Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 20, 1997
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:00 a.m.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, is it agreed that we approve the minutes of the November 18 meeting? You have them in front of you.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I would suggest that we proceed with Senator Bryden's budgets, as he is here.
The Honourable John G. Bryden, Chairman, The Special Senate Committee on the Cape Breton Development Corporation: May we circulate the budget to you?
The Chairman: We have the application for budget authorization, and we have the actual budget.
Senator Bryden: Yes, it should be attached.
Senator Forrestall: Is this for Devco?
The Chairman: Yes.
Please proceed, Senator Bryden.
Senator Bryden: Mr. Chairman, this will be familiar to you. It is not dissimilar to the budget for the last Devco hearings. We have had our first week of hearings, we will have one or two more weeks of hearings, and then we will be drafting the report. We will try to have the report in by December 15.
We have limited requirements for funds. We have engaged a communications advisor, and that is the largest item in the budget. It is $500 a day. We will not spend the $10,000.
The other items are standard areas with which you would be familiar. The travel costs of our witnesses are handled under the regular travel budget. The principle cost for travel will come from one source, and that would be the group we heard yesterday afternoon, the unions. We heard from four unions, and we are paying for the travel costs for two representatives from each of those unions.
I wish to present this budget and ask that it be approved.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, this appears to be reasonable and the minimum that the committee could use to do its work. I recommend approval of this budget.
Senator Di Nino: I do not believe it is appropriate for the chairman to move a budget. I think this is a reasonable budget for this particular purpose, so I would be happy to move its acceptance.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
The next item concerns the Transport and Communications Committee.
The Honourable J. Michael Forrestall, Deputy Chairman, Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications: I have the application for authorization dealing first with the standing committee itself. Our major item on the main committee is for professional services. We have engaged Mr. Martin Brennan from the Parliamentary Centre to assist the chairman and the committee generally regarding the two or three pieces of transport legislation we have coming before us.
Unless there are questions, I would move the adoption of this budget.
Senator Di Nino: The only concern I have -- and it applies to all of these -- is that we are approving budgets without knowing whether our budgetary envelope has the funds available. We should get a report from our staff before we deal with that.
The Chairman: The supplementary estimates are approved.
Mr. Paul Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate, Clerk of the Committee: That is correct. As of April 1, 1997, we had $400,000 to cover all committees.
Senator Di Nino: That is only enough for the Banking Committee for this year, is that not correct?
Mr. Bélisle: I cannot comment on that. However, we added another amount for the supplementary estimates which will be approved in the next few weeks in the House of Commons. The money should be in. There will be enough money in the budget, with the supplementary estimates, to cover this.
Senator Di Nino: Are we putting the cart before the horse?
Mr. Bélisle: Supplementary budgets will be approved. If they were not approved, that would amount to a motion of non-confidence in the House of Commons. I would be very surprised if they were not approved. Before doing that, the House of Commons would do what they did last year, namely, ask this committee to appear before it to defend itself. However, other problems arise with that type of situation.
Senator Di Nino: Until it is approved, we do not have the money. Should we not be looking at these things on the basis of the budgets being approved "subject to the supplementary estimates being approved"?
Mr. Bélisle: Some committees need the money right now. Perhaps you can release part of it pending the early December date. The supplementary estimates are to be approved between November 27 and December 10. We are almost at that date now.
Senator Di Nino: I am not questioning the validity of the applications, but we should ensure that we have the money before we spend it.
The Chairman: We can approve it subject to the approval of the Estimates, or we can assume that they will be approved and approve it.
Mr. Bélisle: The Senate approved the supplementary estimates before the adjournment two weeks ago. Senator Nolin gave a speech on the requirements for the supplementary estimates. It was approved last Thursday.
Senator Di Nino: I do not think we need a motion, but we should be aware of this. Perhaps it is inappropriate to discuss it at this time, but some order should be in place so that we can package this in a way that we do not find ourselves in a bind some day.
The Chairman: Agreed.
Having said that, do I have a motion for approval of this budget?
Senator Stollery: I so move.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Senator Maheu: I was present at a committee meeting yesterday where I was told that professional services could not represent any more than 10 per cent of the budget.
The Chairman: That is for the parliamentary association.
Senator Maheu: Thank you.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Next, we have the subcommittee on transportation safety.
The Honourable J. Michael Forrestall, Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation Safety: You have the explanation of the cost elements of this application for approval. The transportation of the committee is the major item, along with our two professional helpers.
We propose a trip to Rotterdam for the purpose of meeting with those attending the International Transportation Safety Board conference. A variety of workshops will take place, and we will have the opportunity to talk with government representatives from most of the European countries and other parts of the world. This will reduce our need to travel other than to London and perhaps to meet some people in the European Community in Brussels.
I am quite prepared to answer questions generally. Otherwise, I would move the adoption of this budget.
Senator Stollery: Is there a component for communications?
Senator Forrestall: Yes, there is.
Senator Stollery: That is fine. Thank you. It is approved as far as I am concerned.
Senator Di Nino: What does the per diem item of $10,000 in your budget cover?
Senator Forrestall: That is the Treasury Board standard of allowances for accompanying staff -- that is, their daily rate, cost of living, hotels, meals, and general transportation.
Senator Di Nino: Are you talking about both senators and staff? In other words, that would be the amount of money to eat, to take taxis, and so on. The accommodation number of 11 nights at $34,000 is only for a bed to sleep on. That is more expensive than a bed to sleep on.
Senator Forrestall: I would not want the per diem to apply to that. It would not work.
Costs of travel internationally is getting out of hand for most people except government and big business representatives. It is, nevertheless, a fact of life.
Senator Callbeck: Mr. Chairman, when we approve budgets, are we simply approving the bottom line?
The Chairman: You can question any item.
Senator Callbeck: If a committee does not spend $5,000 on one item but goes over on something else, is that allowed as long as it is within the bottom line?
The Chairman: Yes, you can shift within the budget.
Senator Di Nino: There is a reasonableness to that as well.
The Chairman: It is up to $1,000. If it is not spent, it is expected that it will be returned.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions?
Senator DeWare: I move that we adopt the budget.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
The subcommittee on communications is next.
[Translation]
The Honourable Marie-P. Poulin, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications: In the last Parliament, the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications was chaired by Senator Lise Bacon who regrets that, for health reasons, she cannot be here this morning to table her budget in person.
The Standing Committee formed a subcommittee to review Canada's competitive position in communications and telecommunications as we close in on the year 2000.
The subcommittee was struck last fall and in the spring, it was felt that sufficient data had been collected to make the publication of a report worthwhile. The subcommittee therefore formally tabled to the Senate its interim report "Wired to Win". We raised a number of key issues in four areas: technology, human resources, commercial and regulatory matters and culture.
After only a few weeks of research work, we realized that there was still an enormous amount of work left to be done in view of the complexity and rapidly evolving nature of this field and in particular in light of factors which impact on one another. We therefore decided to continue with our study and to retain the services of senior researcher Mathew Fraser, a Canadian expert in this field. He has continued to do research for us these past few months. This budget application includes the cost of a cultural fact-finding mission to the United States. We are planning to travel to California either before or after Christmas, depending on the availability of the people with whom we would like to meet. We respectfully submit our budget application.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any questions?
Senator Forrestall: I move that we approve the budget for the subcommmittee on communications.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Next is the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Senator Milne, please proceed.
The Honourable Lorna Milne, Chairman, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs: We are asking for a total budget this year of $31,400, which is up from last year. I will explain the four major differences which have raised the total amount.
The first item is professional services or communications. This is for services such as video conferences in case we cannot bring a witness in to us, which we hope will, in the long run, probably be a little cheaper. This is an increase of $5,000 over last year.
The second item one is for legal counsel, and again we are budgeting for ten days at $700 a day, ten days over the entire year. This item will only be required if we actually need outside legal counsel. This will depend on the workload.
The Chairman: So you may not spend that?
Senator Milne: I confidently expect we will not.
The third item is membership and registration fees, which is the same amount as last year.
The fourth item, which has increased in amount from $3,000 to $4,500 is for meals, working lunches, and dinners. This is as a result of the time slots that the committee has been allocated.
The cost of witnesses has been removed entirely from the budget as it is being assumed by the central administration.
We have an increase in the amount set aside for the purchase of books and periodicals because we should like to provide each member of the committee with a copy of the Criminal Code and the Constitutional manuals.
These are the reasons for the difference between this year and last year.
Senator Poulin: For clarification, you mentioned that the cost of expenses for witnesses is now borne by central administration. I take it that is the situation for all committees that we discussed in this committee and was a change that we made a few weeks ago.
Mr. Bélisle: It was also adopted by the Senate.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions?
Senator Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent): I move that the budget amounts for the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be approved.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
The next item concerns the amendment to Term 17. I am presenting that on behalf of Senator Fairbairn. Therefore, will someone else please take the chair?
Senator J. Michael Forrestall (Acting Chairman), in the Chair.
Hon. Bill Rompkey: This is fairly straightforward. It is similar to the one we just completed with Quebec. It is an amendment to the Constitution replacing the original Term 17 of Newfoundland's Terms of Union with Canada.
The budget is before you. We are not travelling to the province; therefore, we must bring witnesses here. We have already started. We have heard from the minister in Newfoundland, and we will be hearing from the various intervenors from Newfoundland who wish to appear before the committee.
This is the only time that there will be a public hearing on this issue. There were no committee hearings in the province. This is a joint committee between the Senate and the House of Commons, so this is the only time that people who have something to say and who have a vested interest and concerns and criticisms will be heard. It is quite important that we have this budget approved.
Also, there is a time line here. We must report by December 5 so that it can be put before both Houses.
"Professional and other services" is fairly straightforward. That involves research help.
The big cost is witness expenses, because we must bring people here from the province. However, we are doing video conferences wherever we can. Some people cannot attend here, so we will be doing some video conferencing.
The "Miscellaneous" item represents meals.
Senator Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent): You indicate only 30 witnesses. Would that mean 15 groups of two each?
Senator Rompkey: Yes, two each.
Senator Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent): With Quebec, we heard from over 60 groups.
Senator DeWare: This is the second round for this.
Senator Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent): I am aware of that, but people who attended the first hearings will want to attend the second round of hearings.
Senator Rompkey: Every one who was asked to come has been attending.
Senator Di Nino: This one of those expenses that I am happy to participate in approving. I am not known as the least troublesome person when it comes to approving expenses, but this one is good because it deals with the fundamental principle of who we are. When you are enshrining something in a constitution and changing it, we should take it much more seriously, and I believe we have. I will be pleased to move the approval of this budget in a moment.
I wish to ensure that, to whatever degree we can in this committee, we send a strong message to our colleagues that everyone who has a reason to make a presentation on both sides of the issue is given that opportunity -- even if it means that we must go over the amount budgeted for this item.
I am not sure that Canadians generally understand the importance of this issue to the degree that I believe we should. I would strongly recommend that when we approve this, we send a strong message with it -- for this committee, at least <#0107> indicating that if they must return for a few more dollars because some people could not have been heard without the initial expenses, to please do so in order to give everyone who has something of value to say an opportunity to do that.
Senator Rompkey: I appreciate those remarks, and I will convey them to the committee.
I was at the organizational meeting. At that time we were assured by the chairman and co-chairman that practically every one who wanted to be heard would be able to attend. In terms of our time constraints, we are grouping our witnesses. For example, we will hear from two or three witnesses at one time so that they can give their presentation and members can present them so that we can accommodate witnesses within our time frame.
I will convey your remarks to the committee, but I think I can give you an assurance that those who want to be heard will be heard.
The Acting Chairman: Is there a motion?
Senator Di Nino: I move the adoption of the budget.
The Acting Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chairman: The motion is carried.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: If you are agreeable, honourable senators, I should like to move to the Subcommittee on Information Technologies.
We had this subcommittee before. I said before -- and I repeat it today -- that Senator De Bané did an outstanding job at this and maintains a keen interest and a little expertise on this. I would be pleased if he would continue to chair this subcommittee.
Senator De Bané indicated last time that he wanted to ensure that the information flow to his committee was proper and adequate. We agreed that there would be a terms of reference for the subcommittee. That is what is before you today, namely:
That a subcommittee on information technologies be struck to:
consider, review, set priorities for and make recommendations on Senators' office automation needs;
consider all issues arising from office automation in the Senate and monitor implementation of the information technology strategic planning at the Senate;
investigate and report on any change or rectification likely to be made to the memorandum of agreement currently in effect on Parliament Hill.
This is an important committee simply because we are in the information age and things are changing rapidly. As senators, we must keep up to date if we are to be able to operate properly and do our job.
Before you are the terms of reference for the proposed subcommittee on information technology. I am now open to questions or comments.
Senator De Bané: We also have before us a proposed expenditure of $500,000.
First, I propose that the committee designate the new members of that subcommittee, because some previous members are no longer us anymore, such as Senator Carstairs, and that this committee review this $500,000.
Second, we approved two high-profile projects. They are coming to fruition. One involves the touch screen monitors which will be located in every building where you have senators as well as the reading room. By clicking on the screen, members can obtain information about where committees are meeting, et cetera. That will be updated on a daily basis.
Finally, because of the involvement of Mr. Bélisle and Madam Aghajanian, there will be new software to help members record their travel expenses, which will make it much simpler both for senators and for the Department of Finance. I hope that will come to fruition within the next few weeks.
Senator Di Nino: Where is the half million dollar budget?
Mr. Bélisle: That was tabled Tuesday.
Senator Di Nino: We are not dealing with that today.
The Chairman: No.
Senator Di Nino: We are trying to allow the whole parliamentary precinct to join together into one communication system. Is that one of the things you are examining?
Senator De Bané: Yes. It is becoming clear that a stand-alone computer is not a very useful tool. We should be able to communicate with others. Not only should we be able to communicate with other segments of Parliament, but also with other parliaments in the world and other libraries, et cetera. The whole idea is to be able to communicate, not only with every unit on Parliament Hill, but also with other parliaments and institutions.
Senator Di Nino: This is not an area with which I am particularly conversant. Do I understand that the committee would be studying the needs of the senators as well as the needs of the Senate and its communications requirements, not just the senators and the senators' offices?
Senator De Bané: Exactly. Subparagraph 1 deals with the senators, and subparagraph 2 deals with the Senate itself.
Senator Forrestall: If I understand, a subcommittee on information technology of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration will be created.
Senator De Bané: Exactly. It would make recommendations to Internal Economy.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent): He has answered my question concerning the compatibility of the system. You commented during the last meeting that we were going to take into account Canadian technology and to make every effort to use it without weakening our system. I would like us to make a special effort to use the technology that we have here in Canada.
Senator De Bané: This is an extremely important point, in my view. Last week, it was suggested that we abandon WordPerfect in favour of Microsoft software. If every Canadian government institution uses it, then so too should we. However, if the Senate decides to abandon WordPerfect whereas other departments continue to use this Ottawa-based software, then we could have a problem. We must be sure that all Canadian government institutions convert to this software for imperative reasons.
In this week's issue of Time magazine, there is an article on Microsoft that is worth reading. It reports that various institutions do not feel it is desirable in the long term for a company to hold a monopoly in all areas, and that is true for operating systems as well as for applications.
Senator Poulin: Mr. Chairman, is our objective to have a system that is compatible with House of Commons systems and therefore with the various party research offices?
Senator De Bané: Senator Di Nino asked the same question. We must ensure that our system can communicate with others. For some things, however, we should have our own programs. A case in point is our travel expense claim form. Since both Houses have different travel claim policies, obviously we should have a specific application to meet our own needs. However, as far as possible, we should be able to communicate with others.
Senator Poulin: Compatibility does not mean that we would not have our own programs to meet our particular needs. What it means is that we could at least communicate with our colleagues in the other place.
Senator De Bané: I fully agree with you.
[English]
Senator DeWare: If Senator De Bané is prepared to take on the chairmanship of this subcommittee, will he guarantee us that, on January 1, 2000, we will all be on line?
Senator De Bané: As you know, that is a major issue. We can certainly ask Treasury Board for an update report. It a complex matter because those programs were written in the 1960s, and many of the programmers are dead today. It is a major undertaking. The Auditor General, in his last report, says that the government has not yet put its act together to resolve that problem.
Senator Forrestall: To what degree will this affect the Senate?
Mr. Bélisle: In the year 2000?
The question was asked at management, and there will be very little impact. With the computers that we have now, an adapter can be installed to allow for the transition. It will cost very little. What you read about the public service and the government changing in the year 2000 and the millions of dollars it will cost does not affect us in the same way.
The Chairman: It is important for the private sector. Some people are predicting a recession.
Mr. Bélisle: We are monitoring the progress very closely with Treasury Board on this issue.
Senator De Bané: May we consider the composition of the subcommittee?
The Chairman: Senator Nolin was on the committee, and I assume he is still on the committee.
I wonder if Senator Robichaud would have some interest in serving on that committee.
Senator Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent): I would like to, but I do not know the first thing about computers. I think they have horns.
Senator Forrestall: His qualifications are quite acceptable.
The Chairman: Perhaps we should leave the composition to our next meeting. We will search for further members of the committee.
Mr. Bélisle: At the last composition of the committee, I believe some of the members may not have been members of the full committee. For example, was Senator Perrault a member at some point?
Senator Di Nino: I do not believe the members of the subcommittee need necessarily be members of Internal Economy. It may be easier to form a committee if they are not. We should look for volunteers, if possible, before we strongarm anyone.
The Chairman: Shall we look for volunteers?
Senator De Bané: We can give it some thought and come back to you with suggestions about members who are keenly interested.
There are two topics. First, how is it possible to assist senators in discharging their responsibilities? For example, if we can make recommendations to senators about the software for their own agenda, this is something simple. We must be proactive and suggest to them that if they have problems keeping on top of their agenda, here is some software that can solve the problem.
Second, it must be understood what technologies are available to increase efficiency and perhaps reduce costs. At the moment, the Department of Finance of the Senate is not fully automated; they must key in things twice, et cetera. Those are the two broad categories.
The Chairman: Do I have a motion that we establish the subcommittee on information technology as described?
Senator Poulin: I move that we establish a subcommittee on information technologies.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources is next.
The Honourable Ron Ghitter, Chairman, Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we come before you with a very small budget. The committee will be spending its time on a post-Kyoto examination. We are currently in hearings reviewing matters of global warming and the like. After Kyoto, coming into early December, when we get back in February and March, we will be looking in terms of how to get from A to B and meet our commitments.
Our expenditures are small during this period. I am sure you will welcome that. If we have a change of view, we will come back to visit with you again and ask you for other considerations. We sense our time will be spent in Ottawa looking at matters of global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, and the like.
That is our budget, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to respond to any questions.
Senator DeWare: I move that the budget amounts for the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be approved.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Senator Di Nino: While we have a minute, I notice that the Prime Minister took some action with regards to one of our colleagues. This committee should take review the issue of chronic absenteeism in a way that perhaps we could find solutions to that particular problem ourselves as opposed to waiting for others.
The Chairman: A committee has been set up in that regard.
Senator Di Nino: I was not aware we set up a committee on that.
Senator Poulin: For the record, we should remind ourselves that the first time the subject of attendance was discussed in this committee in an in-depth fashion was last spring. We all remember that. This has been a serious subject, and Internal Economy has now set up a special joint subcommittee with Rules and Regulations. Because of the complexity of the acts of Parliament, this issue is being examined with much seriousness but also with an awareness that whatever decision we make must always ensure that every senator is given the opportunity of fulfilling his or her responsibility to the fullest.
Senator Di Nino: I withdraw my suggestion, since I am a week late. I believe that it was a good move on behalf of this committee at that time. I look forward to participating in the debate.
The Chairman: Thank you. Senator Kirby will now present the budget of the Banking committee.
The Honourable Michael J. Kirby, Chairman, Standing Senate on Banking, Trade and Commerce: Before you is the budget for our committee from now until the end of March. There are basically two items.
The first item relates to legislation and contains within it having to travel on legislation. Frankly, at the time it was done, I thought we would be on the road next week on the CPP bill. However, I understand that is not the case. Nevertheless, that amount remains as an item should the CPP bill reappear.
I would remind this committee that once a year, for the last several years, the Banking committee has travelled on a piece of legislation. Earlier in the year we travelled on the HST legislation to the Atlantic provinces. That is why the legislation amount is high. Right now, it is problematic as to whether we need the full amount, but it is important to have this amount authorized as a result of discussions with respect to the CPP between the leadership on both sides, subject to a decision to have the committee travel.
The second item has been approved by this committee twice in the past. It relates to a study the committee was asked to do by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. In a sense, we are doing the study at the explicit request of not the government as a government but a government institution.
Some senators will know there have been radical changes made to the way the financial services industry in Canada is regulated. These changes have been made over the past ten years, some by the previous government, some by this government in its first term. The superintendent believes the time has come to assess the impact of those changes in Canada vis-à-vis the major trading partners -- major business partners, if you will -- of the Canadian government and of Canadian financial institutions.
Originally, John Palmer, the superintendent, had considered hiring an outside consultant to do the study, but he thought it would be better done by the committee for two reasons. First, the committee has been involved for a decade in leading the way on many of the changes with respect to financial institutions and their regulation. Second, he thought that the reputation of the committee was such that an objective assessment of how the Canadian system is working vis-à-vis our major trading partners and the changes in the regulatory system occurring there would be useful. Therefore, he asked us to undertake this comparative study.
This committee approved the budget in January or February of this year with the intention that we would do the study in May and June. Because of the HST bill and the election, we never got the study done. You approved the budget again temporarily in mid-summer, and then it did not get done because the make-up of the committee was changing.
I wish to emphasize that this committee historically has not travelled other than in the country on legislation. The only reason it is international travel this time is that the specific countries that we are being asked to look at are the United States, the U.K., and a few other European countries; specifically Germany, France and Holland. It is our intention to take all the committee members who want to go to London, and then to divide into three groups, each of which will do one of the other three countries, and to do the Washington portion in the next fiscal year. The Washington portion is not included in here. You will be asked to approve that for some period after April 1.
Some of you will have seen in the newspapers that since the Labour government came to power in the U.K. there has been a radical change in the way their financial institutions are regulated. It would be important for the committee to understand that, even if we were not doing the study for the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. However, it now becomes particularly important to understand whether some of the changes in the U.K. ought to be made in Canada and how the efficiency of our system will work in comparison with theirs.
That is the rationale for the international portion of the study. The major part of the legislation portion includes the provision for travel on legislation if a decision is made to do so. When I first put the budget together, I thought that a decision had been made to do so. Negotiations between the parties have fallen apart on that. I would still ask you to approve it in case circumstances change and we decide to travel on the CPP or on any other bill on short notice. That will save me having to come back to the committee.
That summarizes what is contained in the material.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Kirby.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the last comment about an authority to spend a specified number of dollars on travel, whether on one piece of legislation or another, is it appropriate for the Senate to give committees a travel budget and then allow them to decide whether they want to travel and on what legislation?
The Chairman: Senator Kirby has indicated the places to which the committee wishes to travel.
Senator Kirby: To clarify, historically this committee has travelled once a year strictly within the country, either on legislation or on a study. When we were putting this request together last week, I thought that we would be on the road next week.
Senator Di Nino: I understand that. I will simplify my question. I am asking whether we have the authority to give committees authority to choose when and where they travel. I have no argument with Senator Kirby. I am inquiring about his comment that he wants to leave funds in the budget in case they need it for something else. I do not think we can do that. I think that if we approve it, it must be for a specific piece of legislation.
Senator Kirby: You have raised a valid point. My point is that if we wind up having to travel on the CPP on three days' notice, I do not want to be caught in a procedural issue and not have the money.
I am happy to delegate approval to the chairman and the vice-chairman of this committee. I just do not want to be caught in the situation that this committee cannot meet and therefore we cannot travel.
Senator Di Nino: Therefore, if we approve this, it is only for that particular legislation. If Senator Kirby and the committee wish to do otherwise, they will go back to the Senate to ask for approval.
The Chairman: If fact, you still must go to the Senate and ask for permission to travel, do you not?
Senator Kirby: I do not know.
The Chairman: I am told that you do.
Senator Kirby: I accept that.
Senator Di Nino: Another committee asked whether funds could be transferred to some other work, and they cannot. I believe that a maximum of $1,000 can be transferred. I would not like to create a precedent by giving a committee a certain amount of money to be used at its discretion without the Senate having scrutinized it.
Senator Kirby: I would support that.
The Chairman: The point is well taken. If it is approved, it is approved on that condition.
Senator DeWare: That particular portion of the budget would be only for the CPP bill and only to be spent in December.
Senator Maheu: Senator Kirby, did I understand you to say that you do not travel overseas once a year, for example?
Senator Kirby: In the ten years that I have been on this committee, it has never travelled outside the country. Last year, three of the twelve members of the committee went to London on a specific two-day task. Other than that, as a committee we have never travelled outside the country. I raised that in the context of the international travel which is related to a specific study which the committee agreed a year ago, with the approval of Internal Economy, to do for the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. That was the first time, in my tenure on the committee, that we have travelled outside the country.
Senator Taylor: Senator Kirby, this is a substantial travel budget. Did you compare the cost of bringing the witnesses here with the cost of the committee travelling to hear them? On the CPP matter, would it not be better to bring in a few people?
Senator Kirby: To take it out of the context of the CPP and speak in general, it is probably true that, as a pure economic measure, you could fly many witnesses to Ottawa more cheaply than you could take any Senate committee on the road. However, I think that the value to the institution as a whole of being seen in the regions of the country goes beyond pure economics.
Senator Forrestall was with us in Nova Scotia last year on the HST study. We heald the corporate governance hearings in Calgary a year and a half ago. It is my view that the presence of Senate committees in the regions of Canada on public policy issues should be increased rather than decreased, in spite of the fact that it costs money. The reaction of the witnesses is different. You get a different set of witnesses. You get terrific media reaction. You create presence for the institution. If this were a business, you would say the value, from a marketing standpoint, far exceeds the cost.
The Chairman: One of the successes of Diefenbaker was that they said of him he cared enough to come.
Senator Kirby: The reaction is interesting even in Toronto. When we did hearings two years ago on the Canada Business Corporations Act in Toronto, even the people who could afford to come here from Toronto appreciated the fact that we made the effort to go there.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have a policy, which is in abeyance for the moment, whereby if a senator travels abroad and that travel is approved by Internal Economy, then it is paid by the general budget of travel expenses. One of the senator's travel points is deducted and the money comes from the travel expenses. Can we not use that mechanism again so that the travel expenses abroad are paid for by the point system that already exists?
Mr. Bélisle: This committee can do whatever it wishes. However, we have discussed this here before. The actual expenses should be reflected with the budget of the actual committee. To do it the other way does not reflect the actual expenses.
The Chairman: I do think the issue of senators travelling abroad should be revisited. It is one of the things that we should, in a wider context, put on the table.
Senator Di Nino: There is likely no appetite for discussion, but I am sure there is an appetite for different views on that one as well. It is something we should do at a later date.
Senator Forrestall: The distortion appears in a senator's annual total for public travel costs. That could conceivably get a little out of whack. We are all sensitive to that.
Senator Taylor: Especially when you are from way out west and you have a trip on top of that.
Senator Kirby: It seems there is quite a difference between a committee travelling as a committee to do a specific committee task and three senators working on a specific issue of particular interest to them. In this case, this is clearly a committee travelling as opposed to eight or nine senators travelling as individuals.
Senator Di Nino: The other important point here is that the Senate, as a body, approves these budgets. In the other case, a senator decides on his or on her own that the trip would be useful. It is a different context. We should take note of that.
Senator Forrestall: Not to prolong this, but if examples help, I have already made three trips to Western Canada, and I am making a fourth within the next week or ten days, to talk to large trucking companies about economical tires. This is a truck safety problem. There is no way I can charge that to the committee. The only way I can do it is to use my per diem. The work is sufficiently necessary that I will take our senior research officer. That is not fair because I must put the research officer on my points. My total amount has gone up by several thousand dollars. However, there is no way for the chairman of a committee or subcommittee to accommodate the unforeseen expenses.
Senator Di Nino: I am looking at the reference from the Senate. Until I looked at the numbers or the information provided, the reference itself did not indicate that this would be an examination comparing our system with other foreign banking systems.
Senator Kirby: Let me explain that. The reference is a general reference that the committee has used for as long as I can remember, going way back before I was chairman. The purpose of the reference is to allow the committee to look at a full range of issues related to financial institutions that have evolved over the past decade rather than individual references for individual studies.
Going back at least 10 years, we have sought at the beginning of each session of Parliament a blanket reference related to financial institutions. We have operated within those very general terms of reference, coming to the committee when we needed money for specific sub-issues rather than constantly going back to the Senate.
We were the first committee to seek approval to televise proceedings of the committee at the discretion of the committee. We received approval three or four years ago from the Senate in a very general reference that said the committee could use electronic media whenever it wanted to rather than having to come back every time. In a sense, the financial institution reference referred to by Senator Di Nino does that.
Senator Di Nino: For the purposes of clarity and to ensure that we do not set ourselves up for any potential criticism, an important component of the mandate on this subject -- which is spending a quarter of a million dollars to go to London and Brussels, et cetera -- should be understood by the Senate when they approve these kinds of expenses. I had not understood it that way and, frankly, I was prepared to ask some questions of my colleague, having been involved in the banking business for a number of years, that have nothing to do with the work on these issues.
My point is that the order of reference from the Senate may lead to a misunderstanding.
Senator Kirby: That is absolutely right. I understand that. I explained the rationale for the broad mandate. If a more specific term of reference is required for this study, I am happy to do that.
The Chairman: Is it just that one?
Senator Kirby: That is the one study on which the travel issue is relevant. I should like to keep the flexibility of the general mandate.
Let me give you an example. This week we are holding three days of hearings on the role of the institutional investor. CPAC is televising the hearings. The general reference covers that because institutional investors are financial institutions of a kind. I do not want to keep coming back for each of the domestic ones; however, but if you prefer specific terms of reference of the study, I am more than happy to do that. We do have a detailed reference.
The Chairman: We could simply approve the domestic part now.
Senator Di Nino: We can approve them both today if it is the wish of the committee. I would make a suggestion on how this can be covered. When this presentation is made in the Senate, I suggest an explanatory comment be made for the purposes of clarity regarding the actual purpose of the study and the Auditor General's reference.
The Chairman: People will then be able to ask questions.
Senator Di Nino: That will cover my concern.
Senator Kirby: As a matter of procedure, do you present it or do I?
Mr. Bélisle: On legislation, it will be done by the senator and, on a special study, by the chairman of the individual committee.
The Chairman: I will explain that.
Senator Di Nino: I move the adoption of the budget. I think they are spending a lot of money, they are covering four cities.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried. Thank you, Senator Kirby.
Is it agreed that we go in camera now? The clerk has something to put in front of us.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee continued in camera.