Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 2 - Evidence - March 10, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 10, 2016
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), met this day at 8:16 a.m., in public, for the consideration of financial and administrative matters; and in camera for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, colleagues. I hope everyone is in good spirits this morning.
We will get right to the agenda. The first item is the adoption of the minutes of proceedings from the February 25, 2016 meeting, the public portion. Does anyone have any questions on those minutes?
Senator Marshall: I do, Mr. Chair. The human resource working committee — and maybe we covered this already — but the consulting firm — do we have any information on that, such as who did the work, the amount that was paid and whether it was publicly tendered? I'm just trying to get a handle on it.
Did we cover that before?
The Chair: We did. A long time ago.
Senator Marshall: Could I have a very brief update?
Nicole Proulx, Clerk of the Committee: The firm chosen was QMR, and it was done after a process.
Senator Cordy: It is the same company we hired for hiring the communications.
Senator Marshall: And how much did we pay? How much was it?
Ms. Proulx: I can say the value of the contract is $82,500. I don't know how much has been paid so for.
The Chair: Any other questions? If not, could I have a motion to approve the minutes? Senator Marshall, seconded by Senator Munson. So approved.
Item no. 2, colleagues, is budget proposal. We've had a request — because of the timely nature of that request for travel by the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. Because the timely nature of that request and the fact that the travel subcommittee has not yet been constituted, I invited Senator Tkachuk to come before us today to present the request and have CIBA weigh in on this.
Senator Tkachuk, you have the floor.
Hon. David Tkachuk: Thank you very much. It's odd to be on this side of the table asking for money.
Chair and colleagues, I want to thank members very much for allowing us to present today. We tried to find some way that we could present through the budget committee, which has not yet been set up. If we did that, we wouldn't be able to get the Senate approval until the middle of April because of all the break weeks. No matter how we did it, it wouldn't work out.
So I asked the chair if there was any way that we could present today, and he kindly allowed us to do it. We very much appreciate it.
Senator Hervieux-Payette extends her apologies. She was supposed to be with me, but I believe her husband is ill and she was not going to be in Ottawa today.
Our committee was authorized on February 16 of this year to examine and report on issues pertaining to internal barriers to trade. I forwarded on Tuesday through your clerk the justification for our study for your attention. I would like to highlight again that trade barriers remain, and they continue to pose an obstacle to the free flow of goods and labour across this country. Cross-border trade in alcohol and agri-food products remain restricted, for example. In some cases, provinces may not recognize provincial certifications from others.
One of the recommendations of the Banking Committee's 2005 study was on improving productivity in Canada. I believe that's part of the reason we're having some productivity issues that keep showing up in the economic analysis being done in our country.
I'd like to also mention that Minister Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, stated in his appearance:
Thank you, chair, for bringing forward this motion and drawing attention to our government's efforts to enhance economic growth across Canada, not in the short term but also in the long term. I also want to take the opportunity to thank you for your engagement on this file.
I phoned the minister after his statement that he was going to have internal trade and reduce the barriers as part of his main economic plan for himself as the minister. We had a good discussion, and he agreed that he would be waiting to make final decisions until our study is complete, so we could work together on this matter rather than working without a common goal in mind. He presented to our committee.
I'd like to indicate that we're working with the communication branch to outline a communication plan for the study. We recognize the importance of raising public awareness, and that's one of the reasons we're travelling.
As I indicated, it is important for the committee to travel to various regions in the country to hear how these agreements are working. There are three provinces in the West, plus Ontario and Quebec. B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan have trade agreements, and Ontario and Quebec, but they are two separate blocs right now. There are no trade agreements with the Atlantic provinces.
These are basically provincial matters, and that's why it's important to travel to as many areas as possible. We chose hearings not only in Ottawa, which we think would be reasonably convenient for people in Ontario and Quebec, but also Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg and Halifax. We have a work plan for the study from coast to coast and a list of proposed witnesses both in Ottawa and during travel.
The timing is important because we're trying to complete the study and be ready for release toward the beginning of June.
We budgeted, as normal, for a full membership of 12 senators. The odds of that happening aren't that great, but at the same time, we have to do that. So the budget itself is $236,000.
I know there are ways to travel to do hearings without translation, but I'm not a believer of that. We have a bilingual country. When I was caucus chair, if translation broke down, I'd adjourn the meeting. So I think it's really important that, even though this is the cost of our country and even though it is expensive, it's really important. I'm a fan of having translation in all the areas of the country, even where there aren't that many people who speak French.
I think I've covered the gamut. Lynn Gordon, our clerk, is here. She's highly talented, very smart and has put the budget together. On any technical issues, she'll able to answer the questions.
With that, chair, we're available for questions.
The Chair: There will be plenty, I'm sure.
Senator Tkachuk: I'm sure.
Senator Downe: I'm a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and the study the Banking Committee is proposing is very important. We heard yesterday, for example, that, under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, many of our wineries in Canada aren't even interested, because their priority is interprovincial trade, which they can't do. So there is no opportunity for them under the TPP because they can't even get to first base within Canada.
Senator Tkachuk: That's right.
Senator Downe: I've reviewed the budget here, as well, and I have no problem with it, chair.
Senator Marshall: I have one question. You're going as far east as Halifax. I was wondering if there was any consideration of Newfoundland?
Senator Tkachuk: The only reason we didn't choose Newfoundland is because it would be exclusive only to that province. So if there are witnesses from Newfoundland, we could fly them into Halifax rather than all of us going to Newfoundland and making it difficult for the Maritime provinces to go.
Senator Wells: I notice in your budget there is no provision for communications, and there is no plan for communications. Could you discuss that and tell us what plan you might have that you didn't write down?
Senator Tkachuk: The communication plan will be addressed at a later time through the budget committee. We're going to have press operation on the trip, and we'll work with communications here to put that together.
Senator Wells: Do you foresee press conferences or some type of media availability when you're in Calgary, Vancouver, Winnipeg and Halifax?
This seems like a very important study, and it's something the Senate should be looking at. I think it will be a chance for us to show Canadians from one coast through the Prairies to part of the other coast what we're doing.
Senator Tkachuk: I agree with you.
Senator Wells: I would feel more comfortable, chair, if there was a component that specifically addressed communications. That said, I'm not saying this isn't a good idea; it's an excellent study. But we need to let Canadians know what we're doing, and that should be part of this.
Senator Lang: I'd like to echo Senator Wells' comments about communication. I really do believe it's important, as you go across the country, that every effort be made through whatever communication you have planned to make sure you get that exposure.
In order to make these changes, there will have to be a political base that will have to be created in order to overcome the monopolies that are throughout the country.
That being said, I have one other area. You said it's coast-to-coast, but we do live in "coast-to-coast-to-coast." We have the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. I'm not asking that you visit those particular jurisdictions, but I would ask that, under your chairmanship, a letter be written that you're doing this study, doing some visits and ask for their thoughts in respect to this.
Senator Tkachuk: That will no doubt be done.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for this study. I'm glad the Senate gave your committee the mandate to study this. I'm also on Foreign Affairs, and we heard that trans-provincial trade is sometimes more challenging than dealing with another country. I'm also glad that you budgeted for the whole committee. I'm a true believer that all budgets should be for the whole committee, because it's unfair to ask the chair to look around the table and pick four or five people to attend when the committee has been part of all the discussions in Ottawa. So thank you for that.
I'm wondering what background work the committee has done in preparation for your travel.
Senator Tkachuk: Perhaps I could let the clerk, who did the travel on our —
Senator Cordy: I don't mean in terms of preparing for the travel. I mean what are you done here in Ottawa? What witnesses have you heard in relation to this study?
Senator Tkachuk: We actually just started, so we had witnesses from Statistics Canada yesterday, as well as Public Works and Government Services Canada, because we wanted to get a good handle on procurement across the country. That was a pretty interesting group.
We kicked it off with the minister — not last week, because it was a break week — but the week before. That's the way we kicked off our study, and we had a great hour and a half session. The minister was very good. He is obviously extremely interested in interprovincial trade barriers, so it was good to get his perspective on the subject.
Senator Cordy: And what dates are you looking at? April, I know.
Senator Tkachuk: We expect we'll travel toward the last two weeks in April sometime and the first week in May. We're going to try and do it in one week. If not, my view is that we'll probably have to split it. So we'll do one out west, and then we'll do one in Halifax.
Senator Cordy: And seven staff — I don't want names, but can you give us a sense of what their responsibilities would be?
Senator Tkachuk: We have two analysts, the clerk, an administrative assistant and three interpreters.
Senator Munson: I have three short questions. First, a lot of emphasis is made on trade barriers. I think you alluded to accreditation — having the ability for a doctor in Nova Scotia having the same ability to do that work in Ontario. Will you give as much focus on that as well as trade barriers?
Senator Tkachuk: That is a trade barrier. I don't know about doctors and lawyers, but I know they use certification for trades as a way to prevent people from actually being able to bid on a Government of Quebec contract, for example.
Senator Munson: I understand that. Will all 12 senators go?
Senator Tkachuk: I've been around a long time, and I can't remember a travelling committee that ever had its full contingent.
Senator Munson: Right.
Just the other piece of advice — I haven't been around as long as you have, but it's getting close. When I was on the National Security and Defence Committee, I found an added value that we put together. You have the formatted hearings, which are very good, but you might want to think of a town hall here or there, depending on where you're at, because many people would like to appear before the committee. We discovered in our Defence Committee when we were in Kingston, Winnipeg or other places, at the end of the day — you don't have to do it everywhere, but when you think there is a lot of interest — just giving an opportunity for Canadians to talk about their issues vis-à-vis your study subject.
We found that to be a great idea of open democracy in allowing ordinary Canadians to express their points of view. We discovered that the media paid a lot of attention to those kinds of things, because people can just express it as opposed to presenting a file on different issues. That is just a suggestion.
Senator Tkachuk: One thing we will not be short of, I can tell you, is witnesses. There is a lot of interest in this, so we're going to have a lot of witnesses.
Senator Doyle: Senator, is this a new study? Has the House of Commons Committee on Trade studied this issue before? I seem to remember in another life, while I was in the House of Commons, that they did quite a study on trade barriers and what have you.
Senator Tkachuk: The Senate started studies in 2006. We never finished them, because either the house dissolved or an election was held during that time period over those two years. This is kind of a restart.
I'm not sure about the house. I don't know. I've never seen one.
Senator Doyle: I'm always curious as to where these studies wind up. I seem to recall at a meeting we had here that it was agreed some investigation would be done afterward to find out what was result of the committee hearings and everything else, because it seems to me they go into limbo. You never seem to know what happens to the studies.
Will the minister be involved in any way afterward? Will he be using your recommendations to formulate policy on trade, or will it be something — not to be insulting — but to gather dust in the Senate again? What is the end result of it all?
Senator Tkachuk: I feel the same as you do, Senator Doyle. That's why we had discussions with Minister Bains on this matter, because Minister Bains had indicated publicly that reducing interprovincial trade barriers was going to be a high priority for him. This was also high on the agenda of Minister Flaherty, and Minister Bains has taken up the mantle and wants to carry forward with this. He has indicated in discussions with me that he will be looking at the committee and its recommendations to develop his legislative priorities for the coming year.
Senator Doyle: It will certainly be useful.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes. I didn't want him to get going with us in the middle of it. He saw the worth of this, so we will be working in tandem.
Senator Doyle: Good.
The Chair: Are there any other questions, colleagues? If there are no other questions, is anyone willing to approve this and move the motion? Senator Munson moves, seconded by Senator Marshall. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Anyone opposed? Unanimous.
Senator Jaffer: I didn't want to say when David was presenting, because it's not specific to do with this committee, but I would like to encourage every chair to encourage members in the areas when the committee is travelling. I know Senator Nolin included me in all Vancouver hearings, and it helped me get established in my area, especially if they're travelling in the off-week. If there is no cost, I would suggest that every chair be reminded that they should include the local members. It would be a good way to raise our profile.
Senator Tkachuk: That is a good idea, Senator Jaffer. In every committee I've been with on travel, we've always sent and invited all senators to come to the hearings.
Senator Jaffer: That's why I waited for you to finish, but I just want us to be reminded. There are other new chairs, as well, so I want us to remind them. Thank you.
Senator Batters: Just very briefly on this particular point: Having local senators be there would also assist in the communications outreach in that particular community. They would know the good people to go to for exposure for the study.
Senator Tkachuk: I will remember, Senator Batters, to make sure you're on the invitation list.
Senator Batters: Yes, you're going to Saskatchewan.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, item no. 3 is the re-establishment of the subcommittees. As we promised in the last Internal Economy, we had emailed everyone the new realignment of the subcommittees. We had asked members around the table on this committee to give their input. Some replied with input, and it was taken under consideration. I think you all have a copy of the new realigned subcommittees. I'm looking for approval today for those subcommittees so they can be established and go forward.
Senator Cordy: I move.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Cordy, seconded by Senator Marshall. Can I dispense?
Some Hon. Senators: Dispense.
Senator Lang: I have one question of the various committees that are putting forward their applications for the purposes of travel over the next number of months, similar to Senator Tkachuk. I know that a number of committees have put their budgets together.
Could we get a commitment here that they will be heard the next week when we come back so that travel plans can proceed where there are approvals?
The Chair: I don't think we can make that commitment. You'd have to go to the subcommittee hearing that. If that subcommittee is willing to hear it when we come back, so be it. It's not up to us to make that commitment.
Senator Cordy: The subcommittee has a meeting at 5 o'clock today to set up the schedules.
Senator Lang: When we come back after the break week —
Senator Cordy: I don't want to speak because we haven't had the meeting yet. I can say only that we're meeting at 5 o'clock. We're cognizant of the fact that there are a lot of break weeks coming up. We will certainly keep that in mind during our deliberations this evening when we meet.
The Chair: We'll proceed in camera now.
(The committee continued in camera.)