---

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration

Issue 2 - Evidence, March 15, 2001

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, March 15, 2001

The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:00 a.m.

Senator Richard H. Kroft (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Before we move to the agenda, I should like to take the opportunity to make a few remarks of my own, since this is the first time that we have had a chance to meet in a substantial way. My remarks will address both the task and the opportunity we have as a committee.

Many of you, if not most of you, are far more experienced in the Senate than I am. I look forward to benefiting from that experience and will always welcome your advice. I do have the advantage of having served on this committee previously, and of having chaired the budget subcommittee for the past period. That served as a real crash course, and I believe it substantially accelerated my learning curve.

We have all the tools at hand to do a great job. Committee members are experienced in the Senate and in prior lives. Our bureaucracy is outstanding and has the potential to help us accomplish whatever we reasonably decide to do. Our financial resources, while never enough, are adequate to support intelligent, creative and ambitious goals.

On the subject of finance, I want only to reiterate what I have previously said to this committee as budget chair. I do not believe our task is to see how little we can spend. On the contrary, it is to spend whatever we have at our disposal in a productive and effective way. I will always support ideas that will make for a better Senate, even if it means pressing the system hard for more resources.

On the other hand, you will find I have little tolerance for spending that is ill-considered, careless, self-indulgent or leading to conduct or practices that we would not be prepared to have fully and fairly described on the front pages of our newspapers. I believe that, working together, we can do a real service for the people of Canada, manage an institution of which we can all be proud, and in the end leave the Senate a better place than we found it.

I have some thoughts on structure and operation of the committee that I would now like to put forward for your consideration. I have looked at previous practice in the committee as to the use of a steering committee and have found that there is a mixed set of precedents, with success attached to various methods of operation. I propose to operate this committee without a steering committee. I have, of course, discussed this fully with Senator DeWare. Let me share with you my reasons for that decision.

The principal reason for most steering committees in our Senate system is, as far as I can determine, to deal with matters relating to agenda, including deciding what the order of studying bills will be, what special studies will be undertaken, what witnesses will be heard and when, et cetera. I am sure there are other obvious duties that I have missed. When considering this particular committee, it seems to me the situation is somewhat different. Our task is to assure that the Senate is managed in an efficient, productive and creative way. To a considerable extent, agenda items will be imposed on our agenda by the force of events. Committees need budgets, as does the Senate, and there is a budget cycle, plus emergency situations. The bureaucracy will bring matters forward as required, for example, for issues concerning security, facilities, planning, et cetera. These will find their way on to the agenda when the attention of this committee is required.

There will be other matters for the agenda, matters that will deal with things that we should or could be doing. There will be new ideas and we will revisit and question old practices. For these, I would like to work with the committee as a whole, as much as possible. While we are a relatively large committee, we are still of a size where I believe we can usefully consider agenda items together. Where there are particular initiatives or problems that require special attention, ad hoc committees can be established for that purpose. I hope to engage this entire committee in the task of making this a better and more credible institution.

Beyond the addition of agenda, there are particular, ongoing responsibilities of the Internal Economy Committee that require management. To deal with these, we should continue to operate the three subcommittees we have had in the immediately preceding years. Again, this has not always been the practice, but from my experience on this committee over the past several years, including serving as a subcommittee chair, I think it serves the Senate well. The existence of subcommittees does much to reduce the need for a steering committee. The chair and deputy chair can meet on a regular basis with the chairs of subcommittees or their full subcommittees to deal in-depth with matters needing immediate attention. The subcommittee chairs will have the primary responsibility for the matters following within their mandated areas.

My real hope is to use the entire committee as much as possible to discuss matters where everyone, together, can bring their ideas and scrutiny to the table. To remind you, the three subcommittees that have been operating most recently are Finance and Budget, Senators' Accommodations and Services, and Human Resources. While all three have matters waiting to be dealt with, the most immediate demand is on the Finance and Budget subcommittee. While our overall budget for the Senate for the coming fiscal year is in place and was approved by the Senate on Monday evening, committee budgets need immediate attention. I therefore propose we elect the chair and members of the Finance and Budget subcommittee today. I would ask your indulgence to defer the election of the other two subcommittees to our next meeting because there are some personnel issues that I have not been able to resolve involving people travelling and other matters.

Those are my introductory remarks, and I ask you to address the first item on the agenda, which is the appointment of the subcommittee on Finance and Budgets. I would open the floor to nominations, unless there are any questions arising out of anything that I have just said.

Senator Comeau: You noted three subcommittees. There was actually a fourth subcommittee that you did not mention, namely, the Technology subcommittee, which was looking at such items as computers and the need for e-technology. The chair of that subcommittee was Senator De Bané. Will this committee no longer be in place, or have you just forgotten to mention it?

The Chairman: I would like to refer to that subcommittee, and to another area which may not have had a formal committee, namely, communications. The information technology area is one that I would like to get my head into a little more. I have had the opportunity to do so through the vehicle of the Budget subcommittee. However, before moving to a subcommittee structure, I would like the opportunity to come back to you fairly soon with some thoughts on that. I am not clear enough as to what the appropriate agenda of that subcommittee is. I think we would all agree that there is a communications opportunity and challenge for us, and for the time being that task will rest with the chair and the deputy chair.

Senator Murray: On the question of nominations for the budget subcommittee, the Tories in this committee have succeeded in pressing Senator Doody into service. Therefore, we would like to propose his name.

Senator Milne: I would nominate Senator George Furey to serve as chair of this committee.

Senator Poulin: I would nominate Senator Stollery as a member of the committee.

The Chairman: Are there any other nominations? Since in normal practice the committee would have a chair and two members, it would seem that, hearing no other nominations, I can declare nominations closed, and that we have a Budget and Finance subcommittee now in place.

On that point, let me observe that every year is different depending on the parliamentary cycle. Last year at about this time, we began to hear committee budgets, but we were dealing with mature committees that had been in place for some time. That is not a comment on personality, but rather the length of time that they had had to get to work. The committees were well organized and had their ideas for their work plans pretty much in shape. Due to the timing this year, most committees are still relatively new, and some are still in a final organizational stage. We have the reality of April 1 looming up, so that the call will be going out from the chair of the committee soon calling on committee chairs to be prepared to come forward to the budget subcommittee with their proposals.

[Translation]

Senator Poulin: Mr. Chairman, we heard your excellent address to the Senate, but I am wondering if you might not provide us with an update on the 2001-2002 estimates, to give us an idea of where we stand and to let us know if members of the media asked any questions.

[English]

The Chairman: The best update is the budget as submitted in the report of the committee. Sorry, Senator Doody, would you like to speak?

Senator Doody: Are their copies of that budget available? Is there a detailed document available for the committee? We approved that document in the Senate several days ago and I, for one, have never seen it. It is a most peculiar set of circumstances, but that is the way it is.

The Chairman: I apologize for that. Certainly, the Clerk assures me that everyone will have that. I guess I made the mistake of carrying forward in my mind from the previous committee, but you will have it immediately.

Senator Doody: In your excellent address to the Senate in support of the document, you noted that the committee had approved it. That is technically correct, but I must say that I was tempted to stand and say that the committee had not seen it, which would have been quite unsettling. I think we should try to correct that as soon as we can.

The Chairman: I begin by being in your debt, Senator Doody.

Senator Doody: That is an excellent way to start.

The Chairman: Returning to Senator Poulin's question, the budget was approved formally. There is a range of degrees to which members are informed at this point. Mr. Bélisle, do you want to speak?

Mr. Paul Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Committee: Senator Poulin, there has been no response or reaction from the media of which I am aware. Diane Boucher is here, and she could attest to that.

Ms Diane Boucher, Acting Director of Communications: It was mentioned in one of the newspapers.

Mr. Bélisle: It was mentioned as a matter of fact, not a criticism or anything else. There is still another opportunity when our Estimates will be tabled before both houses, sometime in May, I believe, although I do not have the date. The media may react to it at that time.

The Chairman: I should confirm that I received no questions or calls following the presentation of the budget last evening.

Senator Murray: I should tell you, Mr. Chairman, for retention in the back of your mind, that last night at the National Finance Committee meeting, where we were dealing with the Main Estimates for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2001, there was a good deal of confusion over several items relating to contributions to the Senate pension fund and payments to retired senators. Not even the extremely well-informed and experienced officials from the Treasury Board were in a position to resolve the confusion. They have gone away to try to figure out what these items mean.

In particular, there was an item that appeared to be $167,000, in round figures, as pensions for retired senators. It seemed rather low to us. We were not clear whether this was an employer contribution to the Senate pension fund or whether it was payments to senators who are presently retired. At one point one of the officials suggested that it was $167 million, which got our attention.

The Chairman: We are all thinking of retiring this morning.

Senator Murray: The officials agreed that there was some confusion and what appeared to be some double-booking of items under that rubric. I am sure that they will sort it out, but perhaps some of our officials would take a look at it. I would be glad to identify the places in the Estimates where that problem exists.

Mr. Bélisle: We will check it out with the Director of Finance, but I suspect that the $167,000 is the amount for reimbursement of contributions for senators who have been here less than X number of years. It would not take into account the ongoing payment of pension. However, we will check it out here.

Senator Murray: The problem is the label attached to it. The label attached to it says "payment of pensions to retired senators" or something of the kind.

Senator Comeau: May I raise a point of order? We seem to be off the agenda. I do not know if we follow the agenda or not, but this should be under "other business."

The Chairman: You are quite correct. I will be happy to return to it under that item, if there is any further discussion.

On item 2 of the agenda, the emergency powers provision, I have indicated to you in my opening remarks my intention, if it sits well with everyone, to work with Senator DeWare in place of a steering committee. There is the requirement to grant emergency powers, but what is needed is really the authority to deal with and resolve immediate administrative matters that come between meetings. Does anyone else have a formal text of that motion? Does anyone have the motion that is proposed? I could read the motion that is proposed:

If the full committee is unable to meet, the Chair and the Deputy Chair be authorized to deal with and resolve immediate administrative problems and that they report the decisions at the first meeting thereafter.

We can have further discussion on this, or a motion and discussion following the motion.

Senator Milne: If I may, I point out that this really is where a steering committee is needed. Would you not feel more comfortable with three rather than two?

The Chairman: No. This committee has worked both ways in the past. I was looking at that and came to that conclusion.

Senator Murray: The motion is properly before us. I will be glad to move the motion.

The Chairman: Is there a seconder?

Mr. Bélisle: You do not need a seconder.

The Chairman: All in favour?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Opposed? No.

Senator Milne, I do not mean to foreclose this discussion. I would be happy to discuss this matter further.I would be happy to give you the floor.

Senator Milne: No, I had the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator Comeau: Rather than go to a vote as such, we tended to follow consensus on this.

The Chairman: You are absolutely correct.

The next item on the agenda relates to travel points. It is an administrative proposal to bring some clearer and more effective management by reconciling the travel point reports with other expense reports in the system. Just about everything works on the basis of one fiscal year, but the travel points work on a calendar year basis. It has not been easy to reconcile the two, so the proposal is that we put the travel points on a fiscal year basis.

That immediately raises the question of how to manage the transition from one system to the other. It is my understanding that - or it has been suggested to me that there are several ways to do this. However, in the end, it makes no difference because of the number of points that everyone has available, given the short period of time that we have remaining. The suggestion is that all senators be allocated a new set of 64 points on April 1, regardless of how many points they may have used between January 1 and March 31. I am advised that, in fact, everyone was within their 64 points for the last period anyway, so it would not result in an excessive number of points being granted. If we agree in committee to bring the travel points system to an April 1 fiscal basis, then we could reconcile all our reporting on the same basis.

Senator Poulin: This has been a technical change that we have tried to make over the last five years. I so move.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: We move now to item 4, committee budgets. I anticipated this item because of earlier comments. I am advised that all committees, for the time being, are operating within the $10,000 emergency funds provision to get them by. There is one exception - Scrutiny of Regulations, which requires ongoing consulting expenses that take it over that number. At his committee, Senator Furey will be asked to work on the committee budget process as quickly as possible.

A system was developed last year that proved to be quite workable, but everything can be improved. I am certain that that committee will find fresh and useful approaches.

I interject now, not for purposes of full discussion but to raise a point that concerned me quite a bit in my role as chair of the budget subcommittee previously. This, I believe, has concerned many of the committee members as well as members of the chamber, including the Leader of the Opposition. The point to which I refer is the constant dilemma that we have in respect of the Senate approving orders of reference - for either committee work, or perhaps even more so for special studies - without having any real idea of what the financial implications of that order are. As well, the Senate may not have any idea of the capacity of the Senate resources to allow that committee to carry out that work. The other side of that coin, which preoccupies me as much, if not more, is that we do not know, in an absolute way, whether there are the resources to do that work. Also, there is the question implied, "at whose expense" do those resources fall if the orders of reference are carried forward. This raises the whole question of equity of allocation of resources amongst the committees. That implies some kind of a priority process - a judgment - as to where all these finite funds should be allocated.

We have a process now such that the committee is faced with a fait accompli in terms of the Senate having given the order of reference. Then the committees and the budget committee are required to scramble to make it work. There are a number of suggestions for ways to ameliorate this problem, to say the least.

It bothers me that life is reflected in the Senate in that the entrepreneurial and aggressive individuals who are able, experienced and capable of getting out there first with the most, very often do. It is often those people, or groups of people, who produce some of the best work that the Senate does. However, the timing is not always fair, and if money is committed then there will be the question of using it when someone else comes along or gets their act together.

I suggest that the budget subcommittee address this subject, or continue to address it, because the previous committee began that process. Senator DeWare and I have the same point of view on this issue, because we shared the job in the budget subcommittee before, along with Senator Stollery. I speak for Senator DeWare and myself when I say that we must find a better way to deal with this situation. Thus, I flag the question for further discussion.

Is there anything specific that we are required to do in this matter?

I will cede the floor to Heather Lank, who is the Principal Clerk of Committees.

Dr. Heather Lank, Principal Clerk of Committees: I want to briefly inform you, senators, that eight committees have applied for emergency funds. The total amount requested is $33,200. Only one request is pending for approval; we are just waiting for signatures. All the others have been approved. We are just waiting to receive one further request from one final committee.

Essentially, we are talking about very small amounts, roughly $35,000, to cover the month of March. The thinking behind the proposal that Senator Kroft brought to you was that, instead of making committees follow up on their emergency funds requests with a formal budget, which is normally what we do, given the late time in the year, given that April 1 is coming and the small amounts involved, the proposal is that, rather than forcing committees to do a budget for this year and a budget for 2001-2002, when chairs come before the subcommittee for their full budget for 2001-2002, they would simply explain to the subcommittee how they spent their emergency funds and account for their funds in that way. Then a full budget analysis could be done for fiscal year 2001-2002.

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments?

An Hon. Senator: That makes sense.

The Chairman: The next two items on the budget deal with CPAC and the Lumley commission. We are suggesting that those are in camera items. In view of that, I would be prepared to look at the new business matters which anyone may want to raise while we have all of our staff and advisers here.

Mr. Bélisle: There is the short matter on communication. Perhaps I can raise that later.

Senator Gauthier: I have something. Are you opening the discussion on CPAC?

The Chairman: No.

Senator Gauthier: You are not?

The Chairman: We will go in camera to do that. I am wondering if there is any other subject for discussion?

Senator Gauthier: The item I want to bring to the attention of the committee deals with the broadcasting services, with TV in the Senate and other activities.

The Chairman: I suggest, then, that we do that under the CPAC item on the agenda, which we will get to shortly.

Are there any other matters, prior to that, that anyone would like to raise?

Senator Murray: I flagged the item earlier out of turn, as we were reminded by Senator Comeau.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélisle, you had one item?

Mr. Bélisle: The administration has received a request, and I seek your approval for this. White Pine Pictures, in association with the Life Network, SCN, Access Alberta, are doing a documentary television series on the profile of night-workers. They have approached the Senate to have employees talk and be interviewed. This is something I would not usually bring to the committee, and I would only discuss it with others, but to have employees speak on the Senate itself as to what they do on a night shift, I think, is a decision that should be taken by yourselves to authorize employees to be televised. I am told that the House of Commons has not been approached, just the Senate. Is it a yes or a no?

The Chairman: Senator Forestall, do you have a question?

Senator Forrestall: I have a comment on the matter I raised earlier, having to do with rental costs.

The Chairman: Are there any comments?

Senator Maheu: Why did the House not approve?

Mr. Bélisle: It was not that they did not approve. They were not approached.

Senator Poulin: I think that, for a lot of people, to have a story or a look at night-life for broadcasters might sound strange, but it is not. It is a human interest approach. I am talking about a producer of 30 years ago. I remember stories we had done with people, for instance, who must get up at 3 in the morning to go to work. The story is not so much on the Senate; it is rather on the personal lifestyle of someone who regularly works nights. If Mr. Bélisle feels that he has employees who could speak comfortably about what it is like to work at night -

Senator DeWare: They call it the graveyard shift.

Senator Poulin: I do not know.

Senator Stollery: This is a precedent. On the face of it, I agree with Senator Comeau - I smell a rat. I think this is a dubious proposition, unless you can tell us a lot more about it than this.

Mr. Bélisle: Again, the reason I raise it here is that Internal has authorized the Director of Communications and myself to speak to the media, but this goes beyond your policy, and that is why it is an exception.

The Chairman: Does anyone see an up-side to it?

Senator Milne: I have no problem with it.

Senator Forrestall: I have no problem with it.

Senator Comeau: Senator Poulin seems to know who the group is, but, Mr. Bélisle, could you repeat again who this group is?

Mr. Bélisle: This is White Pine Pictures, who are working in association with the Life Network, SCN and Access Alberta. They are doing a documentary television series on profiles of night-workers. The company films award-winning documentaries and has been in business for 25 years. That is the information that I have. The Director of Communication is here, if you need more.

The Chairman: I have a question. Under our agreement with them, would we have authority to designate who it is that they interview, or will they go wandering around at night and interview whoever they find?

Mr. Bélisle: We would determine and these people would be briefed before they spoke.

Senator Forrestall: I would go for it.

Senator Gauthier: I do not, personally, have any difficulties with having media people or broadcasting people in the Senate, as long as we have straight, well-known and recognized rules on how they operate in this place. I can tell you that I was very upset the night before the Throne Speech here. CBC had the floor of the Senate as a studio. They had five MPs. They had not invited any senators. The five of them were being interviewed by Peter Mansbridge. I do not know the name of the program. I just happened to land on it while dial-surfing. The first comment was to Mr. Robinson of the NDP. He looks around and he says, "You know, I would abolish this place if I had my `druthers'" and they all started to laugh. It was not a very funny joke, especially on the floor of the Senate. I was very upset about that, and I asked who had authorized it, and I was told the Board of Internal Economy authorized it, although some people said they were not too sure who had authorized it.

I am saying that we should have very strict, well-known and recognized rules of what we allow. The House of Commons would never allow TV cameras within the House to do that kind of thing. They would do it on the outside, perhaps, with the House in the background, but they would never be allowed within the House itself to do that.

I think it is demeaning to senators to have someone come in here who is a well-known abolitionist and say, "I would abolish this place if I had my choice." If we are to allow any media in here, night or day, we must have rules. The committee here has an obligation to the rest of us to make sure that those rules are well-known and well-followed.

The Chairman: Senator Gauthier, just a response on that episode, that has been fully followed up on, and the concerns that that raised have been considered. I could not agree with you more about the use of the chamber for such a gathering. There are guidelines, and if necessary there will be more guidelines to ensure that these matters are conducted very strictly in accordance with those guidelines.

In this particular situation, I think it will be quite easy to set the rules for those who are engaged in this project, and we can authorize them or limit them in whatever way we can.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: There is no doubt that the Senate, much like any other business, has employees who work nights and carry out duties normally performed by night workers. This would include maintenance, office cleaning and so forth. However, both the Senate and the House of Commons have on staff a group of employees who translate and oversee the publication and printing of the day's proceedings. This feat is accomplished by a group of individuals who work in the background and who are often ignored.

A well-structured program produced according to strict rules would be a good way of recognizing the work of these employees.

I have had occasion to meet with foreign parliamentarians and when I explain to them that our proceedings are published verbatim in less than 24 hours in both official languages, they are often quite amazed and demand to see proof. They have paid us visits to see first hand how our proceedings are transcribed, translated, edited and printed. It would be an honour to us and to our staff to promote the work we do in a documentary series such as this. I definitely support the idea.

Senator Comeau: Senator Nolin has made a number of valid points. He stressed the need for the program to be well structured and for strict rules to be in place. Mr. Bélisle has provided us with neither a structure nor clear rules. He has merely told us about an idea to produce a documentary series in which night workers would be interviewed.

I would be prepared to go along with Senator Nolin's suggestion if I had assurances that the program would be well structured and that certain rules would be followed. These workers do a tremendous job and they do it very well, but does it tie in with the aim of the proposed programming?

Senator Stollery: Who are these night workers? I know about the women who clean offices and work throughout the night.

Senator Nolin: Men as well!

Senator Stollery: Men and women both. I do not know for certain because I am not here at three in the morning.

Ms. Boucher: Employees would be interviewed in advance. Among those selected would be Kyle Beaudry from the Senate Publications Service and one or two members of security services selected by the Head of Security Services. These individuals would contact White Pine Pictures by telephone and would be briefed in advance over the phone. They would already have some idea of the kind of questions they would be asked when the cameras were actually rolling.

Senator Comeau: I have no objections.

[English]

The Chairman: Do I understand we have a consensus?

[Translation]

Senator Maheu: Will the Chamber be used?

Ms. Boucher: No, Senator Maheu, it will not. However, this series will cover hospital workers, firefighters and the like.

Senator Maheu: I was referring to the Senate chamber itself.

Ms. Boucher: No, the Chamber will not be a backdrop. The interview with Mr. Beaudry will take place at the Publications Service located in the Chambers Building. Security officers will be interviewed at the entrance to the building. Life Network is a serious channel.

Senator Poulin: Access TV is Alberta's equivalent of TV Ontario.

[English]

It is an educational network.

The Chairman: Are we satisfied on this point, then?

Senator Forrestall: I may have misunderstood something, Mr. Chairman. I hope this committee is not attempting to impose a professional judgment on who the professional people would want to choose. In other words, whether they choose the cleaning lady at four o'clock in the morning or the Clerk who is here sometimes until one or two o'clock in the morning and could be considered a night person, I do not think we should have anything to do with that whatsoever. It is a professional judgment, and we should not intervene in that. They should have full artistic licence in that regard.

Outside of that, within the bounds of common sense, I do not know how what Senator Gauthier had mentioned happened before, but I am sure there was some kind of a slip-up somewhere, because that would never deliberately happen.

Apart from that, it is a super idea. That is the sort of thing that promotes the Senate.

The Chairman: Is there any other business?

Senator Forrestall: On a different item, several weeks ago I raised the question of the imposition of rental fees for Senate accommodation. I have been hosting a national group that is culturally unique. Now I understand that they are to be charged a couple of thousand dollars a night. Has there been a resolution to that?

Mr. Bélisle: Senator Forestall, I will be coming forth with a proposal or a policy, at the request of this committee, on user fees. That should be coming in the next few weeks. It is just about ready. I need another meeting with the director in question on this issue. However, I believe your specific request has been approved.

Senator Forrestall: Has it?

Senator DeWare: Yes, and I understood that you had been notified that your request had been approved.

Senator Forrestall: It may well be that my office was notified. I operate on a "need to know" basis.

Senator DeWare: It has been approved with no charge to the organization.

Senator Poulin: I have a very small housekeeping matter. If Senator Comeau had not mentioned another item on the agenda, I would not have realized that I had only one agenda. I received the agenda in my office and then asked for another agenda when I realized there was a further one. Are the agendas to be distributed the morning of the meeting?

Mr. Bélisle: Senator Poulin, you received the notice of the meeting, and that will usually say "on administrative matters." An agenda with documents attached should have been sent to your office yesterday. The administration is making every attempt to try to send that to you at least two or three days in advance.

Senator Poulin: I had the documents.

Mr. Bélisle: You should have received the agenda.

The Chairman: We have two items left on the agenda. I would first ask if anyone must leave before 10:45? If not, we can let the agenda take its normal course, otherwise I would seek to perhaps reorder things. I would not wish to lose the opportunity to discuss the Lumley commission, except in the event that any senators need to leave. Are we okay with everyone's time for now?

Senator Forrestall: I was about to ask you to reconsider, and put the Lumley item on before the CPAC.

The Chairman: I was about to suggest that. Let us do that.

Senator Gauthier, you had an item of other business?

Senator Gauthier: Yes, on accommodation. At present we have a difficult situation. I hear the Clerk tell us he is working on a policy for the use of accommodation in the Senate. The House of Commons has a clear policy. As a local member of Parliament, and as a local senator, I can tell you I get requests every week for some space in this building, either room 200 or this room, room 160 or others. It is sometimes embarrassing because the contracts are made by the House of Commons right now, with the person or group that is trying to rent. I am into December 15 now for Christmas parties. The contract that parliamentarians must sign states that they, as a member of Parliament, authorize so-and-so, and take upon themselves to pay the rent of $500 for the space, and $200 or $300 for cleaning the space after the event. That has been the policy of the House of Commons for perhaps seven or eight years.

The Senate should have a clear policy as to what we will be doing with the rental of our space and the contracts. The contract should not be with the parliamentarian and the House or the Senate but with the group that is renting. If anything gets broken, they are responsible.

I am not familiar with some of the groups. Nortel is a big company, but why do they want to come here? They want to have a Christmas party. Another group is from ATI. All these high-tech companies want access to Parliament. I believe we have a clear policy of use based on their policy in the House of Commons. Perhaps we should work with them, for once, to set out a plan whereby we can use this place to the benefit of Canadians. It is their space in any event. With a reasonable and accessible policy, I believe it can be done. Therefore, I am looking forward to Mr. Bélisle's report.

The Chairman: The committee will go in camera at this point.

The committee continued in camera.

---