Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 3 - Evidence for February 13, 2003
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 13, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:10 a.m. to consider administrative and other matters.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, this meeting is called to order. You have before you the agenda of the day. The first item is the adoption of minutes of proceedings of November 28, December 5, December 10, December 12 and February 4. Are there any comments, senators?
Senator Kroft: On the minutes of Thursday, November 28, the art advisory working group —
The Chairman: What page?
Senator Kroft: On page 3 — Senator Mahovlich was appointed in addition to Senator Moore, not to replace him.
Senator Gauthier: In the same minutes, honourable senators will recall that I raised the issue of the Interpretation and Parliamentary Translation Directorate of Public Works and Government Services Canada, and the fact that they pay for some services at the House of Commons that they do not pay for here.
The Chairman: Is that in the minutes?
[Translation]
I wondered whether the Clerk, Gary O'Brien, had had time to meet with Mr. Martel, as agreed.
Mr. Paul C. Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Committee: Before answering your question, I would like to provide one clarification, because there is a new memorandum of understanding. Mr. O'Brien met with Mr. Martel. Following that meeting, changes were made to the memorandum of understanding. The Chairman is planning to bring it forward for adoption at the next meeting.
The Chairman: The steering committee has to discuss it first. We will report on this following our discussion. Is that all right, Senator Gauthier?
Senator Gauthier: Yes.
[English]
Item number 2 is the report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Honourable senators, this is the fourth report on the committee budgets. Your subcommittee recommends the release of the following amounts:
Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, for legislation, $ 2,750.
Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, a special study, $ 36,000.
National Security and Defence, also a special study, but by the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, $ 2,000.
Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, for a joint committee with the House of Commons, $ 43,920.
Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, a special study on mental health, $ 26,600.
These recommended releases amount to a total of $ 111,270. I should like to summarize the current financial situation of committees and, to facilitate that, I refer honourable senators to the table that has been distributed to you.
[Translation]
If the amounts set out in the fourth report are released today, the Committee on Internal Economy will have released a total of $ 1,326,087.
We have recommended that the amount of $ 1,326,087 be released. An amount of approximately $ 106,000 will remain available for other committees, once some $ 100,000 have been set aside for witnesses.
[English]
I would like to recognize that the total of all demands from all committees could not be financed. This, of course, is a situation beyond our control when one considers the following statistics:
[Translation]
The total amount made available to committees for fiscal year 2002-2003 was $ 1.8 million. An amount of $ 400,000 was allocated for witnesses, in addition to the $ 1.3 millions.
During the first session, the amount requested by committees was $ 3,934,137. The amount approved was $ 1,762,819. Expenditures amounted to $ 589,964.
The amount of remaining funds available for the second session was $ 1,172,855. This amount increased to $ 1,432,000 once we realized we would not require the entire amount set aside for witnesses. We therefore took some of the money reserved for witnesses, and which we had already approved, from the amounts requested by committees.
[English]
In summary, to this point in the second session, the amounts required are $ 1,769,484, while the amount recommended for approval, including this report, is $ 1,326,087. This leaves some $ 106,000 for new requests to the end of the fiscal year on March 31, 2003.
Honourable senators, this is a summary and exemplifies the struggle your subcommittee has had throughout the year.
I would like to thank all the committee chairs for their understanding and patience in this very difficult exercise.
Let me assure honourable senators this was not an easy task. The subcommittee had to consider demands that far exceeded the total budget.
We are satisfied that each demand was given serious consideration, each committee was treated fairly and the same criteria were applied to each request.
[Translation]
I can assure you that there was full transparency throughout this exercise. I therefore move adoption of this report.
[English]
That is the fourth report of the committee.
Senator Bryden: I am sorry, did Senator Gauthier move the adoption?
The Chairman: Some people wish to speak on this, but I think he proposed the adoption.
Senator Gauthier: I did.
Senator Bryden: All I was wanted to do was second the motion. I presume we can speak on it.
The Chairman: You can speak on it later.
Report adopted, on motion of Senator Gauthier.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Madam Chairman, is the amount of $ 106,000 available for new funding requests by committees?
The Chairman: It is actually a cushion we are maintaining in order to meet any requests that may come in between now and March 31.
Senator Robichaud: Is it customary to do this every year?
The Chairman: Yes, it is perfectly normal.
Senator Robichaud: So, that money is available for urgent requests.
Senator De Bané: Is this the right time to raise the matter of standing senate committees being unable, because of a lack of appropriate funding, to send all their members on a trip or allow them to attend meetings outside the capital?
The Chairman: Criteria have been developed for spending by each of the committees. Every committee chairman received a list of the criteria.
I asked that copies of the letter sent out to committee chairmen be distributed, and I hope you have those on file. You should also have a copy in this morning's package.
Senator De Bané: Is this the appropriate time to discuss the budget?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator De Bané: I wanted to say just how ill-advised I consider this decision not to allow all committee members, because of a lack of adequate financial resources, to attend meetings of their standing committee outside of the capital to be. I understand that as long as our financial house was not in order, there was a need to bring spending down significantly. But for committee members now to be told that they cannot all attend meetings outside the capital does not seem right to me. It is not because I, personally, like to travel. On the committee of which I am a member, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Chairman informed us that he didn't have enough money to take us all to Washington. I was the first to raise my hand and say that I would be willing to abstain in order that others could go instead. When members take an interest in aiming a thorough understanding of a particular issue and are then told that unfortunately, their place is here in Ottawa, and only in Ottawa, I don't think that is right. Especially now that we have put our financial house in order. I think that when the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration authorizes a committee to study an issue, it should provide it with the appropriate funding, if it makes sense for that committee to consult experts elsewhere.
[English]
The most important topic for us is how to maintain the economic relationship with our most important trading partner, the United States. This is by far the most urgent and pressing problem. I know of no other topic that is as vital.
I would like to argue that it is absolutely essential that we give special consideration to the Defence and Security Committee that will be travelling to Washington. They have met in Ottawa more often than any other committee, and now we are telling them that they cannot take all of their members to Washington.
Now that our public finances are in order, I urge honourable senators to reconsider that issue.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Senator De Bané, when you're looking at a request for $ 60,000 for travel, plus $ 20,000 for an expert, for a total of $ 80,000, and there are also requests from every other committee, I can tell you that no committee chairman is going to want to give his budget to another committee. If some people are prepared to be generous, that's great, but all committee chairmen think their issues are important. What we tried to do was to set criteria for allocating funds based on the available budget, so that every committee would be treated in a fair and reasonable fashion. For example, Senator Fraser would tell you that she needs money to examine her media bill, which is her top priority. Every committee wants to get as much money as it possibly can. So, we set criteria to be sure that each would be given equal consideration. There are no super senators or super committees here. As far as the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee is concerned, all committees are important.
Senator Robichaud: That was a good summary of what I wanted to say. We have to make choices, Senator De Bané. It isn't easy, and it isn't pleasant. I can't see how it could be said that we are trying to limit committee travel, because if the entire committee decides it wants to travel, that is its decision, is it not? If we are talking about fact-finding missions, that introduces a new element. The entire committee does not travel. And I have to say I have problems with that for a variety of reasons, because in many cases, there is no interpretation provided on such fact-finding missions. Whatever city the committee is visiting, some senators will have an advantage, depending on the language spoken and how well they understand the proceedings. When committees want to travel and funds are available for that purpose, we have had to ensure that certain criteria are met. We have had to make choices. Where fact-finding missions are involved, it would seem that there are different arrangements. We had asked that notes be prepared about such missions so that we would know what they include. At least, that is my understanding. You say that we have put our financial house in order. That is true, but that did not come without sacrifice. I believe that next year, we will still be in a position where we will not be able to allocate funds for everything. Our approach is one of extreme prudence. And I would like to see us maintain that approach in the future.
The Chairman: I will ask committee members if they wish to comment, and then we will give observers an opportunity to speak.
[English]
Senator Kroft: I have a couple of points to make on this subject. First, I just want to be sure that all honourable senators understand that this is not the problem of a single committee. I am on the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. Next month, we will be going to Washington and New York in connection with the study on corporate governance and the Enron situation.
I suppose this is fact-finding in the sense that we are not working to a specific piece of proposed legislation. On the other hand, it is work that is preparatory to legislation and regulation that is currently before the public and before the government.
I am not sure, in our work at least — and I am sure this is shared by other committees — that the line between fact- finding and legislation is always as clear as we would like to think it is.
We feel that this trip is essential to the work of the committee. The Banking Committee does not leave the country often. We are in the position of having to restrict the number of members who can go. Ours is a committee that enjoys a high degree of participation and activity. We have members who would be very interested in going on that trip, who would be very useful on that trip. However, under the present rules, they cannot go.
I do not want any committee to feel that they are alone in this position — there may well be others.
Having said that, I am not sure what the answers are. We could leave the committees to make the decision on how they want to spend their allocation. Then, I suppose, when they present their budgets, the debate in the chamber will be about whether they are spending well.
The real problem is that the committees do not have enough money. The committee budget, when I was involved with this, was approximately $900,000 and, in effect, we doubled it. It was clear that it was necessary, with the level of activity in the committees that was coming up. We could see two years ago that, if we were to not only make possible but also encourage the kind of work that indeed is happening, we would need more.
We were lulled into a sense that we had more in the budget than we needed. We thought that if we did not spend all of the money, there would always be some at the end. However, a series of circumstances arose — and Parliament is a set of circumstances. We had prorogation, et cetera, and we did not spend money. It is impossible to look at the situation objectively and say that the core cause is anything other than the fact that, in total, there is not enough money.
A focus of this committee, first and foremost, should be recognition that we need more money in the committee budgets. We can cut one end off the blanket and sew it to the other end, but it is still basically the same blanket. We have to realize that we are dealing with insufficient funds for the level at which the committees are currently working.
Recognizing all the difficulties involves fundamental issues of budgeting and how we approach the process. We are trying to make too little money go too far, and that is a problem. It is a problem shared by the Banking Committee, the Defence and Security Committee, and I am not sure what others.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: I would just like to add one thing with respect to Senator De Bané's comments. It's quite true that I don't have a great deal of parliamentary experience. However, I do know that when we are given a mandate, we have a duty to show we are equal to the task and try to fulfill our responsibilities to the best of our abilities. I am the third member of the steering committee and I believe it is very important to take these things seriously. I don't see how we could possibly manage if we didn't set some guidelines in order to be as fair as possible with everyone. Without criteria to guide us, we run the risk of being influenced by pressures from outside. As a general rule — and this is something I learned in the Aboriginal world — very often it is the squeaky wheel — the one who talks the most and has the most arguments — that gets the grease. That just isn't fair to others who are not "squeaky wheels.''
Before engaging in this exercise, we reviewed what had been done in previous years and realized that committees never travel with all their members. We looked at how many members generally travel with their committee and after meeting with each of the committee chairs, we decided it might be reasonable to adopt a rule such as this. If we don't do that, there is a strong chance that these decisions will be based on arbitrary judgements, and that's dangerous.
[English]
Senator Stratton: I will refer to the minutes of December 5, 2002. Page 12 notes the principles upon which the steering committee had acted, and that is the basis of the letter that went out February 4 from the chair, I believe, that I support completely. I believe our side would support it completely, because you have to be prudent. You have to be fair. Fair is the word here, fair and balanced.
I recall travelling with other committees across the country and overseas. It is rare that you get approval to travel with all 12 committee members. I have never seen that, and I have been here close to 10 years now.
If we allow 6 out of 12 or 6 out of 9 to travel, I think that would be fair.
Senator Banks: Or 6 out of 15.
Senator Stratton: We should stick to these principles.
Senator Kenny: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate being put on the list.
The first concern that I need to express is the lack of consultation with the people affected by this policy. It is important that this committee come forward with guidelines. That is part of its function. Historically, the committee has viewed itself as a facilitator for senators to do their job.
When rules are brought forward that will have an impact on committees, the committees, or their chairs, should have an opportunity to join with this committee to discuss changes that will affect how they function and manage. It gives the committees an opportunity to draw to the attention of this committee the impact of regulations on day-to-day management.
I should point out that the information in the letter sent to us created certain planning and administrative problems that are very difficult to accommodate when you are looking 14 months ahead. We should give an opportunity to committee chairs to sit down and talk to this committee. That would be very helpful.
There was no discussion of these rules with committee chairs when they met to discuss the budget with the steering committee. That is one reason why we no longer have a deputy chair of this committee. He feels that concern. Consultation is fundamental, and it contributes to the reasonable management of this institution.
The Chairman: Senator Kenny, we will have a new deputy chair, so do not worry.
Senator Kenny: I was referring to why he....
The Chairman: He was in the difficult position of experiencing pressure from your committee and being deputy chair.
Senator Kenny: He said that he did not have an opportunity to express his views.
The Chairman: Yes he did.
Senator Kenny: I am quoting him.
The Chairman: He did. He used many words to tell us how important your committee was. He did his job.
Senator Kenny: He was not getting any pressure from our committee.
Senator Gill: Was he on your committee?
Senator Kenny: Yes, but he was not getting pressure from it, Senator Gill.
The point I was trying to make about consultation is if regulations have an impact on someone, it is natural justice that they have an opportunity to comment on them. What the committee decides after that is the committee's own business. That has not happened.
There was a comment in the document that has been circulated to us that there is $106,000 available for new requests and demands. It is there for contingency and planning.
I could understand that if it was December, or even January, but it is February. This committee will not meet next week because the Senate will not be here. There is then one week when the committee will meet, two weeks where the Senate is not here again, and then two weeks left in the fiscal year. Now frankly, it seems to me unlikely, given how long it takes to plan a trip, that a committee would be thinking of taking such a trip in the last two weeks of the fiscal year and not be raising that question with this committee right now.
We are in the process of trying to organize a trip to Washington. The Banking Committee and the Energy Committee are organizing trips. People are talking to others right now. One of the difficulties is they cannot do that unless they are confident that they have a budget.
I raised yesterday with you, Madam Chair, the problem that even if a report comes forward today, it needs to be considered. It cannot be dealt with in the chamber because nobody is here next week.
Senator Kenny: I may not say no, but there are some members who may say no on principle. Even if you have agreement of the Conservative and Liberal caucuses, there are others in the chamber with the ability to say no, and they have done that, much to the surprise of all of us.
The Chairman: Out of respect for our colleagues, let us believe that people will understand and will say yes. Perhaps I have too much respect for my colleagues, but if we all did that, everything would be okay.
Senator Kenny: I know of an individual who has told one committee chair, not me, that he will not give leave to that committee chair, ever, unless that committee chair takes on a certain study. That is a fact.
The likelihood of someone who comes forward in the last week of February to request funds getting approval is small. The only time they could spend the funds is in the last two weeks of March. You cannot lay on a trip on such short notice. I submit that concerning the $ 106,000 available for new requests, the committee, at some time, has to decide no. If someone wants to do something, it will be in the next fiscal year and these funds will lapse, and there may be other funds that will lapse. Given the tight budget we have, the idea of letting funds lapse does not seem reasonable when people have worthwhile projects coming forward.
I requested and was granted an opportunity to meet with the steering committee last Tuesday, and then I was advised that the steering committee did not want to hear from me any further and that they had all the information they needed to make a judgment. Well, the $ 36,000 does not accommodate the needs of the committee in doing the trip properly. We are going on this, and we went last year, with a full committee. I can cite numerous examples of where people have gone with a full committee.
As Senator De Bané said, this is an important file. We have meetings arranged with six congressional committees. We have two others from whom we are waiting to hear back. We met with the six congressional committees last year. We did that partly because the Prime Minister said it was important because the embassy does not have the capacity to develop relationships with Congress. We have had an ongoing relationship with these committees since then and we would like to continue that. We find it useful not only for the writing of our reports, in which we included much of the material, but also as an occasion to debunk much of the wrong information that congressmen and senators have about Canada. We were able to protect Canadian interests in Congress. I cannot judge how well we did that, but I can tell you that the Prime Minister said to me, and has said publicly, that the embassy is not sufficiently staffed to manage it all.
One of our requests in the budget was funding for entertaining these people. We invite them to breakfast meetings and we have lunch with them. We find that if we try to have meetings with them other than at meal times, they have votes to attend and they get up to leave. Any senator who has gone to Washington knows that, even if your opposite number is in mid-sentence, they can get up to go to vote. Every vote is recorded and they know that they cannot stay and talk to you no matter what you are saying. That is one part of our need.
We will not be able to entertain these people over a meal with the $ 36,000 in this report. Frankly, breakfast is the best time to talk to congressmen and senators. When you talk about "the $ 20,000 staff,'' well, committees have hired staff out of Washington for years to assist them in the meetings. The embassy gives us the brush-off.
We have been through that experience whereby the embassy does not have the resources to follow through. An embassy spokesperson may say they are glad to have us there and that they may have a third secretary to get us to the right building. We know how to do that. They charge for meals that we have at the embassy. If you have an opportunity to eat at the embassy with a congressional committee, they will present a bill to the Senate committee. They will tell us that DFAIT does not have money for that. It accrues to the Senate.
That is why we had requested more funds, and our request did have help in Washington, to arrange the trip. There is ample precedent for that, and to have a successful trip, it makes a difference if you have a Republican insider to help make the connections. Outsiders — non-Republicans — do not get very far with the administration.
I am trying to make a couple of points. One is that consultation on issues, where there is more than a single conversation and where you test with us whether the rules are fair or what the impact will be, is important. Second, I think that the trip was valuable last year. We received a positive response to it, and I cannot think of an occasion when other committees have managed to meet with six congressional committees. We think that this year there may be eight committees. Third, I would ask for the opportunity to make adjustments. I firmly believe that the full committee should go to Washington, but if this committee is of the view that it cannot happen, then we need to adjust the budget to help us make it work. We are not a lazy committee; we work hard. We put in 374 hours last year.
The Chairman: Do not do that.
Senator Kenny: In fairness, we meet on Monday nights and we have people from Saskatchewan.
The Chairman: Other committees do the same thing, Senator Kenny. I am stopping you here. Let us not compare committees.
Senator Kenny: I cannot think of another committee that has to do it on Monday nights. We put in many hours. Those are the points I want to bring to your attention. I would ask for the opportunity to reconsider the amount you are recommending for the Washington trip, please.
Senator Stollery: This whole problem of the numbers of people travelling, of course, is the result of us not completing the reduction in size of committees, which has been going on for at least six years. I was a member of the Internal Economy Committee for 19 years.
A second cause of this problem is the fact that the most experienced people in the Senate, who were members of this committee since the early 1980s, were removed from the committee. Thus, the consultations that normally take place have not taken place. That is why we are here this morning. Now, it will have to be changed, believe me. Governments change, leaders change, all things change. Nothing that we do here is carved in stone.
We are talking about Washington, D.C. I knew nothing about Senator Austin's observation about travel to the U.S., which, I see, has been adopted, and the comparison to francophone nations. On the softwood lumber issue, we were told the other day by the head of the Maritime lumber institute that $800 million has been spent on legal fees. I do not think anything comparable has occurred with la Francophonie. Why? Because 35 per cent of the Canadian GDP depends on the United States, which is at war and has been gradually closing the border.
When you talk about "fact-finding trips'' to Washington, you really mean, "lobbying trips'' to Washington. We are lobbyists for the Government of Canada and for the millions of Canadians who depend on trade with the United States. In Ontario, where I come from, the employment level will drop like a stone if the car factories start closing.
If we are sending a truck across the Canada-U.S. border every two and a half seconds, they have to get the machinery to put the cars together and it has to happen within hours. If that border wait stops being two and a half seconds and becomes five seconds, the lineups at the bridge in Windsor will be like they were after the World Trade Center, when they were up to 22 miles long. As we speak, it is now taking about 8 hours at the Ivy Lea Bridge, where the lineups are already four kilometres. Washington is a very special case, and a more important one than La Francophonie. One million Canadian jobs depend on softwood lumber alone, and those businesses are going bankrupt because of duties and taxes. Madam Chair, I understand the question of budgets; I was here for 19 years. I have served on the subcommittees. I know enough about it and I understand that you have to operate within the monies that we have been allotted. The case is, to me, obvious and will become public, because it is so important to our relations with the U.S.
I am sure you are aware of the importance of the Boston fish market and U.S. lumber consumption to jobs in Atlantic provinces. It is overwhelming. The country will close down if this goes further. The Americans are talking about it. Why do you think the Prime Minister said to "cool it'' to those Liberal MPs in caucus?
The Chairman: This was discussed in caucus.
Senator Stollery: Madam Chair, it was in The Globe and Mail.
The Chairman: We are public now.
Senator Stollery: It was in The Globe and Mail.
The fact is that we are very dependent on this crisis. If you had to choose three countries whose futures are most affected by this war footing and terrorism problem, they would probably be Iraq, Israel and Canada. Yet we in the Senate are saying we will not approve budgets for senators to do the important job of lobbying in Washington on behalf of Canadian workers. I think that is a big mistake and it must be revisited, and if we are public now, it is already a public issue. It will have to be settled. I understand that you have to operate within what you get to spend. The answer there is that we must have a supplementary estimate at some point. It cannot be left, because the situation has become extremely urgent.
Senator Banks: Thank you, Chair. I, like Senator De Bané, was not sure this was the time to talk about this. I was planning to wait until you passed the present motion. I have a different view, and I think it is fair to say I am representing the members of the Energy Committee in asking three questions. I preface them by saying that I am familiar with the difficulty of making odious choices and comparisons and making decisions of who gets funding and who does not. Good enterprises often fall off the table. In the 20 years before I came here, I was in the arts funding business, and there is no place where it is truer that good and deserving enterprises fail because of lack of money. I do not question the transparency and the fairness by which this committee doles out the available monies. I think the question Senator Kroft raised earlier, and to which Senator Stollery has now referred, is a separate one that must be addressed.
No member of my committee has any doubt that this committee has the difficult task of saying, "Here is how much you get. Sorry you only get this much, not what you asked for.'' It is after that point that I as a committee chair, along with my steering committee and my committee members, have questions about the principles as they were described in the letter sent out February 6, of which everyone has a copy. I know that it is not this committee's intention that those efforts at prudence have a deadening effect upon the efficiency and usefulness of efforts of committees to affect public policy and relations. I must say, while the war, industry and those things are no doubt important, the concern of my committee, with exports of natural resources, questions of energy generation and all of those things is also important, particularly in our relations with the United States.
My first question is the same as Senator Kenny's. I had not thought of the word "consultation,'' but I would ask that you consider a meeting or series of meetings with committee chairs to discuss ways in which prudence and limitations on spending might be achieved without affecting the operational freedom and flexibility of those committees.
In the budget, which we are to present to the committee on or before the 28th, perhaps committee A is talking about an enterprise they would undertake 10 months hence in Spokane, Washington. A better example might be Portland, Oregon, because they have had, which is relevant for us, extraordinary success for some time with emissions control. If we get approval from your committee and from the Senate for that trip, but find out in the intervening 10 months that we can obtain that information by other means, we might decide instead that we would like to go to Winnipeg. However, we cannot simply decide to do that, because we must come back to your committee to explain why we wish to do that and how we were able to save the other money. My first question is, will you consider, once your committee has had a chance to determine it, meeting with committee chairs to find ways to arrive at prudence without straitjacketing committees' freedom of action?
My second question is in respect of the motion that you made at the meeting of November 21, that committees be required to request permission from this committee to transfer funds between public hearings, fact-finding trips and conferences. It is that flexibility to which I refer. I do not understand the rationale, and perhaps my objections would be lessened if I did, of saying that, by definition, a fact-finding meeting in Winnipeg is more important than a fact- finding meeting in Washington. Therefore, more senators and a larger staff can attend it. The rationale of that escapes me, and I think it is wrong.
My second question is almost a rhetorical one. In the example I gave you earlier, of a fact-finding or committee trip planned 10 months hence, assuming the trip is in Canada, nine senators and three staff members can go. If it turns out 10 months from now, for reasons that cannot possibly have been foreseen, that three members of the committee already happen to be in Vancouver, and I find out three weeks before the event that I do not have any transportation costs for those three members, I could have three more senators attend that meeting in Vancouver, within budget. These principles say that the committee cannot decide to do that. The committee cannot take this kind of efficient measure.
I understand that, according to these guidelines, my committee may not do that. It may not have 10 or 11 members in Canada; or, on that trip to Washington, it may not have 7.
The magic number is six, as opposed to five or eight. I do not agree with that lack of flexibility.
Third: What happens if I do that? I would not, absent a change in these principles, but what happens if I take 11 members to that meeting in Vancouver? Have I broken a rule?
If this is a rule, I would be interested in knowing when the Senate voted on this rule and when it delegated to this committee the responsibility for making rules — not guidelines, not restraint, not prudence.
Senator Bacon: They are not rules; they are criteria.
Senator Banks: I will go back to my second question. If I break the criteria, have I broken the rule, and what will happen?
This committee did not intend to have that deadening effect. I know that it is aiming at prudence. However, your subcommittee seems to the members of my committee to be sitting in judgment on their agenda and procedure. I do not think that is what this committee intends to do.
The Chairman: You are doing the same thing. You are telling us today how to run the affairs of this committee.
Senator Banks: Not at all.
The Chairman: That is what I hear. If I were to tell you how to run your committee, Senator Banks, you would not like that. I am not saying that.
I am not, but you are telling us what to do. You are telling us to make better rules and to do this and that. I am not telling you how to run your committee.
Senator Banks: Sorry, Chair, I must respond to that. Yes, you are.
The Chairman: I am just allocating the funds.
Senator Banks: You are not just allocating funds. If you tell me that I can only have $150,000 when I want $300,000, that is your job. I accept that, but let my committee decide how to spend the $150,000. Do not tell me, please, that I can only take six members to Portland, Oregon, but I can take nine to Vancouver. There is no possible rationale for that.
The Chairman: That represents a budget.
Senator Banks: No, it does not, Madam Chair. If I can find a way, for the same amount of money, to take 11 members, it does not represent a budget.
Senator Kenny: Madam Chair, I take exception to your suggestion that Senator Banks is telling you how to run your committee. This committee and Rules Committee —
The Chairman: He answered it, Senator Kenny.
Senator Kenny: May I have the floor?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Kenny: Thank you. This committee and the Rules Committee are fundamentally different from any other committee. They are the only two committees that have 15 members. They are the only two committees that do not need an order of reference from the Senate. They are the two committees that impact on the lives of senators in a very direct way.
You can pick any other committee and it does not affect the lives of senators. This committee is what we use to govern ourselves.
Senators should be welcome here. They should be invited here, and they should be encouraged to talk to this committee.
The Chairman: That is what you are doing this morning, Senator Kenny.
Senator Kenny: I have not interrupted you once, and you have interrupted several times. With respect, I do not make editorial comments while you are talking. I would ask for the same courtesy, please.
The Chairman: You have the floor.
Senator Kenny: Thank you.
With respect, in all of my experience here, this committee has said, "We are here to facilitate the work of committees and of individual senators.'' That has been the tradition.
To have senators come here and share their views and their experiences has inevitably meant that this committee has come forward with stronger and better recommendations. Frankly, senators are pretty comfortable most of the time, and they feel this committee is doing things in a reasonable way. Therefore, not many senators come. They say, "Having to organize budgets and see that the protective staff and messengers are functioning is a lot of work, and I am glad that someone is doing it. I prefer not to do it, but I am glad that someone is taking on that responsibility.''
However, senators do come when they feel that something is getting out of whack or there is a problem developing. They want to share that view with this committee.
I would think that more dialogue between senators and this committee will inevitably result in a Senate that is more productive and useful. We want the Senate to work well as much as any member of this committee does.
I would not come here to be mischievous or to cause a problem. I am trying to draw to the attention of the committee that we have an occasion to serve the Senate and Canada well.
The funding for it is not appropriate, and I have not had a chance to make my case for that funding. I asked for it, and I thought that I had a meeting to do it. I was told the committee was not interested in hearing from me. It is a remarkable thing to tell any senator that you know enough about what is wanted and do not even need to talk.
I do not think it is fair to say that senators coming here are trying to tell you your business. Your business is the business of the Senate, and all senators should be welcomed here and encouraged to talk about how they feel the Senate should be functioning.
That is what this committee has always been about, and I hope it remains that way. Thank you.
Senator Bryden: Thank you, Chair. I will go back to the topic we were discussing, which was the budget. I want to make brief comments. There are many things that can be said in relation to the discussion, but I do not wish to address that.
First, the committee function in the Senate is one of the most important. In the time that I have been here, we have moved forward dramatically in the budgeting and the managing of the budgets to allow committees to do their work.
When I first got involved with the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and began looking at it, there was a budget struck for various sections under our Senate activities, including the committees. However, there was the clear impression, under which I and many other people proceeded, that at the very most, the budget for committees was some sort of guideline. It was not a structure within which the committees were required to function. Many committees went over budget, and it was expected that Supplementary Estimates would be able to pay for the activities of some of the committees.
In the last couple of years, with much effort from your predecessor, and continuing with yourself and your steering committee, the budgets have been struck as reasonably as possible to act as a structure within which individual committees would do their work. The ability to be able to increase the committees budget this year over what it had been before, and by a very significant amount, has made it possible for committees to do more work within budget.
Hopefully, as we go forward into next year's budget, we will not approve it alone. It will go to the Senate, and from the Senate it will go to the House of Commons. It is a monetary matter that will be decided there, to a large extent.
Our present situation is that we had an improved budget that, in my opinion, has been fairly allocated to the committees that requested funds. Not all committees, but a good number of them, requested more funds than were available, and the allocation has been made. I believe that no one has questioned the fairness of the allocation that this committee, on the recommendation of the steering committee, has made.
We have come to the point where every nickel of what was, I believe, $1.7 million has been allocated, except for $106,000, which we have retained as an emergency fund. That is not a big percentage of the total amount. That is called "budgeting very close to the last dollar.''
Unlike others, I do not believe that the only thing we legitimately spend money on in committees is travel. It may well be that the $106,000 may be called upon because a committee has made a mistake. They may come back and legitimately say that, to complete their project, which was approved and thought to be funded, through their error or perhaps even our error, they are $50,000 short; or we would be able, if we added to someone's committee, whether Defence or Foreign Affairs, to provide for the use of the services of an expert, which needs extra funding.
My point is that you cannot budget $1.7 million any closer to the bone than about $100,000. After having allocated funds on the basis of all of the demands in front of you, if everyone who made demands of the committee knew that $106,000 would be up for grabs, would they not have as legitimate requests for a part of it as any another committee?
I believe that you have done the best that you can. We should continue to do what we are doing and to press for an increase in the overall size of our budget so that more committees can do more. The steering committee should continue the practice that has worked so well, as evidenced in a fair allocation of funds, in allocating what is left of our budget.
That is all I have to say.
Senator Kroft: Coming back to the last point about the contingency, which Senator Kenny also raised, I would never draft a budget with much less contingency than that at the beginning of the year. However, let us say, hypothetically, that we were all sitting here on March 30. Senator Bryden, you would not be making the case that it was important to have $100,000 in the budget in case something came up in the next 24 hours. We go from prudence to foolishness, if there is really good work to be done, in not releasing the last of that contingency fund. The point is where the opportunities lie for spending that contingency fund.
I return to the first remarks I made to this committee when I succeeded you as the budget chairman. I do not think any of us should be trying to see how little money we can spend. As a matter of fact, we should be trying to see how much we can spend, and ensuring that we are spending it well. That will best serve the Senate.
In respect of this contingency, let us not jump to see which committee has the highest priority. With the ability to communicate quickly through e-mails and to send messages to chairs, there must be a point at which we could say that there may be an opportunity for a final release of funds; are there urgent situations that need addressing? You may get three or four committees that will say, "Yes, we think that we fall in that category.'' You might then adjudicate those.
I would hate to see us, under the general umbrella of prudence, get to the end of the year in a tight committee budget situation and then allow money to lapse.
I would urge the committee to try to find a mechanism to ensure that we prudently and fairly max out our expenditures. There is no virtue in getting to the end of the year with money in the bank that could be usefully spent.
Senator Bryden: I have one quick supplementary comment. If that were to be considered, then absolutely Senator Kroft is correct. If there were an opportunity to allocate those funds, then other committee chairs need to be aware that this amount is now available.
The Chairman: All committee chairs.
Senator Bryden: Yes, all committee chairs would need to be aware so that a judgment can be made.
Senator Kenny: Senator Bryden spoke to my point, as did Senator Kroft. We are here because it is the end of the fiscal year. We know that there are funds available that will likely lapse. We were drawing to this committee's attention the shortfall in funding for the upcoming trip.
I point out, again, that we are not sitting next week. There will not be an opportunity for people to come back to this committee. There will then be one week of sitting, followed by a two-week adjournment in March. Then there will be only two weeks left in March.
In the course of our planning, we know that if we do not have the assurance of the funding now, we cannot come back to this committee on March 14 to try to correct things. That is one week before we go on the trip.
We are planning now, and that is why we have come to this committee on precisely the point that Senator Bryden and Senator Kroft made.
Senator De Bané: Honourable senators, in view of what has been said, particularly in the last 10 minutes, I propose an amendment to the motion. My amendment is to item number 5. I propose that we increase the budget for the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence from $36,000 to $69,000.
That additional amount of $33,000 would serve to pay for the additional expenses in travelling to Washington and to hire a special adviser to prepare the trip for the committee.
If we could approve that today, then the committee would be able to do their planning in a timely fashion and to arrange for someone to prepare their visit to Washington. Thus, I propose an amendment to item number 5 to increase the amount from $36,000 to $69,000.
Senator Bryden: I would like to speak to that. If we are to do this, then that reduces the amount available for other committees. If we are to be fair about this—
The Chairman: We have to ask the chairs of all the committees.
Senator Bryden: We should invite all of the chairs to have their say.
The Chairman: We should know how much money they need.
Senator Bryden: We should tell them that we have a bid for $33,000 and ask them if they have a bid. In fairness, we need to do that. I would not support the motion of Senator De Bané until the other chairs have had an opportunity to make their cases.
Senator Stollery: Madam Chair, may I say briefly that, as one of the other chairs —
The Chairman: How much would you need?
Senator Stollery: As a matter of fact, I believe my problem is not in this fiscal year. We are in pretty good shape. I have no complaints.
As you know, we are dealing with the trade disputes between Canada and the U.S. I am concerned about what happens in April, when my committee goes to Washington.
I am not concerned with this fiscal year. I believe you will be getting some money back from us very shortly.
Anyway, I am telling you that this committee is not competing with Senator Kenny for the $100,000.
The Chairman: I have already sent you a letter saying that you must prepare your budget for February 28, 2003.
Senator Stollery: We are doing that now.
The Chairman: Everyone has received the same letter.
Senator Banks: Two of my questions require some time to answer, but one question is different from the ones that have been discussed.
If I and my committee and the steering committee find a way, within the existing budget, to take seven or eight members rather than six on a fact-finding trip outside Canada, may we do that? Would that transgress a "principle''?
The Chairman: Criteria.
Senator Banks: Is it a principle, guideline or rule? I want a specific answer to that question at the first opportunity.
The Chairman: At the first opportunity, yes. We will have to discuss it with the committee and subcommittee.
Senator Banks: If this is a rule, then I will have different questions.
The Chairman: To tell us what to do?
Senator Banks: No, my question will be whether the Senate agrees with that rule.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We will discuss the amendment first, before we put the question.
[English]
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Before we do that, I do not know if I am eligible to vote. I am ex officio, but my partner ex offcio, Senator Carstairs, is not here. Senator Robichaud is here, but he is a member of the committee. Since Senator Carstairs is not here, would it be unfair for me to vote in her absence?
Mr. Bélisle: The rules provide that as ex officio, you are allowed to vote in the absence of your ex officio partner. However, if it is a question of principle, it is another issue. If Senator Lynch-Staunton does not vote, Senator Robichaud is allowed to vote as deputy. Senator Kinsella is ex officio also.
Senator Kinsella: Are you a member?
Senator Robichaud: I am a regular member. Are you replacing Senator Stratton?
Senator Lynch-Staunton: We will put him as replacing Senator Atkins. Could that be noted?
Mr. Bélisle: Yes.
The Chairman: Members only will vote.
Senator Stollery: Madam Chair, I do not have a vote. I understand that. I did not know anything about Senator Kenny's needs for whatever it is next week.
The Chairman: You were the only one.
Senator Stollery: In case you think that I sort of walked in here to support Senator Kenny, first, I do not have a vote.
I do not know what position Senator Bryden will take. However, it is important that the members of the committee understand that if the motion failed, he does not get the money immediately. The chairmen of committees must be advised that the $100,000 is available. At that point, it is another story.
I want to ensure that everyone is on the same wavelength. Thank you.
The Chairman: We will vote on the amendment put forward by Senator De Bané, a member of this committee. The members of the committee will vote. Those in favour of Senator De Bané's amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chairman: Those against?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Mr. Bélisle: We have not counted the hands, but the result is obvious.
The Chairman: The amendment is defeated. We have a motion from Senator Gauthier, seconded by Senator Bryden, to adopt the fourth report. Are we agreed?
Hon Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Motion agreed to. I will table the report in the house this afternoon.
Senator Kroft: Madam Chair, I voted against the amendment out of a sense of fairness to other committees, and the committee I serve on may be one, but I think everything possible should be done to expedite the process of finding out if other committees need those funds and to release funds where they can be most effectively used.
The Chairman: Senator Kroft, as you know, we will try to do our best to be fair to all of the chairs. We will meet with all the chairs and see if they need any more money. We will see if we can do it.
Senator Kroft: In fairness, and without being too heavily procedural, do whatever it takes so that you can report back through the committee secretariat and give this committee the comfort to release those funds.
The Chairman: All the chairs should be included.
Senator Kenny: In a practical sense, Madam Chair, how would you see this happening, given the fact that we are leaving today? We are back on Tuesday, we are here for three days, and then we are gone for two weeks. In a practical sense, how would you see this committee making these inquiries, reporting to the chamber and then having the various committees go back to the chamber to gain approval to accomplish these things? I do not believe the days are sufficient. Giving people money a week before they go on a trip is essentially not giving them money.
The Chairman: We are here the week after next week.
Senator Kroft: Through the committee secretariat and through expedited communication, be it e-mail or telephone calls, you would be able to get a reading of the situation to transmit to this committee, so that funds could be released with the knowledge that all committees have been treated fairly.
Senator Kenny, you can look at the problems, and I agree that it is problematic. Let's not be any more conventional than we must in order to be procedurally correct. Find out if other people need the money. If not, we can move ahead with the cooperation we need.
Senator Kenny: Will our committee need to come back to this committee to make the request that Senator De Bané's motion be adopted, or if —
The Chairman: You have made your point, Senator Kenny.
Senator Kenny: If you find that no other chairs need the money, or there is less than $106,000 in demands, will Senator De Bané's motion be accepted?
Senator Kroft: I would be happy to have the steering committee make that decision.
Senator Poulin: The request is on the record.
Senator Kenny: I understand that.
Senator Kroft: I would like to make a motion that the steering committee be empowered to examine the requirements of other committees for funds before the end of the fiscal year, and using their judgment, make the allocation to spend the contingency funds.
Senator Jaffer: I second that.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Prud'homme: Excuse me, I asked who are the members of the steering committee. We have one or we do not. It is as simple as that.
The Chairman: It is Senator Gill and Senator Atkins, unless he changes his mind and wishes to resign. If so, we will have a replacement immediately.
Senator Prud'homme: There is also you. That is easy.
The Chairman: You have your answer.
Next on the list is item number 4. As you know, we had discussed the possibility of creating a security advisory working group. We have already discussed security here at the committee level. We have worked on a mandate for the working group that would read like this: Review and make recommendations regarding the normalization of 13 person-years within the Senate Protective Service; to review and make recommendations regarding the establishment of an armed unit within the Senate Protective Service; hear from parliamentarians from either house on issues pertaining to security on the Hill and report thereupon. I have asked three senators to be members of the working group. I have asked Senator Bryden to be responsible for the working group, Senator Gauthier to be a member, and Senator Meighen will represent the Progressive Conservatives. I wish the report to be made by March 31, so we can make a proper decision here. The report would be presented to honourable senators so we can make a proper decision on the security that is needed here.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I agree with the senators you have approached. If they agree, I will be perfectly happy. The second item in the mandate is to review and make recommendations regarding the establishment of an armed unit within the Senate Protective Service. Am I to assume that the decision to create such an armed unit within the Senate Protective Service has not yet been made?
The Chairman: No, it has not. It is a matter to be reviewed.
[English]
Senator Prud'homme: Maybe, in English, it should be "regarding the possible establishment of.''
The Chairman: Okay.
Senator Prud'homme: That is the only reason I came this morning, Madam Chair. If a parliamentarian of either house may speak on issues, is it on call or can we volunteer? It is very important.
The Chairman: The working group will decide how to run their discussions.
Senator Prud'homme: Does that mean the working group decides from whom they will hear? For example, the House of Commons have called me. They have finally woken up to the incident. I was the only one who did not see anything and the only one that saw everything. I volunteered to be heard. After 40 years on the Hill, I can tell them a lot that others may have a feeling for. However, I live it.
[Translation]
The Chairman: If you believe you have something to add to the discussion, you can always ask the working group for a hearing. It's as simple as that.
Senator Prud'homme: Yes, but it can always refuse.
[English]
The Chairman: It is up to Senator Bryden and the members of his committee.
Senator Prud'homme: I am glad Senator Bryden is here, because he got my message.
Senator Bryden: Can I make one thing a bit clearer? It would have been nice to see this mandate before agreeing to do this.
The Chairman: I did explain it to you.
Senator Bryden: The thing that troubles me a little is under part 3, "hear from parliamentarians.''
The Chairman: How would you change it?
Senator Bryden: I think the type of working group you are talking about is a much more informal process than holding hearings.
The Chairman: You will not be holding hearings.
Senator Bryden: It says, "hear from parliamentarians.'' Would you want to leave one out?
The Chairman: We could say, "consult.''
[Translation]
The Chairman: "Consulter'' in French.
[English]
Senator Bryden: We could say, "consider the views,'' or something like that, because there is a lot of work to do.
The Chairman: It was very good in French.
Senator Bryden: A lot of work has been done on this and the first thing we will do is try to pull together the existing reports and recommendations. We will not try to redo all of that. We would never get it done, if you are asking for some sort of report by the end of March.
Senator Stollery: I think number 3, as Senator Prud'homme and Senator Bryden have pointed out, is not at all a very clear or logical observation. It does not matter to me whether Senator Bryden is happy with it or wants to change it a little, fine. I think it is a little goofy to ask the chairman of the subcommittee to listen to parliamentarians, when he will obviously listen to them. I think it adds an element that makes it difficult or very ambiguous.
Senator Prud'homme: May I make a suggestion again?
[Translation]
The Chairman: We are going to try and draft something for Item 3.
[English]
Mr. Bélisle: After consultation with the chair, number 3 would simply read "and other parliamentary security matters.''
The Chairman: Is that better for you?
Senator Prud'homme: May I make a suggestion for your consideration, that is, the phrase "consider the views of parliamentarians on issues pertaining''? I strike out "from either house.'' "Consider the views'' is very vague. You can consider a view, but if you say "of either house,'' someone in the house may say, "I never heard about that. I do not like the other place; they do not have that courtesy.''
Senator Bryden: I believe that what we need to pull all of this together is as broad a spectrum as possible. Much has been done and is on the record. What have you said, Mr. Bélisle?
Mr. Bélisle: It is very generic and it covers hearing parliamentarians and other parliamentary security matters.
Senator Prud'homme: Read the full text.
Mr. Bélisle: That is it.
Senator Prud'homme: No, please read the full number 3.
Mr. Bélisle: Three would be that, "and to report on other parliamentary security matters.''
Senator Prud'homme: Would you read exactly what it would say, please? Read exactly number 3.
Mr. Bélisle: "And to consider other parliamentary security matters.''
The Chairman: That is it.
Senator Prud'homme: You are happy, but I think you have heard a strong view now that some parliamentarians might like to meet with you privately.
The Chairman: That is for the working group to decide. They have to work together to make the decision on from whom they will hear, if they need to hear from people. It is their job to report here. Then we will analyze the report.
Senator Prud'homme: There are so many secret goings-on between the two houses. Well, I tell you there is hanky- panky stuff going on with the RCMP.
The Chairman: Sorry, but I am not part of it.
Senator Prud'homme: I would be very clear.
[Translation]
The Chairman: If we're going to talk about security, we should move in camera.
[English]
Mr. Bélisle: The rules provide that on matters of security, you may wish to meet in camera. However, you are in public now.
Senator Prud'homme: I will talk privately with Senator Bryden.
Senator Gill: The first sentence says the group is "authorized.'' It does not say that they are ordered to. There is a margin within which to manoeuvre, establish and decide.
Senator Kenny: I wanted to observe that what Senator Prud'homme says is true. I have overheard many discussions on the Hill in the last year about agendas vis-à-vis our security service. I believe there is a plan being worked out step by step. Senator Bryden is nodding; I guess he is aware of the same things.
Senator Bryden: That does not surprise me. We will try to get into that.
The Chairman: We have a working group of Senator Bryden, Senator Meighen and Senator Gauthier.
Senator Kinsella: I am assuming that any senator can participate in any Senate committee or subcommittee and that the same principle applies to any working group.
The Chairman: Yes, I assume that, too.
Number 5, CPAC.
Senator Prud'homme: I would like the clerk to say "yes.''
Mr. Bélisle: It is not the clerk who runs the meeting.
The Chairman: I said "yes.''
I had a meeting with Ms. Watson from CPAC. This was a very cordial meeting to reopen the lines of communication. CPAC had expressed the desire to meet with me in order to clear the air. The meeting did not involve any negotiation of substantive issues. We were not meeting for that purpose. We requested that CPAC provide us with reports on the broadcast dates and times of Senate committees from May to December of last year. We received no answer. We might be able to get the statistics after negotiations are completed.
I told CPAC that for the sake of continuity, we had requested the services of our external legal counsel, Mr. Gilles Daigle of the Gowlings law firm, to continue to represent us in the renewal negotiations. It is expected that the same counsel will represent CPAC. Counsel will meet as soon as possible. I asked that they do so, Mr. Daigle being ready to start negotiating.
I told CPAC that we strongly believe that the Senate and CPAC would come to the best agreement possible. We want to work with CPAC in order to provide Canadians with the best possible quality of programming.
I asked Ms. Watson, who was representing CPAC, if they need information or to discuss any special items on their agenda, to contact me directly, and not every member of the Senate or whomever else they wish to contact.
We should keep our lines of communication open. As I said, this was a cordial meeting, she went back to her people to start negotiations with their lawyers and we will go from there.
Senator Kenny: I have had some experience with CPAC in the past. In terms of their negotiating style, I should say that they went out of their way to find other routes into the Senate. They went through the leader. There is a member of the Senate who is on the board of a Rogers subsidiary, and they went through that individual to try to short-circuit the system politically. I say that as a caution. Notwithstanding the assurance from Ms. Watson that she would not, she still found ways into other offices.
Second, as I signed the intervention on behalf of the Senate last time, I am familiar with where we were before the negotiations broke down. We were two hours apart in terms of the total amount of coverage. They would not move on the difference between 15 hours a week and 17 hours a week.
One of the interesting things that I would remind senators to think about when they are dealing with CPAC is that the weekend evening hours are, in many respects, better than the weekday hours. They have already committed at least half an hour of the weekday hours to the House of Commons. That is now enshrined in their licence. However, there is nothing in terms of the weekend hours.
CPAC's business plan, which Ms. Watson will not tell anyone but that we have learned from other sources, is to move away from being the parliamentary channel. They no longer call themselves the parliamentary channel. They now call themselves the public affairs channel, and their intention is to reach a point where they can get sponsorship, much like PBS, and say, "This program is brought to you by the good services of Binks, Jones and Smith.'' They see a potential for $5 million a year in that regard.
They moved away from Parliament and into public affairs broadcasting, which you now see twice a week on weeknights. They have persisted in broadcasting Senate committees once only. It is unusual for them to broadcast them twice. One reason why Ms. Watson is not divulging the figures is that, as we discovered, almost 40 per cent of the tapes of Senate committees that we had given them were not being put on the air. Senators were thinking, because they saw the cameras there, that they would appear on CPAC, but they did not. It was only when the Senate confronted CPAC with the discrepancy between what had actually been run and what had been taped — and this is what happened in the hearing — that they conceded that they were only using 40 per cent. If they are not telling you the numbers, it may be worse than that, because before they were at least pretending to tell us the numbers.
Second, CPAC was invariably airing our committees at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning. The reason CPAC has their programming running twice — their first chunk is at 6 p.m. and the second chunk is replayed after Question Period — is because they only get to boom up a signal once. If the signal goes up at 6 p.m. here, it is 7 p.m. in the Maritimes and 3 o'clock in the afternoon in Vancouver. They put up their own programming a second time because they want to reach the western market.
As representatives of the regions, we also want to reach the western market. We have western senators who would like to communicate with their region. CPAC does not repeat our sittings in time slots that would cover the entire country. They have been consistent and adamant in not showing us at times when Parliament is not sitting.
In our negotiations, we were talking about them broadcasting 17 hours of Senate programming on weekends, 52 weeks a year, and only at the end did they retreat to saying, "only when the Senate is sitting.'' They are really tricky in negotiations. They are cagey about the hours they want to put you on. It is only if we can get good hours and our programs up twice that this will be beneficial.
Even on the commercial stations, programs likeThe West Wing are shown more than once in a season. Canadians need to see us working.
If Canadians are to see us working, we need to run each committee hearing more than once, and it needs to be done in a way that covers both the East Coast and the West Coast markets. That means we need each to be shown at least twice. We are producing enough product now that they could run the programs for 17 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. If they were to run each of our programs more than once, as they do their own programs, the work of the Senate would be more apparent to Canadians.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Kenny. Are there other comments on CPAC?
Senator Stollery: You cannot help but wonder what the conditions of their licence are, but I will not discuss that now, Madam Chair. If they are playing around in that way, I wonder what that does to the conditions of their licence.
Senator Kenny: It is an order to cooperate with us.
The Chairman: I did not want to negotiate with Ms. Watson because that was not the purpose of the meeting. Rather, it was to establish the lines of communication. Ms. Watson tried to negotiate, but I said that I was not there to do that and that Mr. Daigle would do the negotiating for us.
The committee adjourned.