Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence for November 7, 2002
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 7, 2002
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:00 a.m. to consider administrative and other matters.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we will begin with item seven on the agenda, the proposed agreement between the Senate and the Translation Bureau. As we know, the Translation Bureau is mandated to provide linguistic services to the Parliament of Canada and to parliamentarians. It works in close partnership with the Senate to meet these service expectations. I understand the Translation Bureau has a similar agreement with the House of Commons.
The proposed agreement that we have before us today is meant to, first, define the kinds of services offered to the Senate; second, to establish maximum turnaround times for the translation services that the bureau provides; and, third, to create ways to improve the delivery of its services.
The draft agreement also includes guidelines for the services offered to senators by the bureau. These were previously adopted by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on October 5, 2000, and have been circulated to senators.
We have with us from the Translation Bureau today Mr.Michel Cardinal, Director General, and Mr. Gilles Martel, Director of Parliamentary Translation. We welcome you to our committee. I would ask you to explain in more detail the purpose and objectives of the proposed agreement and answer any questions the senators may have.
Mr. Cardinal, please proceed.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Cardinal, Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau: Thank you and good morning everyone. We want to thank you for the opportunity to review the requirements of the Senate and the services provided by the Translation Bureau.
[English]
My purpose this morning is to present to you three objectives in terms of this particular agreement.
[Translation]
The first objective is to establish transparent service standards, that is standards reflecting existing practices between our service and the Senate. The agreement does not diminish the level of service currently provided to the Senate. On the contrary, it reflects a desire to work with the Senate to enhance service. If the Senate so wishes, deadlines can be firmed up even more. It is important to underscore that point. In this respect, the agreement is not inflexible. Services and standards are the same for the Senate and for the House of Commons, with practices adapted to each situation, such as Hansard, for example.
[English]
Second, as an objective, we wish to create a climate of cooperation and planning so that the Senate can obtain the services that it needs.
[Translation]
Ongoing consultation is needed to ascertain needs. The agreement calls for a proactive, consistent approach to ensure the best possible service and to measure performance. We view the relationship between the Senate and Translation Bureau as a partnership that must enable both parties to use their resources in the most efficient manner possible.
[English]
As a third objective, we wish to define a reference framework so that the clauses are clear. There are modalities to prevent any misunderstanding. Our accountability and responsibility is quite clear, as far as we are concerned. We have one liaison, one person responsible for the services provided to the Senate, and that is Mr. Martel. We need to be able to plan and adjust our resources in terms of meeting your future requirements.
[Translation]
Lastly, the agreement was submitted to and discussed with Senate officials. While it is geared to meeting the concerns that have been expressed, above all it is a dynamic tool, one that can be amended in light of the new realities.
Senator Gauthier: If I understand correctly, you are responsible for the interpreters and translators. You have no authority over stenographic services. You do not pay for these services.
Mr. Gilles Martel, Director, Interpretation and Parliamentary Translation, Translation Bureau: No.
Senator Gauthier: Do you cover the cost of sign language interpretation in the House of Commons?
Mr. Martel: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: What about sign language interpretation services provided elsewhere?
Mr. Martel: What do you mean by elsewhere? We provide such services to other departments.
Senator Gauthier: I realize that the House of Commons operates according to a different system than the Senate. Here, our proceedings are transcribed by stenographers. The House of Commons uses a different system. You cover the cost of translation and sign language interpretation at the House. Is that not correct?
Mr. Martel: Only during Question Period in the House.
Senator Gauthier: At no other time do you provide this service. However, consideration is being given to providing the service. Correct?
Mr. Martel: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: You do not cover the cost of the Senate stenographers.
Mr. Martel: No.
Senator Gauthier: The Senate pays for French and English stenographic services. Would you be prepared to cover the cost of providing sign language interpretation or other services at the Senate?
Mr. Martel: Certainly we would be willing to examine the possibility together with our Senate colleagues.
Senator Gauthier: Surely you understand where I am going with this line of questioning. For some people, sign language interpretation is an essential service. The CRTC will be requiring direct closed captioning of television programs. The demand for steno-captioning will be high. On November 1, the CBC announced a national policy calling for all CBC programming to have real-time captioning 24 hours a day. This is a new policy.
Mr. Martel: That is correct.
Senator Gauthier: The House of Commons is currently involved in a court challenge in the Quigley case. Are you familiar with that case?
Mr. Martel: I am.
Senator Gauthier: The case involves a person from the Maritimes who had a problem with the broadcasting by CPAC of parliamentary proceedings, whether those of the House of Commons or the Senate. If I am not mistaken, CPAC carries three signals: the video, the language of the actual floor proceedings, as well as the French and English interpretation. Mr. Quigley protested the fact that his cable company was transmitting only the floor proceedings and not providing any French interpretation. The Federal Court recognized the validity of his complaint and ruled that real-time captioning must be provided. The House of Commons is appealing that decision.
I am aware of the fact that you cover the cost of certain services provided to the House of Commons, but not the cost of certain services provided to the Senate. Why do you pick up the tab for sign language interpretation at the House of Commons, but not for stenographic services at the Senate, although this is considered an essential service? The Senate could benefit from such services in its committees and broadcast committee meetings with close captioning.
[English]
Senator Stratton: Has there been any demand or request for such services?
Mr. Martel: Our interpreters have been working with the reporters to establish a service, but the request expressed by Senator Gauthier is the first time that we have heard about it.
Senator Stratton: I think we need to know if there has there been a history of demand in recent years for such a service or such a request.
The Chairman: Are there other questions?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: The Translation Bureau pays for certain services provided to the House of Commons and there is some talk of negotiating an agreement with them. Who picks up the tab for services provided to the Senate?
Mr. Paul C. Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the committee: That would be the department.
Mr. Cardinal: The Translation Bureau is a component of Public Works and Government Services Canada and we operate with a parliamentary vote to provide services to Parliament.
Senator Robichaud: Therefore, a request for service does not necessarily mean an expense for the Senate. Could you provide us with these services?
Mr. Martel: Yes, that is our mandate.
Senator Gauthier: There has been talk of an agency that would provide translation, interpretation and other services. Are you aware of this rumour?
Mr. Martel: What kind of agency would that be?
Senator Gauthier: As part of the restructuring process, there has been talk of setting up an official languages services agency that would oversee translation, interpretation, hiring, promotion and other services. This agency would be independent of the government. Are you aware of this rumour?
Mr. Cardinal: We have heard rumours to that effect, but we have not been involved in any direct discussions on the subject.
Senator Gauthier: A two-tiered system is in place. Public Works and Government Services Canada pays for certain House of Commons services, but not for Senate services. That is not right. I do not know the exact cost of interpretation, but these services are costly. We are not being treated in the same way as the House of Commons.
If I have to invoke my disability, then I will. However, one issue needs to be resolved. I fail to understand why one chamber benefits from costly services, while the other, the Senate, is left to pick up the tab.
The Chairman: You have raised an important point that warrants further discussion. I will ask the administration to discuss with your witnesses possible ways of resolving this issue, so that the Senate receives the same treatment as the House of Commons, and to report back to our committee. Is that amenable to you?
[English]
Senator Stratton: If we are to consider and discuss this matter, I would like to know what the costs will be to the Canadian taxpayer, and if not the Senate, it is still the Canadian taxpayer.
The Chairman: Your taxes and mine.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I fully agree with Senator Stratton, but I also concur with Senator Gauthier. If one chamber benefits from certain services, then the Senate is also entitled to equal treatment.
[English]
Senator Stratton: I do not disagree, but I still want to know the costs.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: We need to find out what it cost to provide these services to the Senate and to the House of Commons. We need to have figures to compare costs, so that we can make a decision before signing an agreement.
The Chairman: Before we entertain a motion to accept this agreement with the Translation Bureau, perhaps we should wait until administration officials meet with the witnesses and report back to us. We would then be in a better position to adopt, or reject, the motion.
[English]
If honourable senators agree, we will wait before we put forward a motion to accept the agreement and the guidelines relating to translation services.
Our next item of business is to adopt the minutes of our proceedings of the October 8, 10, 24 and 31, 2002, meetings. Do I have a motion to that effect?
Senator Gauthier: I so move.
Senator Stratton: I was not on the committee. Would it not be appropriate for those who were on the committee at that time to move such a motion so that we have a degree of comfort there?
The Chairman: That is why Senator Gauthier moved the motion.
Senator Stratton: That is fine.
The Chairman: It is seconded by Senator Atkins.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
We also have to deal this morning with the 2004 CPA conference, and I would ask Mr. Bélisle to give us the proper information on that matter.
Mr. Bélisle: Honourable senators, a request has been received from the CPA, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, to host the 2004 conference. Canada last hosted the conference in Banff, Alberta, in 1994.
The host of the conference will not be the federal government or any one of the provinces or territories. The Canadian region will host the conference. The Canadian region is composed of 14individual branches: three territories, ten provinces and the federal government. All have agreed to host this conference. The Joint Inter- Parliamentary Council of the Senate and of the House of Commons has also agreed to host. The House of Commons has agreed, but there is no motion in our records yet that the Senate agrees.
The conference will be held mainly in Quebec City and Toronto. The executive committee will be meeting in Ottawa. The cost will be shared among the federal government and the 13provincial and territorial branches.
The budget for this conference will appear in the 2004-05 fiscal year, so we are looking two years down the road. It will not appear in next year's budget. Nevertheless, I thought there should be a motion for an agreement in principle to host this fiftieth annual CPA conference in 2004.
The Chairman: Are there any questions?
Mr. Bélisle: As a matter of interest, I am secretary to the CPA, to the region in Canada, and will be playing a major role in coordinating the conference.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: How is it that this budgetary request is being considered by the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee, and not by the Joint Inter-parliamentary Council, the JIC?
Mr. Bélisle: This request was submitted to the JIC which then made a recommendation to this committee and to the House of Commons.
Senator Poulin: Do we have a copy of the JIC's recommendation?
Mr. Bélisle: The recommendation put forward in May further to discussions was as follows:
That the Canadian Branch, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, be authorized to pursue discussions and propose a budget for the co-hosting of the 50th Annual Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in Ottawa, Quebec City and Toronto in September 2004.
It was also agreed that the Council recommend that the Standing Joint Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons authorize the holding of this conference.
[English]
Senator Bolduc: I do not want to come back to the decision because it has already been taken, but I want to mention one thing.
We were hosts of those conferences, I understand, in 1952, 1966, 1977 and 1994. Such a conference used to take place every 15 or 20 years. Now it happens every six or seven years. There are many countries in the Commonwealth. Why do we have to host the conference in Canada every eight or nine years?
Mr. Bélisle: I believe there is a heavier demand on certain countries. The last five CPA conferences have been hosted in New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain, Canada and Namibia. Trinidad and Tobago hosted a conference about five or six years ago, but it was difficult for them. Smaller countries such as the Cook Islands tried to host the conference but found, at the last minute, that they did not have the infrastructure and the hotels to accommodate at least 700 delegates. For this reason, the number of countries that can host the conference is limited.
Senator Bolduc: Yes, but we host that conference and we host the Francophonie Games and so many other Commonwealth events. Is it an annual meeting?
Mr. Bélisle: Yes, it occurs each year, in the fall — September or October.
Senator Bolduc: Why is it not held biannually, if it is to be in Canada every six or seven years?
The Chairman: That issue is for the CPA to discuss and not for us to discuss.
Senator Bolduc: I do not know how much it costs, but it is a great deal of money, I suppose. The Francophonie Games also cost us a great deal of money.
Mr. Bélisle: The cost will be divided: The provinces and territories will pay for one third; the federal government will pay for one third; and revenues generated by the conference will cover one third of the cost.
Senator Stratton: What does that mean?
Mr. Bélisle: Some of the observers who attend will pay fees. The CPA headquarters in London will provide a certain amount, but it comes to about one third of the cost.
[Translation]
Senator Bolduc: We could spend our money on many other things, rather than on this event every five years. That is my personal feeling.
I have nothing against the Commonwealth or against La Francophonie. I have nothing whatsoever against international affairs. However, when provinces are closing hospital beds, I think we need to look at where we are spending our money. That is my personal opinion. Six years is a little too often.
The Chairman: Senator Bolduc, your comment has been duly noted. I will pass it along to the JIC for consideration at its next meeting.
Senator Gauthier: Has this amount been included in this year's overall budget?
Mr. Bélisle: In the estimates? No. We are looking at the estimates for 2004-2005. We are looking ahead two years. This expense is not posted anywhere as of yet.
Senator Gauthier: Getting back to Senator Poulin's question, she was wondering why approval was being sought today. If it is included in the umbrella agreement, then there is no problem.
Mr. Bélisle: I could come back to the committee in a year or two, but it would be a good idea to have an agreement in principle before we get too far along with the preparations. All of the other provinces have signed on, including the Territories and the House.
Senator Gauthier: There is a difference between ``in principle'' and ``in practice.''
Mr. Bélisle: I agree with you.
The Chairman: Did the committee arrive at an agreement in principle this morning?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chairman: I promise Senator Bolduc that I will mention this to the Joint Inter-Parliamentary Council.
[English]
Senator Bolduc: My concern is simply that we host so many of those events that involve countries around the world.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Are we all agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Chairman: The next item on our agenda is the International and Inter-Parliamentary Affairs — Africa Seminar.
Mr. Bélisle: A request has been received. A letter, I believe, was sent from Speaker Milliken to Speaker Hays concerning a budget for an African seminar. The amount is $196,496, of which the Senate would pay 30 per cent, which equates to about $60,000. That is for the current fiscal year. The seminar will take place January 30 to February 12 in Ghana, Sierra Leone and Nigeria. The composition of the delegation attending the seminar will be as follows: five members of the House of Commons, two senators, and the head of the delegation, who will be, I believe, a member of the House of Commons.
The Chairman: Are there any comments, senators?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Is this request for approximately $60,000 consistent with our estimates?
Mr. Bélisle: I have discussed this with the Director of Finance and the money will be taken out of this year's operating budget. However, it is still a little early yet. We have reached the mid point in the fiscal year and it is a little too soon to know if we can take this $60,000 out of this year's budget or if we will need to request supplementary estimates. I see the Director nodding his head.
[English]
Senator Stratton: I am always concerned when I receive that kind of answer.
Mr. Bélisle: I wish I could be more specific.
Senator Stratton: My concern is about the size of the Supplementary Estimates. The current Supplementary Estimates are virtually nothing, but we can see the gun being loaded for the next round. When we talk about security, for example, there will be a large number.
I have to express my concern about the size of the next Supplementary Estimates because we will be in a tilt with the other place and will have to carefully watch what we spend. I want that on the record because we will be in a fight.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: We are talking about a project that will result in an expenditure of $60,000. I am having some trouble understanding who would be responsible for organizing this seminar.
Did I read the application incorrectly? How will this project work exactly? Will it come under the minister's authority or will it unfold in the context of an interparliamentary association?
The Chairman: Do you have a copy of Mr. Milliken's letter?
Mr. Bélisle: This initiative does not come from a parliamentary association, but rather from parliamentarians, among others, from Mr. Milliken, further to the G-8 Summit in 2002. These seminars are already being organized under the direction of Ms.Poulin at the House of Commons. In fact, two officers under Ms. Poulin's authority at International Affairs are handling the organizational details. A delegation of parliamentarians from both houses will be attending the seminar which is not linked to any association in particular.
The Chairman: The aim is to promote the Canadian system, in response to requests from three African parliaments. The theme of the seminar is ``Parliamentary Democracy: the Canadian Experience.''
[English]
Senator Bryden: I do not know if I am reading this correctly or not, but page 22 of our briefing notes, under ``Recommendation,'' states:
In the present context and in order to ensure the independence of the project, it is recommended that the Board of Internal Economy approve one-time funding of $137,200...
That is 70 per cent of the total cost of $196,000.
The Chairman: That is for the House of Commons. The Senate pays 30 per cent.
Senator Bryden: Is this letter addressed to the Senate or to the House of Commons?
Mr. Bélisle: When the request came in, I had the letter that has been circulated. In attempting to get additional information, I called the Director of International Affairs. This is the information I was sent, which is what was put before the board of the House. I could have adjusted it for a request here, but I thought that the request was the letter to Speaker Hays. This is additional information that went before the board of the House of Commons.
The Chairman: The letter mentions a figure of $196,496. That is the total amount. We will pay 30 per cent of that figure, which would be about $60,000.
Senator Bryden: What confuses me is that I do not see any indication that the amount of $137,200 is not directed to us. Are you saying that this should indicate the Senate portion as being 30per cent of $196,000?
Mr. Bélisle: That is correct, senator.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: Was the JIC involved in some way? Which association was the driving force behind this initiative?
The Chairman: The matter was the focus of discussions within the Joint Inter-parliamentary Council.
Senator Gauthier: And this was discussed and recommended by the JIC?
The Chairman: The JIC did not make a formal recommendation as such.
Mr. Bélisle: I do not attend JIC meetings and I do not know if a formal request was submitted to the committee.
Senator Gauthier: I have no objections as such to the idea, but the federal government has already announced an outlay of $500million for Africa. I do not see the Foreign Affairs Committee involved in this matter and yet, all of these initiatives are connected with Africa.
The Chairman: The matter concerns parliamentarians. Since parliamentarians will be responsible for and will be attending the seminar, they will also be assuming related costs.
Senator Gauthier: Who among parliamentarians is responsible for spearheading this initiative?
The Chairman: The Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr.Milliken, sent a letter dated October to Senator Hays, the Speaker of the Senate.
Mr. Bélisle: In his letter, Speaker Milliken informed the Senate Speaker of a decision taken by the Board of Internal Economy on October 9 last regarding sponsorship of a seminar. Was the letter also submitted to the JIC? I do not have an answer to that question.
[English]
Senator Bolduc: Do you know if Mr. Milliken will send another letter to Speaker Hays about the fact that three francophone countries may also ask for representatives to attend?
[Translation]
The Chairman: We will look into that, but I do not believe it is the case with any of the requests that have been submitted.
[English]
Senators will be attending and participating, as will members of Parliament.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: May I suggest we defer this item until the next meeting, when we will have more information? If this initiative originates with Mr. Milliken or with the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons, then I want to know about it, because they will come back later with similar requests, either for trips to China, Japan or someplace else. This only weakens the position of the parliamentary associations.
The Chairman: This is a seminar, quite apart from the parliamentary association initiatives. Parliamentarians, not parliamentary associations, are the driving force behind the seminar.
Mr. Bélisle: Far be it for the Clerk to get embroiled in the debate, but the end of November is fast approaching. Arrangements must be made with these countries fairly quickly. If we hold off too long on making a decision, preparations will be delayed, and the seminar is scheduled for either January or February.
Senator Gauthier: We would be setting a major precedent.
Senator Gill: We can verify the facts. If senators have no objections, the matter could be put to the steering committee to see if the criteria have been met. That could be done fairly quickly. We can try and get the information Senator Gauthier is requesting. Once we have it, then the steering committee could make the final decision.
Mr. Bélisle: The question is this: Is this seminar being sponsored by Mr. Milliken and the House of Commons?
Senator Gill: And what if that is in fact the case? The steering committee could make the decision if the situation becomes urgent —
The Chairman: Is everyone agreed?
[English]
Senator Stratton: We have talked about the 2004 CPA conference, which costs money. We have talked about the International and Inter-Parliamentary Affairs Africa Seminar, which costs money. We have talked about translation agreements and guidelines, which costs money.
For our own sake, throughout the course of this Parliament we should keep track as each item is listed so that we know what that bottom line is each time we approve a request for money. I do not want us to go blithely along and approve this money without knowing the cumulative effect. We need to know.
Senator Austin: I certainly agree that we should keep track of the money we are spending. That is a given.
The question we should keep in mind is that we are not just bookkeepers. We are here to extend the role of Canada internationally, the parliamentary system and the role of this chamber.
These are not huge expenditures. This mission will go without us. The Commons will send their people. If we do not want to send people from the Senate that is our choice. I do not see the question at issue.
I think we should simply adopt this item and not take up the time of the steering committee, et cetera. That is my opinion. I so move the adoption of this item.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Provided we get an answer to Senator Gauthier's question, I am prepared to support the motion.
[English]
The Chairman: The steering committee will ask more questions of the House of Commons. If we feel the need to further inform you, we will do so.
Senator Austin: You can amend my motion to that effect.
The Chairman: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: I agree with Senator Austin's resolution, but perhaps we should take this opportunity to reflect upon the important question raised by Senator Gauthier. We do not have a context for this discussion. In other words, this is not an official association.
Could we possibly consider limiting our parliamentary action aimed at promoting democracy? Senator Austin is correct in saying that we have global presence and global responsibilities. We could give this matter some thought and ponder future directions.
The Chairman: You are quite right. We will do just that because we cannot be considering requests of a monetary nature at every single meeting.
Senator Bolduc: It is just that Mr. Milliken apparently said the issue had been settled and that we had to go along with everything.
The Chairman: I think we need to discuss this within the context of the JIC so as not to be confronted with a fait accompli. You can rest assured that the matter will be raised.
[English]
Senator Stratton: We are more than bookkeepers.
Senator Bolduc: We are bookkeeping.
Senator Austin: No, we are keepers of the purse. That is different from being bookkeepers.
Senator Stratton: We are not keepers; we are spenders.
The Chairman: We will now go to item four of the agenda, the Artwork Advisory Working Group.
Before I was appointed to the Senate, the Artwork Advisory Working Group existed here. It was mandated to provide advice to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and to provide oversight and to develop supporting policies and guidelines on matters related to the acquisition of heritage assets and works of art for the Senate to display. Some senators would like to continue with this project.
My suggestion would be to have the mandate of this advisory working group renewed.
Senator Gauthier: Who are the members of this advisory group?
The Chairman: Senator Kroft, Senator Meighen, Senator Johnson, Senator Moore and Senator Joyal.
Senator Austin: Did the group spend any money in the last session?
The Chairman: No.
Mr. Bélisle: They did not have a budget.
The Chairman: They do not have a budget.
Senator Austin: Are they not asking for a budget?
The Chairman: No.
Senator Austin: It is a volunteer committee.
The Chairman: Yes.
Do you agree, senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The committee will now proceed in camera.
The committee continued in camera.