and to stay informed. I have no intention of letting a group of reactionaries from the House of Commons use Senate funds to advance their own agenda.
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I think you are assuming that the committee will be conditionally approving these funds. I have not yet made up my mind. Some committee members have yet to express an opinion. Some have said that they are prepared to approve the budget so that the committee has the needed tools to do its job, provided a communications plan is submitted at a later date.
[English]
I do not want to put you in an awkward situation.
Senator Kenny: The disadvantage of senators on joint committees is that they are always out-voted two to one. There are always two on that side for every one on our side. I think the vice-chair is on the right track when he talks about using the power of the budget to control things. Having that power vested in a subcommittee so that we can look at it over the summer is a good idea. You should pursue that.
The committee should also be prepared to fund the senators on that committee to travel on their own if they find that the Reform Party blocks them. We should get out and do the job ourselves.
The Chairman: Would you be agreeable to approving the budget, but neither releasing the funds nor empowering the steering committee to release them until such time as they satisfied that there is an appropriate communications plan?
Senator Losier-Cool: Does that mean that we can start, and the staff people can start planning?
The Chairman: We will approve the budget, but the funds will only be released when we see an approved communications plan.
Senator Nolin: You can start planning.
Senator Losier-Cool: All right.
The Chairman: Is everyone comfortable with that?
Senator Robichaud: I am not comfortable with it, but I will go along with the majority.
The committee continued in camera.