Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence for November 21, 2002
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 21, 2002
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 10:05 a.m. to consider administrative and other matters.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, you have in front of you today's agenda. Senator Austin has indicated that he wishes to address the meeting on other matters.
Senator Austin: Any time it is appropriate.
The Chairman: Do other senators have comments?
Senator Stratton: I know that people are rushed, but we seem to be having a problem of late. We receive agendas shortly before meetings are about to commence, and we do not have an opportunity to review all the information. That is now becoming the rule rather than the exception.
The Chairman: It will not be the rule. Are there any other matters?
The first item on the agenda is the consideration of committee budgets and the process of it. In the budget, $2.2 million was available for committees in 2002-03. Of this amount, 400,000 was set aside for witness expenses and video conferencing, leaving $1.8 million available for committee budgets.
Committee budgets submitted in the first session during the 2002-2003 fiscal year amounted to some $3.7 million, and a total of $1,762,819 was released to committees.
From April 1 until prorogation on September 16, committees spent $622,000 and a further 70,000 was spent on witness expenses.
Senator Austin: Do we have a document with these numbers, or do we have to write them down?
The Chairman: We will circulate the document as soon as it is ready. We discussed it at the steering committee.
Senator Austin: It is hard to work with numbers that one does not have.
The Chairman: A strategy is required to allocate these remaining funds. We have $1.3 million available for distribution to committees for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Senator Bolduc: We have three months.
The Chairman: We have four months. Funds will need to be allocated in the absence of the knowledge of total demand from committees. The process of reviewing committee budgets is time consuming. Rather than take the time to hear from each chair, it is preferable for the steering committee to undertake this task and make recommendations to the full committee. Most committees have received emergency funds to carry them over until their budgets can be reviewed. However, we understand that these funds are limited, and several committees are anxious to have their budgets considered and funds released.
A number of other committees are still developing their work plans and getting their orders of reference to the Senate.
To date, we have received a total of eight budgets, including three legislative budgets and five special study budgets, amounting to $811,795. A decision was previously taken under request from the Social Affairs Committee for its health care study, which we granted.
Seven budgets are currently before us for consideration. It is my hope that remaining budgets will be submitted to us shortly so that we can have an idea of the total demands.
We believe that committee work is at the heart of the work of the Senate, and we certainly want to ensure that committees are able to undertake their legislative and policy studies. At the same time, it is essential that we work within existing budgetary constraints and be responsible managers of the institution's resources.
Your steering committee met this morning to discuss how to proceed. One especially important decision was made with respect to budgets. As you know, committees in the past have had nearly unlimited flexibility in spending their budgets within the three broad categories of expenditures: professional and special services, transport and communications, and other expenditures. They have also been able to transfer up to $4,000 between these categories without requiring approval. This means that a committee that was allocated funds for public hearings, for example, could use the funds instead for fact-finding missions or for conferences.
Your steering committee recommends that a committee should have to request from Internal Economy permission to transfer funds between public hearings, fact-finding missions and conferences. In addition, funds that were granted for a particular trip but were not used should be returned for distribution to other committees.
Our intention is to hear from the committee chairs on Tuesday, November 26, December 3 and December 10 to consider budgets. We expect to report back the first set of budgets to the full committee next Thursday.
Are there any questions? Perhaps Ms. Lank wishes to add something.
[Translation]
Ms. Heather Lank, Principal Clerk, Committees and Private Legislation Branch: I believe the chairman has covered all of the important points, those necessary to the senators' work.
[English]
If senators have any specific questions, I could address them and provide whatever information I can.
Senator Kroft: Madam Chair, you explained that you expect to hear from committees over a period of about three weeks. Perhaps Ms. Lank can provide some insight.
Madam Chair, at what point do you feel you have enough of a picture of the overall needs to start making commitments to particular committees, or will that wait until all the committees have been heard from?
The Chairman: Seven budgets have been submitted already, so we can hear from those committee chairs if we allow about 15minutes for each. More time may be required for some.
Senator Kroft: Will you have to wait to hear from all of them before you make a commitment? I am trying to get to the date that you might expect to confirm to committees what funds are available.
Ms Lank: The suggestion discussed by the steering committee was that in order to allow committees to work and not to prevent them from moving forward, but also not to overcommit without having the full picture, each committee chair should be heard. One of the key questions will be the timing of expenditures.
Some budgets are very small, such as the $13,000 request from the Transport and Communications Committee to conduct its busing study. Members of the steering committee would have to look at that specific request and decide whether they were comfortable recommending the release of those funds.
For some of the larger budgets, the steering committee will have to look at what funds will be required for committees to undertake their work until the middle of February, for example, which would mean that the funds could be granted on a partial basis. However, the Senate would be back after Christmas in sufficient time that at the end of January and in early February, hopefully, all committees would have their budgets. The Senate would know what funds are in the system and the whole financial picture would be available to it. Internal Economy would then be in a position as a committee to make a further release for those committees, whereas it might not be prepared to approve the full amount prior to the funds running out in mid-February. There would be continuity in the funding for committees, but Internal Economy would not go beyond the envelope available, keeping in mind that it does not know the whole picture yet. That is one strategy that the steering committee could use.
Senator Kroft: Is there any major committee work that is important to the Senate that we anticipate may have a problem because of this budget situation, or is it too early to speculate?
The Chairman: If committees have major work to do and they need the money, we can grant a partial amount and review the whole picture afterwards.
Senator Kroft: Is there any committee that will be unable to get underway with its work?
The Chairman: No, not after what we decide this morning.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I commend the decisions of your steering committee. I am happy to hear you say that committees will have to take part in the work of the Internal Economy Committee to transfer budgets.
You say that funds allocated to a trip that are not used will have to be returned to the committee. Could those funds not be used for factual studies, without reverting to the committee?
The Chairman: No, we are to some extent covering ground we covered earlier. This concerns amounts of over $4,000, and these studies often cost much more. So these funds will have to be returned to the committee.
Senator Robichaud: And in cases where the amounts would not be more than $4,000?
The Chairman: We are allowing for a certain flexibility for committee decisions regarding amounts of less than $4,000.
Senator Robichaud: Do we know how much factual studies cost?
The Chairman: I can ask for a review to be carried out in order to obtain the figures for next week when we hold our discussion with the chairmen.
[English]
Senator Bryden: If funds are to be returned to the committee because they are not used for the budgeted purpose, is it possible that at the same time they are returned the committee could permit the reallocation of those funds to that committee for another purpose?
The Chairman: Yes, or reallocate the money to other committees.
Senator Bryden: The same committee could apply.
The Chairman: It money could also be distributed to other committees or to the same committee if it has new work that it wants to do.
Senator Bryden: That is the point. You said ``to other committees,'' but the money could be allocated without having to come back. We could say, ``Here is the money back,'' and it could be reallocated at that time.
The Chairman: Once we discuss it.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: If I understand correctly, the deadline for all committees will be the end of January, beginning of February? There is no set date? Have all committee chairs been advised that they must table their budget by a specific date?
The Chairman: Committee chairs will be advised that we will be meeting with them on November 26, December 3 and December 10. Ms. Lank will inform the chairmen of the importance of those dates and of the fact that they must prepare their files in order to be able to table them before the holidays.
Ms. Lank: Of course, committee chairs, even if they have these deadlines in mind, must have their order of reference from the Senate. Thus, it is possible that circumstances may arise where a chair will not be able to come before Christmas. We can certainly encourage them to proceed so that the files can be before us before the holidays.
[English]
Senator Austin: Going back into the structure of what is recommended here, I need to be instructed. We are talking about the 2002-2003 budget, which expires at the end of March. Is it the estimate of the steering committee that all those monies could be used before the end of March? No?
The Chairman: I would be surprised. If we compare these numbers to the past few years, I do not think the money will be spent. Senator Kroft would know better.
Would committees spend 70 per cent?
Senator Kroft: Yes, unless there is a major event.
Senator Austin: It makes sense to me, as an old bureaucrat — the tricks of bureaucrats — to get as much of the committee budget into the hands of the committees, particularly those committees that can spend that money before the end of March.
We will lapse a lot of money in any event. We cannot use this kind of money, particularly when the committees cannot be operational until the beginning of February. We will be studying the proposed committee budgets until December 10, and then this committee will meet and receive the steering committee report — if that is the system — and make allocations. We are all gone until the end of January, although staff work can be done, but the committees cannot really start their policy work until February 1. We have 60 days.
I would ask committee members to consider that rather than waiting for an omnibus process where everyone comes to us and we apportion equal amounts of this and that, we have enough money in reserve to handle everything. Funds do not have to be allocated at one time. The committees that are ready to go should get going, but there is still lots of money for the committees that are not ready to go. I do not mean that we should give them everything they want. That is not my point. My point is that we should let the committees get started with adequate funds to do their work. I think Internal Economy should consider making allocations in terms of the ability of committees to get their work going rather than this convoy that moves at the speed of the slowest ship. Otherwise, we will not make any impact until the summer of next year, and the Senate will be nowhere in regard to the issues of the day. That is my first point.
My second point is that there must be a two-budget strategy. We will have more money in fiscal year 2003-2004, and this committee will be working on the allocation of that money as soon as this process is complete.
Our committees will want to know where they are going. Of the five policy studies — I am not totally familiar with them all — none of them will be completed in six months. They will all take one year, roughly, or longer.
I would suggest that the steering committee look at a two-budget sequence. We will lapse money on this budget, but so be it. That is the way the way events unfolded this year. Let us try to get maximum impact for the Senate in terms of policy studies and legislation out of a two-budget sequence. That is my recommendation.
I wanted to ask the chair a question about the previous process. The previous process was to have a budget subcommittee make a recommendation to this committee as a whole. I have no objection to the steering committee acting in that capacity, if that is the view of the chair and of the steering committee, but I want to make it clear from my point of view that the steering committee has given itself a different function in this respect than is normal. Normally, a steering committee makes administrative decisions for us all, which are essentially expeditious decisions to make that need not be raised here. However, the report of the steering committee in this case has to be as if it were a budget subcommittee meeting ad referendum to the committee as a whole. I would say that the steering committee cannot import any special authority to make commitments to the budget without this committee.
The Chairman: We will not make a commitment to anyone. We are just listening. If this worries you, we will be listening to staff, asking questions of our chairs and discussing this matter with you before we make recommendations.
Senator Austin: Nothing I am saying has anything to do with any individual. I come from an institutional framework. The Rules Committee and this committee have to represent wide institutional interests in the Senate.
The Chairman: We would report back the decisions we make, and we would also consider doing something else maybe next year with the next budget. That does not mean that we will do that with every budget. We are just starting, and we want to learn more.
Ms. Lank: Just to clarify, the idea of having those three dates does not mean that the steering committee will necessarily wait for all of those chairs to be heard before making a recommendation on, for example, the budgets they hear next Tuesday. The chair, at the end of her mark remarks, said we hope to report back to you the first set of budgets next Thursday, so release could be made for those that are ready. There will be more to come. Do not worry on that front.
Senator Austin: If that is our policy, I am delighted.
Senator Bolduc: I understand it is for this year because this situation is different.
The Chairman: We have a peculiar situation this year. If you allow us to do the utmost we can do, we will do it.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I agree with what Senator Austin was saying. We must allow committees to begin their work as quickly as possible. However, I would not like to create the impression that we have a boundless supply of funds, to the point where we do not know what to do with them, and that committees can just help themselves to this endless source of money. Some committees have done excellent work without having spent enormous sums of money. We should not measure the effectiveness of a committee by the amount of money it spends, but rather by the quality of the reports it submits. This is just a word of caution; there is no money tree.
The Chairman: We are well aware of that. That is why we are going to do this as seriously as possible.
[English]
Eight committee budgets are already in, for a total of $800,000, and we have $1.3 million to spend. We have a lot more to come.
Senator Kroft: Following on Senator Austin's two-budget comment and looking at the situation, it might be useful to Ms. Lank, through you, Madam Chair, to ask the committees to look farther forward than they have. Rather than just asking committees what their work is now, we might want to try to encourage committees to look toward a two- year framework, even though it will be very rough and ready. We might learn some interesting things. In the minds of committees and committee chairs, there is a certain mindset: ``What will we do after this?'' My experience is that we have not done a good job in the past of getting that up and forward.
It may be helpful to our planning if we lengthen the time frame. In this committee, we know that certain studies are beginning and that other committees want to get started. I know in the Banking Committee and the Social Affairs Committee that this is the case. It might be helpful, even though there is not a formal budget process, to begin to extend the length of our planning process, which might produce some good results.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: If I understand correctly, you have received requests totalling $800,000.
The Chairman: For eight committees.
Senator Gauthier: For eight committees out of nineteen.
The Chairman: And we have $1.3 million.
Senator Gauthier: So, we have $500,000 remaining to distribute.
The Chairman: This does not mean that we are going to distribute all of it. We will have to examine the agenda of each committee.
Senator Gauthier: I understand that there is a difference between asking and receiving.
The Chairman: In terms of budgets, yes.
Senator Gauthier: Will the reports of the steering committee, which you chair, be given to the committee sufficiently in advance so that we have time to study them?
The Chairman: We said that earlier.
Senator Gauthier: Will they be produced in writing?
The Chairman: We are going to attempt to provide you with what is needed as quickly as possible before the next meeting. There are sometimes contingencies we must deal with.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there other questions with respect to the budget? Shall we adopt the suggested process?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I asked staff to give committee members a dossier on the CRTC's decision on CPAC's licence renewal of November 19, 2002. We will discuss it next week. The Senate's law clerk, Mr. Audcent, is meeting on Friday with his people and will come to us with more information on the proper procedures to be followed by us regarding the decision. I wanted you to have it on hand. Paragraphs 32 to 43 concern mostly the Senate. Committee members will be interested in taking note of that.
Senator Stratton: I have read the decision, which was positive for us. We now have to go through a process of negotiation, as I understand it. In the past, who represented the Senate with respect to negotiations?
Senator Austin: Senator Kenny.
The Chairman: We will discuss it next week.
Senator Stratton: Perhaps we can think about that as a continuation.
The Chairman: We have our lawyer also, Mr. Gilles Daigle, a lawyer from Gowlings.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: I have a particular interest in this issue, with which I am very familiar. The House of Commons signed a contract with CPAC. Following the Quigley decision, I believe the contract was reopened; this would have to be confirmed. To my knowledge, we have not yet signed anything with CPAC.
The Chairman: So then, we would have to negotiate with them after the decision.
Senator Gauthier: Would it be possible to know whether the House has reopened its contract, and if that is the case, for what reason? I know the answer, but I am putting the question nevertheless.
The Chairman: You know the answer?
Senator Gauthier: Yes. It is because they cannot do what the court said they had to do with CPAC.
I have in hand a letter from Ms. Watson dated June 25, 2002. I would like to table this letter with the committee. This letter states clearly that CPAC will distribute the signal it gets from the Senate and will be, so to speak, the messenger and not the producer.
For the time being, that is the conclusion. We are before the courts because people have said that CPAC is responsible for the fact that we do not get both official languages. They provide us with the language being used on the floor; if we want to receive the English, we get the French; that is not right.
It is not true, it is not CPAC that decides on the signal to be distributed; we do. That is why I would like us to study this question and for someone from the committee to be entrusted with the responsibility for this file.
I do not know whether Senator Kenny is a member of the committee, but if he is not, why is he acting in this matter?
The Chairman: Who?
Senator Gauthier: Senator Colin Kenny.
The Chairman: We have not reached that point yet. People can discuss this in committee.
Senator Robichaud: To follow up on Senator Gauthier's comment, I believe I read in the decision that they were simply going to distribute what we offer. But does this mean that we are going to have to install a program production system to ensure that CPAC has material to distribute with Senate content, i.e. the committees, other meetings, or any other Senate activities?
The Chairman: Mr. Watson has not completed his review of the file, and there are preliminary comments.
Mr. O'Brien could make some preliminary remarks. He made some this morning at the steering committee meeting. This was not a far-reaching, substantive decision.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, I would like you to have the file in hand. For this reason I have asked that it be distributed this week so that we can discuss it with full knowledge of the facts the next time we meet.
[English]
Mr. Gary O'Brien, Deputy Clerk and Principal Clerk: On that point, senator, the Senate's demands were not focused on that. The CRTC ruled on the issue of dual distribution status and access of Canadians to their programming. I can say that they rejected a dual distribution status. Therefore, all cable operators must carry the signal. The legal decision in the Quigley case is very much on everyone's minds. Senator Gauthier mentioned the fact that there seems to be information that the House of Commons is asking to reopen its agreement with CPAC, which is within its rights. It has a right to do that.
We are still analyzing the full impact of the CRTC decision, especially with the Quigley decision in mind. We are not yet in a position to answer what our positions are, but as Senators Kroft and Rompkey before him have always indicated, the Senate fully intends to respect the Official Languages Act. There is no question about that.
Senator Robichaud: I hope there is no question about that.
Senator Atkins: This is an incredible breakthrough for the Senate if we are serious about our relationship with the public. Senators Kroft and Kenny and our legal counsel deserve one heck of a lot of credit for the effort they have put into this matter. I just want to put that on the record.
The Chairman: Mr. Audcent will come back to us with his information next week.
We will now proceed to deal with the other matters on today's agenda.
Senator Austin: Honourable senators, the item I want to discuss is a small one, but one which I think is significant to senators. I would preface my remarks by saying that more and more of our national life has involvement — and I will not use any charged words like ``interdependent'' or ``integration'' — with the United States and things that go on in the United States.
There are times when committees would like to have one or two people go to Washington or New York in particular. There are times when individual senators can carry out the Senate's business, with the approval of the steering committee of their particular committee, not on their own but with the approval of the steering committee to go to a meeting that has relevance to our public responsibilities.
I am not looking to expand the total envelope — I want to be clear about that. The outer walls of our spending are not to be touched. However, all of us have substantial travel points. Very few of us get even close to using them all. I live in Vancouver. I have 64 points and I come here perhaps 36 or 38 times. For that reason, I must be one of the more aggressive users of travel points.
In any event, I would recommend that senators be allowed to use travel points for a maximum of two trips in a fiscal year to the United States, where the steering committee of one of our committees so authorizes it as being in pursuit of the business of that committee — that is, in pursuit of the order of reference that stands in front of that committee.
For example, when I was Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, there were all sorts of good reasons to talk about process to the clerks and leaders of the Senate and the House in Washington. For instance, how do they handle conferences, in which they have great experience? We have rules.
I was talking to Peter Adams — who, at that time, chaired the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs — about all sorts of things, such as conferences about private members' bills, et cetera. It was clear that Mr.Adams and I could sit down and understand the process in Washington, not just with the political people but, more significantly, with the people who run the game down there. It would be useful.
While the committee did have a travel budget, we never got to the point where we could do it.
Rather than exercising a huge apparatus and negotiations among so many senators who have to go on various trips, the money for which comes out of a committee's budget, I recommend that we study whether my suggestion is feasible and what issues may be involved. I am referring only to a maximum of two trips, and only to the United States, with the approval of the steering committee involved. Accepting this recommendation may make our access to American processes more feasible, and we might have an influence in the United States from time to time if we develop relationships with key people there.
Senator Bolduc: In the same vein, I have been a member of the Canada-U.S. group for the last 15 years. In my opinion, it is one of the most important and most useful inter-parliamentary committees that exists because we talk about real issues with the Americans. We talk about trade, defence and the environment.
Our three subcommittees meet three full days a year, either in Canada or in the United States. It just happens that I know many American senators and members of the House.
I will give just a small example. The other day when an American senator whom I knew very well died in a plane accident, it was obvious to me that some of our members who knew with him should have been there. My God, we did not have any permission to go to Minnesota. Can you imagine? It is a childish attitude. At the same time, you see hundreds of civil servants going first-class to Toronto.
Senator Atkins: I would like to expand on this recommendation as a member of that committee. Between the annual meetings, issues arise between Canada and the United States where members of that committee, if they had some options, would be able to go to the U.S. to make representations. Senators should know that as a result of some of these meetings that Senator Bolduc is talking about we have been able to turn around some positions that the Americans have taken. I refer to border issues, for example. I think this is a great opportunity for us to give the option to senators to represent us in Washington, in particular.
Senator Kroft: One of the items that has been on the agenda of the committee and the steering committee for some time is that there is a constant flow of requests, or there has been, from individual senators who have been invited to participate in events somewhere or who have an interest in certain events in another country. This goes on all the time. There has been a prohibition for 10 years now on the use of travel points for any travel out of the country.
When I was chair of this committee, I think the steering committee was conscious of these requests. Some of them were, perhaps, a little marginal, while many of them were very serious. I understand that, historically, when there were other rules in place, there were serious problems and abuses that led to problems.
What Senator Austin has proposed is a very cautious, disciplined and limited approach circumscribed in such a way so as to make it difficult to see how there could be any problem with it. However, it does not get us away from, at some point, having to look at the broader issue as well. It may be that a series of decisions in the same light as proposed here will be required.
After the last two years, my feeling is that while I understand the need for control, there have been a number of circumstances in which it has been regrettable that senators could not be more mobile.
Senator Bolduc: I would like to emphasize what has been said about the United States. We almost live with them here.
The Chairman: There have been requests for travel to other countries, too.
Senator Bolduc: The U.S. is a different matter in my opinion.
Senator Prud'homme: Having written extensively on these issues in two reports at the request of both Houses in 1993 and 1998, some of you who have read them might remember that my first comment in 1993 was that if we were to abolish every parliamentary association — and I assisted in creating 17 of them — we would need to keep one. That one is the Canada-U.S. group. That point was repeated in 1998 in the Strahl-Prud'homme report, which was accepted but never implemented.
Having said that, it reminds me of the immense debate that took place in the Canada-NATO association. As honourable senators know, this group is the one that has the most committees and subcommittees. It is important because we are partners in NATO. Therefore, they put such a provision in their budget.
While you are studying this issue, Madam Chair, instead of having a blanket possibility of travel just to the United States, it could be part of the discussion you will have with the co-chair of the Canada-Unites States Inter- Parliamentary Group to predict how many times they expect to have exchanges with the United States and then make such provisions in their budget. If it is a subcommittee of another committee that is interested or which is invited to the United States, which is our greatest partner, then they will have to go through the Canada-U.S. committee.
A blank cheque will open a can of worms, Madam Chair. I am suggesting that you have an open and tough discussion with many of these groups who think they have extremely good points. One of the groups will be the NATO group. They always say that they do not have enough.
To be frank, I was the last one who was given a trip to Lebanon where I became an honorary Lebanese citizen. When I saw the discussion around the table, I said for all the trouble that this will create, forget about it and I will pay. That was the last request to your committee for travel for special occasions.
Be careful. If you open the door, others will have equally good reasons to justify their decisions to travel. As a starter, I suggest that the matter fall under the Canada-U.S. association.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: I have some doubts in this regard. There were serious reasons why the number of trips within Canada was restricted, as opposed to trips abroad. I am in favour of trips to the United States, because it is important for Canada to get closer to its best client. However, we will be subjected to pressure to go to other countries, to other organizations.
I would like a document to be prepared for us explaining the reasons why 10 years ago the Senate stopped allowing senators to go to Europe, Africa or elsewhere in the world. Why was this decision made? There was a serious reason.
Today, there are valid reasons to change our mind and encourage trips to the United States. However, we will have to be prudent and not get bogged down in a whole array of requests for travel throughout the world.
To give you an example, each parliamentarian has the right to go anywhere in the world, twice a year. He can choose Australia. I consider that to be the extreme.
[English]
Senator Austin: This is a wrap-up comment, Madam Chair. Senator Gauthier is right. I am not asking for anything as gigantic as that. In every other system, parliamentarians do travel with much more generous allowances. I am not asking for that either.
I do not want to link this to Senator Prud'homme's point, which I may not have understood correctly. I do not want to link this to the Canada-United States Parliamentary Association. As Senator Atkins said, that organization is of paramount importance to us. It has a budget and it operates.
My proposal is for individual senators to travel twice a year to the United States, only if there is approval of the steering committee. They must travel on the business of the committee to which they belong.
This is very narrow. As Senator Kroft has said, it is a tiny step. If we immobilize ourselves because the issue of global equity has to be discussed philosophically for two or three years, I will be very unhappy about our ability to handle our own issues.
This is a tiny, pragmatic step. It is important because we have to recognize institutionally that the United States is a very significant player and we need to have influence in the United States. As Senator Bolduc and others have said, we need to be able to talk to those people about things and not always about controversies.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Senator Austin is right; his argument is well-founded. It is true that our relationship with our neighbour is quite special. People who find themselves in minority situations — francophones in Canada — would have very good reasons to cultivate relations with France and other francophone countries.
We are going to have to examine this question closely because other groups could put forward the same argument — which would be just as valid — to visit other places. In certain cases, it would then become quite difficult to decide. That is the reason why I would like us to put in place a fairly strict formula to prevent a steering committee from making arrangements by telephone.
Often in such circumstances abuses can take place without any kind of ill intent on anyone's part.
The Chairman: Previously the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration had made decisions in the interest of transparency. If memory serves, we had raised the issue of transparency.
[English]
I think the steering committee should consider your suggestion, Senator Austin.
Senator Bolduc: Senator Austin limited it more than that. He said New York and Washington.
Senator Eyton: I support Senator Austin with all the constraints and the protections that he suggested. I hesitate to also mention as a possible next step that we may want to add Mexico to that list because of the NAFTA relationship. Some 80 per cent of our activity is with the U.S., while another 5 per cent, and growing, is with Mexico, which will grow significantly over the next while.
The rationale for adding Mexico — and I am not saying that it should be done now but, perhaps, a year from now — is that we are bound together in NAFTA, which is working. The second point is that on many occasions, particularly in the negotiation of NAFTA, Canada and Mexico together were able to persuade the Americans to do many things they would not otherwise have done. That chemistry worked in the past, and I think it should be encouraged.
The Chairman: We will discuss what procedures have to be followed and see what financial impact international travel will have. We will report back to you as soon as we can.
Senator Prud'homme: On other business, Madam Chair, I wish to refer to the security breach which took place last Tuesday. As a result, I am aware that there will be a big meeting of the top people on the other side. I only hope that senators who are very strong and opinionated on keeping our own security will attend that meeting. There is always someone to resurrect the old plan of having super security for the whole Hill. It is alive and it is being considered today. I hope that whoever is in charge of that area in the Senate will be adamant that we keep our security as is. It takes an occasion like the one that occurred on Tuesday to get people thinking about security for the entire Hill.
For 30 years I was a member of the House committee that dealt with this issue. It was always said that the weak spot is the Senate and that the House will have to take us over. It is proven now that the weak spot is on the other side. However, that will not stop their strong desire to proceed as they see fit. There are people who are extremely frustrated and humiliated as a result of what happened. We must be careful when people are in that mood. They may arrange to have a meeting of only the five political parties in the House of Commons. They will meet to beef up security, which is totally nuts, but they will neglect the Senate.
[Translation]
The Chairman: These are decisions which the Senate must make. The House of Commons will not be making decisions for the Senate. We will have to discuss these issues in the very near future.
Senator Robichaud: In all of this matter of security, there has to be a certain coordination and it is not a good idea for us to try to act completely on our own. And when we ask the public to try to come to an understanding when we parliamentarians cannot manage to, the situation is close to becoming ridiculous.
The Chairman: Senator Robichaud, I think that people have a right to talk to each other.
Senator Prud'homme: I agree with Senator Robichaud.
The Chairman: Would someone care to move adjournment?
[English]
Senator Austin: Some colleagues were discussing last night whether we should recommend that Senator Prud'homme be made an honorary member of the security service. The discussion among ourselves bogged down on whether he should be armed or unarmed.
The committee adjourned.