Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence for November 28, 2002
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 28, 2002
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets andAdministration met this day at 9:20 a.m. to consider administrative and other matters.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: The agenda is before us. Are there any honourable senators who would like to add something to it?
Senator Gauthier: I have nothing to add. But I would like to speak when we will discuss the minutes of the last meetings. I have a report to make on that.
The Chairman: We will make that our first item on the agenda. These are the meetings of November 7 and 21.
[English]
With respect to the artwork advisory working group adding Senator Mahovlich, we will come back to that when we get to other matters.
Senator Bolduc: I move the adoption of the agenda.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Next is the adoption of the minutes of proceedings of November 7 and 21.
I noticed that on last week's minutes, Senator Robichaud's name was missing under ``Other Matters.'' When we had Senator Austin asked the committee to consider his proposal, Senator Robichaud addressed the meeting about matters dealing with the Francophonie. That should be corrected.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier did you want to add something concerning the minutes of proceedings?
Senator Gauthier: I met with Mr. Gilles Martel at my office, on the day following our last meeting, or perhaps on the day after that. I had a long discussion with this gentleman, who is the Director of Translation and Interpretation.
Interpretation is provided by Public Works Canada through the translation and interpretation bureau. I mentioned to Mr. Martel that I felt that the service that is provided to me, written transcription, was interpretation. He answered: ``I am not sure, but I think it is transcription.'' In my opinion, oral interpretation is conveying an oral message in another language; if one does sign language interpretation, one conveys a message through signs, and that is still interpretation; and the service provided to me is the written interpretation of an oral message. I told him I felt it was the same thing.
How is it that his branch pays for the services provided to the House of Commons but does not pay for those offered to the Senate? According to Mr. Martel, it is because we have never asked for this. I replied that we had been doing this for years and perhaps if we asked for this, we would obtain it. We would probably save a lot of money. To this he replied: ``The decision is up to you.''
The Chairman: I tabled the letters you gave me, Senator Gauthier, with the steering committee where they are being examined. This was a letter from Mr. Martel, I believe, if I remember correctly.
Senator Gauthier: He said that this was a political decision and that he was only a public servant. He is right. He stated: ``I follow orders, and it is not up to me to decide.'' If the Senate wants the support of Public Works Canada in this area, we are going to have to ask for it.
The Chairman: The steering committee is examining this letter you gave us.
Mr. Paul C. Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate, and Clerk of the Committee: I understand Mr. Gauthier's comments. However, I know that Mr. O'Brien, who is responsible for this file, has already begun discussions with Mr. Martel. I believe Mr. O'Brien has another meeting Friday in this regard, precisely to make sure that the services provided to the House of Commons can be offered to the Senate, if this committee needs them. More information will be given to you after Mr. O'Brien's meeting with Mr. Martel Friday. Perhaps Mr. O'Brien will be able to speak to you before then.
Senator Gauthier: This is an important point that could save us money.
The Chairman: Are there any comments on the adoption of the minutes of proceedings?
[English]
Senator Bryden: I so move.
The Chairman: Senator Bryden moves the adoption.
The next item is the report on committee budgets.
The chairs of the following committees appeared before your subcommittee to defend and explain their budget requests. We met with Agriculture and Forestry. That committee has one special study budget. We met with Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. That committee has one legislative budget and one special study budget. Fisheries has one special study budget. National Security and Defence has one special study budget, and Transport and Communications has one legislative budget and one special study budget.
The seven budget requests amount to $947,685. In addition, certain chairs indicated that their committees may submit new budget requests later this fiscal year, if the Senate approves additional orders of reference.
Your subcommittee is planning to meet on Tuesday, December3, to hear from several other committee chairs, and further meetings on committee budgets will be held if required. Committees that have not yet done so are strongly encouraged to submit their budgets as soon as possible.
The subcommittee is aware that many committees have ambitious work plans and that any delay in funding makes it difficult for committees to organize and undertake their work. However, your subcommittee is not comfortable recommending the release of funds without a better idea of what the total demands are likely to be. We recognize that it may not be possible to have a complete picture, since committees cannot submit budgets for studies for which they have not yet received an order of reference from the Senate. In addition, there are sometimes unexpected developments, which result in new demands on the budget. Nonetheless, your subcommittee would like to hear from as many chairs as possible before recommending the release of funds. Since several chairs are scheduled to appear on December3, we plan to hear at least those requests before recommending the release of funds.
We wish to remind senators that we had $1.3 million available, and $1 million has already been distributed to committees. There is not too much left.
I intend to send a letter to the chairs, so that people are more comfortable with what we have been doing so far, with the committee work that has been done. We understand the needs of the committees. We understand that the committees have to have funds available to them, in order to organize and undertake their work.
Instead of having everyone coming to us and asking us questions about what is going on, I think the best thing for us to do is to send a letter explaining that we will hear from other committee chairs on Tuesday, at which time we will have a better idea of what is going on and the amount of money that will be available for distribution.
Senator Bryden: At our last meeting, there was concern expressed that it would not be possible to take up all the money. Do we still have that problem?
The Chairman: If we look at the numbers, the committee budgets that were presented to us, as I said, it amounts to almost $1 million.
Senator Bryden: Does that mean that we have $300,000 left to spend?
The Chairman: Not even. We have already distributed $1million.
Senator Bryden: Then we will not be embarrassed by having to lapse all that money. That appeared to be the issue at our last meeting, that there was no way we could spend $1.3 million. It appears that, with some ingenuity, we will probably be able to accomplish that.
The Chairman: We will need some ingenuity to find the proper amount of money to be distributed and release the funds to the committee so they can start their work. They have until the end of March.
Senator Bryden: Is the $947,685 for work to be done between now and the end of March.
The Chairman: Yes, from the various committees that we heard. We heard from five committees so far.
Senator Bolduc: Five out of twelve?
The Chairman: No, a little bit more. At least 13 or 15.
Mr. Bélisle: So far, the committee has heard from five committee chairs, but for seven different budgets. Some are special studies, so there is a total of seven budgets. Next Tuesday, the committee will probably hear from another six or seven, but that will still not be the complete picture.
By next week, I think the steering committee will have a better idea of how money should be distributed, because Dr. Lank will also be asking her committee clerks about the other possibilities from now until March 31. The Director of Finance and Ms. Lank will be in a position to report back and to perhaps start to distribute some funds.
The requests have not been distributed. There have been requests for $947,000, but there is only $1.3 million in terms of the money available and there are a lot more requests coming.
Senator Bolduc: If the average remains the same for the rest, there will be requests for $3 million — and we only have $1.3million.
This will not be decided before December 10, probably. Soon it will be Christmas and then January. Finally, we will be into February and March. Five committees have asked for $1 million. This is unrealistic.
The Chairman: Senator Bolduc, some committees have said that they would like to work in January. We will see.
Senator Atkins: We keep talking about $1.3 million. The amount is actually $1.2 million, because we have already distributed $100,000 through emergency funding.
Mr. Bélisle: One other committee, Social Affairs, came before this committee to ask for money.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: My comment is along the same lines as that of Senator Bolduc. It is exceptional that at the end of November, beginning of December, we are discussing the budget of a financial year that began several months ago already. We should find a fair solution. At the Official Languages Committee, for instance, which has just been struck, we held two meetings. We have had no budget discussions so far. Our program is quite elaborate, and consequently, we will have a fairly large budget. We would not like to be constrained by the fact that there are no more funds available.
The Chairman: The funds have not been allocated.
Senator Gauthier: There have been a million requests.
[English]
Senator Bolduc: People are making their first move; they are preparing their ground for the next one.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Will the emergency fund of one hundred thousand dollars you have already allocated be deducted from the funds the committees need?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: So there is still 1.3 million dollars remaining.
The Chairman: Some funds were distributed anyway, because at the beginning of the session, money is often needed for business expenses.
Senator Robichaud: However, some committees have still not received their order of reference from the Senate. Before they receive it, they cannot submit a budget.
Mr. Bélisle: Exactly. There are several committees. Ms. Lank is preparing a study with her clerks to discuss various options. However, the fact remains, certainly, that a committee cannot submit a budget if it has not received its order of reference.
Senator Bolduc: I have trouble believing that people are waiting until December 10 to ask for an order of reference. There must be a way of following a more rational process.
The Chairman: We cannot budget amounts for those who do not have their order of reference. We have to be reasonable, and, especially, realistic.
If you do not have any other questions, we are going to move on to item number three.
[English]
We have with us today Mr. Daigle, from Gowling.
As honourable senators will be aware, on November 19, the CRTC released its decision concerning CPAC's licence renewal application. We must recognize that the CRTC has sent a clear message to CPAC. The CRTC expects that CPAC will improve its coverage of Senate programming.
[Translation]
This CRTC decision represents real progress for the Senate. We feel it is important that CPAC reflect the bicameral nature of the Parliament of Canada, that is, the presence of the Upper Chamber and the Lower Chamber. The coverage of Senate debates should be comprehensive — it should start at the beginning of a session and end at its adjournment.
[English]
Coverage will be gavel to gavel, from beginning to end.
The control over programming will be retained by the committee responsible for broadcasting matters — which in the Senate is this committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélisle: Mr. Daigle is going to speak to us, as will Mr. O'Brien, since he directed the administrative team that worked on this file for several months.
Mr. Gilles Marc Daigle, Counsellor in Administrative and Public Law, Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson: Madam Chair, I would like to present a brief history of the situation. When the CPAC channel began, in 1993, the service broadcast the proceedings of the House of Commons exclusively. This programming was repeated 24 hours a day. Over the years, CPAC added general programming of a public affairs nature. Government committees were broadcast, or public inquiries, for instance.
During this period, no programming from the Senate was planned, for two reasons. First, the regulatory framework which governed CPAC did not require it. Secondly, practically speaking, during that period, the Senate was not in the habit of recording its proceedings.
Around 1998 this began to change, and the Senate began broadcasting its committees. Following this development, the Senate and the CPAC channel entered into an experimental agreement which allowed for the broadcasting of a minimum number of eight hours per week. CPAC committed to broadcasting all the programming which the Senate provided it with.
It is in that context that we arrived at the end of this experimental two years, in the month of August 2000. The parties then agreed to continue their agreement on an interim basis and to negotiate a new agreement in the light of developments which took place during the two experimental years.
During the preparations for these negotiations with the CPAC channel, Senate representatives realized that the agreement was not adequate for two reasons. First, it had become obvious that the channel did not broadcast a sufficient number of hours for the Senate's important volume of work. Secondly, the problem concerned the schedule of these broadcasts. The meetings were never broadcast, and when they were, it was often in the middle of the night.
In light of this experience, the parties had many discussions. In the beginning, these discussions took place without lawyers. Afterwards, I attended these meetings, as did the CPAC lawyer.
Unfortunately, generally speaking, the discussions did not evolve in a very positive way. The major problem we had during these discussions hinged on the fact that CPAC's position was that the Senate was not included in its mandate. This may surprise you, but it insisted that its traditional mandate was based on the broadcast of House proceedings and not those of the Senate, while the Senate's position was that CPAC's mandate, as a parliamentary broadcaster, had to include the Senate. However, it must be said that the discussions right from the outset were difficult because of this obstacle between the parties.
There were other negotiations nevertheless. In April 2002, stakeholders who wanted to submit an application to have their CPAC licence renewed at CRTC hearings had to table a written intervention. When the deadline came around, there was still no agreement. The Senate thus tabled its written intervention with the CRTC. This once again attracted the intention of the CPAC service, and they asked us to undertake new negotiations.
Shortly before the CRTC hearing, in May, we thought that an agreement might be possible, but at the last minute, CPAC's final offer was deemed inadequate. The Senate thus took part in the public hearing before the CRTC and submitted its case to the Commission.
[English]
What precisely was asked of the CRTC? With no agreement having been reached, the Senate proceeded with its case. In doing so, it asked the CRTC for three things: first, confirmation that CPAC's mandate did indeed include broadcast of Senate programming; second, a condition of licence that would have required CPAC to broadcast minimum amounts of Senate programming over the course of CPAC's licence term. What we were looking for was a total of 17 hours per week during the first year. That would escalate to 28 hours per week by year five of CPAC's new licence term. The licence terms are usually approved for a total of seven years.
Third, the Senate also asked for a condition of licence requiring CPAC to observe certain scheduling requirements — specifically, that the Senate's programming be broadcast at regular, fixed times and during prime-time periods that would be most the most conducive to allow Canadians from across the country to access the Senate committees' proceedings. Related to this was a further request that CPAC also produce a minimum number of weekly, one-hour programs profiling the work of the Senate. What the parties had in mind was interviews with senators on various issues of the day.
The decision was released on November 19. First of all, on that first issue of CPAC's mandate, the commission clearly agreed with the Senate, as the chair indicated, that CPAC, by focussing almost exclusively on the House of Commons, was not carrying out its role as parliamentary broadcaster. In order to correct that, the commission proceeded to formally amend the order pursuant to which CPAC broadcast its parliamentary proceedings. The amended order now includes specific reference to the Senate. It legally requires CPAC to provide coverage of both Houses, including coverage of the Senate's committee proceedings. Why is that important? It is important because the amendment grants to the Senate a formal status within the commission's broadcasting regulatory framework, a status that was previously nonexistent.
The 1992 order, the previous order, was limited to debates and committee proceedings of the House of Commons and of any provincial or territorial assembly. It did not include any reference to the Senate whatsoever. CPAC kept reminding us of that while we were negotiating with them. They used that in an attempt to downplay the importance of the Senate programming within its overall mandate. They did that prior to the hearing, and they did that at the hearing as well. The commission has now removed any basis for CPAC to suggest that the Senate does not form part of its mandate.
The second reason the amendment is important is that, not only have you now been made part of CPAC's mandate, but also your proceedings have been entrenched as part of that core parliamentary programming. That is the part of CPAC's programming that the commission has often referred to as being unique and vital to the broadcasting system. The Senate has been grouped with the House of Commons, not with the more general public affairs programming, not with the Peter Van Deusens. That is important, because the commission considers the parliamentary programming more important than the latter.
As a result of this new recognition, CPAC is now legally required to include Senate programming as part of its service. Failure on its part to do so would result in a breach of its order and a breach of the Broadcasting Act. One would hope that that will change the environment in which any future discussions with CPAC might take place.
It was difficult in the past to convince CPAC to take the Senate seriously and to do meaningful things for the Senate when the Senate was nowhere to be found in any regulatory framework. That has now changed.
The commission addressed, again as part of this order, the issue, at least in part, of the amount of Senate programming that is to be broadcast by the service. The amended order legally requires CPAC to broadcast all of the Senate proceedings that it chooses to televise and to provide to CPAC for broadcast. That is all-original material.
That means that that mere commitment made by CPAC in the past to broadcast all of the fresh material provided to it by the Senate has now become a regulatory obligation under the CRTC's order. That is important, because in the past it was pretty clear that CPAC did not meet its commitment. Again, if CPAC fails to meet that obligation, it will be in breach of the order and of the Broadcasting Act.
There is no specific obligation for CPAC to broadcast a proceeding more than once. There is no obligation for CPAC to broadcast those proceedings at any particular time. I will get to that in further detail in a moment.
Other aspects of the amended order, as the chair mentioned, are that the Senate retains control over the programming that it provides to CPAC. More important, the broadcast of any Senate proceedings by CPAC must consist of coverage that is in the very form that you provide it. CPAC cannot edit the programming you send to them. That should remove a point of contention that existed between the parties in the past.
With respect to scheduling matters, the news unfortunately was not all good. The commission refused to grant the Senate's request for specific conditions of licence requiring CPAC to broadcast Senate programming during fixed, prime-time viewing periods. The fact that the commission was not prepared to go that far did not come as a complete surprise, far from it. The Senate knew that it was, as we say, pushing the envelope on that issue. We nonetheless thought that we had solid grounds for requesting the commission to take the extra step. It refused to do so at this time.
Does that mean that we did not get anything insofar as scheduling matters are concerned? Not at all. The commission did set out a number of expectations for CPAC on those issues. Expectations, however, are just that — expectations. If an expectation is not met, there is no breach of the Broadcasting Act.
If CPAC fails to meet the expectations, the Senate will be in a better position the next time around, if we are there before the commission, in asking once again that conditions of licence be imposed on these issues.
Let me turn to the specific expectations. First of all, the commission expects CPAC to enter into a new agreement with the Senate concerning the broadcast of the Senate's programming. The commission also expects CPAC to schedule Senate committee proceedings equitably in relation to its televised proceedings of the House of Commons. The commission expects CPAC to work with the Senate to find a mutually satisfactory solution — the commission's words — to the scheduling of Senate programming. The commission also expects CPAC to discuss with the Senate any specific proposals that it may have on this issue of ``Senate profile programming,'' if I may call it that. Finally, and this is important, the commission encourages CPAC to give these matters its highest priority. Those are the commission's words.
[Translation]
In closing, I would like to draw your attention to some other matters. CPAC's request to be a dual status carrier was rejected by the Commission. This is good news because this status would have allowed CPAC to limit the scope of its carriage by certain cable companies.
As for bilingual programming, carriage of CPAC's service in both official languages will be mandatory in Canada, except for the smaller cable companies that are using analog technology. The Commission imposed a condition of licence according to which CPAC must provide simultaneous translation of 100 per cent of its authorized programming as of September 1, 2003.
As for closed captioning for the hearing-impaired, and complementary programming, the Commission imposed a licence condition according to which the service must provide captions for at least 90 per cent of its programming in English, and for 50 per cent of its programming in French, as of the broadcasting year which begins on September 1, 2007.
[English]
To conclude, it is fair to say that this decision represents an important victory for the Senate. Is it a complete victory? No, it is not because there is still a fair amount of work to do. However, you now have a formal recognition that you did not have in the past — a solid foundation upon which to resolve, amicably, it is hoped, these remaining scheduling issues with the CPAC service.
What is left for the Senate to do? There are some steps that need to be taken. The commission expected the Senate to propose to CPAC some alternatives on the issue of Senate profile programming. Insofar as scheduling is concerned, the onus is clearly on CPAC to approach the Senate with some proposals, and the Senate should be prepared to respond to those.
Finally, perhaps a housekeeping matter, it is probably fair to say that the current agreement that continues in force has been rendered null and of no relevance as a result of this decision. As a practical matter, I would recommend that the Senate terminate it, in any event, so that there is no question about it, and proceed to the negotiation of a new agreement.
In a nutshell, that summarizes the CPAC development, if I can put it that way. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have on the issue.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Daigle. I would also to thank senators Kroft and Kenny who participated in these negotiations whose results we are considering today.
[English]
Senator Atkins: I should like to congratulate all those who were part of this activity that brought us to this point because this is an incredible advance and opportunity for the Senate.
I am amazed, in a way, that we have come this far in the step. However, it does put the onus on us, the Senate. Now that we have these opportunities, there will be demands for production and the management of our programming. We cannot be naive about it. If we are serious about the role of the Senate in Canada, we can all agree that what has happened is quite incredible.
Before we went to the CRTC, we tried to negotiate with CPAC. We had a proposal that was pushing the envelope, admittedly, and we did not receive any attention from CPAC because they felt they had no obligation to the Senate.
Based on the decision of the CRTC, do you now think that what we requested would have been unreasonable or fair, or do we try to reach further? Where do we go from here, in your opinion?
Mr. Daigle: In my view, it is a matter of staying the course. We went to CPAC with some requests that, as you put it, were at the high end of the spectrum. If we had not done so, I cannot help but think that CPAC would have come in lower from its end.
While those requests were high, if I can keep using that term, I do not think that they were unreasonable. As part of the process before the commission, we made a point of filing with the CRTC specific examples of what the scheduling grid for CPAC would look like if the requests that the Senate had before the commission were implemented. They show that, first of all, the Senate's request could be accommodated without interference whatsoever in the programming of the House of Commons. It could be implemented with, in my view limited, limited interference in CPAC's general public affairs programming.
I do not think CPAC will come back and say that you were right and they were wrong. They will not offer to give you everything that you asked for. As a starting point, I do not see any advantage in approaching with a similar position — not much less than we had before. We will get a feel for what changes will have occurred at CPAC end, now that they realize these new obligations and that there is a newly entrenched presence for the Senate in the regulatory framework. I would not suggest any major changes to the approach that was first advocated.
Senator Atkins: Should CPAC come to some resolution with us before we go to the CRTC?
Mr. Daigle: When Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Audcent came to see me the first time to talk generally about this issue, the first thing I told them was that the CPAC would never let this go to the commission. I was wrong. It came as a shock. I could not imagine the parliamentary broadcaster appearing before its regulator in a situation where it could not reach agreement with the Senate of Canada.
I now look at the decision and wonder if CPAC will take a chance on ending up in a never-ending dispute with the Senate and thus having to go before the commission again. I am hopeful that that will not be the case. I was wrong before, so I will cross my fingers for the future and hope for the best. It remains to be seen.
Senator Atkins: Should we start from where we left off, or should we reach for a higher opportunity?
Mr. Daigle: We are lucky in this sense. If you look at the issue of the Senate profile programming, we had an agreement with CPAC on that. We were close. I do not think that will be a huge issue. The commission said that you, the Senate, should make a proposal to CPAC. That will be easy enough. We are lucky in that we do not have to be the ones to take the bull by the horns, in terms of the pricklier, scheduling matters. CPAC has the onus to come to us with a proposal on that.
I am hopeful that they will come back to us with a proposal that is somewhat more attractive than what was on the table the last time we spoke. If that is the case, then, admittedly, I think the Senate would have to sit down and determine how much fresh programming it can expect to provide. When we were in our discussions with CPAC and before the CRTC, we envisaged a situation where the number of hours was not dependent on original material. We were hoping that the CRTC would let us tell CPAC to show a particular committee twice in one week or three times over the course of the month. If we are now to be limited, as we are, at least based on the exemption order, to fresh material, that may have an impact on the total hours that we will be in a position to demand.
With that in mind, to answer your specific question, I would suggest that we not ask for anything more, because our demands were already pretty high, but that we wait to see what CPAC has to offer us and that we resume at a level very similar to what we advanced the last time around.
Senator Atkins: Knowing the history of the CRTC, I think that what has been achieved is an incredible breakthrough.
Mr. Daigle: Thank you.
I wish to make one last comment on a point you made when you started your questioning, because it was very important. You talked about taking the opportunity to implement the opportunity we have been given by the commission. That is important, particularly in light of the fact that, in seven years time, when CPAC goes back before the commission for its next renewal, we will have, it is hoped, resolved all of our issues. However, if we have not, the last thing the Senate wants is for CPAC to be in a position to say: ``The Senate asked for all of these things in the past; none of it has transpired. Therefore, we do not think we should be obligated to do what you told us to do the last time.'' That is the only comment I wanted to add on that.
Senator Atkins: It is called quality of product.
Mr. Daigle: That is right.
The Chairman: I forgot to mention that Gary O'Brien, Mark Audcent and their group did a magnificent job of following the dossier for us.
Senator Gauthier: I agree with Senator Atkins that this is a great step forward. However, I have a few comments and a few questions.
You said it is up to CPAC to make the first step.
Mr. Daigle: On the issue of scheduling, sir, yes.
Senator Gauthier: In the negotiations of the new agreement, because the one we have now is outdated.
[Translation]
The agreement we have at this time is no longer valid. How long are we going to have to wait?
Mr. Daigle: How long are we going to have to wait?
Senator Gauthier: I know that we are all very patient people, but this has to be settled. CPAC can drag this out for years.
Mr. Daigle: I have a suggestion. First, we can contact CPAC on the matter of the general programming for senators, the famous ``profile programming.''
We will take that opportunity to invite CPAC to make a proposal concerning the timeframe, and to remind it that it has an obligation to do so. At that point, the ball will be in CPAC's court. The obligation is the issue here, rather than the delay. The Commission said that it expected CPAC to contact us in this regard. I dare hope that CPAC will not ignore this expectation expressed by the Commission. Of course, I cannot give you any guarantees in this regard.
The Chairman: Senator Gauthier, I can add something in reply to your question. There will be a motion tabled today when we have completed our discussions, which I would like to see adopted by the committee, that negotiations be undertaken with CPAC, following the CRTC decision on licence renewal. I have a motion and we do not have any time to lose, as Mr. Daigle has just pointed out. We want to see programming which reflects the bicameral nature of Parliament, and includes the deliberations of Senate committees. Following our discussion, I will introduce this motion which is directly related to your concerns.
Senator Gauthier: That is excellent. CPAC received the CRTC's permission to charge its clients something like 10 cents the first year, and 11 cents the second year; 7 cents from the first amount must go to its programming, and 3 cents to something else, if I remember correctly. I read all of this a few days ago.
Let me explain to you my understanding of the way we work with CPAC. They say that they will carry the signal the Senate will give it and that it is up to us to prepare the video and the two necessary soundtracks, the French one and the English one. Earlier, you said that both official languages will have to be respected in the carriage, in their programming, but not in ours. This is not in the law. My question has to do with the fact that an agreement was concluded with the House of Commons also. To my knowledge, the House of Commons recently reopened negotiations on this agreement. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Daigle: I know that there was talk of reopening discussion on this issue. I did not know that it had begun.
Senator Gauthier: The House of Commons Board of Internal Economy decided to review the contract because they are grappling with the Quigley decision, among many other things. At the Senate, we have a formula which works very well. I use real time captioning. They do not have that, but we at the Senate must take the initiative of negotiating a coherent agreement for the Senate with CPAC. And we must do so without concerning ourselves with what the House of Commons will have decided. They have big problems. What shocked me to some extent in the CRTC decision is that the CRTC claims that all of the House of Commons programming must take precedence over the Senate. Did you see that?
Mr. Daigle: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: I am not mistaken.
Mr. Daigle: You are absolutely correct.
Senator Gauthier: If they have priority over us, we are going to be taking a back seat once again. I would like us not to be intimidated by this. That is why I said that we should forge ahead. The chairman stated that a motion would be introduced, and I am very happy about that.
Senator Robichaud: As you stated, the decision did contain expectations that CPAC would go in a certain direction, which could help us; not, perhaps, to equal the House of Commons programming, but at least to get our foot in the door to obtain programming which is commensurate with what we can produce, but which does not give the House of Commons complete priority, if I understand correctly?
Mr. Daigle: There is an opportunity to do that. I suspect that this may ultimately create internal conflicts within Parliament. I suspect that the House of Commons will not want to yield to Senate programming. These are thorny issues and I am absolutely certain that the CRTC deliberately avoided getting directly involved in them, in the hope that the two Houses of Parliament would come to some agreement.
You are right to suggest that this is an auspicious time to raise these issues and try to settle them, whether this is done directly with CPAC or, if need be, between the houses of Parliament. There is no doubt that there are some thorny issues involved.
[English]
Senator Bryden: At what point will it be possible for us to sketch out the potential cost of our victory? We are required to produce the programming. They provide the camera work and schedule when it can be shown, but we will be doing the production, and I assume we will have to achieve some sort of quality level, or attempt to do so. Is there a point at which, within some parameters, we could determine the cost of various options of providing the product? When could we do that and what sort of numbers can we expect?
Dr. Gary O'Brien, Deputy Clerk and Principal Clerk, The Senate: Regardless of the outcome of our negotiations with CPAC, the Senate's broadcasting capabilities will be increasing in the next fiscal year with the addition of two new committee rooms in the Victoria Building that will have permanently installed digital cameras. We will have, then, using our existing equipment, the capability of broadcasting from four committee rooms, as opposed to the present two committee rooms that we have.
In the estimates that will be submitted to you in the next few weeks for 2003-04, you will have two specific proposals. One is that we beef up our broadcasting agreement with the House of Commons, which was negotiated in 1998, with additional funds of approximately $120,000. Senate committees are already broadcasting much more than they were in 1998. We have exceeded that level. We have had to use other funds to cover another broadcasting team. We want to increase that package, and the additional costs would be $120,000. That will be submitted to you in the next few weeks.
Senator Atkins mentioned that this has been a significant victory. We are on the stage now, whereas previously it was almost a trial, with ad hoc agreements. One proposal is to get more professional assistance, in terms of a manager, a broadcasting director or manager who would be able to advise chairs and committees on broadcasting, to enhance the broadcasts of Senate committees. That would require an additional $40,000. The agreement with the House of Commons has some money for a senior manager, but we may want to enhance that and get someone on our own, outside of the House who would be here clearly under the Senate authority. That would be an additional $40,000.
The package that is coming to you in the next few weeks would include those two items: $120,000 for the increase in the broadcast agreement with the house and an additional $40,000 for a Senate director.
Long-term considerations, based on the negotiations with CPAC but not envisaged in this next fiscal year, perhaps, would be to replace the present air packs, which are analogue technology, an older technology, with permanently installed digital cameras, similar to what we will have in the Victoria Building in the next fiscal year — perhaps one in this room and one in the East Block — as well as additional staffing operations, depending on how much we have to produce based on our agreements. We are not envisaging that in this next fiscal year.
Senator Bryden: I have a supplementary question on that. With respect to the additional, what is our base now? It will be additional to what?
Mr. O'Brien: We have $140,000 in our budget that has not been increased for a few years for broadcasting.
Senator Bryden: We would be doubling the budget.
Mr. O'Brien: Yes.
Senator Bryden: I see there is nothing in there for makeup or anything yet.
Senator Atkins: With this decision, we will have to face up to the reality that sooner or later we will need an executive producer. It will be a full-time job to coordinate all of this and to follow through on the production.
If the product is going to be acceptable to the public — and CPAC will be interested in a good product as well, because whether they admit it or not they are competing with other networks — we will have to think about hiring an executive producer.
Do you disagree with that?
Mr. Daigle: I certainly do not disagree with that. Admittedly, these technical issues do not fall into my domain, particularly, but I agree wholeheartedly with the question.
Senator Gauthier: Who supplies the actual management of the broadcast right now? Is it the House of Commons for both the House of Commons and the Senate?
Mr. O'Brien: The House of Commons, yes.
Senator Gauthier: They do it under an agreement with them?
Mr. O'Brien: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: We would have to negotiate that agreement, and if we hired our own manager, we have to ensure he is our manager and, not to be shared with the House of Commons.
Mr. O'Brien: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Gauthier: Is that right?
Mr. O'Brien: That is right.
Senator Bolduc: According to Appendix 1 of the broadcasting decision, the closed captioning clause says the following:
Beginning in the broadcast year commencing 1September 2007, the licensee shall achieve minimum captioning levels of 90 per cent of all English-language programming, and 50 per cent of all French-language programming, that is broadcast during the broadcast day.
Why is there a difference between the French and English? Is it a matter of capability on their side?
Mr. Daigle: That is what they explained to the commission, apparently. I am not too familiar with these technical issues, but, apparently, it is more difficult to obtain the services necessary to effect the closed captioning for French- language programming than for English-language programming. The commission appeared to accept that and on that basis created that distinction. It was based on CPAC's request.
Senator Bolduc: I find that a bit curious because it is only beginning in 2007.
Mr. Daigle: That is correct.
Senator Bolduc: That is five years. I hope the technology will improve.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: We talked about expenditures for equipment and staff. Would it be a good idea to indicate that there are some mandatory expenses? Where will this money come from? It does not necessarily come from Senate budgets. It would be a good idea to indicate that we are talking about two rooms in the Victoria Building.
The Chairman: Public Works pays for those two rooms.
Senator Gill: We talked about expenses, but it might be good to mention where the funds are coming from.
The Chairman: The funds for these two new rooms are being provided by Public Works.
Mr. O'Brien: Public Works is paying for everything.
The Chairman: If there are no other questions, we are going to proceed immediately to the motion.
[English]
The motion would be that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to commence negotiations with CPAC based upon the CRTC decision renewing the licence in which the commission requires CPAC to provide Canadians with bicameral broadcast coverage, including the coverage of all committees.
Is someone prepared to move the motion?
Senator Bolduc: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Concerning negotiations, we are talking about the House of Commons?
The Chairman: Negotiations with CPAC.
Senator Robichaud: With CPAC.
The Chairman: We are going to have to refer to the House of Commons also. You cannot have one without the other.
Senator Robichaud: When we talk to the House of Commons, we simply want to talk about the schedule of programming, so we do not have to get into programming as such right now.
The Chairman: The point is to verify the respective schedules. Senator Gauthier, you have a question?
Senator Gauthier: Will the steering committee be in charge of negotiations, and will it report to us on a regular basis?
The Chairman: Absolutely.
Senator Gauthier: Before making any decisions.
The Chairman: Mr. Daigle will support us in our efforts if we need his help. I thank Mr. Daigle as well as Mr. O'Brien for their precious comments.
[English]
Item No. 4 is ``Information Technology Renewal.'' Ms.Bouchard will give us a presentation on that. That is why we are sitting here in room 160, because we needed more space today.
Mr. Bélisle: They will make a 20-miute PowerPoint presentation. Ms. Bouchard is assisted by Mr. Peter Feltham. This is the long-term information technology strategy that will be presented to you. We wanted to do the presentation prior to your consideration of the Main Estimates in the next few weeks.
Another item that I should like to bring to your attention is the fact that we had a study done, what is called a benchmark study, as to how the Senate compares its Senate IT services and costs with those organizations of similar size and scope. The study indicates that the IMS — that is, the Senate — is underfunded between 53 per cent and 136 per cent, as compared to the industry benchmarks.
There is a lot that this group wants to do. They have committed themselves professionally to doing as much as they can with the staff. There are a lot of demands on them. When the presentation is made, keep in mind that the staff and the resources that they have is limited.
Senator Bolduc: Before we begin, in the report that I have in front of me there is a paragraph that say, in part: ``The IM/IT Business Vision and Strategy was prepared...'' et cetera. This is not what we are talking about because the title is not the same.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélisle: They are going to present a long-term vision, Senator Bolduc.
[English]
Senator Bolduc: It is different from what you call here the ``IM/IT Business Vision and Strategy''?
[Translation]
Mr. Bélisle: It is the same thing.
Ms. Hélène Bouchard, Manager, Information Management: I have prepared some briefing notes explaining the process which led up to today's presentation. I wanted to provide you with more detail on today's presentation.
[English]
Senator Bolduc: I got the impression that the business strategy had already been approved by the Senate.
[Translation]
Ms. Bouchard: No. That was done two years ago. The strategy focuses on information management. Afterwards, we did a bench-marking study, and then prepared a long-term plan. A series of projects was put in place.
Senator Robichaud: Several senators have to sit on other committees; perhaps Ms. Bouchard's presentation should be postponed if we want to do her justice.
The Chairman: We are very sorry, Ms. Bouchard, but we are going to have to ask you to come back next week. It is important that all the senators be present. Thank you very, very much.
[English]
One of the matters is the appointment of Senator Mahovlich to the artwork advisory working group. Senator Moore has been absent for a long time and he will be absent for many more months. Senator Mahovlich is interested in participating in this working group. I thought, perhaps, we could appoint him, if you agree to that.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Senator Atkins, many senators must leave to attend other meetings so we will postpone the presentation from Ms. Bouchard until next week.
The committee continued in camera.