Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 13 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 29, 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: This is a public meeting, and we will hear first from Senator Kelly. You will recall that we asked him to come back and visit us.
The Honourable William M. Kelly, Chairman, Special Senate Committee on Security and Intelligence: Mr. Chairman, I totally support the emphasis this committee is placing on the issue of public information and ensuring that people know what we are all about. My committee will most certainly follow through on that. However, I have not had the opportunity to discuss a detailed plan with the committee. I have a view of what we should do, but I made the mistake at the beginning of the existence of my committee of airing my views before asking the committee to give me theirs. I do not want to do that again. Therefore, I ask your indulgence to allow me to finish the report and then find the time to have the committee prepare what they believe would be an appropriate public information plan, and we will be doing that.
I do not know if that is good enough to get me off the hook, but I hope it is.
The Chairman: We will see.
Are there any questions of or comments to Senator Kelly?
Senator Di Nino: Has he had his budget approved yet?
The Chairman: As I recall, the budget was approved pending the submission of a communications plan.
Senator Di Nino: Then I guess you are off the hook, Senator Kelly.
Senator Kelly: I learned an expression the other day: When all is said and done, shut up; so I will shut up.
Senator Stollery: He is not off the hook because we are in the same situation as we were earlier. Senator Kelly is a friend of mine, and I do not say this in a critical way, but he is not off the hook in the sense that we still need a communications plan.
Senator Di Nino: He said he would bring one forward.
Senator Stollery: That is great. I just did not want him to leave with the impression that he is off the hook, because the condition still applies.
Senator Prud'homme: I had the honour of seconding Senator Kelly's proposal. Unfortunately, for many reasons, I could not attend his committee as much as I would have liked, even though I was not a member.
I am pleased with what I saw. I know that the committee's study is not finished, but my political nose tells me that if it is handled well it will be quite a show, especially at this time. Security is an issue of great interest and people will pay attention to this report. It could be the highlight of the season. Everything that can be done to give the maximum attention to the report should be done.
Senator Stollery: Absolutely. That is why we are waiting for Senator Kelly to present a communications plan. I am convinced that the committee's report will be an excellent. That is not the issue. The issue is that Senator Kelly must provide a communications plan, as do all committees, and I know that Senator Kelly will come up with a plan.
Senator Di Nino: I should like to congratulate Senator Kelly on his use of the phrase "public information." I think that is the appropriate term to use. We have used other terms to describe the need to communicate, and at times it has appeared to be self-serving. Senator Kelly's term refers to informing the public about the issues and what the Senate is doing about them. I think we should adopt that term. I find it much more meaningful than the phrase "communicating to the public."
The Chairman: There being no further comments, thank you very much, Senator Kelly. We look forward to seeing you again and discussing your communications plan with you.
We will now deal with the communications plan for the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
The Honourable Lowell Murray, Chairman, Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology: Mr. Chairman, when I was here on behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on October 1, you approved a budget for our study of social cohesion in the amount of $77,000 and change to the end of the current fiscal year, contingent upon my coming back with a communications plan for this study.
Since that time, following consultation with our policy and research advisors, the Canadian Policy Research Network, Judith Maxwell, and with others, I invited a firm called Delta Communications to prepare a proposal for us. I have had no personal experience with this firm, but they have worked with Judith Maxwell and CPRN on previous studies and reports that the Policy Research Network has done, and they were found to have been quite satisfactory.
I am also aware that they have done work for both the public and private sectors. In the public sector, they most recently handled the media relations for Mr. Axworthy and the land mines conference.
To round out my narrative of their experience, it appears from reading the documentation they provided to me that they also did some work on the GST under a previous government, so they are accustomed to major communications challenges, let us say.
The Chairman: If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.
Senator Murray: That is the line, Mr. Chairman.
I must tell you that I have had conversations with them and have consulted with members of the committee. As a matter of fact, they are at work now without a contract because the committee has held six meetings and heard from 10 witnesses.
They are in the process of developing a media kit as stage one -- a backgrounder on the committee's hearings into the concept of social cohesion and its relevance to Canadians. They are providing this rather substantive backgrounder to selected media people who would be interested in this kind of exercise. They will have a rather more succinct media backgrounder for the media at large.
During stage two, they propose to capture significant opportunities for media coverage, especially when we have high profile witnesses. Of course, stage three would be to handle the report we are mandated to bring in by the end of June.
For all this, they have presented to us and the Social Affairs Committee has approved and is submitting to you a budget in the amount of $22,500. I have told the firm that we in the Social Affairs Committee would approve an arrangement under which they would do stage one and part of stage two, and that the committee would have the right to revisit the situation in mid-December when we will take stock of where we have been and where we are going.
While I am asking you to approve a budget in the total amount of $22,500, my intention at the moment is to commit approximately half of that and then to revisit the situation in mid-December.
The Chairman: I know the committee has been on CPAC. I have seen at least one session myself.
Senator Murray: CPAC has been there most of the time.
Senator Stollery: I went over all this last night, and I think it is an excellent way to go about this. Senator Murray is to be congratulated. I do not understand all the details, as I am not a professional in this business, but I think this is a very good approach. I hope some of our other committee chairmen will take note. Obviously we will have to see how it goes, but I think it is an excellent job.
Senator DeWare: Senator Murray, on first reading this proposal I was concerned about phase two and the cost therein. I have heard your explanation and your indication that you would be monitoring that carefully, and I notice in the explanation here that the fees in this phase will be on a draw-down basis. It appears that as the service is rendered, the amount will be charged to the committee. I am pleased to hear you say you will monitor that because I feel that $22,500 is a little in excess of what the other committees are preparing. They prepare a proposal and just throw in an amount of $5,000, feeling that will cover their communication costs. You have had this done by a firm, and I respect that, but I am pleased to hear you say you will monitor that second stage. I was concerned about that.
Senator Taylor: It looks like a good idea, but I have a question. Is there any overlap or repetition? We have been voting, I believe, approximately $5,000 to all committees to help them with their PR. For instance, in the Agriculture Committee's study on rBST -- the drug fed to cows to get more milk -- the committee has its own consultant, the same person it hired for hearings on the Canadian Wheat Board when the committee travelled to Western Canada. He has done an outstanding job of getting us publicity in Western Canada. We were on TV and radio often. After this last hearing, I returned to Alberta and two or three people said, "I saw your committee work on rBST." It is going well.
Is there any way that will be precluded, or is there overlap? In other words, we have hired this person, and he is doing fine. Is there a chance of this one coming in and saying, "Move off to the side; we are looking after it"?
Senator Murray: On the contrary. A mandate such as the one the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has taken upon itself is of obvious interest to the population at large and is being treated that way by the mass media. As I was driving in this morning, there was a story on CBC radio about the alleged shredding of documents by the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs of the Department of Health, and Senator Spivak was commenting. This is a major story.
The special study that the Social Affairs Committee is doing is a matter of tremendous importance to the future of the country. We are talking about the impact of globalization and technology on social cohesion in the country. However, it is not the stuff of which headlines are made, as is the bovine growth hormone. It is not a matter of widespread public interest at the moment.
As you will see from the communications plan, our advisors and consultants are initially informing those people in the media, the pundits and commentators who take an interest in something that is rather substantive and long range. As time goes on, we will have more high-profile witnesses. For example, our next witness will be Ed Broadbent, who is well known around here. Given who he is, I expect a fair bit of media attention.
The short answer to the question is that we on the Social Affairs Committee and the members of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee are involved in two different kinds of exercise.
Senator Taylor: I was mistaken. I thought we were talking about something overall. You are talking only about your committee here.
Senator Murray: It is for my own committee and this particular study.
In addition to this particular study, we also have a mandate from the Senate to study the child support guidelines. We have already brought in an interim report, and we will possibly return to that in the fall. There is an intense interest in this area from a surprisingly large number of Canadians directly affected in their personal lives by these guidelines, so we should be considering what we do about communications next fall when we come back to this issue.
We also have, on motion of Senator Carstairs, Senator Di Nino's Bill S-10 on removing the GST from reading materials. That is coming back to us. When it was before us, CPAC gave us a great deal of coverage because we had some high profile witnesses such as Peter Gzowski and Roch Carrier. There will probably be some interest in that issue when we return to it, as I think we will be doing in a few weeks.
Senator Taylor: The only other point is that the budget seems a little high compared to both the Energy Committee and the Agriculture Committee. They have been getting by with lower budgets.
Senator Murray: I do not know what to say about that. In another life, I was chairman of the cabinet committee on communications when my party was in government. Frankly, I am not surprised by the amount of money this firm wants to do this fairly substantive piece of work.
I do not know what the Energy Committee wants or needs. I am sorry if you think this is excessive. I brought it in because I was instructed to do so by the committee on October 1.
Senator Taylor: You will look at it half-way through. That is all I have to say.
Senator Maheu: I want to congratulate the chairman of the Social Affairs Committee.
I assume this firm is fluently bilingual and can spread the report around Quebec and amongst francophone Canadians across the country.
Senator Murray: Absolutely.
Senator Maheu: That is important. I have been looking around and, consequently, I do not think $22,500 for a fluently bilingual firm on such an issue is that expensive.
Senator Murray: There is a Ms Penny and a Mr. Gauthier, both of whom are fluently bilingual. The exercise is done in both languages. We, the Senate, handle the translation and so forth, but that is another question. They operate completely in both languages.
Senator Poulin: Senator Murray, you are probably surprised at the amount of interest your presentation has created in this committee. I will build on what Senator Stollery said earlier. You said a key word, Senator Murray; you said "substantive" work.
Senator Taylor is asking how a firm can be used in communications. In my experience with the Senate subcommittee studying telecommunications and communications, we have given substantive work to the firm with which we are working. It is work over and above organization, coordination and the preparation of what I call technical tools for communications. This is part and parcel of the front end of the study, as Senator Murray is saying.
This is a different approach to communications than what we have done technically in the past, and it is so important.
I have to admit that I looked at this presentation last night and wondered which firm was doing this work for so little money.
Senator Murray: I should mention that in the previous life to which I referred, when I was head of the cabinet committee on communications, my senior public service advisor was none other than Senator Poulin.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, is it agreed that we approve Senator Murray's communications plan?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Senator Murray, the committee likes your communications plan. We know the importance of the work you are doing. Good luck.
Senator Murray: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: We will move in camera now with senators only.
The committee continued in camera, senators only.
The committee resumed in public.
The Chairman: The next item on our agenda is the Canada-China Friendship Association.
Mr. Gary O'Brien, Principal Clerk, Committees Branch: Honourable senators, a request came to establish this organization, the Canada-China Legislative Exchange. It seems to be headed by Senator Austin and Mr. Reg Alcock, who is from Manitoba.
An emergency meeting of the steering committee, composed of Senators Rompkey, Nolin and Poulin, was held on October 9 to approve this because arrangements have to be made for an event that will take place in Beijing in mid-November. The committee agreed to establish it and agreed to the name. It is not called a parliamentary association; it is called a legislative exchange.
The Chairman: The NDP do not want to call it a parliamentary association.
Mr. O'Brien: Our share of the cost of the association for this year, as is described in the report, is $27,500. We had anticipated that for our second round of Supplementary Estimates. This is just to ratify that decision, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Prud'homme: I created the Canada-China Group 10 years ago. The first chairman was Senator Molgat, and it was a friendship group. The Joint Interparliamentary Council approved its creation. It created two new ones in the spring, one that came out of nowhere, Canada-U.K., which is fully paid for, and the China group. A lot of explanations were given. There was a big debate in the House of Commons between the Speaker and Mr. Marchi. They fought each other. Then he and the whip of the Reform Party fought and Mr. Blaikie objected.
At the meeting of the Board of Internal Economy in June, Mr. Parent, who also fought with Mr. Marchi on this matter, approved the Canada-U.K. Group and said that the board would consider something for China. They have reconsidered and have now accepted the Canada-China Group. That is the background.
I suggest that they should do it. They had their election last night, and Senator Austin and Mr. Alcock were elected as co-chairs. I assure you that many senators will be part of the executive.
The Chairman: Is that agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator DeWare: My concern was that they were making plans for this particular organization to go to Beijing before the executive committee and the association were ever formed or approved.
Senator Prud'homme: It should be in the minutes.
Senator Di Nino: It is called arrogance.
The Chairman: As Senator Prud'homme said, this has gone on for a year because the House of Commons stalled. They had been putting their plans in motion, expecting that it would happen, and then a road block was thrown up by the NDP. That stalled the whole process. What we are really talking about now is overcoming that road block and the ability to go ahead. I think that is the problem.
Senator DeWare: I still think there is some hanky-panky going on.
Senator Prud'homme: The Senate approved it in June, but members of the Board of Internal Economy of the House, because of their quarrels, suspended it.
Senator Di Nino: We approved the subject.
Senator Prud'homme: No, we approved it completely.
Senator DeWare: Does this money cover the trip?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator DeWare: It is a 10-day trip.
Senator Di Nino: Is this all the money they have to spend?
The Chairman: This is simply the Senate portion of it.
I think this is an important association. The whole Pacific Rim area is something we should be concentrating on more. That outreach is important.
Senator Di Nino: We will debate that some other time, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Are we agreed, then?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator LeBreton: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a request, and I am told this is the proper procedure to follow
I am asking that Mothers Against Drunk Drivers be allowed to put boxes of red ribbons at the doors of the Senate as part of its Red Ribbon Campaign, along with a cash donation box. As you know, this organization encourages people to tie a red ribbon on to their car aerials, or put them on their briefcases or suitcases.
The program kicks off on November 2, but it is targeted to the Christmas and New Year season.
I was wanting to have approval for MADD ribbon boxes to be put at the Senate entrances, but if my request is approved, we will wait until after November 11 when the poppy campaign of the Royal Canadian Legion is over.
As you know, MADD is a volunteer organization with charitable status whose aim is to get drunk drivers off the roads.
The Chairman: Is that agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Di Nino: Is the House of Commons also doing it?
Senator LeBreton: I will approach the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons. If they do not agree, it will mean that the Senate is ahead of the House of Commons yet one more time.
Mr. Paul Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate, Clerk of the Committee: I have another short matter. With regard to Senate photocopiers, I am seeking approval of the Internal Economy Committee to enter into a five-year contract. Since the amount is over $100,000, I need the approval of the committee. It is for the purchase or lease of all Senate photocopiers as a result of a proposed tender process.
We have 70 photocopiers, and our lease is coming up for renewal. The cost is about $90,000 annually. However, this year it may come to over $100,000. Therefore, I need your authority to tender.
Senator Prud'homme: For whom are these photocopiers?
Mr. Bélisle: These are for senators' offices, administration offices -- the whole Senate.
Senator Di Nino: Some senators have photocopiers in their offices and some do not. I understand that those who have photocopiers in their offices pay for them through their own budget. Those who do not are not charged anything for using the copiers in the corridors.
Mr. Bélisle: That is correct.
The Chairman: Is that agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Senator Robichaud.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: The Chair of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee has asked me to make this presentation since the committee is currently looking into the use of the rBST growth hormone, a subject that is of considerable interest to the public at large.
The committee is requesting $221,0004 to undertake a fact-finding mission to Washington and then on to London, Brussels, Paris and Rome. The purpose of this mission would be to gather and examine information on the impact of agricultural subsidies. As you undoubtedly know, the agricultural industry, particularly in Canada, is going through some difficult times. The committee hopes that it can be of assistance to the agricultural community by gathering relevant information on the impact of the subsidies awarded.
We are requesting $221,000, $15,600 of which is earmarked for a communications program. You will note that the firm that has been retained, Newman Communications, is the same firm that did an excellent job for us when we travelled throughout Western Canada for hearings on Bill C-4. Its efforts earned us considerable praise during our trip. The mission was originally scheduled for late November, but I believe that it will now be postponed until the end of January.
You have been given additional information, among other things, details of the communications plan and the specifics of each budget item.
I ask you to approve our request so that the Agriculture and Forestry Committee can continue its good work.
[English]
Senator Taylor: I want to add a bit to that because I am a member of the Agriculture Committee. This is not the normal committee trip. I have only been a couple of years in the Senate, but many of our committee trips investigate how other people are handling issues, often just as information for the committee. This one arises from the fact that the income of agricultural farmers has dropped 40 per cent in the last while. There are emergency measures going forward in the U.S. and in Europe, and this is a case where the Senate can look proactive rather than merely analyzing a bill given to us by the House of Commons. For example, we are being proactive with the BST situation. That type of hearing gets good publicity for the Senate. By analyzing what is going on in Washington and Europe, we hope to be able to suggest a package -- I do not like the word "bailout"-- for our Canadian farmers because they are being hit very hard not only because world prices are dropping, but because their main competitors in the U.S. and Europe have a complicated form of subsidies to compete against them. Therefore, I think we must study those in order to come up with a recommendation, and this will be a case where the Senate will be taking the lead. The House of Commons is not because it is dominated, particularly in the area of agriculture, by the opposition party. The more we can do to come up with something, the Reformers will not be seen as posing solutions. I think the Senate can do something very positive in that respect.
Senator Di Nino: I just said to my friend Nick Taylor that he may not be happy with me, but I am looking at the reference of November 18, 1997. First, I question whether the reference included this type of study. Second, I am at a loss to understand why we want to spend a quarter of a million dollars to find out about the influence of subsidies on agriculture when I imagine that most of that information is available elsewhere. Third, I am also at a loss to understand spending a quarter of a million dollars to send 15 people to compile this information.
Those are the three questions. I do not know which one of you should like to answer them. First, I am not sure that the reference approved by the Senate envisioned this type of study. Second, can we not find this information elsewhere? Third, if we have to go, must we send 15 people?
Senator Robichaud: I think it meets with the study of the committee concerning the present state and future of agriculture in Canada. I do not think you can come to know of the present situation unless you really go deep into the matter.
As to subsidies, we are moving away from them while other countries are looking at them, which could result in quite a blow to agriculture in Canada.
We are not only going there to look just at what subsidies there are, but we are also meeting with different people in London. We will begin with embassy representatives and then meet with some of their agricultural experts. In Brussels we will be meeting with the European Community. In Paris we will meet with the federation of agriculture of that country and people who work in agriculture. In Rome we will be meeting with people from the FAO. Of course we could probably find some of this information on the Internet, but we also want to bring a message to those people directly involved in agriculture to make them understand how we function in Canada and how we view their use of subsidies.
The Chairman: We have all been in that same situation. When I chaired committees in the House of Commons, I would not say we travelled on a regular basis, but certainly on a review basis. In the Defence Committee, for example, we would visit European countries and exchange comparative views. I think it is important for parliamentarians to conduct that one-on-one consultation. It is important for our parliamentarians to sit down with the agriculture committee or armed forces committee of Hungary or Great Britain, for example, and exchanges those views. Only on a one-to-one basis is one able clarify these issues in one's mind. We can send a researcher, but we really cannot change our thinking as an individual or as a committee unless we have that encounter.
Other committees have engaged in similar activities. The Banking Committee, for example, on their study of the financial system in Canada, also went to Europe, so it is not without precedent.
Senator Di Nino: With all due respect, those answers should come from the people who are making the presentation.
Senator Taylor: The Chairman took the words out of our mouths. It is proactive. As I said, we are going not only to devise a package for recommendation, but we will be talking up and pressing Canada's point.
Senator Di Nino: Do we need 15 people?
Senator Taylor: The Agriculture and Forestry Committee is one of the largest in the Senate. Agriculture and forestry are two of our major industries. The Senate has chosen to put that many senators on the committee. If we have that many senators, what do we do? Are we to say that certain senators must stay home? We should take the whole committee, the membership of which the Senate has already made large, with the usual mix of Tories and Liberals.
Senator LeBreton: As a senator who was born and raised on a dairy farm in eastern Ontario, and fully understanding what the agricultural and dairy businesses and the whole farming community are up against, I have a huge problem contemplating sending 12 senators and three staffers at a cost of a quarter of million dollars to places like Paris, Brussels, London, Rome and Washington. These countries all have embassies in Canada. I am not saying at some point we should not travel, but it will not go over well with the farming community in Canada. First, our major competitor and the people sharing the same problems are our neighbours to the south. In New Zealand and Australia, there are large agricultural components.
I want a lot more information. I want the committee to justify why we need 12 senators and three staffers travelling to these places. I should like to stand this issue because I agree with my colleague Senator Di Nino that the mandate of the study is rather vague. I am not prepared at this point in time to vote on this matter. Without more background information on what the committee will be doing, I think we should stand this matter.
Senator DeWare: My concern is the number of people on the committee. Having 15 people sitting around the table discussing items makes for an almost unruly group. I would suggest, not just for the sake of cost because one cannot always put a cost on something -- for example, one cannot always say we should reduce the budget by $60,000 or $70,000 -- that the number should be six or eight at a maximum.
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, you already have some of the information before you. There is no rush on this matter, but we would appreciate a hearing as soon as possible.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: On listening closely to our colleagues, it is clear that this study is very important, but I too have some reservations. I would like to know exactly what the parameters are so that we know for certain that we are spending money on a study that is extremely important to all Canadians.
[English]
The Chairman: Is it agreed that we stand this matter?
Senator Prud'homme: On the same topic, I share the comments of my colleagues. All of my family is in the farming business, and I can imagine the feeling of the farming community knowing that a committee of 12 senators and three assistants went to Washington, Paris, Brussels and London. I am open to be convinced, but I can see the farmers objecting.
The Chairman: I think there is agreement to stand this matter and revisit it at a later date with more information.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: If there is no other business, the meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned.