Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 12 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 1, 1998
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:05 a.m.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Before we get into our agenda and because of time constraints, we will deal with committee budgets.
I welcome Senator Murray and ask senators to turn their attention to the budget for the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Senator Murray, please make your comments.
Senator Murray: Thank you for accommodating me at the beginning of your meeting today.
First, I say with some pride and satisfaction that the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has never been one of the big spenders among our standing committees. Over the last couple of years, while we had a small budget, the committee itself has spent zero dollars.
The Special Senate Committee on Post-secondary Education had a budget of its own. Some money has been spent also by the subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, but the committee itself has not been a big spender or indeed a spender at all.
I am before you this morning in respect of a budget for a special study which has been authorized by the Senate, the study on social cohesion. I spoke to the matter when the motion was passed in the Senate on June 18. Prior to that, I had consulted with members of the committee and other senators on both sides of the house. It is an extremely important subject.
In a nutshell, it concerns the social fall-out from globalization and technology, a matter which none of the industrialized countries have been able to address successfully. It is causing a great deal of concern among policy makers and decision makers everywhere.
Your staff was kind enough, quite a few months ago, to ask for a ballpark figure of what the committee might need for the rest of this fiscal year. After consultation, I sent in a figure of $70,000. You will note that the budget before you is in the amount of $68,700 and is for the rest of this fiscal year.
Out of our committee budget, we have already spent something in the neighbourhood of $10,000 to get some of the work done and prepared during the summer so that we could begin our hearings, as we intend to do, next week.
On the second page of the detailed explanation of cost elements, the major item is $59,000 for professional services. We have retained the Canadian Policy Research Network headed by Judith Maxwell, former chair of the Economic Council of Canada, whom I think you all know. This organization has done more work in the last four or five years on this subject than any research organization that I am aware of in the country. In addition to her own work, Dr. Maxwell has assigned two other researchers to this work.
On the other items, we have, in all prudence, suggested a figure of $1,200 against the possibility that we would have working lunches and dinners, as sometimes happens when we have to continue our meetings over the dinner hour.
We will have transportation and communications expenses. The travel expense item of $5,000 does not refer to anything specific that we have in mind. Against the possibility that we might want to send a member of the committee and/or staff to some conference on this subject, we have allowed $5,000 for that purpose.
The courier service for which we have put in a figure of $2,500 is not to cover courier services in Ottawa or, indeed, in the country. It is against the possibility that we would need to employ courier services internationally to get documents from the OECD or various other agencies or governments working in this area.
The usual $500 has been put in for contingencies.
For research materials, we have allowed another $500. Again, there may be documents and books on this particular area in respect for which we may have to pay.
The total amount to the end of this fiscal year is $68,700.
We have a reporting date of June. I should caution your committee that we would probably be back for some money -- not much, but some -- to cover us for the months of April, May, and part of June. We would do that at the appropriate time.
That is all I have to say for the moment, Mr. Chairman. Naturally, I will do my best to answer any questions that members of the committee may have.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Do you intend to go ahead and have the committee proceedings televised?
Senator Murray: Yes, of course. Given that this is a special study, I am required to ask the Senate's permission and I will do so.
Senator Nolin: You and your committee are to be commended for taking the initiative of having your proceedings televised. However, I note that unless the experts and professional services that you will be retaining with the funds allocated to you include media relations or communications services, I do not seen anything in your budget to cover this item, namely media relations and dealing with the press agencies that will be interested in the work of your committee. Was this merely an oversight or was this deliberate?
Senator Murray: Mr. Chairman, we are in the process of drawing up a communications plan with the help of the committees directorate staff now assigned to our committee. Mr. John Howard is handling this matter. A communications plan is in the works. We have also discussed communications with our consultants, with Dr. Maxwell and with others. They are quite capable of dealing with the press when it comes to certain well-known witnesses.
Of course, we plan to issue a press release when we launch our study and special communiques when we hear from prominent witnesses. Our proceedings will be televised. We are well aware of this fact.
Senator Nolin: You say that you are in the process of developing a communications plan with the help of the appropriate Senate services. Would it not have been advisable for your committee to request budget funds specifically for this purpose?
Senator Murray: So far, we have not felt the need to allocate substantial sums of money for this purpose.
[English]
Senator Kenny: My question is more to the chairman. Is it the intention of the chairman to ask for a communications plan before proceeding with a grant for funds? That certainly was a topic of discussion previously in this committee. Senator Murray would be the first person through that course. It may be something he is not expecting.
Is it the intention of the committee to look for a communications plan before providing full funding?
The Chairman: Let us hear from Senator Di Nino.
Senator Di Nino: Is this an open, public meeting?
The Chairman: Yes, it is.
Senator Di Nino: Thank you.
I congratulate Senator Murray on his presentation. Many requests come to us from different committees, and while they are usually doing extremely good and important work for the benefit of Canadians, they are generally not presented with as much detail and explanation. It is important that we place on the record the reasons why public expenditures are being made. Senator Murray gave us a clear picture of what his committee and, in particular, this reference is intended to produce for the benefit of Canadians.
For the record, there is an objective that this study is intended to achieve. Could you give me more clarification?
Senator Murray: I do not usually start something without having a fairly clear idea of what is going out at the end.
Senator Di Nino: That is exactly why I asked you.
Senator Murray: However, in this case, I am not sure whether this committee will be able to present in the traditional way a series of policy recommendations to Parliament and the government.
It is important that we who have some responsibility in the area of policy making and law making get a good grasp of the problem. The problem is that, while globalization and technology are generating enormous wealth, and while superficially things seem to be going very well, and while exports and profits are up and trade has been liberalized and all the rest of it, there is a social fallout that none of our countries have been able to address successfully.
Among the illustrations of that is what Judith Maxwell has called a polarization of jobs and incomes. We often think in this country about the employed and the unemployed. Some of the research has shown that among the employed there is a growing gap between those who have reasonably secure, reasonably well-paid jobs with reasonable benefits and, on the other hand, that growing number of people who are in part-time, contractual, temporary work at low wages with virtually no security and very few benefits.
The growth of this phenomenon is attributed in some measure to the forces of the "new economy," so-called, and the forces of globalization and technology.
The term "social cohesion" in oversimplified language, refers to our sense of all being in this together, in this country. We tend in this country, when we talk of cohesion and national unity, to think of the traditional fault lines of language, culture and region. What we are talking about here essentially is relatively new fault lines that are appearing under economic and social pressures in all of the countries where globalization and technology have held sway for the last few years. While enormous wealth has been generated there is more inequality than there ever was before, more poverty, more insecurity.
The study that we wish to do here will seek the views of researchers and academics, but it is important to bring in the players from corporate Canada and from the unions and, to some extent, from the voluntary sector and to ask the corporations, for example, what they mean by "good corporate citizenship."
We have always taken it for granted that a strong economy is the foundation of a good social condition in the country. Some researchers and experts are turning that slightly on its head and are taking the position that you need to have good social cohesion and a strong social fabric to your country as a precondition of having economic progress.
These are no longer just academic questions, these are questions that go to the heart and soul of what we are as a country and what we are trying to do. I am especially concerned. In recent years, most of the people around this table, and most of the people in public life in this country, have supported all the initiatives to liberalize trade -- open borders, deregulate, privatize, and so on. Most of us would not go back on that. We saw that as necessary at the time. Those of us who have been involved in that have some responsibility to address the fallout. Otherwise, the only critique that will come of the present situation is from those who wish to tear up trade treaties and print more money and isolate Canada from the world. We cannot have that. The mainstream of politics and public life in this country must come to grips with this problem.
Senator Di Nino: Senator Murray has certainly convinced me. He has done a good job at putting on the record what this study is all about.
I have one concern, however. That is, the time-frame and the amount of money that you are asking for may not be sufficient to carry out that task. It is an extremely difficult task, particularly when other responsibilities will interfere with the time commitment and the amount of money that you have to put into this endeavour. However, I wish you luck and I look forward to your report. If the study must be extended and further funds are needed, I would be prepared to listen to your recommendation.
The Chairman: It is important to underline two things. First, this is an important study. That makes it all the more reason to make sure that the Canadian public knows what we are doing.
The Internal Economy Committee has a policy about communications. We have set communications as a priority, particularly for committees. As a matter of fact, we have gone so far as to go for Supplementary Estimates to buy additional communications facilities, an additional Air-pack and an upgrading of the rooms to allow direct broadcasts, because we feel this is an important initiative for the Senate. Internal economy is committed to it and we are putting our money behind it.
We must continue to insist, as we have in the past, that each committee have a communications plan. It is a matter that we as a committee have decided we wish to monitor. We sent out a letter over one year ago to committee chairmen and there have been some meetings with clerks on this subject. About a week and a half ago I invited all committee chairmen to lunch, at which I discussed with them the funds that Internal Economy was pursuing and the policy that Internal Economy had adapted, including the intent to ask for and to monitor communications plans.
Having set that policy, we must follow through with it. Senator Nolin is right to point out that there is no tab here indicating a communications plan. If we are to accept this budget, perhaps we should ask the committee to come back to us. At the next meeting of Internal Economy, in three weeks time, we could review the committee's communications plan.
Senator Murray: I will undertake to provide the committee with a more detailed and more coherent written plan than what I have been able to explain to the committee this morning.
Senator Di Nino: Are we approving the budget?
The Chairman: Yes, contingent upon a communications plan being presented at the next meeting of Internal Economy. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Senator Murray, we wish you luck and we will be watching you with interest.
Senator Murray: Thank you.
The Chairman: There is one other committee issue that we must deal with, namely, Senator Kelly's Special Committee on Security and Intelligence. This is fairly straightforward. I have a letter from Senator Kelly on behalf of the special Senate committee requesting a transfer of funds between categories within their budget. The total amount of the requested transfer is $10,000 and it is from the transportation and communications category to the professional and other services category. The transfer of funds is possible because a scheduled trip to Washington, D.C. has been cancelled. The extra funds in the professional services category is needed to facilitate processing the wealth of information and testimony the committee has acquired.
My note to Mr. O'Brien was that we should approve this request, but will it diminish their communications capacity and effort? I do not know the answer to that question, so we will need some assurance.
Ms Nadine Huggins, Clerk of Special Senate Committee on Security and Intelligence: Senator Kelly is available if we wish to call him. I believe he is in his office. However, because the committee has, for the most part, undertaken all of its hearings in camera communications is not as much of an issue at this time. There is a great deal of interest in the report among the witnesses who appeared and the security community in Canada. We will have communications considerations at the time it is published.
Senator Nolin: You will need money for that, though. It does not come free.
Ms Huggins: I agree, but it is not the kind of report that will take the stage as would a social cohesion type of report. It is for a very select community and that community already has full interest in what the Senate committee is doing.
The Chairman: I appreciate what you say about the subject-matter. We have much confidence in Senator Kelly and his background and expertise. Nevertheless, we must be consistent. Although this is fairly routine and I have no objection to approving it, we probably should take the same stance; namely, request Senator Kelly to put before us that communications plan at the next meeting of Internal Economy.
Senator Kenny: This brings back memories of a committee we served on together, which was the joint committee on defence.
We ran into two problems there. First, the committee's mandate lapsed -- and I do not know the date when the mandate of this committee terminates.
Ms Huggins: November 30.
Senator Kenny: When our mandate terminated, we were defunct, with no budget and could not go out and promote the report.
Second, while Ms Huggins does say that this report has a specific audience, part of the challenge to the Senate is to find a way to communicate these issues to the broader public. It means devising a communications plan that takes a subject, even though it may seem esoteric to some, and getting it out to Canadians across the country. Otherwise, it does not make much sense in having the committee do the work in the first place.
We are not here to provide reports to the intelligence community or to small groups of Canadians. Our job is to provide an understanding to the broader public about what is going on in the intelligence community. If it is not cast in that light, then the Senate is not doing its job properly.
Ms Huggins: The report will be public and it will be vetted to ensure that it is accessible and interesting to the public. All security related matters that may put Canadian national security at risk will be removed. The appropriate authorities are being consulted on that aspect.
I take your point and I will relay that to Senator Kelly.
Senator Kenny: The issue is not accessibility. In the past, all of our reports have been accessible but, basically, they have made a short trip from this room or some other committee room to the Library of Parliament, and no one has intervened to see that they got out to the media.
Are the members of the committee planning to go from coast to coast talking about the report why they conducted their study -- why they spent public funds on it and why the study was worthwhile? If they are not prepared to do that, we should not have had the funds approved in the first place.
Senator Poulin: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. I am feeling ill at ease that our staff from the Committees Branch must answer questions by members of Internal Economy. Either the chairman or the deputy chairman of the committee should be here to discuss this matter.
Senator Kenny: I agree.
The Chairman: Can we adopt the same attitude to this request as we adopted with the last committee; that is, approve the transfer of funds conditionally on the basis that a report on communications will be presented at the next meeting of Internal Economy?
Senator Nolin: Agreed. As Senator Kenny explained, it is what needs to be done after the report is completed. That is very important.
Senator LeBreton: Mr. Chairman, I am on the Security and Intelligence Committee. We have spent a significant amount of time since last June, over the summer and into September meeting expert witnesses. Some of the testimony is very sensitive. The final report will have to be written with some care, as Ms Huggins has indicated.
I agree with Senator Poulin, that the chairman or deputy chairman appear before this committee at our next meeting.
There is a significant amount of media interest in the report. We have seen several newspaper articles on the whole issue of terrorism in Canada and on the fundraising side. There will be some interest.
I agree with Senator Kenny that it should be written with focus on the fact that it was the Senate that undertook this responsibility. Other than the Pearson airport inquiry, I have not sat on a committee that has had so much material to digest and get through. The witnesses were also very impressive.
The Chairman: I do not think we need to spend more time on this, if you all agree to that course of action. Let us approve the transfer conditional on Senator Kelly appearing at the next meeting of Internal Economy with a communications plan. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Thank you very much and thank you for being with us today.
The committee continued in camera.