Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence, April 5, 2001
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 5, 2001 The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:03 a.m. Senator Richard H. Kroft (Chairman) in the Chair. [English] The Chairman: The minutes of the preceding meeting, Thursday, March 29, 2001, have been circulated. Are there any questions or comments arising out of those minutes? Our next item is the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Senator Rompkey, I believe you have a presentation to make? Senator Rompkey: We are pleased to be with you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman: We are in public session at this point. Senator Milne: Should we, Mr. Chair, warn the chair of the NATO group what Senator Rompkey's stand has been on budget during the past year in this committee? It was cut it in half. Senator Rompkey: We throw ourselves humbly on the mercy of Internal Economy. This is a budget for the annual NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which Canada will be hosting next fall. As a founding member, we have a responsibility to host meetings, and we have not hosted one for 10 years. The last time Canada was the host we were in Banff, Alberta, and it went well. People are still talking about the experience in Banff. We had hoped to move it to the West Coast. We had never had a meeting in British Columbia, Senator Austin, and we tried to have it in Victoria. We were all set to go. We had the city, the naval base, the legislature, and the lieutenant governor behind us, but security was impossible. We do not expect a repeat of the Seattle, Washington meeting, but we know that there will be protests and picketing. Victoria felt that they could not handle it, that security was too expensive. We took a decision to move it to Ottawa, where we can host it effectively and provide the needed security. This will be a meeting of all the NATO parliamentarians, from all the countries, both old and new in NATO, those who want to be in and those who are simply coming as observers. As a matter of fact, there will be observers from as far away as China and Australia. Every continent will attend except South America. It is usually well-attended. There will be a large group. It will be important for NATO. We have many issues on the table. The European security and defence initiative, the missile defence program of the United States, and the Balkans are still a big issue. It will be an important meeting because NATO is growing as you know. We have given you a budget outline here. The House of Commons has already approved their two thirds of the cost, and we are here this morning to ask for our one third. We are trying to get private-sector involvement to the degree we can. We have approached companies such as Bombardier in Montreal. They will be taking one of the committees to Montreal for a show and tell. We are trying to involve private sector to the degree that we can. We are working on having them host some of our events to cut down our costs. That, honourable senators, is the pitch. The Chairman: Open to questions. Senator Forrestall: I wonder if I might ask Senator Rompkey how this compares, albeit the dollar has changed somewhat, with past costs? Senator Rompkey: I think it compares favourably. It is certainly less costly than the Banff meeting. We went all out at Banff, but those were the days of wine and roses. These are not the days of wine and roses. We have cut the garment according to the cloth. We have tried to be prudent. Carol Chafe is working on it from the House of Commons, and she has a lot of experience with these things. She has put together not only a good program but also a responsible budget. We have tried to pare it down as much as we could while trying to be a gracious host. Senator Forrestall: How many people do you expect? Senator Rompkey: Ms Chafe, what number would you say? Ms Carole Chafe, Clerk, House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Expect approximately 800. It is substantially larger than at Banff because of the new policy of associate membership at NATO. It is a much larger organization that it was when we hosted at Banff. Senator Forrestall: Do you have a relatively small spousal accompaniment. Ms Chafe: We are anticipating that about 25 per cent will be accompanied by spouses. Senator Forrestall: That is not normal. Ms Chafe: It is not as great as you would find with Canada or the U.S. Senator Forrestall: In your judgment, it is cheaper than it would have been in Victoria? Senator Rompkey: We can do more here using the Parliament buildings. It would have cost us more in Victoria, except for accommodations. Senator Forrestall: We could have done it cheaper in Halifax, with no security problems. I do not know how, Mr. Chairman, we could go through this in an hour. The Chairman: If any one has important issues to raise, please do so. Senator Doody: Two thirds of this budget have been approved. How much room is there to whittle down the other third? Senator Rompkey: None. Senator Doody: Therefore, this is a done deal before we start. Senator Kenny: I have reviewed the budget in some detail, and I have been active in NATO for some time. There is no question that this is a modest budget compared to some that I have seen. When they came to Calgary, we put on a stampede and supplied them with Stetsons. This meeting is particularly useful because it provides an opportunity to highlight Canadian industry, which we have not done in the past. We talked about Bombardier. I believe that there is also an effort to get the folks who make the armoured vehicles in London, Ontario to participate. We are trying to develop opportunities to enhance Canadian trade during the course of the meeting. These are people who are members of defence committees in their own nations. It is an opportunity for us to show off Canadian equipment that we hope they would adopt under the interoperability policy of NATO. We can sell to them and buy from them. I would hope the committee would approve this budget as it stands. Senator Austin: I want to thank the joint chairs for considering Victoria. I want to thank them more effusively for moving from Victoria. I am prepared to defend that statement. I am curious about two items. As a point of information, Parliament will be in session on the days of this meeting, October 5-9, 2001? No, that is Thanksgiving weekend? Ms Carolyn Parrish, M.P.: Parliament will not be in session during this meeting for one of the days only. Senator Austin: I am concerned about the issue of corporate sponsorship. It is now an issue in political debate in many places in this country and elsewhere. The Summit of the Americas has corporate sponsorship for a number of its events, as have meetings of APEC and other international meetings. The counter reaction is that governments are playing a corporate agenda. It is felt that governments are not taking into account the entire panoply of social and political values that operate in a civil society. As they become dependent on financial support from certain more specifically involved interests, their agenda is shaped to those interests. This may not be true, but it is a perception. Therefore, given the sensitivity, in particular of NATO and other similar military cast organizations, I would suggest that corporate sponsorship be as carefully screened as possible. If the corporations were Canadian, it would be fine to a degree, but if you start taking money from international consortia that are in competition to deliver equipment to Canada, then I think we are walking a very difficult line. That is my point. Senator Rompkey: It is a point well taken. I understand what Senator Austin is saying. As we all know, the problem is that parliamentary associations have been working under some difficulty because of diminishing budgets over the past five years or six years. It has become a matter of necessity rather than persuasion. However, the point is well taken. We are trying to work with some organizations to spread it around and not deal with only one organization. I am thinking of the high-tech sector in Ottawa. We have had conversations not only with individual companies but with the associations. If we can go at it from that point of view, it will address some of the valid points that Senator Austin is making. Ms Parrish: It is a very sensitive point. We have considered it carefully, and we will not be taking sponsorships from any companies that would cause embarrassment to the Senate or House of Commons. It is a delicate balance to be both frugal and tactful with your concerns in mind. I think that we have walked that line. If there were to be any difficulties, we would be back to you immediately. Senator Austin: It is critical to the confidence of the public in government that government be seen to act as a fair balance wheel amongst the community and its interests. It disturbs me greatly when government is not prepared to pay its way to maintain that image of fair balance. It is easy to go to the corporate world with its balance sheets, particularly in this era when corporate life is stronger than it has been for a very long time in society. There has been a decade of enormous economic growth and the easy way out would be to approach them for sponsorship. However, the cost of doing that is bringing into disrepair the reputation for integrity of government itself within the civil societies. It is obvious, and I am glad to hear that it is obvious, that no money should be taken from any company that is in a bid to supply military equipment, whether it is electronic or fire power equipment or any other kind. It is less obvious, but it is also of concern when there is special access given special programs provided to the policy-makers. I do not know the practice in the countries that are members of NATO with respect to the interface with industry. My guess is that they are much more comfortable with the corporate interface than perhaps we are. We must be sensitive to the key question. The events surrounding the Seattle meeting and the problem in my province of British Columbia lies right at the heart of the suspicion that corporations are driving the public policy agenda to a degree they ought not. There is public reaction, and it is well organized. Senator Murray: Mr. Chairman, I cannot improve on what Senator Austin has said, and I will not try. However, I have two points. First of all, I was a regular at these North Atlantic assembly meetings in the early 1980s. I went to Munich, Brussels and elsewhere with the delegations. I cannot recall ever attending any meeting that was sponsored by any private corporation. I remember being entertained by the city, state or country, but I do not recall any corporate sponsorship. That may have changed since then. Second, with the greatest respect, this is a very large subject. I do not think that the one parliamentary association should take it upon themselves to make decisions with regard to corporate sponsorship or taking delegations to be the guests of various corporations. I think that we need a policy on the matter that would apply to all of the organizations. While the parliamentary association is quite autonomous and independent, we should find out what the government thinks about it these days, having got its finger somewhat burned with regard to Quebec City. We need an overall policy, and I do not think that individual associations should be permitted to freelance on matters of this kind, even with the best judgment in the world. The Chairman: To what extent is this following other practice of any other parliamentary groups? What precedent is there? What communication or consultation has there been with our governments in any respect? Senator Rompkey: With regard to past practice, I think that corporate sponsorship has happened previously, both in this country and in other countries. When we have been abroad, various committees have gone to visit private-sector companies that are involved in defence, either directly or peripherally. It is nothing new. I do not believe that this is a new practice that we have created. It has happened over the past years since I have been involved, which is 12 years or 15 years now. Senator Kenny: It is a standard feature of the NATO format that the host country shows off elements of their defence industry to NATO parliamentarians. I have yet to be at a meeting where a committee has not gone to see an aircraft plant, a tank plant or some other thing. The purpose was to educate the parliamentarians, but there was a soft-sell element to it, that it was a good piece of equipment and that every one should consider purchasing a piece of this equipment. What Senator Rompkey and the association are suggesting is not out of line. I would also suggest that I am very much in the camp with Senator Austin and Senator Murray. I would hope that this committee would see fit to pass a resolution encouraging adequate funding of these groups, so they do not need to look elsewhere. I am embarrassed at the thought of Coca-Cola sponsoring anything here by giving a lunch break event. We should not be into that. The governments are into that. Decision makers are into that, and people take offence when decision makers are being funded by the corporate sector. The NATO Parliamentary Association is a talk shop. It is not a decision-making body. It is where parliamentarians get together to exchange views. You have yet to read of a decision coming from the association that has been binding on any country. It is a place where parliamentarians get educated. Having said that, I too am with you. I would sooner have it funded entirely by the host government. If in future, we could move in that direction, it would be positive. That was a budget plea, Mr. Chairman. [Translation] Senator Poulin: Mr. Chairman, the Canada-Japan Parliamentary Association will be hosting in three weeks' time a delegation of Japanese parliamentarians who are visiting Canada, among other reasons, to tour our large Canadian high technology companies. Some important issues are being discussed here today and I do not think we should confound commercial sponsorship with the strategic ties we would like to foster with our parliamentary counterparts from other countries or with private Canadian interests for whom we are facilitating future commercial links with other countries. As senators Murray and Austin so aptly stated, perhaps the whole issue of sponsorship needs to be defined at some point in the future. Having served on the Joint Interparliamentary Committee, I am familiar with this issue. It is of considerable importance to our country and it provides Canada with a unique opportunity to host a major meeting at which important discussions will take place. I saw the 1997 budgets and I found them to be reasonable at the time. I think the association can go forward and continue the work it is doing to ensure fruitful discussions and to give Canadians the opportunity to host parliamentarians from other countries. [English] Senator Stollery: I am not a "NATO-ite." However, I do support this budget because, as Senator Doody said, it is basically a fait accompli. I also support the budget because it is an association with a long history. I do think that it is especially important for the NATO association to be careful on the sponsorship question because the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, as you know, Mr. Chairman, completed an enormous study on NATO and peacekeeping. We had one request for a thousand copies of our report. We are quite knowledgeable about the state of affairs. The NATO association must be especially careful in a time of unclear military budgets, unclear direction where the European strategic defence initiative is going, and the unclear direction of NATO itself when talking about non-article V. The association must be cautious that it not become part of a lobby group for defence contractors. Senator Austin: I would like to summarize what I am saying because I hear notes of some questioning. This is an extremely valuable association. Canada needs to raise its profile with its European colleagues, and this is one of the ways to do it. There is no problem showing off Canadian military hardware and Canadian electronic hardware. That is fine. It is done at the cost of those companies and relevant to the agenda. I do not want to see funding of the meeting itself by corporate entities. It should be a government exercise so that government retains its independence from all of those issues and elements. Although I do understand the accuracy of Senator Kenny's point, that this is not a decision making group, believe it or not we still have not totally destroyed the image of parliamentarians as decision makers in the country. The perception is reality. People think we really have a say and that coming out of this meeting will be important perceptions by parliamentarians that will lead to influencing decisions. I say that because I wish to reinforce the point that government must keep arm's length from corporations who, when an impression can be cast, that somehow they are buying influence. Ms Parrish: I would like to thank all the senators for their comments and reassure them that any types of sponsorships or visits are purely outside the realm of the actual formal meetings of NATO. The formal meetings of NATO are sponsored by Canada and always will be as far as we are concerned. Canada has a unique position in NATO in that we are very close to our big brothers in the South, who are considered to be strong and militaristic in the organization. We are also close to the Europeans and we are perceived as a group that can move easily between the two. We are definitely in an important role. That is why it is extremely important for us to be able to put on a good show without being extravagant, because extravagance is not an image that we want to portray. The sponsorships we have mentioned are for things like gifts, briefcases. The visits are more of a show-and-tell opportunity of what we are capable of in Canada, and we are capable of a great deal. It is not in any way an attempt to sell or otherwise influence the purchase of equipment. We are decision makers. At these meetings, we talk about concepts, we talk about politics, we talk about what goes on around those sorts of decisions. We never talk about equipment, we never talk about purchasing or selling equipment, and never try to sell our industry. I just want to let honourable senators know that I reinforce everything you have said, and Senator Rompkey has been in this for a long time and we are constantly aware of your feelings. Senator Furey: I want to reiterate what was just said. Senator Rompkey is an experienced parliamentarian. I am sure uppermost in his mind at all times will be the concerns expressed by senators, and I have no doubt that they will be dealt with accordingly. Second, I am concerned that Newfoundland, which has received about some 530 centimetres of snow in the last couple of months and is about to be declared a glacier by NATO, is not on your travel plan. Senator Rompkey: The bad news is that there is no NATO equipment that can be dedicated to snow clearing. The good news is that we are not going to bomb it. Senator Poulin: It could have been conceived as a conflict of interest. The Chairman: Is there a motion to accept? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Agreed. I am advised that we are still in public mode. I will now move to item 3 on the agenda, which is the second report of the Subcommittee on Finance and Budgets. Senator Furey: The subcommittee is pleased to present its second report to the Committee on Internal Economy for consideration. The subcommittee met on Tuesday, April 3, to hear seven committee chairs defend their budgets. Knowing that requests for funds are likely to exceed available funds by at least 100 per cent, subcommittee members asked chairs to explain not only what funds were being requested, and why, but also when the various expenditures were anticipated. Knowing when was essential since the subcommittee did not want to prevent committees from working effectively over the next three months. It was ourintent to ensure that committees get up and running as quickly as possible. Nor did the committee want to commit all funds available before knowing what the total demands on the budget would be for the year. As a consequence, the recommendations in the subcommittee report allocate the funds that the subcommittee members believe will allow committees to work while keeping funds available for budgets that are likely to be submitted in the next few weeks, as well as activities that are anticipated later in the fiscal year. If this second report is adopted, a total of $479,649 will have been released to committees, including the funds approved for the Energy Committee last week. This amounts to 26.8 per cent of the funds that have so far been requested, or put another way, 28 per cent of all available funds for committees. Mr. Chairman, in addition to the specific budgetary allocations, the second report also includes four recommendations for the committee's consideration and, it is hoped, approval. One, we are asking that unexpended balances of funds allocated for specific trips should be returned to the central committee's budget within 45 days following the planned trip to ensure that surplus funds are not tied up unnecessarily. Two, the cost of video conferencing should be charged to the central witness budget in view of the fact that video conferencing is an efficient method of obtaining witness testimony, and thereby relieving committee requests of certain funding requirements that can go in other directions. We are also recommending that use of travel points for committee business should not be permitted since it would mean subsidizing an annual appropriation from a statutory appropriation. We feel that that would not pass an audit test. However, your is subcommittee recognizes that senators may use travel points to attend conferences or to enable their staff to accompany them on committee travel. That is entirely up to senators as they see fit. In order to assist the subcommittee in allocating funds, your subcommittee recommends creating three envelopes: $200,000 for joint committees; $300,000 for legislative budgets; and $1.2 million for special studies. Of course, we recognize that these envelopes may need to be revisited once all requests are received. The subcommittee respectfully requests the adoption of its second report. I believe all honourable senators have a copy of the report. Mr. P. Bélisle, Clerk of the Committee: The second report. The Chairman: I wish to ask Senator Furey if beyond his introductory remarks would he like open discussion on anything or shall we proceed on individual points? Senator Furey: I think, Mr. Chairman, since it has been topical in the past, if senators wish to discuss this issue of travel points we should probably address that. It has been an issue in the past, and I know there are variant views, so for anyone who wishes to discuss it perhaps now would be the time. The Chairman: Are there any comments on the subject specifically on the statement that Senator Furey makes? Senator Austin: I wanted to ask Senator Furey what the comparative practice is in the House of Commons with respect to use of travel points? Senator Furey: I cannot answer that, Senator Austin, but I will say that having spoken to the finance in the Senate I have been told in fairly frank terms that if we took a statutory appropriation and used it for an annual appropriation that it would not pass an audit test. Unfortunately, I do not know what happens in the House of Commons, but I can check it out for you if you wish. I am told it is the exact same thing as happens here now. Senator Maheu: Senator Furey has just confirmed what I was going to question on the joint committee that I co-chair, which is the Official Languages Committee. There has been question of MPs using their travel points and I advised them that the Senate cannot. Now that you have confirmed that the House cannot it puts us on a level playing field. Senator Comeau: The question of the senators being able to use their travel points to attend conferences, I assume you mean conferences related to the activities of the committee? Senator Furey: I would suggest, Senator Comeau, that if any senator wishes to attend any conference in Canada he or she should feel free to use points, not only for themselves but also for staff if it is deemed necessary. We cannot budget for the use of statutory appropriation points for committee work. Senator Stollery: Some people use more points than others, depending on where they live in the country. If points were used for committee work, it would mean that senators that used all their points getting back and forth to Ottawa would then be excluded from participating in the business of committee. They already use their points in the normal course of getting back and forth to Ottawa. I wish to remind the senators on the committee that there is a solid reason for this. Senator Poulin: My question is not on the use of points, so if there are other questions before my topic, I shall wait. Senator Maheu: I have a related matter. I do not know whether you want to answer it now. If we use our points to go to a conference, could we as well charge our registration to a conference? That issue does not seem to be clear. I know that we could charge our travel and our hotel, but could we charge our registration? Senator De Bané: Yes, I have done that in the past, and it was not refused. Senator Maheu: Thank you, it was basically a point of information. The Chairman: We have Senator De Bané's precedent offered. Senator Furey: If the meeting is related to committee work, it cannot be charged against our points. If it is not, if it is general Senate work or other duties, it is not a problem. Senator Murray: That does not include the next Liberal policy conference. Senator Furey: Certainly not. I would underscore, if I may, that when senators are travelling, accompanying political staff, assistants or office staff should be at the cost of their statutory appropriation as opposed to being a budget request. [Translation] Senator Poulin: How did you arrive at this breakdown, namely $300,000 for legislative work and $1.2 million for special studies? [English] Senator Furey: The number, Senator Poulin, is based on historical spending patterns, and $300 has always seemed to be the right number. [Translation] Senator Poulin: We were attempting to convey an important message by allocating these sums of money. Legislative work is as important as our contribution to general policies. I had some questions about this balance. You did say that you were flexible, did you not? Senator Furey: Do you think that these amounts are too low? Senator Poulin: In terms of the legislation, yes. However, I am not aware of the studies you have done and I respect your work plan. If, as representatives of the subcommitee, you recommend these amounts, we are flexible according to the needs. The message that is brought foreward is interesting and it stresses our general policy. [English] Senator Furey: Senator Poulin, we agree. Senator Forrestall: I would like to add a caveat. It is important that we reflect the practices in the other place. We should not get ahead of them, but we should not let the gap that developed over a period of years reoccur. To that end, I feel very confident in your good hands, sir. Senator De Bané: Mr. Chairman, I would like to expand on something I intervened about. A few years ago, Mr. Gorbachev was a guest speaker in Ottawa at the Westin Hotel. I inquired if the Finance Directorate would pay my registration to attend, and they agreed. I did go. I sent them the receipt, and they reimbursed me. I do not know from which budget that was paid. However, they told me that if a senator must pay a registration fee to attend a conference and the session is related to public function, reimbursement is not an issue. However, I do not know from which budget it comes. Senator Milne: I must say I am astounded. I have been paying for myself ever since I arrived in this place. Senator Murray: It is not retroactive. Senator Milne: My question is in regards to the general budget more than travel points. You have approved 10 different budgets. How do the totals on these budgets compare with what was requested? Senator Furey: We have taken the smallest amount of the requests possible, to get the committees up and running, to do what it is that they must. For that reason, the timing of the travel occurring was important. If a committee said they would not be required to travel until fall, we ignore that until we receive all requests, in order to look at the requests on a level playing field. We would want to be fair to all committee requests. For those who needed travel or needed a small allocation to commence their work, we approved such sums. You will see in the report that 26 per cent or 28 per cent of total requests have been approved to date. That does not mean that we will wait to make a decision until the fall in the case of Senator Kirby and then say that we do not have any more money. Long before then, when we have received all requests, we will do a final allocation. We will ensure that he gets a fair share of the total requests. I apologize for using Senator Kirby as an example, but he was one of the ones who appeared before us. He had a large request for travel, but we did not deal with it at the time because the requirement is not until the fall. Senator Milne: I have a certain interest in this because I will shortly be appearing before you. I want to know if my budget will be cut by one third as it was last year? Senator Furey: We will be questioning items such as request for research assistants. The Library of Parliament has recently hired 10 additional people. We have been told that they are helpful. We are wondering if some of that cannot be done internally. The requests for research assistants involve large sums in many cases. Video conferencing, which goes against the budget, is being set aside and taken off your budget request and being adding to the witness account, so that it does not overburden your budget. There are a few such areas that where we feel we can be helpful when the budgets are presented. You should be aware of those. Senator Gauthier: Senator Furey, I understand your point about the statutory difficulty with the travel points, but I must tell you that the House of Commons does not have any qualms about that. I chaired committees over there, and when we would travel we would encourage members of Parliament to use their points to save money. We never had the argument that it was a statutory faux pas or whatever. Maybe you should check the history of what they do over there. Senator Furey: I checked the history, Senator Gauthier, and I understand that in fact there are creative ways of using the statutory appropriation. For example, senators who are on committees who remove themselves from committees for short periods of time and decide that they want to attend a meeting of that committee do so on their own statutory appropriations. However, to actually allocate in our budgeting statutory appropriations for travel for senators would not pass an audit test. There are creative ways, I agree, that people are getting around it. If they feel happy with that and they feel confident that what we are doing is right we have no problem with it. Senator Gauthier: I just want to quote my case. I do not use my points. Senator Furey: May I have them? Senator Gauthier: Physically I cannot, and I have not used them in seven or eight years. However, I think there is, as you say, some method by which senators could be allowed to use their points. The Chairman: Any further comment on this subject? Senator Austin: I would like to thank the committee, which is chaired by the senator from "Newfound-glacier." Mr. Bélisle: Honourable senators, I have a clarification. I have heard two different views about registration fees. Registration fees are applied to your global budget and not to your travel points. I think there was a little bit of confusion on that. Senator Austin: These are conferences in Canada only. Mr. Bélisle: Absolutely. Senator Stollery: After we adopt this report. On a point of order, this is what we are talking about. The Chairman: I understand then that everyone who wanted to speak on this subject has spoken? Do I have a motion to approve? Senator Comeau. Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Agreed. The next subject under "Other Matters" is a presentation by Mr. Bélisle. Mr. Bélisle: I would request that there be senators only, that we move in camera? The Chairman: Yes, senators only, please. The committee continued in camera.