Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration

Issue 4 - Evidence

OTTAWA, Thursday, June 6, 1996

The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:30 a.m.

Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: I would welcome Senator Stewart, Chairman of the of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the clerk of that committee, Mr. Pelletier. The budget for that committee can be found at tab 3.

Senator Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Foreign Affairs Committee budget shows details of the proposed expenditure of $10,000 which was granted to the committee in the form of an interim supply. On page 2 you will notice that the principal proposed expenditure is for the professional services of a communications consultant for 14 days at $500 a day. We feel that $7,000 will be quite adequate for that purpose. There are also amounts shown for transportation and communication, and all other expenditures.

Senator Di Nino: The application is for a $10,000 budget. Has that not already been approved?

Senator Cohen: Only the interim budget was approved.

Senator Di Nino: Is this now being ratified by the committee?

Mr. Gary O'Brien, Clerk of the Committee: Emergency funds were approved, and now Senator Stewart is coming forward with a budget to show how the moneys will be allocated.

Senator Wood: The second item under "Professional and Special Services" is for two lunches or dinners at $350. It does not specify whether that figure will provide lunch or dinner for ten people, five people, or whatever?

Senator Stewart: It is difficult to anticipate how many people will attend. As an example, Mr. Axworthy was invited to appear before the committee. He responded that he would prefer to meet with the committee informally at a luncheon meeting. We then inquired how many people from the department would attend. As chairman, I do not believe the committee should pay the total bill for the minister, and -- I think I used the expression -- his "running dogs". Even after the fact, we do not know, on that particular lunch, how much the department will assume and how much the committee budget will assume. That is one of the problems that arise when estimating expenses. However, I agree it would be preferable to be more specific.

Senator Di Nino: Since it is not a major component of a committee budget, it could be incorporated into an item such as "Sundry and other Unforeseen Expenses". Had the figure been $35,000, I am sure it would have been questioned. At the end of the day the total budget might be only $2,000 or $3,000. I do not think anybody would question that.

The Chairman: It is useful that this meeting is on the public record, because Senator Stewart's explanation clarifies why it is difficult to be precise.

Senator Stewart: The Foreign Affairs Committee, if my mind serves me well, rarely incurs this type of expense, whereas the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee, of which I am a member, often holds working lunches when it meets at eleven o'clock and runs through until one o'clock. That is why I have not been sensitive to the concern which has been raised. The Foreign Affairs Committee has had little experience with this kind of situation.

Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, this issue has been raised before, not only in regard to that specific item but generally. Perhaps the staff could work towards standardizing the features of a presentation so that we would all be singing from the some hymn book. We would then understand what the item refers to and it would be detailed in a way that would make sense to all of us, including those who have to make the decisions.

The Chairman: Senator Stewart, could you take a moment to describe to the committee your plans for the work of your committee?

Senator Stewart: Yes. I can be fairly specific on what I will call "Part 1". We are now pressing ahead to complete our report on the Canada-Europe study, because we would like the report to be finalized before the summer adjournment. It will be a long report. I do not know how fastidious members of the committee will be when they come to read the draft.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that you are probably more interested in what I would call "Part 2". We have held two or three meetings about the future work of the committee. We are pretty well agreed that one part of a proposal to the House will involve work on the Pacific Rim. I have a problem in that, since I find the expression "Asia-Pacific" or "Pacific Rim" so general, I am uneasy. I use the analogy, Senator Forrestall: I feel like a pilot coming in to land and I see six different airports lit up; and I do not know which one to head for.

However, Senator Carney has come up with a proposal which may be a solution. In Vancouver in approximately 18 months time, there is to be an Asia-Pacific conference. Senator Carney's proposal is that our committee should work with the Department of Foreign Affairs in preparation for that conference. In other words, the developing agenda of the conference will provide an agenda for our committee, so that we will not have to decide whether to study Indonesia, Hong Kong, China or Japan. As you know, some problems may be very much to the fore in about a year from now, and perhaps thereafter.

There is a second "prong", if I may call it that, and that is Europe. We are completing our study on Europe, but it is important to remember that the situation in Europe is unfolding. The intergovernmental conference on the governance of the union is in process. Our action plan between Canada and the European Union has not yet been signed. It is questionable whether it will be signed before the Italian presidency ends at the end of June. Then the Irish presidency campaign will begin. There are all sorts of considerations there.

We are quite convinced that the work of the committee has influenced the department. For example, we have pressed for a study on the implications of the possible adoption in Europe, or part of Europe, of a monetary union. Let us say France, Germany, Benelux, Italy and, perhaps, Great Britain, adopt a common currency and a common monetary policy. What will the implications of that be for the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, and for Canadian trade and investment? We proposed such a study and we were informed on Tuesday that the department has authorized such a study. There are more things happening on the European front than I ever imagined, and I think the committee ought not to turn its back on Europe.

I would hope the committee will find time to deal with, as it were, two portfolios, one looking toward the Asia-Pacific conference, and the other following up on what is happening in Europe.

Senator Di Nino: Obviously, in the final analysis, the objective of your committee, as it is with all committees, is to provide some benefit to Canada and Canadians. I have raised this question when we are talking about the expenditure of funds -- and they are not small sums of money. My question deals with the potential or possible duplication of the work of the committee by a committee of the House. How much cooperation is there between your committee and the ministry or a similar committee in the House in order to avoid duplication and to ensure a benefit from the studies that each place conducts?

Senator Stewart: That is a very interesting and important question. Insofar as our study of Europe concerned, there has been intense cooperation with the department. It fact, they asked if they could second a person to the committee. That has had advantages and disadvantages. Earlier I mentioned that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has commissioned a study on the implications of the proposed monetary union. He was pressured into that because his representative on our committee heard the same evidence we did and he fed the information back to the department. We would have preferred it if that step had been taken after our report had been completed. However, we will have to be satisfied with having had some influence in that decision.

Insofar as our study of Europe is concerned, we have had great cooperation, and I believe we can anticipate cooperation on the Asia-Pacific conference because, between ourselves, I have the impression that the department has not yet settled on a program, and so on, and that is fair enough -- they should not have that in place 18 months before the conference takes place.

Insofar as the House of Commons is concerned, it is a different situation. It is not a situation of hostility, but let us be candid. The Senate committee, with the same members, Senator Carney, Senator MacEachen, Senator Kelleher and others, has been working in this area now for 10 or 12 years. Conversely, through no fault of its own, the House of Commons committee has many new members. I would not like to form a convoy with them and be required to move at the pace of their slowest ship.

Senator Di Nino: My question dealt with the value Canadians are receiving for the tax dollars we are spending. You have just confirmed that the ministry uses the reports emanating from the Senate committee which, I would tend to agree with you, are probably somewhat better, generally, because of the continuity of the individuals involved and the experience which that represents.

My concern is that we do not enter into a competition with the House of Commons to see who can do the better job.

Senator Stewart: I do not think there is duplication in that sense, no. We have tended to concentrate on particular foreign affairs matters, especially in the area of trade. When we studied our European reference, with the proposals for the eastward and southern extension of NATO, inevitably security issues arose. European security and economic relations are entangled. We do not press that to the fore. I guess it is understood that, if some Europeans expect Canadian participation in security matters, they can expect that Canadians will anticipate consideration when we come to economic matters.

The Chairman: Colleagues, are there any further questions regarding this budget? Is it approved?

Some Hon. Senators: Approved.

The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Stewart.

I am anticipating a request, momentarily, from Senator DeWare regarding the location of the bust of John M. Macdonald. When that is made, we will set up a subcommittee which will make a suggestion in that regard.

I would like members who are not on the steering committee to know that we hope to have a steering committee meeting next Tuesday, if we can fit it into our schedules. Amongst other things, we will address a security report. Everybody will be contacted in the next couple of days.

If there are no further items, our meeting is concluded.

The committee adjourned.