Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 13 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 17, 1997
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 10:20 a.m.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Senator Carstairs has the floor.
Senator Carstairs: Our total budget was $51,100. This is a small budget compared to the budgets of other standing committees. However, I want to review briefly with senators the work of your Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
In the last fiscal year, we held 66 meetings. We sat for 128.7 hours. We heard from 288 witnesses. We filed 21 reports.
Since the beginning of this fiscal year, we have had eight meetings. We have sat 26 hours. We have heard 58 witnesses. We are only into the third week of April.
This is an extremely hard-working committee with an equally hard-working clerk and staff. Our budget is primarily, I must say, for witness expenses. We bring witnesses in from all across the country. We have a budget for working meals. I call a lot of working meetings that take people from morning through lunch, through afternoon in order to hear all the witnesses from whom we need to hear. On that basis, I move the adoption of our report.
Senator Wood: I will not only be referring to this budget, but to all budgets. Under the working lunches, I think it would be a good idea if the number of people were noted. I say that after the criticism about which I read recently in the papers. Everyone has just put "lunches" and I think that is wrong.
The Chairman: Senator Wood, with respect, it is difficult to do that prospectively. Retrospectively, it is easier. This is a budget for the future. It is quite difficult for a committee chairman to know in advance how many people will be meeting at a future luncheon meeting.
Senator Wood: I understand, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carstairs: Our committee has 12 members, which is usual for our committees. It is a rarity for less than 10 appear. We have a certain number of staff who we feed at the same time. Heather Lank usually orders about 15 to 20 meals. That is what you are looking at in terms of overall numbers.
The Chairman: There would be no difficulty at year end providing a public report of how many people were fed each time. The criticism you are referring to in the paper, Senator Wood, is clear in all our minds. Senate committees would have no difficulty coming up with figures to show exactly how many people were fed at each meal.
I know that senators have had a chance to review the numbers. I must say that Senator Carstairs continues to astonish me not only with the quality of her work, but the quantity that her committee manages to handle. It is impressive to the point of being unbelievable. We have in front of us a comparison of the hours that committees sit and the number of witnesses that they hear. You lead the pack, senator, and deserve the halo and wings.
I take it there is a consensus that this budget should be approved.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Carstairs.
Senator Kirby is next.
Senator Kirby: Senators, I will just tell you what the budget covers and why. The budget covers three studies, all of which we are doing at the request of various parts of the government. I will tell you briefly what they are because they are kind of interesting.
One deals with the issue of so-called joint and several liability. This is the issue of whether, when a group of defendants is found liable collectively for, for example, the costs involved in a bankruptcy, the only person who ought to pay is the person with the deep pockets, or whether proportionate liability should apply. That is the current law in Great Britain, Australia, Canada and, to some extent, the United States.
The CICA, which is an association of chartered accountants, has embarked on a worldwide lobby -- and I have talked to those involved in Australia, England and the U.S. -- in an attempt to move from joint and several liability to proportionate liability. The government decided to finesse the issue by asking our committee to hold a series of committee meetings and to give a recommendation. We are in the process of having an option paper prepared which will be finished shortly and hearings will take place on the subject in the fall.
The second issue covered in the budget is one that has been proposed to us do by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. Since John Palmer became the new superintendent a year ago, he has started to use your banking committee as a quasi-board of directors and advisory committee to him. We have had a couple of in camera meetings with him seeking advice on a number of issues. He felt it was important for him to get some understanding of the pros and the cons of Canadian regulation of financial institutions in comparison with major OECD countries. He felt that if he did that comparative study in-house and then released it, it would be suspect precisely because it was done in-house. He feels we would do an arm's-length study for him.
Therefore, he has asked us to do that study. That is the reason that, for the first time in my years on the committee, travel outside Canada and the United States is included in the budget. It is precisely because the countries with whom the superintendent wants a Canada comparison made include several major OECD countries. The countries have not been picked by the committee; they have been picked by the superintendent as the major models against which Canada compares itself on a whole variety of G-7 activities.
The third major study has come about as a result of a study the committee did some time ago on the governance of corporations. We were asked originally by the Department of Industry to develop corporate governance recommendations for the next round of changes, which will take place next year, to the Canada Business Corporations Act. We tabled a report with some 30-odd recommendations. We got a letter back from the minister saying that all of them will be included when the changes to the act come forward this fall or, at the very latest, January of next year.
As a result of that, an issue arose as to what the governance rules ought to be for pension and mutual funds, partly because of the tremendous increase of interest of pension and mutual funds, and partly because there are no governance rules which govern them at the moment. Yet, they are a huge increasing economic influence in the country.
In addition, as the government has already announced, the CPP, some time in the next mandate, will be treated as a pension fund. That is to say, it will become separate from government funds and will have its own board. Thus, the Department of Finance wants us to give them advice with respect to what the governance rules ought to be for whatever institution will run the CPP in the future.
We have put these together into a study of institutional investors. The costs of doing that study are also included in the report.
In summary, we have three studies, all of which were requested by the government. Those three studies will easily take us through until June of 1998. The budget for doing those studies is what is included in the material before senators.
The Chairman: Senator Kirby has had experience both in government and as a legislator. What are your views or your committee's views on taking on tasks at the request of government?
Senator Kirby: Our policy has been two-fold and goes back to before I was chairman and the committee did things when Mike Wilson was Minister of Finance, for example.
If we have been asked to do a policy study such as a floating Royal Commission, we will do so on the absolute understanding that it is strictly arm's length from the government in the sense that we report what we want to report. If the minister is not happy, that is too bad. I will give you a very good example of that.
At the request of the departments of finance and industry, we did a study of so-called Crown financial institutions, which is EDC, Business Development Bank, FCC and the regional agencies. As I think you know, the committee gave a report which, among other things, said that regional agencies such as ACOA should be abolished, for which some of us took considerable abuse. Nevertheless, it got a debate started which was important. We met our objectives in that we looked at the policy issue and started an important debate, and the government had an independent, third party viewpoint of an issue.
The view of the committee has been for at least 10 years that a Royal Commission has sort of floating terms of reference from day to day, and that specific departments of government ask us to look at specific issues. The collapse of Confederation Life is another matter that we studied three or four years ago.
It has nothing to do with who is in government or the make up of the committee. Our reports are always unanimous. We have done studies for a series of finance ministers over the last decade.
Senator Di Nino: We obviously are very proud of the work that committees do in the Senate. I think the banking committee has been universally recognized as one that performs some very good work.
The amount of money that is being asked for is not small. It is quite large, particularly as it relates to the committee travel to a number of places in Europe. As you know, from time to time there have been suggestions and criticism that these things are paid vacations for parliamentarians. I wish those who make those suggestions would attend these hearings. They would find that they would prefer to be home with their families instead of being there.
It is important to put on the record what you intend to accomplish for the benefit of Canadians and the Canadian public.
Senator Kirby: The European trip -- which is a new thing for the committee as we have historically not done that -- has come about only because the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, John Palmer, has asked the committee to do this comparative study of four or five major OECD countries and Canada. In fact, many of the appointments, for example with the Governor of the Bank of England and with the people who run the regulatory agency for the European Union, are being arranged through the office of the superintendent. It is pretty hard for us to call up the governor of the Bank of England. They are delivering the list of witnesses. We would not normally be going out of the country except this is a specific request from a specific branch of government.
Frankly, when the issue initially came up, I wondered whether OSFI should be paying for the travel. However, in order to maintain the appropriate independence of the Senate and the committee, I did not think we should be in a position where we were under their control and influence. Therefore, since it is all federal government money, it seemed to be more appropriate that the money be paid by us. I was concerned about setting the precedent of doing a study for someone in which they had some element of control of the budget. That is a judgement call.
Senator Di Nino: I agree with you that whether it comes out of their pocket or our pocket, it is still the same pocket.
Senator Kirby: That was the rationale.
Senator Di Nino: You are suggesting that if it comes out of our pocket, at least we control our own destiny and they cannot control or influence what we report.
What will you bring back to the benefit of Canadians?
Senator Kirby: Our committee gives very concrete recommendations. We have been asked to recommend what changes in legislation or regulations governing OSFI should be made in order to ensure that the Canadian regulatory system is as good or better than that of any of the other major OECD countries.
Senator Di Nino: To avoid what?
Senator Kirby: To avoid problems such as those experienced with Barings Bank and some of the problems that have existed in the United States with respect to the savings and loan situation. In other words, we can learn from what has been done elsewhere and the way other systems operate in order to improve the Canadian system.
Senator Di Nino: At the end of the day, maybe it will save us a lot of money and losses, and so on.
Senator Kirby: It will add security to the system and it will improve the operating efficiency of OSFI.
To give you an illustration, from some background reading that I have been doing I have learned that in some countries a huge amount of emphasis is placed on a very limited number of issues because they are the big issues that can cause problems and, technically, some of the other issues are not regulated. In other words, it is the old 80/20 rule: Put 80 per cent of your effort on 20 per cent of the problems. Historically, that has not been the way OSFI has operated. It has operated fully across the board.
One of the questions they want some advice on is, if they switch to an 80/20 type emphasis, what are the 20 or 30 per cent of issues on which they should focus? That would improve the operating efficiency of OSFI as opposed to necessarily saving money in terms of the closure of institutions.
Senator Milne: You have appointments with the governor of the Bank of England. What happens if we approve this budget but then Parliament dissolves?
Senator Kirby: None of these appointments will be held during the election campaign. You used the word "dissolved". Clearly, we will not be conducting these meetings during the election campaign. The problem with dissolution is that you never know when Parliament is coming back.
Senator Milne: The committee no longer exists, then.
Senator Kirby: We had a similar problem in February last year when the committee was doing a series of hearings on the corporate governance provisions that should go into the Canada Business Corporations Act. We had lined up approximately 60 major CEOs in a set of hearings across the country and Parliament prorogued.
The Chairman: Yes. We then authorized a task force, as opposed to a committee, to continue with the study. We had the authority to do that. This committee has the authority, during periods of prorogation and dissolution, to provide that sort of funding.
Senator Kirby: It takes months to line up the European schedule, so I would like to line it up for the fall. If the Speech from the Throne has not yet been given, I would hope that this committee would authorize us to proceed -- and, I do not know what the terminology is -- as individuals, a task force, or whatever.
The Chairman: A study group or whatever.
Senator Milne: It would be in the fall?
Senator Kirby: That is right. The target date is late September, early October. We cannot get people in the summertime anyway and it will take us that long to line up the witnesses we want.
Senator Milne: If you are doing this study for someone else, why are they not paying for it?
Senator Kirby: It is an independence issue. If the committee feels differently, I am prepared to go back and talk to OSFI. My view is that since it is all from the same pocket, I would like to preserve the appearance of independence, which is important.
The Chairman: Is the committee in agreement with this budget?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Senator Kirby: Thank you, senators.
Senator Perrault: The Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries, Senator Comeau, sends his regrets. He has been in transit and arrived late last night. I am Vice-Chairman of the Fisheries Committee. I have a summary of what the committee proposes to do if given a mandate by the Senate.
We are submitting a budget request in the amount of $30,825 in order to complete the work undertaken in our special study on the privatization of fish quotas. The future of the fisheries is of critical importance on all three of our coasts.
During this session of Parliament, the Fisheries Committee heard from 12 witnesses on its special study and its examination of Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada.
In its special study, in order to save money, the Fisheries Committee is planning to use video conferencing to hear from as many witnesses as possible. Witnesses from as far away as New Zealand, Iceland and Washington, D.C., will be heard. There was a proposal at one time that the committee travel to these locations. That has been ruled out. Video conferencing is much more economical.
I am also pleased to announce that the Fisheries Committee is breaking new ground in making the work of Parliament available to the Canadian public. Today, the Fisheries Committee began publishing its major reports on the Internet, in addition to background material related to the committee's current study on the privatization of fish quotas.
As we are all aware, the Internet is becoming more and more available to Canadians. To many, it is an essential tool in workplaces and classrooms. In preparation for our work in Brussels with respect to the turbot issue, the Internet was of extreme value in providing information to members of the committee who attended those meetings.
The Fisheries Committee report from 1995 on the Atlantic groundfish fishery, the 1993 report on the Atlantic inshore fishery and the 1991 report on the lobster fishery are now available on the parliamentary Internet. Fifty million people world wide are now able to access the Internet. That is how profound the communications revolution has become.
I invite colleagues to view the site for themselves. Members of the fisheries committee would welcome that. The reports, transcripts and background information are attractively and colourfully displayed.
As I said, the amount of the budget request is $30,825. That includes communications consultants, transportation and communications involving witness expenses, video conferencing and computer software.
Mr. Chairman, that is a brief summary of what we are attempting to do and the request that we have made.
The Chairman: For the record, committee members had an opportunity to review the figures in advance. We wanted to hear from you what you intended to do with the money.
Senator Di Nino: When do you intend to do this work?
Senator Perrault: In May, if there is no election.
Senator Di Nino: It is to be done as soon as possible?
Senator Perrault: That is right, and the committee would report by, at the very latest, March of 1998.
Senator Di Nino: Why would you wait so long to report if the work is going to be done in May?
Senator Perrault: We hope to finish much sooner than that, senator, but it permits leeway, if necessary.
The Chairman: Some committees prefer to have a late date so that they are not caught. It provides flexibility. They can always report earlier, if they choose.
Senator Milne: What happens to your committee if Parliament prorogues?
Senator Perrault: We will have to resume when the new Parliament has been put in place.
The Chairman: For the record, colleagues, prorogation means that all references and all budgets fall off the table, and we will have a replay of this session after that.
Is the committee in agreement with this budget?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Senator Perrault: Thank you.
The Chairman: Senator Bonnell, the floor is yours.
Senator Bonnell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for hearing me.
I have a very small budget request of $18,000. Of that, $2,000 will be spent on communications and $15,000 will be spent bringing witnesses from the province of Quebec to give evidence on post-secondary education. We travelled to the Western provinces and Eastern Canada.
I wish to say that I think it is great for committees to travel in Canada.When we were travelling, we got terrific media coverage. We did not get nearly as much coverage in the big city of Ottawa.
The Chairman: Could you describe the work that the committee is doing?
Senator Bonnell: We are doing a study on post-secondary education across Canada. We hope to report in June of this year and I hope to issue an interim report in the next couple of days.
The Chairman: Could you be more specific about your study on post-secondary education?
Senator Bonnell: We are studying student loans, distance education and amalgamating universities for certain degrees. For example, in Alberta, students will study medicine at one university, arts at another and law at another. In Halifax there are about seven universities, all under one administration. Dalhousie teaches medicine and another teaches engineering. We are studying how this can be amalgamated to save money.
We are also studying aboriginal education and francophone education. We are studying a multitude of things with regard to post-secondary education. We are trying to keep out of the jurisdiction of the provinces as much as possible because we realize that education is a provincial jurisdiction.
Senator Di Nino: We will be expecting some comments on national standards.
Senator Bonnell: We hope to do that.
Senator Di Nino: We will be expecting a report on the cost of education to both taxpayers and students.
Senator Bonnell: We are studying the cost to students and student debt. We are studying whether it is economically sound for them to get an education. However, we are not getting involved in the cost to provinces.
Senator Di Nino: Will you be addressing the challenges faced by new Canadians when they arrive in this country?
Senator Bonnell: We hope to have a report on language training and Internet. Each week, transcripts of our meetings are posted on the Internet. You can read what is going on in the education system. We have press releases.
One important thing we did in our committee was in the area of promoting our work. At every site where hearings were held, a university student involved in journalism worked with us and prepared press releases. That kept students in the universities involved and the money went to them rather than to some big communications firm. They gave us great communications and every newspaper was involved. We were on the CBC. We are on Newsworld.
The Chairman: Are there questions that other senators would like to ask of Senator Bonnell? Is the committee in accord with this budget?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Rompkey: I do not know how much I need to explain about the budget of the Special Committee of the Senate on the Canadian Airborne Regiment in Somalia. You have it before you. It is fairly straightforward. It is much like the budget for the Pearson committee.
I am open to questions.
The Chairman: Could you describe for the record what the committee hopes to accomplish over the next period of time?
Senator Rompkey: Our mandate is the Senate motion. We are mandated to examine and report upon the adequacy of the response of the chain of command of the Canadian forces to the problems relating to the deployment of the Canadian Airborne Regiment in Somalia, in particular the torture and beating death of Shidane Arone, to the extent these matters will not be examined by the commission of inquiry appointed March 20, 1995.
There is a list of eminent people who were in the chain of command at that time who we were enjoined to call. There are eight people on that list.
We will be proceeding to call those people and ask them questions about their role in the post-deployment of the Canadian Airborne Regiment in Somalia. Of course, the objective is to examine that issue with a view to putting the truth of the matter before the people of Canada.
The Chairman: Are there any questions?
Senator Di Nino: Senator Rompkey, two or three questions come to mind. First, the expenses are principally for professional assistance; legal and research. Is there any thought being given to retaining some of the professionals who were involved in the Somalia inquiry so that we can benefit from the knowledge they have gained from their involvement in the last two or three years? Are we going to hire new people who will then be required to bring themselves up to speed, probably at a considerable cost to us?
Senator Rompkey: I would not rule out the first option, but there is something to be said for having a fresh approach. Indeed, as a Senate we bring a fresh approach to the issue.
We want legal and research help that is competent and knowledgeable. I would not rule out engaging someone who had already been involved but, as Senator Kirby pointed out, there is something to be said for independence and doing your own thing.
I should also point out that we do have Senate legal officers available to us. My own feeling, shared by many members of the committee, is that we should begin with that support staff in the Senate and if we want to hire from the outside, the budget is there to do that. It does not mean we have to wait until we engage people from the outside. We do have the capacity within the Senate now.
It is important to have people who are versed in legal matters and in the way the Senate operates. That is an important consideration, too.
We do not necessarily need to depend on outside legal help. The same is true of research help. I believe that we will have outside research help and indeed Senator Murray and I discussed names ten days ago and he and I have shared CVs of people who could be hired who are impartial and capable.
However, I would also point out the Library of Parliament has assisted us in the past and will assist us again. I envision a combination of the Library of Parliament and outside research help.
Senator Di Nino: From the standpoint of dealing with budgets, and not your mandate, that is something that you and your committee would look at. It might be more efficient if those people were contracted who had shown during the Somalia inquiry to be impartial, to have the skills and to understand the issues. I would recommend that, because in the final analysis you will come in at a great deal less than the budgetary amount.
I should also like to know what will happen if the Prime Minister calls an election. Is the plug pulled? Is this committee disbanded, finished or what?
Senator Rompkey: That is my understanding.
Senator Di Nino: Would you consider at least discussing with your committee whether you would want to request changing the mandate from a committee to a task force so that you could continue your work if the committee so wished?
Senator Rompkey: The short answer is yes.
The Chairman: I should like comment on that, just so we are clear. When we have gone to a task force approach, it has meant functioning without recording, reporters or the trappings of a Senate committee.
It is not within our mandate to set up a group during a prorogation or dissolution that is a committee. It is not within our mandate to allow for a task force to have what I would call a reference from the Senate. All of that dies.
What is within our mandate is to allow individual senators or groups of senators to study matters, to form conclusions, to educate themselves further and to carry on work of that nature.
Senator Di Nino: Would they then report?
The Chairman: The reporting would have to come in the form of information that they had developed and then brought to their committee when it was struck again afterward.
A task force has no privilege. Witnesses coming before a task force do not get the protection that a witness coming before a Senate committee gets. As a consequence, it is basically a group of informal meetings for senators to learn about something as opposed to something that is on the record. We should have that distinction in our minds when we are thinking about task forces and what they are doing.
Senator Di Nino: That is fair, but I suggest that it is an option that this committee may want to consider.
Senator Forrestall: As colleagues will appreciate, there are some strongly held positions with respect to this process, and I do not want to comment on that at all. There will be opportunity later today when the committee meets.
I am sure it has occurred to others as it has occurred to me that on controversial items when the question of counsel and research comes up, there is always the delicacy of who will choose what is to be researched and who will choose counsel to advise. It may evolve that the committee will come back to Internal Economy looking for approval, if that would be necessary, Mr. Chairman, for funding for majority counsel, minority counsel, and committee counsel, or majority research direction, minority research direction, and possibly even committee research staff.
With that thought in mind, and looking ahead to what will hopefully be a satisfying series of meetings at some time much later in the future, I can only approve the Chair's attempt to put in place the means to achieve not necessarily that scenario, but a scenario which brings to the members of that committee the help they will need in wading through the mound of material and in properly approaching witnesses.
I think the chairman is quite right in asking for a global budget at this time. I suggest that , with the work he has cut out for himself this weekend and next week, we should indeed grant him that approval.
Senator Stollery: When this committee approved the budget proposed by Senator MacDonald for the Pearson inquiry, I do not think who would be hired was much of an issue, but we did discuss it here. Generally speaking, it was left up to Senator MacDonald how he would do it. I remember supporting that position at that time. The chairman of the committee must have a budget, and I think we should approve the budget.
Senator Milne: I agree that we should approve the budget. However, following on what Senator Forrestall said, would it be reasonable, if Parliament prorogues, for the committee to have to come back to us for approval to do research throughout the summer? I am not referring to committee meetings, but research.
The Chairman: We have made arrangements in the past for the committees branch to do work on a variety of things under the auspices of the committees branch. There will be no Somalia committee if Parliament is dissolved, and there will be no terms of reference when it is dissolved, so that ceases to exist.
Having said that, the Director of Committees is responsible for keeping his staff prepared and informed and brought up to speed on a variety of issues. He also has proposals which we will be considering immediately after dissolution about how we deal with those employees who are on contract to his branch.
When I mentioned a sequence of meetings that I hoped members would be able to attend, I envisioned a meeting next Thursday and then a meeting immediately after a writ was issued so that we could put in place whatever mechanisms we need to operate throughout the period. That will be a matter for discussion at that time.
Senator Wood: If the committee chose to continue as a task force, would it be financed by us in any respect?
The Chairman: A task force is a completely different animal.
Senator Wood: They are not financed by us.
The Chairman: They are. We have financed task forces and work of individual senators, but it is not a vehicle within which you would take testimony. It is not a vehicle suited for the Somalia inquiry, is what I am bluntly saying.
Senator Stollery: It has legal implications for the records and things like that.
The Chairman: The issue of privilege alone, in my mind, rules out any possibility of having a task force in this regard. Bluntly put, for this committee to continue, it would need another reference from the Senate when it comes back, if there is a dissolution in the next two weeks.
Having said that, if there is some research that the committees branch is doing over the course of the summer to acquaint themselves with a variety of issues, not only Somalia, that is a totally different matter. If individual senators came to this committee because they wanted to acquaint themselves better with a subject, this committee would entertain that.
We cannot do the Somalia inquiry under the guise of a task force.
Senator Di Nino: At least certain components of the Somalia inquiry.
The Chairman: Yes, sir. I do not think it would be fair to have a witness appear before you.
Senator Di Nino: A great deal of other work could be done, such as preparatory work. If there were a dissolution of Parliament and the committee chose to continue to prepare itself, which may take two or three months, we may consider giving them some funds.
The Chairman: If the committee chose to have the committees branch undertake certain items of research, that can be done. However, the committee does not exist.
Senator Di Nino: I see a problem. We are suggesting to the Banking Committee that they could actually meet with people, but not call witnesses. I agree with that. Because of privilege, that creates a unique problem which we must avoid. There are certain aspects of the committee's mandate which may be -- and I do not want to preclude or prejudge at this stage -- done through a task force. If the committee decides that they want to continue during a dissolution of Parliament, they may tell us that they would like to do certain things to prepare for when they are able to resume work as a committee. I do not think we should preclude them coming to us for money.
The Chairman: I am the servant of this committee, but let me tell you my interpretation of the matter. I hope it is of some assistance to you.
If individual senators come before this committee and say they have some work that they want to do, I believe this committee should hear them. Not only that, it has the authority to assist them if it so chooses.
It is within the prerogative of the committees branch, which continues as an ongoing part of the Senate, to carry on research and work during that period of time. That makes some sense to me as well. I would sooner we did not pursue this conversation further right now.
Senator Di Nino: It is all academic anyway.
The Chairman: We will jump off some bridges when we get to them.
Senator Forrestall: We are at the approach to the bridge right now. I can see the toll booth right ahead of me.
The Chairman: Fair enough, but are we comfortable with this budget, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Rompkey.
Next is Senator Forrestall.
Senator Forrestall: Colleagues, this is an application for budget authorization for the period ending March 31, 1998. The amount of money we are seeking is $73,870. This will cover the usual professional and special services, transport, communications and other expenditures. It will, as we had hoped when we were last before the committee, allow the committee to go to Washington for the purposes of 12 or 14 meetings with officials in that city. I can run through the activities briefly. Perhaps it is important for the record.
The Chairman: We have had a chance to review the figures but we are very interested in hearing what you hope to accomplish with your activities, sir.
Senator Forrestall: We have had 15 meetings with more than 45 hours of testimony and some 97 witnesses. We have been to Yellowknife, Edmonton, Vancouver, Montreal, and Halifax. We have made a number of site visits to port facilities, airport facilities, air traffic control centres, and so on. We intend to continue that type of work.
The Chairman: Why are you visiting these facilities, sir?
Senator Forrestall: To satisfy the general direction that we examine and make recommendations upon the state of transportation safety and security in Canada. The only way you can talk about security at an airport is to go and look at it.
The Chairman: Could you give us some examples of the sorts of things you have been looking at?
Senator Forrestall: Yes, I can. For example, we have looked at the question of sterile airports. We have looked in some depth at the cost of moving to this. We have also looked at the cost of not moving to sterile.
The Chairman: I do not know what "sterile" means.
Senator Forrestall: It means that when you walk on board an aircraft you can feel absolutely safe that there is not an explosive substance on board that aircraft which might endanger your life.
Senator Stollery: Security.
Senator Forrestall: In contrast to that -- and it might be of interest to you; it is of special interest to the chair of the subcommittee -- we are looking at the mandatory use of parachutes in ultralight aircraft and experimental aircraft, not for the pilot but for the aircraft itself. We are looking at putting parachutes on 747s and on ultralight aircraft. We thought we would start from the ground up and look at the little ones first. I am making light of it but it is a very complex subject.
We are studying that because statistics reveal that in the United States, the only jurisdiction that we are familiar with that does encourage this activity, 86 lives have been saved in this way in crashes of ultralight and experimental aircraft. If a parachute saves a life, then maybe it should be in the Aeronautics Act.
The major undertaking of the committee will be to draft a new Aeronautics Act, and this work is ongoing. There is no way you can stop it. It is started and it has to continue. How we will continue to pay for it, I do not know. The last Aeronautics Act in this country was written in the 1920s and as we approach the millennium it might be nice to have a new one. To that end, we are drafting one that will be an appendix to our interim report, we hope, and it will be referred to the ministry for their consideration and, hopefully, action. This work is being done by professionals who understand the nature of legislative drafting and who, as well, understand the very nature of aviation today.
Our work covers all modes of transportation. We have spoken to the oil people regarding pipeline transport. We are talking to rail people. We are talking to unions. We are talking to futurists and university professors. We are talking to people who have done this work in some depth.
Out of that, we hope to be able to present in our interim report the topics we will look at in depth for our final report which will come at the end of the year. We may have to ask for an extension of that because of the hiatus we are probably going to run into, but our study is wide and sweeping.
We are looking at smart highways and at smart trucks. We are looking at carnage on the highways. There is no aspect of transport security and safety that we are not interested in. The web that we have established is beginning to be encouraging to those of us who will finally pull the report together, in that we anticipate it to be very active within the next month.
Senator Di Nino: Can I conclude from what you said that not only are you looking at the effectiveness and efficiency of the transportation system, but you are doing so with a very keen eye to the safety and security of the transportation system, with the eventual objective of coming up with recommendations on how that can be accomplished?
Senator Forrestall: Yes, exactly. We are driven, for example, colleagues, by the knowledge that over the last 25 or 30 years we have reduced the accident rate by air in Canada to quite an acceptable level, if you use most criteria. One crash is too many, of course. We are looking now at how to improve that record.
As greater numbers of people fly, if the accident rate stays the same, in less than 15 years there will be a major hull lying beside some runway somewhere in the world every week. Canadians fly more and more. We are traders, so our people are on more and more foreign aircraft travelling through foreign countries. We are looking at ways to extend the standards that we accept as very minimal for ourselves, although they are very high in world-wide terms, to foreign countries through which Canadians must travel as one way of trying to affect the accident rate per million seat miles flown, which is the only useful standard that one can use. We are very actively involved in that.
Senator Stollery: Mr. Chairman, Senator Forrestall has made an extremely interesting presentation. Why do we not approve his budget?
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Senator Poulin, you are next.
Senator Poulin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I should like to excuse the Chair of the full committee, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, Senator Bacon, who is currently chairing a hearing upstairs, a hearing at which Senator Forrestall and I should be. However, we agreed that he and I would stay here as Chairs of the two subcommittees of the standing committee.
As senators know, currently, the full committee is hearing witnesses regarding Bill C-32, on the Copyright Act. In the last week, the committee has heard nearly 50 witnesses. In other words, we have been sitting from very early in the morning, attending the Senate and then returning to the committee because the committee, as a whole, wanted to hear the broad cross-section of interested parties regarding this bill.
In previous weeks we had been studying the negative option bill, Bill C-216, which bill we reported to the Senate yesterday.
The Subcommittee on Communications is the sister of the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety. On May 1, 1996, the Senate agreed that the Subcommittee on Communications be authorized to examine and report upon Canada's international competitive position in communications, including a review of the economic, social and cultural importance of communications for Canada.
Since that time, we have received briefs. We have interviewed witnesses from a broad cross-section, mainly those who are technologically interested. Because of the amount of information that has been gathered through research, through the briefs and through the witnesses who have appeared before us, the subcommittee has decided to publish an interim report which will be presented to the full committee today. If accepted by the full committee, it would be made public in the next few days.
We have been made aware not only of the complexity of the issue but also of the rapidly changing factors that are involved in communications. Therefore, we submit this research budget to Internal Economy knowing that there is still a lot of research to be done.
The Chairman: Are there any questions?
Senator Di Nino: I move approval of the budget.
The Chairman: Are members of the committee agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Senator Stewart has been waiting very patiently. We apologize for taking so long. We are most anxious to hear about the work of your committee. We have had an opportunity to examine some of the figures that you provided to us. You have the floor, sir.
Senator Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The reference of the Foreign Affairs Committee relates to the growing importance of the Asia Pacific region for Canada, with an emphasis on the APEC conference in Vancouver in the fall of this year.
We have done a lot of work. We held intensive hearings in Vancouver in February. I want to comment on our hearings in Vancouver because I learned something, which I suppose is obvious to other senators, and I want to mention it.
In three intensive days of sitting in Vancouver, we accomplished what would otherwise have been months of work in Ottawa. We heard witness after witness. We had the full attention of the committee. I was surprised at how productive those meetings were.
I have had a bias, I have to confess, against travel, and I am trying to get rid of that bias. It still lingers. However, I must say that our work in Vancouver was very enlightening.
What are we interested in? The Asia Pacific area is big and very diverse. The work of the committee on Asia Pacific is much more difficult than, let us say, our work on Europe because there, there are common institutions, a program and so on. Here, we are dealing with a big and, to some extent, disorganized area. We are interested in economic circumstances in China, Japan and Indonesia, just to mention three of the big ones. We are interested in the adequacy of the assistance that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade give to Canadian businesses.
We are interested in the legal environment in which Canadian businesses find themselves. For example, to what extent is there an adequate system of private law? To what extent is there a reliable system of adjudication?
We are interested in the shipping arrangements between west coast North American ports and Asia, and the controversy over whether or not the cartel which now operates in the liner service should continue to be allowed. Senator Forrestall will know exactly what I am talking about. We are interested in the whole question of the relationship between human rights and trade.
Those are just some of the topics that have come up. We want to issue a report that will be useful to the government before the conference in Vancouver. Consequently, we have pushed ahead as rapidly as we could on an interim report. Only yesterday, the Senate authorized the committee, of which you are members, to publicize that report in the case of a dissolution or a prorogation. That is under way.
I take the position that a dissolution will terminate the reference to the committee. We will be defunct and we cannot have meetings during the summer. However, I understand that if we have contracted work prior to dissolution, it will be possible for those who have undertaken to do that work to be paid.
We have checked very carefully with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and have found that there is a study that needs to be done which the executive government is not doing. I will mention what that study includes.
There is a need for a description of the historic evolution of trade and investment liberalization within the APEC area. They have said that individually that they are going to liberalize trade and investment rules. However, what is actually the situation?
There is a need to evaluate APEC's collective action plans and to compare what the conference as a whole has committed itself to -- albeit on a voluntary basis -- with the liberalization which they are obliged to undertake under the World Trade Organization. There is a need to assess whether the unilateral voluntary incremental approach to trade and investment liberalization, which APEC espouses, can lead to substantial, tangible changes in the absence of binding targets. There is also a need to assess and analyze how regional trade and investment liberalization within APEC will blend with the multilateral efforts under the World Trade Organization.
So there is quite intensive research work to be done which the department is not doing. We can get it done. We could have had it done for more money, but I think we can get it done for about $20,000 by the Centre for Trade Policy and Law at Carleton University. You will see that that is the only large item included in this budget.
My guess is that, if there is dissolution within the next two weeks, the rest of the money would not be spent. It is in here against the possibility that we will be carrying on for a bit.
In case the present session does not terminate, we would be coming back, of course. The report we will be producing within the next few days is an interim report. We have to try to get a report on the relation between human rights and trade and I think we will have prolonged discussion within the committee. It is a very important topic and we just cannot deal with it in the interim report. We will have to get to that.
The whole situation in Asia Pacific may be bedevilled by what happens in Hong Kong. We just do not know. The committee will certainly want to carry on, either in this session if this session continues, in which case we will need money, or it will need to have this reference revived in a new session. I think it is fair to say that we will have done 35 to 40 per cent of the work that needs to be done before the end of this month.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Stewart. That was a very comprehensive presentation.
With regard to the study to which you referred, as you suggested, the reference and the budget falls off the table at the time of dissolution. As with our discussion on the Somalia committee, the committee on Internal Economy, by virtue of the Parliament of Canada Act, has authority to assign tasks and work to the Committees Branch.
At the meeting which we will have immediately after the writ is issued, if the writ is issued, we will canvass senators who have studies which they consider to be of importance. We will endeavour to accommodate those senators who have been working in an area and have demonstrated an expertise in that area, to assist them, through the Committees Branch, with their studies, as we would elsewhere.
The same would be true if Senator Kirby's committee needs assistance in various ways. That would be the time when we would examine that. We will be canvassing individual members of the committee to find a time to meet that is most convenient for them, if a writ is issued.
Senator Di Nino: Senator Stewart, if you can accomplish what you have outlined with the amount of money you are asking for, I would be happy to move the adoption of the budget, and I will because I know you will do a very good job. However, I have two or three quick questions.
You talked about studying the adequacy of the support of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Adequacy has a confining definition in my language. Will that study be expanded to include, in general, whether it is doing the job?
Senator Stewart: Senator Di Nino, the money we are seeking now is for the commissioned study to be done by the Centre for Trade Policy and Law at Carleton. Your question relates to the work of the committee itself.
I do not want to anticipate the report of the committee, but let me put it this way: There is in some quarters a feeling that, for historic reasons, the department is committing too much of its resources to Europe and indeed, even within Europe, to some countries; the U.K., for example, which has declining importance.
Senator Di Nino: Understandably so.
Senator Stewart: Yes, understandably. Whereas in the case of Asia, particularly Pacific Asia, we just do not have the personnel. Perhaps we do not have the people with the right language skills. Since this is an area with which our economic relations are becoming more and more intense, it may well be that there will have to be a shift of focus. We have been hearing that from some witnesses.
Senator Di Nino: I am glad to hear that. The last time you and I met we agreed to continue this dialogue. I am very interested in the work of your committee and it seems as though time is always against us. Maybe we will do it over a coffee one day.
I should like to go to another area of your comment; that is, the mandate of your committee more general than the specific study to which you are now referring. You brought it up and I would like to comment on it.
You will not be surprised to hear me say that I am delighted with your comments on the study of the human rights aspect of our relationship with the Asia Pacific. You are probably tired of listening to me talk in the Senate about those issues. I did not, however, hear you say whether environmental issues would be part of it. Is it intended that in the general mandate that would also be looked at?
Senator Stewart: Are you speaking of the environment in the sense of the ecology and the like?
Senator Di Nino: Exactly.
Senator Stewart: We have not heard witnesses on that. We have had some comment, for example, that what is happening in Shanghai is no better than what happened around Toronto. That city is expanding out on to the best agricultural land that God provided, but we have not actually focused in on that.
Senator Di Nino: If we have certain trade relationships, rules and obligations that we deal with in our own country, do we just ignore them when we deal with some other part of the world? I would urge you to consider that because in expending public funds I think that would be an important issue.
Senator Stewart: I will certainly bring that point of view to the committee and see what the vice-chair and others say.
Senator Di Nino: As I said, I think the budget being requested is quite reasonable, and I am prepared to go along with the committee on that.
Senator Forrestall: When it comes to the end of a mandate, Parliament ends and everything comes to a halt. Why do we not, as the Senate, look at the issue of the writ until the return of the writ? Perhaps at the end of 30 days there could be an automatic reinstatement of directions that had been given by the Senate to various committees for various purposes. Why wait? If we had an August election, we would not be back in the chamber until January or February.
Senator Stewart: That is a very interesting question.
Senator Forrestall: I ask you that in your capacity as a distinguished professor, Senator Stewart.
Senator Stewart: I think people have actually lost their heads, and I mean literally. When Her Majesty sends Parliament home, Parliament is gone. Anything they do in the interval, in the old days, would be regarded as almost treasonous. I mean that seriously. There are people watching. You understand that, of course. A Parliament can do nothing except as summoned by Her Majesty and after having been sent home by Her Majesty can do nothing.
I understand there are certain things this committee can do by reason of statute law, and Senator Kenny as referred to those things.
Senator Forrestall: I had always construed the return of the writ as being the sovereign instruction to return to work.
Senator Stewart: No. It is a summons.
The Chairman: It is an area that frustrates us all. It is a pity that those who were rewriting the Parliament of Canada Act did not focus on it more, but perhaps we should put something together so that next time they take a run at it we can fix it up.
Is everyone comfortable with Senator Stewart's budget?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chairman: Then it is approved.
Our next item on the agenda is the official languages policy. It is an item which Senator Wood wishes to discuss.
I feel embarrassed, Senator Wood, that we have taken so long to get to your issue. We can do one of two things. We can hear from you and you could ask questions of the staff if you choose, or we can put this item on the agenda again for next week.
Senator Wood: I would like to deal with this issue now because there was an earlier postponement primarily due to the fact that I was not here.
Mr. Chairman, for some time I have had great concern about this issue. The concern deepens because as each month and year goes by, nothing has really been done. I provided you with some statistics in that regard.
We are defying the Official Languages Act when we do not give equal opportunity to personnel who might want to come here. Everyone has read this. There is no point going on this way. I know less hiring has been done than in years past, but unless we put a stop to it, it will never be corrected. There must be something wrong with our hiring practices. Positions do become vacant. We must bear in mind that we have this problem. How will we overcome it?
We held three competitions which I will use as examples, although there must be many more. They are all for the same position. One is listed as imperative, the second as non- imperative, and the third as non-imperative. How do we designate this? How do we come to the conclusion that one position is imperative and two others, for the same pay, are non-imperative?
The Chairman: Could you tell us what the competitions are for, please?
Senator Wood: This competition is for a corporal in the protective service.
There must be a reason for doing things this way. Perhaps that is part of the problem. I do not know.
Ms Suzanne Beaudoin, Director of Human Resources: I will attempt to answer your question, senator.
As a starting point, the manager has an interest in giving a promotional opportunity to one of his staff. Right now, we know that we do not have a big opportunity to increase our numbers and we will just redistribute our internal population. In this particular case, senator, we do not have a chance to increase our anglophone representation because it will be staff members who are already constables who will be competing for that position.
Senator Wood: Where does this staff come from, then?
Ms Beaudoin: Excuse me?
Senator Woods: Who are we replacing? Present staff?
Ms Beaudoin: Constables. That would be the natural course of events.
The Chairman: Have three corporals left?
Ms Beaudoin: In this particular case, I do not know. I did not study the case. However, we have had vacancies. It could be we had vacancies on an acting basis, or it could be that we had vacancies on a permanent basis. I know that recently we were constructing an eligibility list. We were anticipating staffing.
The Chairman: I know we have been increasing the size of the security staff through Supplementary Estimates because we are taking on the East Block on a temporary basis. It may be that corporals are required for some shifts there. Are you saying that the only pool we select from would be constables?
Ms Beaudoin: At the moment, the objective of the manager is to give a promotional opportunity to one of his staff.
The Chairman: From inside.
Ms Beaudoin: Yes, that is right.
Senator Wood: What happens to the position of the constable you promote? There are vacancies. My point is only that there are vacancies.
I question this because you have the same position and the same money. You have one in January, one in March and one in May. I would like to know from you if they are three separate positions. If not, why are they designated differently?
Ms Beaudoin: Given that they belong to a different period of time, there may be different circumstances. There may be reasons why the manager wanted to have the staffing, and I suspect that is because it was on an acting basis.
Senator Wood: No. It says here "permanent".
The Chairman: Is Chief Gourgue available to us? If we are talking specifics in relation to the protective staff, it might be useful if he were here.
Ms Beaudoin: He may have had a reason.
Senator Wood: This is just an example. Mr. Chairman, there is no use belabouring this particular example.
Senator Di Nino: I think this is much more fundamental than security constables, maintenance staff and secretarial staff.
One of the nicest things that has happened on the Hill is the "francization" of the Hill. I happen to think it is great. I think there was a major imbalance many years ago. I do not speak from a scientific research point of view, but it was not just perception -- it was a reality. There was a very deliberate attempt to change that, and it succeeded. I think it is wonderful.
Senator Wood has asked this question a couple of times and I happen to agree with her. There is a perception that that imbalance has shifted in a major way. She has asked again and again to get some statistics. I happen to agree with her that it may have shifted. If it has shifted, then I think we should have a fundamental principle stating that we should try, to the best of our ability, to create a proper balance so that those who participate in the process of managing this country through the parliamentary system and all of its associated organizations fairly represent what this country is all about. I have said this with regard to minorities, particularly native people and people with disabilities. I do not think we have done a good enough job.
The Chairman: In fairness, the committee, in the absence of Senator Wood, has said what you said before. Paul Bélisle, the Clerk of the Senate, was going to speak to this issue, but he has left to attend the funeral of Senator Muriel Fergusson.
The staff is cognizant of the fact that this area needs adjustment.
Ms Beaudoin: Yes.
The Chairman: They also tell us that it is very difficult to adjust in a six-month period or in a one-year period or even in a three-year period. We must start seeing a trend and some signs of movement.
Staff adjustments have come forward recently in the committees branch, as an example, where all three of the successful candidates for supervisory positions were anglophones. Other changes will be coming forward in senior staff over the course of the year.
Senator Wood, I take your concerns very seriously. I know that you have spent a large part of your career working on this. You are the expert in this committee on this subject. I believe that the staff are under no illusions about what direction the committee wants to move.
Senator Wood: Mr. Chairman, I feel that we must go a little bit further than that. I think someone should review the competitions. I think the effort is still not being put into this. I have been going on about this now for many years. When I became ill, I let go. That was the worst thing that could have happened because nothing was done while I was ill. However, senators, I am back.
The Chairman: Hear! Hear!
Senator Stollery: Hear! Hear!
Senator Di Nino: You have an ally, senator.
Senator Wood: I need more than an ally.
Senator Di Nino: We will work at this together.
Senator Wood: We must come up with some idea of how we can monitor competitions. I mean that quite sincerely.
The Chairman: I will ask the staff to come forward with a proposal to keep us more closely informed about this matter, and we will report back to you as soon as we can.
Senator Wood: Thank you.
The committee adjourned.