Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 14 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 19, 1998
(14)
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 11:30 a.m.
Senator Pierre Claude Nolin (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
Senator Stollery: Before we begin, honourable senators, I have been handed a communications plan. I thought we had made a decision with respect to Senator Phillips' proposal. I thought we had decided that it was an issue that we should deal with amongst ourselves. Suddenly, I find that we are not dealing with it amongst ourselves.
The Deputy Chairman: Perhaps we should listen to the presentation of our colleague Senator Phillips. If we then need a discussion amongst ourselves on specific matters within his budget, we will do that in camera.
Hon. Orville H. Phillips, Chairman, The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology: Honourable senators, this matter relates to a continuation of our study on veterans' health care. Two senators and the committee's researcher plan to visit health care centres in Winnipeg, Calgary, Victoria and Vancouver. We have prepared a list of points to be checked at each of the institutions we visit. This is drawn from our interim report. The researcher is putting these points on a laptop computer, and as we bring them up, he will check them off. We have also had a request from London, Ontario, to visit the Parkwood health care facility.
After the Senate adjourns for the Christmas recess, the entire committee plans to travel to Charlottetown. This has become an annual affair where we meet with officials and discuss various problems. We want to do that before the omnibus bill on veterans affairs is introduced.
We have invited the Legion on the tour and during the meeting with the veterans group. They visit them every week, and we have invited them to join us on that portion of our visit.
You have received the communication plan. If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them.
The Deputy Chairman: If we have any questions on your communications plan, Senator Phillips, we will have a discussion amongst ourselves and then deal directly with you and your clerk.
Senator Phillips: I should point out that we expect to leave on Monday, November 23. We are being accompanied by representatives from Veterans Affairs Canada on all our visits.
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, do we agree on the budget requested by Senator Phillips?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: I will now ask Senator Hays and Senator Gustafson to join us at the table.
Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson, Chairman, Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry: Honourable senators, I should like to talk a bit about the work of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. We have been receiving a lot of coverage recently. That is because we have a very good Senate committee. I think it is the best committee on the Hill. Senators Hays, Whelan, Taylor and Fernand Robichaud have been very active on the committee. The committee members have done a good job for the Senate in putting forth the view that we can be independent and less political. We can help the government meet some of its needs.
Our proposed trip to Europe is one of the most important things we can do to help Canada at this point in time. Wheat growers from Manitoba and the Prairies have pointed out that European Common Market subsidies are equal to $175 an acre on wheat. That is getting close to the price of land in Saskatchewan. The problem is formidable. Something must be done to deal with this issue of subsidies.
The Americans subsidize farmers to the tune of 25 per cent. North Dakota just received a cheque for approximately $700 million, which has one-third the farmers Saskatchewan does. Consequently, this issue of subsidies is most important.
We pared down that budget by not going to Washington. We will take fewer people with us. Our clerks have now come up with a budget of $158,100. We are trying to be as frugal as we can.
Senator Hays: Senator Whelan, the committee's deputy chairman, would be here this morning, but he is currently presiding over a meeting. As a result, I am sitting in for him.
I am told by our clerk that the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is the third most active committee in the Senate. Some of our recent work was on Bill C-4, where we travelled to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. We heard from 150 producers and 30 farm organizations.
Recently, we have had some rather remarkable hearings into the use of the growth hormone rBST for enhancing dairy production, a subject which I was not too enthused about at the beginning. However, I have been seeing it on the front pages of the paper day after day, particularly with regard to highlighting problems in the health protection branch. The committee will be producing a useful report on this issue in the near future.
In 1994, we entered into a multilateral trade agreement called the Uruguay Round, a result of the last GATT round, now the WTO. It has been a striking failure in terms of what we expected. European production of wheat is up 15 per cent over a five-year average. Obviously the agreement from their point of view has not changed anything. Wheat production in Canada for this same period is down 10 per cent. As one of our colleagues says, we are looking like Boy Scouts.
We are about to enter into a second round. It is very useful for parliamentarians to be as well informed as they possibly can on the dynamics of the European subsidy situation.
Obviously, their negotiators protected their right to subsidize their producers, which means they are producing more. They have been able to continue to subsidize exports, whereas we have moved rapidly in the other direction. We see this as aggravating a difficult situation that we read about on a daily basis in the farm sector.
I will stop at that.
Senator DeWare: Can you tell me when this trip will take place?
Senator Gustafson: I understand we would begin January 23 to February 5.
Senator DeWare: What happens if the house prorogues? Do you have to come home?
Senator Gustafson: We will know that before we go.
Senator DeWare: We do not know. I thought it may be later. I wanted to caution you about that possibility.
I have an estimated time here that says September to March 31, 1998. Should that read 1999?
Senator Gustafson: That is probably an error.
Senator DeWare: This is dealing with the communication plan. It is an item that I thought you should look at.
Senator Gustafson: From where are you reading?
Senator DeWare: In the estimated activity and costs section at the top of one of the pages, it says "time frame" and gives total cost for the communication plan. It says, "March, 1998."
Senator Di Nino: Was this presented today or was it from last week's presentation?
Senator DeWare: No, it was handed out today.
Senator Di Nino: Can you give us a page number?
Senator DeWare: There is no page number.
Mr. Blair Armitage, Clerk of the committee: That was a proposal from the media consultant. I did not notice his typographical error.
Senator Di Nino: My first question deals with the mandate given by the Senate to the committee. There has been a question about whether this particular request would fit within the mandate that was given, including the reporting date.
Could you enlighten us on that?
Senator Gustafson: We are studying the state of agriculture in Canada, and the whole area of subsidies is critical to that. It is the whole problem. Countries like France are now exporting 21 million tonnes. The Wheat Board told us, just before the committee began, that while last year we exported 23 million tonnes, this year we will only be exporting 10 million tonnes. If this continues for another two or three years, the whole grain industry in Canada will collapse. If the industry faces another cut of, say, 5 million tonnes, then the outcome is obvious.
Mr. Armitage: The senator has a notice of motion to present to the Senate this afternoon asking for an extension of the reporting date.
Senator Di Nino: So there will be a request to extend the reporting date to sometime in the future?
Senator Hays: Yes. It will be up to the Senate to decide, first, whether the committee can extend its reporting date and, second, whether it can travel.
Senator Di Nino: I understand that.
Senator Gustafson: Much of the grain industry that is represented is, of course, located in Western Canada. The Reform approach has not been too helpful to the government, in my opinion. Without a lot of explanation, I think the Senate committee can be helpful in solving this problem that the industry is facing, a job that is not being done by the Official Opposition at this point in time.
I really do not want to go any further than that.
Senator Di Nino: I do not think anyone here would disagree with either your objective or what you have said.
However, in my mind the question is: What are you hoping to accomplish by undertaking this particular expenditure of funds for this particular initiative? What is it that you can come back with that will help the farmers of Canada?
Senator Gustafson: I will ask Senator Hays to comment on that.
Senator Hays: I think the value for money for Canadian taxpayers will come from having knowledgeable parliamentarians, as the government designs a program to deliver aid to deal with stress in the farm sector at the present time, and as it also goes into the new negotiations of the WTO, the first items of which are agriculture and services. It will be helpful to have parliamentarians who have had an opportunity to have first-hand discussions to determine, from the meetings that we wish to participate in in Europe, why we did not achieve the result that we thought we would in 1994. I use, again, the example of increased production of a commodity such as wheat, an increase of 15 per cent in Europe and a decline of 10 per cent in Canada. We know that we have a comparative advantage in producing that commodity, so how and why did that imbalance happen?
We want to be able to hold the government and its negotiators to account for the way in which they proceed in the new negotiations. We want to know if they are taking this into consideration. We want to be able to sit in a committee meeting and ask questions of our WTO negotiators or ministers or our bureaucrats or those who wish to come before the committee, and if we are not fully informed we will not be as effective.
I answer your question by saying that the value for money for Canadian taxpayers is in having informed parliamentarians who know when they are not hearing the right things from those who are responsible for the negotiations, whether they be members of the government or separate negotiators, and who understand the parameters of what we can do in these negotiations.
The Uruguay Round was the first time that agriculture was included in a GATT agreement. We now go into the second round with the experience of the first round. The second round will probably take several years to complete, but this is new and it has not been a good experience for Canada, although there have been some good aspects in terms of opening markets. However, in terms of the impacts on producers, it has not been good, as we speak. Understanding why that has happened is an important component in holding the government to account in terms of the next negotiations, to ensure that we get a better result. The more we know, the better job we will be able to do.
Senator Gustafson: There are two other things I should like to mention. First, as we go into a global economy, as an agricultural exporting country -- especially with regard to grain seeds and oil -- the outcome of theses negotiations will be very important to Canada and to what will happen in the future. More important is the timing, as they go into another series of discussions internationally about this whole issue. Canada has been pure on this. We have probably followed the rules too closely, as did Australia. We cannot say that about the Americans, and we certainly cannot say that about the European countries.
Someone must point that out, probably more than once before the message will hit home. This Senate committee can do that very well because there are experienced senators on the committee.
Senator Stollery: I read the application. Coming from downtown Toronto, even I am aware of the fact that there is a crisis in agriculture, a very serious crisis for this country. It is important that the Agriculture committee go to Europe.
I am a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, and we are aware of the subsidy issue in Europe, which will make it difficult to expand the European Community. They cannot afford the subsidies they will have to pay to the Poles and to other countries in Central Europe. This is a crisis, and it is important for the committee to do its job.
The per diems are extremely low. Members of the committee will have a great deal of difficulty getting dinner for $50 in Paris. I wish them luck.
Internal Economy will have to revisit the issue of budgets for these trips. We have senators coming back with less money than they had when they left.
These are reasonable amounts for per diems. I actually think they are too reasonable. This committee should approve the budget and let the Agriculture Committee get on with its work.
I so move.
The Deputy Chairman: If there are no more questions, we have a motion to approve this budget. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Carried.
Senator Forrestall: Now that the budget has been approved, is $15,600 a reasonable amount to pay for a consultant's fee? It seemed reasonable to me. We were discussing earlier this morning how much money should be allotted to the Transportation and Communications committee. We were trying to sort that out.
The Deputy Chairman: What item in the budget are you talking about?
Senator Hays: It is on page 4.
Senator Forrestall: Yes, the proposal for a new communications plan seemed reasonable.
The Deputy Chairman: It is reasonable.
I would now ask Senator Kelly to come to the table.
Hon. William M. Kelly, Chairman, Special Senate Committee on Security and Intelligence: Honourable senators, I think you have a copy of our request before you. This is our best estimate of what it will take to finish the job we started.
I admit that we will be spending more on the study than we originally thought. We had not anticipated the amount of work that was necessary to get the job done. We have asked committee members to deal with over 1,000 pages of transcript. Add to that probably 500 pages to 700 pages of material presented by the witnesses who appeared before us. We examined 91 witnesses. We were pleased with the response we received and the frankness with which the witnesses responded to questions.
We carried out all of our hearings in camera. Obviously that excited some criticism, and understandably so. However, the payoff was that we received information we would not have received had the examination and study of this issue been carried out in a public forum. Notwithstanding that, our report will be public.
Some question was raised during my earlier visit with this committee on the question of a public information plan. I should like to report that we are committed to a public information plan. I do not think we will have any choice about it in any event. Considerable interest has been exhibited by members of the media, who want to have a lot more information and are looking forward to receiving the report. Even if we did not want a public information program -- which we do -- we would have no choice but to carry that out.
I should like to point out a basic difference between this study and a normal report from a standing committee of the Senate. I applaud the commitment of this committee in insisting that a great effort be made to inform the public of the work being carried on by the Senate these days. That is very important. However, when we are talking about public safety, terrorism and terrorism planning, in my opinion our first and foremost market is the government itself and parliamentarians in carrying out their responsibilities.
We are attempting to examine the extent to which we are prepared to deal with incidents that may occur and, in retrospect, incidents that have occurred. I do not think we should try to scare the public to the extent that they applaud the fact that we are discovering these various threats because there is nothing to be afraid of at this point. In other words, we must be careful how we carry out a public information project, but we are committed to doing it. We will know better how we need to do it once we table our report and respond to the questions of the media. However, I would hope you accept that distinction between this sort of study and studies that are normally carried on by standing committees.
I hope our report will be in its final form by the date we mentioned, namely, November 30. The problem is that we will be asking for an extension to December 17 to allow for translation. The deadline we set for ourselves on November 30 will be met, but the tabling of the report will take a little more time.
Senator Di Nino: You made it quite clear that this is not a normal study that should be dispersed in the manner normally associated with a communication plan for a Senate committee. You have made clear the sensitivity of the issue as well.
Perhaps you could give us a commitment that you would cooperate in conjunction with our Communications Branch in any communication plan you wish to undertake, outside of distribution to government sources which would be provided.
Senator Kelly: I am not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if we would make use of the branch or individual this committee has put in place to guide these things?
Senator Di Nino: We have a Communications Branch, and it might be helpful in the distribution or dissemination of this information.
I hope that you will make use of that facility, notwithstanding the fact that we agree with you as to the sensitivity and the different nature of the report that you are preparing.
Senator Kelly: I will give you that commitment, but I will leave this caveat with you: We will be very anxious that we control what is finally decided. In other words, I do not believe in this instance we would want to simply give carte blanche to a public relations person, however able, to go ahead and do his or her own thing, because that could be a problem.
Senator Di Nino: That is fair.
Senator Joyal: I have not seen the report but I know the amount of work that the committee members have been doing. Although I have not seen the report yet, I wish to commend the committee members for their assiduousness and the number of sittings.
On the budget that you request from us, professional services are mentioned. Could you qualify the kind of professional services you are looking for?
Senator Kelly: Yes. Visualize 90 or 91 witnesses from various sectors of a very broad spectrum of the security and public safety establishment in this country. Senators have to digest what they heard and read what was presented at the hearings. As the picture develops, you will see overlaps and cross-connections amongst the various members of the establishment. They will have to go back to the transcript to seek assurance that a position we are taking is in fact reflected in evidence. Moving back and forth like that has taken a lot more time of the research staff than we expected. That is where the cost has come.
It would have been much less expensive if senators had been able to find the time to leaf through all that material. Once again, however, as part of the security we set in place, only one record kept, and it was kept in one location. We did not distribute the transcripts to members of the committee. The transcript was available to each member but the member had to go to the location and do the homework there. You may say that was excess of caution, but that is the way it was. The simple explanation is that it has taken a lot more staff work to make it possible for senators to feel comfortable with the conclusions that will be reflected in the report.
Senator Joyal: Essentially, it is the research staff that has been working the extra hours. It is not, for example, an expert on ballistics or terrorism?
Senator Kelly: No, not at all. It is a question of drafting and circulation and re-circulation. Each senator in a committee like this did not come up to speed at the same time. If you have had a lot of experience on this issue, you can arrive at some conclusions in a certain time-frame. As you go along and think you are closer and closer to a conclusion, another senator will suddenly say, "I am getting a grasp on this thing. I now want to challenge certain of the positions you feel you have reached." I am not being critical but that is the reality of how it has worked. I am pleased to say that, at the end of this exercise, all the senators who sat on the committee are now up to speed, and I think it will reflect in the report itself as well as our defence of it once the report is distributed outside.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: The $30,000 being requested, is this over and above the original amount requested? If so, what was that original amount?
[English]
Senator Kelly: The original amount we asked for was about $85,000 or $90,000, and then we got a $10,000 conditional grant. This is in addition to that. The total amount will be about $135,000.
Senator Robichaud: Taking into account this $30,000?
Senator Kelly: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: Thank you.
The Deputy Chairman: Do we agree on that supplementary budget?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Carried.
Looking at my watch, I suggest that we postpone the rest of the agenda.
I have one item that we must deal with, however. Senator Ruck has asked to be part of the subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. Some specific arrangements will be required for that, and I am recommending to you that we agree that those costs be supported by the administration.
Dr. Gary O'Brien, Principal Clerk, Committees Branch: For example, honourable senators, the committee plans to meet in Charlottetown. He would come over from Halifax but he needs physical assistance to do that because of his handicap. It involves special attention.
The Deputy Chairman: Those costs were not included in the budget.
Senator Di Nino: Could we have a ballpark figure? For the purposes of this meeting, I think it is an appropriate request and I am not opposed to it, but we should have an idea what we are talking about.
Mr. O'Brien: About $2,000.
The Deputy Chairman: It is not included in the actual budget we agreed on this morning, so it will come out of the administration budget.
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: We will postpone the balance of our agenda to our next meeting.
The committee adjourned.