Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 15 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 9, 1998
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 1:05 p.m.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, our first item on the agenda is to deal with committee budgets.
First, we are turning to agriculture and forestry, the boreal forest. Who will present the boreal forest budget?
Hon. Nicholas W. Taylor, Chairman, Subcommittee on Boreal Forest of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry: Honourable senators, I am chairman of that subcommittee. We are attaching to the budget of the agricultural committee to tour Europe, which you already have approved, a side trip at the end of that European tour.
By the way, as was mentioned earlier, one of the problems that we have with our agricultural subsidies in Europe is that we let the civil servants visit back and forth but there has not been much political contact.
We have almost finished the subcommittee's report on forestry. The subcommittee of five senators, probably less, would like to look at the Finnish and Swedish plantation systems. They have replaced their timber exports over the last 50 years because they have destroyed their forests now by growing the trees on land. This has a great deal of appeal to Canada because we are losing some of our forests, yet we wish to keep up our timber exports.
The Chairman: You cannot see the forest for the trees.
Senator Taylor: We try to keep focused on both. I was forced to laugh at that joke because you have not yet approved the budget.
Finland and Sweden are leaders in plantation forestry. We are hoping to preserve our forests by encouraging more plantation. Also, as you know, in agriculture, there is a surplus production for some of our marginal lands. We hope to get this back on track.
This is the easy and cheap way. We hoped to save taxpayers about $16,000 by adding this side trip on to the agricultural committee trip.
The Chairman: You had good press on the bovine growth hormone.
Senator LeBreton: Just so I am clear. The agriculture committee is travelling and then you are taking the opportunity while there as a subcommittee to do the other travelling.
Senator Taylor: It is just the subcommittee. The subcommittee is just finishing up. We will be filing a report in June. We have toured Canada, making nine stops here.
The members of the subcommittee of the agricultural committee thought that this would be a good chance to look at these two countries at reduced cost. The same people approved for the agricultural committee have been touring Europe. That is already set up and in motion. Being the chairman of this subcommittee, I thought this would be an excellent way to quite cheaply take a look at those two countries.
Senator DeWare: Agriculture brought in a budget for $230,000 or $250,000, and we asked them to cut it. They did so, to $158,000. Now we will add another $30,000. You are now almost back up to where you were before.
Senator Taylor: The original request never had the subcommittee of forestry in it at all.
Senator DeWare: I understand that. We are still talking about the agriculture committee. We did cut the first budget because we thought it was exorbitant. We thought you did not need to take that many people.
Senator Taylor: There are five senators on the committee.
Senator DeWare: Are you saying that all five will not be going to Europe?
Senator Taylor: I doubt it. This is a maximum budget.
Senator DeWare: You say that the five senators will be travelling from Rome.
Senator Nolin: Plus two staff.
Senator Taylor: We will be in Rome anyway.
Senator DeWare: All of the subcommittee members are in Rome. There are four on that subcommittee. Senator Gustafson is not on it, but he will be there.
Senator Taylor: Senator Gustafson is the chairman of the overall committee. We will all be in Rome. I still do not understand what the problem is.
Senator LeBreton: The agricultural industry in the country is in dire straits. I want to ensure that the agriculture committee has the support of the agriculture community.
Senator Taylor: That is a valid concern. However, as a Westerner, a farmer and as someone in the timber business, I have been absolutely amazed. The news is out now that we are doing the tour. The farm papers are all weeklies, not dailies, and I am surprised at the support. I thought there would be much more criticism. Even the Reformers are playing it quietly. The bureaucrats have not been able to solve this trade issue, perhaps the politicians will be able to.
The Chairman: The agricultural committee has served good national purposes as well as providing honour to the Senate.
Senator Kenny: I understand the committees over there. I understand that the add-on they want is for a smaller group and it is more economical to take the side trip if you are already over there.
I do not understand clearly, Mr. Chairman, what value this side trip adds. When you come back to Canada, what will you be able to tell Canadians?
Senator Taylor: We have found in our subcommittee committee on forestry that we are running out of naturally grown trees for fibre. In 1910, Sweden was in the same situation and they switched to a plantation form. We will be able to see the problems they had since converting to plantations. That would be one of the recommendations for the subcommittee travelling there.
Second, they have tax regimes and financial regimes that encourage farmers to raise trees that we would like to examine. The whole idea is that, in our final report, we will be able to say that we are not only telling you that we are running out of trees, but here is one of the solutions. In other words, we will pose plantations as a solution.
This is the only spot in the world where countries have gone out holus-bolus to raise trees. They are starting to do this in the southern United States, too, but these countries are the experts on it.
Senator DeWare: What about New Brunswick? The Irvings have been doing it successfully for 35 years.
Senator Taylor: I am glad you brought that up, because it was New Brunswick that gave us the idea. We were in New Brunswick.
Senator Nolin: Senator Taylor, you are telling us that we already have planting programs in Canada. Are you saying that you want to compare our programs provincially and federally with their programs?
Senator Taylor: No, you are misunderstanding. Reforestation is not plantation. They are two different things. A plantation is planting trees and growing trees on land that has nothing on it. Reforestation is replanting trees in the wild that you cut down. We have got that under control. The Swedes are taking lessons from us. We want to look at what they are doing in the economic, tax and other regimes, and the type of trees that farmers should plant on ground that has not grown trees for the last 100 years.
The Chairman: Senators, I see a consensus for approving this budget.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: There is a budget proposal from the subcommittee on transportation safety, a very timely issue in view of what has happened recently.
Senator Forrestall: Some of you may have been wondering what we have been doing. We have 94 pages of recommendations, with arguments and debate to back them up. A report will likely be filed with the clerk early in January.
We are now seeking to finish up work we started here in Canada. In particular, there is a type of wiring currently widely used in aircraft built until six or seven years ago. The bulk of our aircraft contain this kind of wiring. We have made arrangements for Boeing to do in-depth tests of this wire and to advise us on what they are using now to replace it.
We want as well to do some very serious work on Sea-doos and Ski-doos with Bombardier with respect to the safe operations of those vehicles.
We now have in place a communications consultant.
Senator DeWare: I see that that constitutes one-quarter of your budget and I should like you to explain that.
Senator Forrestall: It is $2,400.
Senator DeWare: It says $25,000.
Senator Forrestall: With all due respect, we have a principal writer and director of our research program. We as well have, on a per diem basis, a very senior air consultant.
The Chairman: That is all included in the $25,000?
Senator Forrestall: Yes, this is for salaries and per diems. Included in that is the $2,400 to $2,500 we will pay to Newman & Associates to advise us how to best deal with this written report.
The Chairman: There is a communications plan, is there?
Senator Nolin: It is in the original budget.
Senator Forrestall: We also want to go to Dorval airport to look at security there, for a variety of reasons. We want to talk to the people at Bombardier and Pratt & Whitney who designed and built and over the years have maintained the infamous engines that we are dealing with almost daily now. We are doing that notwithstanding the fact that this is primarily a military problem. The problems could happen at any time with this engine under any circumstances. It is incumbent upon us to take a very close look at that and to make some recommendations.
We still hope to be able to file our final report by the end of March next year.
Senator DeWare: When do you plan to travel? Also, I would like you to break down the $25,000.
Senator Forrestall: We had arranged our travel for this week. However, all members of the committee, with the exception of Senator Adams, the deputy chair, are no longer prepared to serve on the committee, for various reasons.
I am hopeful that by later today or tomorrow the whips will have provided us with two or three new names.
With regard to travel, we are planning to travel during the last week of January.
The $25,000 is to pay wages for two or three months to Mr. Bruce Carson, and reasonable expenses for Mr. Keith Miller. The balance is for Newman & Associates consultants.
From the very beginning, we have included a nominal amount for advice on our recommendation that we investigate highway accidents involving motor vehicles in excess of 4,500 kilograms. You will understand the need for a consultant when you think of the interprovincial difficulties that exist in this field. Notwithstanding that, we have made a very strong recommendation to the government on what it should do about it. We have some residual funds there.
Senator Maheu: I remember that you asked for more money in November, I believe. I asked at that time whether this was the bulk of your budget. I was given to believe that it was. I also asked whether you would be reporting by end of December.
Was the $25,000 for consultants not included in your original budget?
Senator Forrestall: That was for the first year's work.
Senator Maheu: Your mandate was to expire by the end of December. You were to have reported by then. It is now three months and $83,000 later. I simply wanted to raise that again.
Senator Forrestall: I can give you a partial explanation with respect to the delay, although I would rather give it to you privately than publicly.
We lost the services to the Senate of our principal writer and program director. He was doing other things for the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. No amount of complaining by me could change that. We are now back on track.
We will be working virtually all night tonight in the hopes of getting this ready, but it is more likely that it will be filed with the clerk after the Senate has adjourned for the Christmas recess.
Incidentally, it is a good report. It will be well received and well studied.
Senator Maheu: It will fulfill your mandate?
Senator Forrestall: It will be far from that, but it is a good start.
Senator Robichaud: You have budgeted for 10 participants. I understand that some of the regular members can no longer go. Will the number still be 10?
Senator Forrestall: It will if we get back up to speed, which I hope will happen today.
We did not have the numbers, but I hope to have them later this afternoon.
Senator Robichaud: I will ask you a question that was put to me when I first brought to the attention of the committee the plans for the Agriculture Committee. Do there need to be 10 people travelling with that committee?
Senator Forrestall: Yes, I think we need 10. That is a result of the way we divide our work. The question of zero tolerance for the abuse of drugs, alcohol and other stimulants covers all transportation sectors. We do not have a person narrowly interested in drugs in the aviation industry; rather, they are interested in the question of drugs across the board. Here they will be able to talk to the core disciplines. As well, we will visit with the unions and the railways. We will ask that the government now institute random, mandatory drug testing in Canada.
You have me talking about things I should not be talking about.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, do I see a consensus for the approval of this committee budget?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I would now invite Senator Kelly to the table.
Hon. William M. Kelly, Chairman, Special Senate Committee on Security and Intelligence: First, I should like to report that the committee report is finally completed. However, it is not ready for tabling, as it is in the hands of editors and translators.
This has been a very long journey. I recognize that the amount of money we are asking for represents a substantial increase over our original budget. However, I draw your attention to the fact that when we drafted our original budget, we anticipated being able to report by the end of June. We were not able to do that. We then aimed at September 30, and we were again not able to do it. I make no apologies for that. This study has been carried with great care. It involves a wide spectrum of activity when one considers the issues of security and public safety in this country.
One of the problems we created for ourselves -- and I fully admit this because I directed the study -- was that we aimed at full-day sessions. This meant that the 90-odd witnesses to testify before the committee were heard in a very concentrated period of time. I felt that was important because part of the strategy of studies of this sort is to measure the extent to which all members of this community or establishment coordinate together. If we had gone the other way and listened to CSIS one day, the CSE the following week and someone else the following week, it would have been difficult to relate them. We would have missed the opportunity to bring them together. For example, in one session we had CSIS, the CSE and the RCMP sitting together, hearing each other talk about what they do. In some cases it was a good opportunity to measure the extent to which they talk regularly. That is important; it is not frivolous.
Honourable senators, more time means more money. The $40,000 we are asking for is precise. I am confident of that because the report is done. Our representations on this matter in prior times have been when we are in transit. It is difficult, from time to time, to get a measure of the extent to which each member of the committee is prepared to sign on to the report. Now each member of the committee is prepared to sign on to the report, and it is a good one.
Senator Kenny: I have had the good fortune of serving with Senator Kelly twice on these committees. The work is good. I think that if he is this far into the study, we must see him the whole way through. Therefore, I believe the committee should approve his request.
I have a question for Senator Kelly. How will he deal with the important aspect of publicizing the committee's work, given the nature of the work he has been studying?
Senator Kelly: First, since we have moved closer and closer to our advertised deadline, I have been deluged -- as have other members of the committee, I am sure -- with requests. Today, for example, I was asked if tomorrow morning I would be willing to go on an hour-long CBC program. The National Post, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail and some of the western newspapers have expressed an interest. The interest in this whole process is very extravagant. In responding to opportunities like this, I believe we will get the kind of publicity and public information we want.
Second, transparency is very important, in our view. We want to move ahead in a modern way with what people have a right to know and what they do not need to know. It is a changing world, and the answer to that question is that we have to change with it.
It is interesting that on the Internet CSIS is now talking about things that they used to feel they should not discuss publicly. They are starting to do that. I believe that has been stimulated by questions we have been asking. I see that SIRC has recently done the same thing. That is a better way, given the nature of this subject, than planning a country-wide tour. We will be asked to represent ourselves and to discuss our report enough that we will not have to do much more than that, senator.
Senator Kenny: One of the problems is that a great deal of information has been collected that Canadians know nothing about. The people who do not like us know a whole lot about it. It is the proverbial story about how it used to be classified to tell how many bombers were flying over the North Pole. The Russians knew how many bombers were flying over, so that was not a problem. The only people who did not know were Canadians.
My concern is that to say we will just be responsive and sit back because we have had lots of requests to date is not enough. If you have as good a committee report as you have had in the past, I think you should have a communications program that takes you from St. John's to Victoria. The members of your committee should go right across the country talking about it. I do not think it is enough to say, "I will let them come to us." That goes back to the old school of handing the report to your clerk, who puts on sneakers and runs it over to the library.
Senator Kelly: Senator, you and I have been together long enough that you know I find it difficult to respond other than sounding impolite.
The media will try to stimulate interest or concern amongst the public. I am not saying that we exclusively stick with that. We will make up our minds on the next step once we see how that starts to play out. I do not disagree with you that it is necessarily enough. It may well not be, but I think we need to take a little time.
Senator Robichaud: Could you explain to me the figure of $31,500 for professional services?
Senator Kelly: That is where the high cost comes. The longer a study of this sort goes on, the more questions committee members ask. They also ask for more clarification and for more review of the evidence received two months ago. This entails the development of summaries of evidence to bring the memories of committee members back to where they might have been two or three months ago. That is a convoluted answer, but the more time it takes to get all the questions within the committee answered, the more it will cost.
Senator Robichaud: You are hiring outside help.
Senator Kelly: The person we hired worked for the previous two committees and has been working on my behalf for the past 14 years. He has a background not only on the subject, but in terms of where the key people are in the various security and intelligence-gathering communities and who are most suitable to testify before the committee. All of this takes time.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions?
Is this budget approved?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Stollery: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have my issue dealt with tomorrow, if possible.
The Chairman: It will be dealt with before we rise, senator.
The committee adjourned.