Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 11 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 5, 1996
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:30 a.m. to consider its agenda.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the first item on our agenda is travel during prorogation and dissolution.
Mr. Paul Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Committee: Concerns were raised at the last meeting, on November 28, with respect to travel during prorogation or dissolution. As you know, chances are there will be a dissolution of Parliament as an election is forthcoming. The recommendation here reflects what has been done in the past. A precedent was set on September 15, 1993, prior to the last dissolution of Parliament. The precedent set on that occasion reads as follows:
...that Senators continue on the same point system as before the call of the Election; therefore no limitation on the existing travel policy of Senators.
The recommendation is similar and reads as follows:
That during any prorogation or dissolution there be no limitation on the existing travel policy of Senators.
The Chairman: Is everyone in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Colleagues, we have a continuing problem where senators, having done a great deal of work on an issue or issues, get caught in the middle of a prorogation and are unable to complete their task. During periods of dissolution, we have gone to a task force mode, and we are presently examining some method of providing task forces to clear up outstanding work. This committee's mandate continues to exist during a dissolution. We would propose the protocol whereby, if different groups of senators have pieces of work of particular interest to them that are close to fruition, if you will, or that they had planned for some time to come, we would call together at least the steering committee to get authorization to continue with the work. Using this procedure we created a task force during the last dissolution.
Frankly, it means that senators who are here who are being paid, and who would otherwise be prevented from completing their tasks can actually be doing something to clean up some work that they would be continuing with during the next Parliament in any event.
We have a question that relates to contracts and staff that are working for us on various committees. I have asked Gary O'Brien to speak to that specific issue.
Dr. Gary O'Brien, Director of Committees: Honourable senators, the perennial problem that committees face, particularly in the Senate where chairmanships often continue from Parliament to Parliament, is that when they undertake a lengthy study -- for example, our Transport Committee is doing a study on transportation safety at the moment; Foreign Affairs is doing another study on Asia Pacific relations -- it often continues into the next Parliament.
When there is a prorogation or dissolution, people on contract suddenly find themselves out of work. Fortunately, most of the research work is done by the Library of Parliament. In total, the committees do not have many people on specific contracts, but there are some. With this proposal, come dissolution, the Internal Economy Committee, which has the right to continue, or, if it is not able to meet, someone in a position to make decisions on their behalf -- either the Chair or Deputy Chair or the Steering Committee -- would determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether such contracts should continue.
At one time we had something called the intersessional authority which consisted pretty much of the leadership.
Senator Rompkey: Now we call it the Library of Parliament.
Mr. O'Brien: They would meet and make this kind of decision on whether certain work would continue during a prorogation or a dissolution. The intention is not to have an automatic renewal of contracts, but to deal with each situation on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, if there is such a request by the Chair of a committee, he or she does not want to lose the work nor the people who have been doing the work.There is the chance that they may go elsewhere, taking with them a lot of the knowledge or corporate memory they have acquired, and not come back.
The committee as a legal entity is dissolved, there is no question about that. It does not exist. The senator who is the chairman is not the chairman any longer, but on the other hand, there could be a way of assigning these people to another directorate such as the Committees Directorate for basic administrative purposes. I think Senator Lewis of the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee would find that proposal attractive, because he has at least three lawyers on contract. In fact, we had a meeting some months ago in an effort to solve this problem.
The Chairman: How do we pay them?
Mr. O'Brien: This is one issue.
The Chairman: Are members comfortable with this approach?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: What we would probably do is use the steering committee to determine what work should continue. There is another small element here: The last time some researchers got letters saying, "You are out of here," and it just arrived in the mail. So there is provision in here about instructing staff -- call them in, have a meeting, explain the rules and so on, and that is why that is in there. Do I detect a consensus for this proposal?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: If we could move quickly to the budget of Social Affairs Committee for its study of post-secondary education. Senator DeWare, briefly, would you tell us about the work of your committee and what you plan to do with the budget request you are making on behalf of the committee?
Senator DeWare: I think a letter has been circulated telling you about the work of the committee since last April, the bills that we have had to deal with so far, all of which applies to our regular budget.
Today I would like to explain to you why the committee would like a supplementary budget for travel for the Subcommittee on Post-Secondary Education. It is important to realize that over $16 billion is being spent yearly on education, $9 billion of which comes from the federal government. This morning the Conference Board of Canada told us that 88 per cent of Canada's largest corporations spend money on education programs. Approximately 39 per cent of those companies spend from $100,000 to millions per year just to set the stage for the importance of education in Canada today.
Students who have appeared before us have indicated that they are unhappy with the debt load that they are experiencing. Some of them will have debts of up to $40,000 when they come out of university. Cash-strapped universities and colleges are struggling to come up with innovative strategies to provide learning for less money. As you know, money for transfer payments is being restricted. Employers are demanding graduates with more skills, and many taxpayers are opposed to spending more money on education, although parents are worried about how their children will receive it.
As you know, the provinces are responsible for education and we are very concerned that we do not step on their territory during this study. What is happening is that we are being inundated with calls from students who want us to come before them, to hold forums to hear their concerns, rather than having two representatives come to Ottawa.
Students and universities are very concerned about research in this country. The Research Council of Canada has been before this committee, and they have an effect on research in universities. Universities are interested in coming before our committee. We feel it is important for us to hear from Canadians, what Canadians have to say on this issue.
We also realize that over 40,000 of workers in the education field are in federal unions, many of whom work in the community college system, and they have concerns about the change whereby the Human Resources Development Department is transferring moneys to the provinces to do the training. Training is being done by companies that are starting up and feel that they would like to get into the act. However, they do not have the obligation to follow through when there are bankruptcies before the education is completed.
We feel it is important for our committee to look into these issues to make sure that we have a strategy for the future, for research and for universities and what they will teach to build the young minds that are needed for the future of this country. We do not want to go backwards; we want to go forwards. That is why we feel this study is important.
The Chairman: Colleagues, you have had an opportunity to examine the budget. Are there any questions for Senator DeWare?
Senator Rompkey: No, I would just want to say that one of my first assignments in my early days in the Senate was on the Social Affairs Committee with Senator DeWare, and I enjoyed it very much, particularly the gracious way in which she took me by the hand and led me through all the intricacies of committee work in the Senate.
This is a very important issue. The most important point the senator made was that of consultation. Education is a regional and provincial responsibility. The committee should go and listen, particularly to students. Students cannot come to Ottawa.
Senator DeWare: We had some concern about Montreal and Toronto being on our agenda as they are so close and people could simply commute, but they are two main centres in the two largest provinces in Canada. The students are saying that they want a forum.
Senator Rompkey: The other point that is worth making is one we often make around here, and we should not forget it. It goes to the credibility of the Senate itself. The Senate does its best work, I think, in its committees, and if it is out in the field it will get attention and recognition. I think this is money well spent.
The Chairman: Are senators comfortable with this proposal?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I see a consensus. Thank you very much, Senator DeWare.
Perhaps we could have Senator Lewis speak to us on the Budget for Scrutiny of Regulations.
Senator Lewis: I think you have the budget before you.
The Chairman: We have the budget and we have had an opportunity to examine the figures. We would like to hear from you as to what you plan to do with the money, sir.
Senator Lewis: This is the update you were requesting. There was some question back in June when the budget was approved. Those problems have now been resolved. I think we have gone through that.
The Chairman: This has to do with the sharing of expenses between the Commons and the Senate, and you have settled that matter?
Senator Lewis: Yes, that has been settled, and the costs were split between the two Houses.
I guess you would like to hear something about the committee itself. It is a joint committee, of course, and it was described in the media a year or so ago as one of the very important joint committees in that it acts as a watchdog, but that it is also perhaps the most obscure of the committees.
This committee is really a Parliamentary watchdog with respect to all the government's delegated legislation. It is the only parliamentary committee that continually monitors the regulations made by the government and its departments and agencies. The committee has a standing order of reference, provided under section 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act, which gives it the authority to review and scrutinize statutory instruments.
The committee sees its role to be one of ensuring that the government does in fact produce its regulations in a proper way. As an indication of the importance the committee attaches to its mandate, it is worth noting some of the principles which guide it in its work. For example, the committee examines whether a regulation is authorized by the terms of the enabling legislation and complies with the conditions set forth in the legislation, whether it is in conformity with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights, whether it should have retroactive effect without expressed authority having been provided in the enabling legislation, whether it imposes a fine, imprisonment or other penalty without express authority as provided in the enabling legislation and whether it appears for any reason to infringe on the rule of law. This is a wide scope, and you would be surprised what we find in our deliberations.
The committee has always carried out its work in a non-partisan fashion with excellent cooperation and equal representation from the two Houses of Parliament. The committee has 16 members, 8 from each House. We usually have a fairly good attendance. Today I think we had 12 members, out of 16.
The committee has an extremely heavy workload and with the assistance of its legal counsel, it examines literally dozens of regulations at each meeting. You can probably imagine there are thousands of regulations made by government departments, and these are all in due course examined by the staff. We have three counsel on the staff and their work goes on continually.
Pertinent ones are brought to the attention of the committee, and then, of course, we make decisions on them and recommendations to government departments. We have reams of correspondence with different departments trying to get them to explain what regulations mean and why they feel the regulations come within their jurisdiction.
In addition, the committee has already produced two reports during this session, with commentary on government regulations. The first report was the regular one which establishes our terms of reference. Each new Parliament, the two Houses have to give us terms of reference setting out what we should and can do.
The second report of the standing joint committee dealt with the failure of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to collect fees that had been imposed by an amendment to the Canadian Business Corporations regulations, the government and the regulations. This failure placed citizens in the position of owing money to the Crown, and the committee recommended that the government adopt a remission order, formerly remitting the amounts owed. That approach had been rejected by department officials but eventually was accepted by the minister following the tabling of our committee report. That matter was taken care of.
The third report of the committee draws attention to the fact that a number of federal regulations had been enacted in only one official language, contrary to the requirements of section 133 of the Constitution Act. In correspondence with the committee, the government has accepted that this renders the regulations unconstitutional, but denies the regulations are unenforceable. The report analyzes that position and concludes that the department is incorrect and requests the government to furnish a comprehensive response to the report. We have demanded from the government they answer our questions.
In addition, the committee in recent weeks has undertaken a comprehensive study of Bill 25, the Regulations Act, and its impact on the regulatory process, and will be presenting a report in the near future. The committee has been quite busy. We usually meet once every two weeks, but during this study we have been meeting twice a week for the last couple of months. I do not know if there are any questions.
The Chairman: I have one comment. You made mention in your report that it is difficult to get media coverage of the committee's work. It seems to me that you perform a role very similar to the Auditor General in some respects, and he seems to get an extraordinary amount of coverage of his reports. You might have your staff examine how he goes about that and take a leaf out of his book. Your committee does a lot of terrific work, and in my view the committee gets very little credit for all of its efforts.The committee in fact performs an audit function.
Senator Lewis: Yes, as we say, "a watchdog."
The Chairman: I think it is important that the public know that this watchdog exercise is carried on by Parliamentarians and that these regulations which are written basically out of sight of the public are looked at by Parliamentarians.
Senator Lewis: I appreciate that suggestion. As a matter of fact, some of the things the officials try to do in their regulations are quite shocking. Our public does not realize it.
The Chairman: Are committee members comfortable with this budget application?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Lewis: You will notice it has increased from what it was in June.
The Chairman: We have noticed the increase, but we have also noticed that your workload is increasing, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lewis: There is one other point. Part of the increase relates to the fact that we are considering accepting an invitation to attend a Commonwealth conference on delegated legislation, to be held in New Zealand in February. The committee has received such invitations before, but it must be four or five years since the committee was able to attend. This year we might try to do that.
Senator Rompkey: Would you take your full complement?
Senator Lewis: No, not the full committee. I suggest that we take five members plus one staff member.
The Chairman: Has this proposal been approved in the other place?
Senator Lewis: It is in the process now.
The Chairman: What is the purpose of the trip?
Senator Lewis: To attend this conference on delegated legislation we feel would be very useful.
The Chairman: What does the committee hope to learn from going?
Senator Lewis: Some of the topics are: quasi-legislation, scrutiny of regulation-making provisions of bills, negotiated regulation-making as the way of the future, implementation of international agreements for regulations, disallowance procedures -- we have procedures where he can disallow -- drafting of delegated legislation, making delegated legislation accessible and comprehensible to the ordinary citizen. This is not an exhaustive list. I am not quite sure how many Commonwealth countries will be attending, but apparently they usually have a good turnout.
Senator Rompkey: If you could learn something about making draft regulations comprehensible not only to the ordinary citizen but to ordinary Parliamentarians, that would be fantastic.
The Chairman: I think it is important inasmuch as the other place will hold its end of this discussion in secret. This will be the only public discussion of this matter, and I think it is important that it be on public record that you see a purpose in the trip, that it will assist the committee in its work and that you have satisfied this committee that in fact it is a useful function and that you will get value for the money spent.
Senator Lewis: That is why we feel the time has come when we should attend these conferences, at least this one. It would be very helpful to us, to the members, and we can compare our problems with other jurisdictions of the Commonwealth.
The Chairman: On your return, can we anticipate a report on what has been accomplished and learned?
Senator Lewis: Yes, I think a joint report will be filed in both Houses.
Senator Nolin: When you have that situation where a regulation is printed only in English -- I assume it is in English, but correct me if I am wrong -- and not in French, what is the attitude of the committee? Can you disallow a regulation if it is not in French or English?
Senator Lewis: First, we take it up with the department, point out to them that the regulation might be invalid, and then they respond.On that particular point there has been a disagreement between the committee and the Justice Department.
Senator Nolin: It was the Department of Justice?
Senator Lewis: I think so. I think it ends up with Justice. They respond on behalf of the department.
Senator Nolin: So, they agreed it was unconstitutional, but not invalid?
Senator Lewis: Not invalid.
Senator Nolin: Do we have a deadlock? Everybody agrees but nothing can be done?
Senator Lewis: In our last report we asked the government for a comprehensive report on this matter. We have not got that yet. When we get to that stage, then we will have to decide what we will do.
Senator Nolin: That is the kind of issue that will raise the profile of the committee, very fast.
The Chairman: How many senators will be travelling to this convention, sir?
Senator Lewis: At the moment it is felt we should send five members, so there would be at least two senators.
The Chairman: That does not compute if we are going 50-50 on expenses?
Senator Lewis: Yes, this is the problem we have not resolved yet.
The Chairman: If we are going 50-50, it will be two or three.
Senator Nolin: Four or six.
The Chairman: Yes. The 70-30 arrangement of sharing expenses we all understand, as well as the 50-50 proposition too.
Senator Lewis: The trouble is do we go to six from the five?
The Chairman: You can always go to four.
Senator Lewis: Yes.
The Chairman: Do you have the sense of the committee on this point?
Senator Lewis: Yes, we do.
The Chairman: Are we agreed with this report.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cochrane: Your committee has not travelled in four years. I think it is important that we keep in touch with other Commonwealth countries. It is something that we all have in common and we can learn a lot from each other. I am glad you are going, senator. I think it is a good idea.
Senator Lewis: I may not be going, but the committee is going.
Senator Cochrane: This camaraderie with Commonwealth countries is very important.
Senator Carstairs: If we are moving to other business, I just learned a couple of weeks ago -- and I have mentioned this to Senator Kenny -- that we have an upper limit on our dental plan. I did not realize that before. I must say it was in the book. I just did not read it because I have never had an upper limit on a dental plan before.
The situation is very simple. My husband had a crown that broke while we were away on a trip, and he had to have the crown replaced. A crown costs $790, so you quickly go over your limit in a situation like that. I recognize that this may be costs that we should be paying ourselves if we want benefits above the $1,250. However, I would like to see a review conducted of the dental plan benefits with a view to the possibility of additional benefits, for which perhaps senators could pay themselves, as an option.
The Chairman: Senator Carstairs, I have to tell you that your husband is not alone. Other senators have raised this issue. Perhaps we could have the staff examine the options with regard to GSMIP and also inquire about the option suggested by Senator Carstairs whereby senators be able to pay a supplement if they so chose.Perhaps we could have a report on that in the near future?
Mr. Bélisle: Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, you had sent a letter dealing with similar matters. We will look into it.
Ms Aghajanian, Director of Finance: That was one of the items.
The Chairman: One of the items related to complaints about the dental plan, but we will go back at it again.
I want to make one more point on the question of travel during prorogation. We said that travel would continue during prorogation and dissolution, and also other services provided to senators; including franking, printing, research, office expenses, telephone, et cetera. Is everyone clear on that and are we all agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms Aghajanian: I was just going to ask for clarification. Did you want a memo to go to all senator's offices? The last time we were told to call each senator's office, as opposed to a memo.
Mr. O'Brien: We will make a report to the Senate.
Ms Aghajanian: No need to call?
The Chairman: No need if we report to the Senate. It will get all the attention it deserves.
Mr. Bélisle: A letter should go out to senators with regard to the priority post because there is a change.
The Chairman: We should also report to the Senate, saying that, as of the adoption of the report, priority post payments will cease.
The committee adjourned.