Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 4 - Evidence for June 5, 2003
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 5, 2003
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:05 a.m. to consider administrative and other matters.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We will open the discussion. The first item is the adoption of minutes. The next two items, with the permission of the committee, will be in camera because they concern CPAC and security matters. Are honourable senators agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Do we have a motion to adopt the minutes of the meeting of May 15?
Senator Austin: So moved.
The Chairman: Moved by Senator Austin.
The committee continued in camera.
The committee continued in public.
The Chairman: We will now deal with the eleventh report, item four, Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedures. As you know, I have expressed an interest in establishing a working group made up of representatives from this committee and the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament to review the budgetary process. We have already discussed that here. I have written to Senator Milne, the Chair of the Rules Committee, to make this suggestion, and I am awaiting a response.
In the meantime, the steering committee has considered a couple of matters that we believe require attention. In its eleventh report, your subcommittee makes two recommendations. You have them before you. The first recommendation is as follows:
...that committees not be permitted to purchase capital equipment. Where capital equipment is deemed necessary for the work of committees such purchases must be approved by the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedures of the Committee on Internal Economy. If approved, such purchases will be paid for through the appropriate central Administration budget.
This process will ensure that the resource implications of the purchase of any such equipment will be carefully reviewed and that any such equipment will be available for use by all committees, and not just a few.
The second recommendation is an interim measure pending a review of the budgetary process, and it concerns the use of Senate resources for the transcription of fact-finding activities. Specifically, your steering committee recommends that:
...until such a time as the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has had the opportunity, preferably in cooperation with the Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, to fully study the issues related to fact-finding activities, your Subcommittee recommends that committees undertaking fact- finding activities be advised that no transcripts will be permitted to be made.
Senator Kroft: Does this meaning the Banking Committee cannot buy its own airplane? Is that what it means?
The Chairman: No Bombardier jets can be purchased. We must save our money. Before any capital equipment purchase is made, this committee should deal with the matter.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: I would like to make a comment on the report.
The Chairman: The discussion is open.
Senator Gauthier: In the last paragraph, there is reference to travelling fact-finding committees. It states:
...the sub-committee recommends that committees undertaking fact-finding activities be advised that no transcripts will be permitted to be made.
What is a unilingual person supposed to do under those circumstances? What about me, if transcription is not allowed?
The Chairman: You will recall, Senator Gauthier, that these committees are not protected by the same privileges as public hearings.
Senator Gauthier: I understand. But in this context the wording seems to me to be restrictive. You seem to be forgetting that a unilingual person would no doubt like to read the transcript in his language to find out what happened. It is a consultative meeting so if people go to it, are they all English, or all French? I think not. And if the meeting is in both official languages, there has to be transcription.
The Chairman: ``No transcription'' is what is said, so that means none in French or in English.
Mr. Bélisle: In the past there were no interpretation services for fact-finding committees when they travelled. So they were, as a result, held in one or the other language, not both.
Senator Gauthier: Don't invite me to a meeting like that, or Senator Bryden or Senator Kroft either. It is not fair. Information must be available to all senators.
The Chairman: We all agree. I think we have often said it was not acceptable for fact-finding activities to be in just one language.
Mr. Bélisle: This was a problem in the past because the information provided was not privileged information. There was no transcription, and if there were, it could be used as the basis of a question of privilege. Then there was the bilingualism issue, also a problem, whether at the time or later with the transcription.
Heather Lank might be able to add something with respect to the clerks' experience with bilingualism when travelling.
[English]
Ms. Heather Lank, Principal Clerk, Committees Directorate and Private Legislation: Questions related to the fact- finding activities of committees have been raised by senators on a number of occasions. One of the great difficulties with this issue is that fact-finding covers such a wide range of activities. It is almost defined by what it is not rather than what it is.
In the work of our Internal Economy Committee, as you know, a distinction has been made with regard to public hearings because, pursuant to our rules, certain requirements must be met. Funding is allocated for attendance at conferences. That is considered to be a particular type of travel. The other category of work done by our committees has been fact-finding. We use that term when international travel is involved because parliamentary proceedings can only be held in Canada. We use the term for visits to prisons, fish plants and for convening meetings at various locations throughout the country, which have a greater number of characteristics that resemble normal public hearings. It covers a wide range of activities of committees.
The bilingualism issue has come up often and has been a concern expressed by a number of senators over the years. It goes back to what Mr. Bélisle said about the issue of privilege and whether this is a proceeding in Parliament or not. This is a difficult area. It is inextricably linked with the official languages question because one of the arguments made with respect to fact-finding is that it can be less expensive. For certain types of information gathering, it is exceptionally useful. For example, public hearings are not perhaps the best choice if you want to visit a fish plant or a prison, so fact- finding works very well there. However, for other types of activities, it is sometimes perceived that fact-finding may be used in a way that is too close to a public hearing to justify calling it fact-finding. The question then arises as to whether it is in fact a proceeding of Parliament, in which case the Official Languages Act must be respected and interpretation must be available. Committees historically have had different approaches to this question.
[Translation]
I am aware that some fact-finding committee travel has had interpreters. If a group was travelling to a place where interpretation was necessary, their budget included the amount needed. So senators could work in either official language, even if travelling for fact-finding and not public hearings.
In other circumstances, senators have not deemed it necessary to have interpreters. I can tell you that I have heard comments here in committee indicating that many questions have been raised in connection with this.
[English]
The availability of interpretation at these fact-finding events has been very inconsistent. An example of fact-finding would be where one senator travels to Sweden, let us say, to gather information on the health care system. In that case, one could argue that bringing along a French-English interpreter might not be the most appropriate thing to do if the people involved are comfortable working in English or French. There are other circumstances where larger groups of senators undertake fact-finding activities in different environments and there is a desire to work in both official languages, and this is especially the case in the Canadian context.
[Translation]
In the case of international travel, I think it would be impossible to consider these official meetings.
[English]
There perhaps is greater flexibility. These are the some of the issues that Senator Bacon has indicated need to be looked at by the working group because there are so many questions raised and so many unanswered questions in this very important area.
Senator De Bané: I think the issue is very simple. The supreme law of the land says that English and French are the two official languages of this country. When a committee of the Senate, a task force of the Senate, or a fact-finding mission of the Senate is travelling on taxpayers' money, it is obviously an official function of the Senate. I think that we should, at the minimum, phone every member of that fact-finding mission and ask him or her if interpretation is needed, if he or she needs a laptop to read what is going on, et cetera. If one of them needs it, we should supply it. This is the supreme law of the land. If no one needs it, we do not need it. However, if one senator wants to follow what is going on, he or she should be entitled to have it.
I have been here for 35 years and have seen this issue come up many times. We have made improvements year after year, but always the objection is the same: ``My God, it will cost a great deal.'' It took over 100 years to achieve simultaneous interpretation, and there has always been the same objection. Finally, in 1982, I thought that we had resolved the issue once and for all. If one member is travelling on taxpayer's money and needs interpretation in one of the two official languages, then we should supply that service. That is my point.
Mr. Bélisle: The administration always operates on the premise that all senators and the public will be served in the two languages of Canada. It is not up to the administration to determine whether the service must be given. If other decisions are taken, then it is out of our control.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: It is true that the Official Languages Act must be respected by the Parliament of Canada, but it must also be kept in mind that members of the public are entitled to address parliamentarians in their language of choice.
Even if no parliamentarian insists on having simultaneous interpretation, we must be sure the members of the public met with can express themselves as they do desire.
Secondly, although I am no longer a member of the parliamentary associations, by personal choice, the parliamentary associations also have interpretation when they receive groups, and this is also an imperative to accommodate members requiring this.
[English]
Senator Bryden: Senator Corbin has basically made my point. We see examples of this in New Brunswick, in particular, which is officially a bilingual province. However, we also have sections of the province that are almost exclusively unilingual French and unilingual English, such as the area that I come from. When you travel to the fisheries areas of the province, you find that the English and French areas are only about one-half hour apart. If a travelling committee is composed of only francophone members or only anglophone members, then a fact-finding mission to those two communities would only gather information from one language or the other, unless the senators were able to entertain both languages.
Senator De Bané is saying that we have to accommodate senators, and if we are to find the facts, gather information, then we have to give the committee the ability to do just that. That applies across Canada and particularly in certain areas of Canada.
Senator Kroft talked to me earlier about the National Security and Defence Committee's travel to Washington to meet with American officials. He said that all committee members speak English and so they do not need interpreters to accompany them. Within Canada, if we are to err, we should err on the side of making interpretation services available.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: What bothers me is that transcription of their discussions is not allowed. Fact-finding committees cannot have transcription.
The Chairman: Fact-finding activities are not protected as public hearings are.
What is discussed in public hearings is protected. Questions of privilege are protected. When we meet committees and chairs for the budgets, we ask them to hold public hearings instead of fact-finding sessions.
When fact-finding is involved, the stenographers have trouble transcribing. There is more discussion on what they are eating, how good it is, then on the major discussions being carried out.
Ms. Lank: The matter of whether or not it is protected needs looking into.
[English]
There is one interesting thing about that issue. If one were to make the case that the proceeding is protected by privilege, then it would be difficult to argue that the Official Languages Act does not apply. If it were a proceeding of Parliament, therefore protected by privilege, then the application of the Official Languages Act would be the logical extension.
If one were to argue that it is not a proceeding of Parliament and therefore the Official Languages Act does not apply, then one could say that perhaps we would need to be concerned about the issue of privilege and whether the proceeding is protected. There are implications for people with whom committees meet in terms of whether they are protected. Likewise for you, senators, and whether you are protected in what you say. As Senator Bryden and Senator Corbin said, it is not just the senators. The issue also concerns the public and their rights. Senator Bacon said that this issue is complex and requires examination by senators to know the implications so that a determination can be made. The answers are not self-evident; this is not an easy question.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Are there others who wish to speak?
Senator Corbin: I would like to comment on what Senator Gauthier has said. We need to require a report from parliamentarians or groups that carry out fact-finding activities. even if what is said is not transcribed.
The Chairman: A report from the fact-finding activities?
Senator Corbin: When people go off travelling, others may wonder if it is just for tourism.
The Chairman: Which is why I said that there is more concern for what they are eating than what they are saying.
Senator Corbin: A report is needed.
[English]
Ms. Lank: I have one comment on transcription for your information, senators, and I speak as a clerk. Committees travel and hold public hearings that are essentially the same as the meetings in Ottawa, where there are stenographers. The transcripts contain clear identifications of the speakers and so on. One issue that comes up from a technical and administrative point of view with fact-finding is that sometimes the committees will make a tape of the proceedings to back up the researchers. The difficulty in producing the transcript from that is that there is no formal identification of the speaker. As well, the tape tends to be of lesser quality than those tapes in the public hearings.
It is difficult in many circumstances for committees to produce quality transcripts from fact-finding because of the different set-ups that occur in public hearings versus a fact-finding mission. That issue was looked at by the Internal Economy Steering Committee in terms of resource implications. To prepare quality transcripts, it could be necessary to have someone travel with the committee to make the speaker designations and to enhance the resource base around fact-finding. These are some of the issues that have been raised by senators.
Senator De Bané: I respectfully beg to differ. Two weeks ago, I represented Canada at a parliamentary association in Bulgaria, where one official accompanied me. I will be tabling in the Senate in the next few days our report on that trip to Bulgaria, which lasted for three days.
The Chairman: Was that a fact-finding mission?
Senator De Bané: There was no transcript but there will be a full-fledged report. Anyone who reads the report will know what happened during those three days — what issues were discussed and what points were made. There was no transcript but there is a report. This is essentially what Senator Corbin was talking about.
[Translation]
The Chairman: That does not change the recommendation. We are not talking about transcription. This does not mean there will be no report.
Do we accept the eleventh report?
Mr. Bélisle: Do you insist on the recommendation proposed just now for production of a report after a fact-finding activity?
The Chairman: Senator Gauthier, do you insist that there be a report produced after a fact-finding activity?
Senator Gauthier: I abstain.
The Chairman: I am asking you. Senator Corbin is the one who said it, who referred to a report.
Senator Gauthier: The discussion should be suspended. Let me think about it. I noted that when I read it last night. I am not satisfied with having no transcriptions of meetings, even if they are fact-finding.
The Chairman: They are not protected like a public hearing. Your privileges are not protected when it is fact-finding. That is why we are focussing on that. There are too many fact-finding missions at this time, far more than public hearings.
Senator Gauthier: The Rules have not yet determined what a fact-finding mission is. I am not familiar with it.
The report says that the Rules committee is going to address this matter. I will wait until they tell us what a fact- finding activity is. I will abstain from voting if a vote is called for.
[English]
The Chairman: Do we have to go to a vote? Is there consensus for the eleventh report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Approved.
Agenda Item No 5.
Mr. Bélisle: Honourable senators, this agenda item deals with books and subscriptions. Senators purchase books and subscriptions from their global budgets. That has been the case since 1998, but there has never been a policy to that effect.
The proposed policy allows that you could purchase anything you want under $250 from your global budget, but this can be done through your petty cash and reimbursed with proper receipts.
The policy also deals with the question of delivery of subscriptions to both the homes and the offices of senators. Double subscriptions would not be allowed unless approved by the committee.
Many senators wanted to suspend their subscriptions during the summer months of July, August and September. That is not recommended because it costs money to suspend subscriptions on a temporary basis.
Volumes are defined within this policy. Volumes are a series of hard covered books that are usually purchased as a set or available on line from service providers. An example is Quick Law. Volumes may include encyclopedias, research books and reference books. If there were a need for such volumes, purchase would have to be approved by this committee.
The policy also states that all books must be disposed of through the library. Retiring senators often ask what they are to do with their books. They will be disposed of through the Library of Parliament in negotiation with the library and with Mr. Paré.
Basically, that is the policy. It is the practice currently, but now it is in a policy statement before you for consideration.
Senator De Bané: Paragraph 2.4.1 says that a senator may buy up to $250 worth of printed material, but it has to be on an urgent basis. I recommend that we delete the words ``on an urgent basis.'' It means that in a bookstore I must ask myself whether my purchase is on an urgent basis. Those words do not have to be there.
Mr. Bélisle: It can be deleted.
Senator De Bané: Paragraph 2.5.1 reads, ``Senators' offices may purchase books to be presented as official protocol gifts.'' I would like some clarification. Let us suppose that I would like to buy a book on a major issue to send to someone. The policy states that if the book relates to the Senate of Canada, it can be offered as a gift. The entire budget is discretionary. Perhaps I would like to send a book to someone that deals with an important world issue. The book should not necessarily have to deal with the Senate of Canada or official protocol business.
I, Senator De Bané, am using my discretionary budget. I am not sending a book officially as a gift from the Senate. It is purchased from my budget. I think that the words limiting books to those about the Senate or the Parliament of Canada and promoting the work of the Senate are very restrictive.
The Chairman: You are getting your money from the Senate to pay for the books.
Senator De Bané: I have the discretionary budget. As a senator, if I think it would be good that I buy that book to send it someone because the book deals with a very important topic, that should be it. Here you are saying that you can buy a book for yourself from your discretionary budget, but you cannot send it to someone unless it is about the Senate. This policy is too limited.
Finally, Madam Chair, paragraph 2.8.1 notes that senators can subscribe to periodicals that are required in the support of their work. No. If I want to subscribe to a magazine, it can be related to all sorts of subjects of interest to me that are not essential. One could belong to a particular religion. He has to subscribe to the magazine of that religion. Would we argue that it is essential to the work of the Senate? No. However, if he were not a senator, he would not subscribe to it.
Those are my three suggestions.
The Chairman: Any other comment, senators?
Senator Kroft: I confess that I have not thought through all the nuances of this issue, but the operating principle is that we have a budget to buy things that assist us in doing our job.
There will inevitably be judgment factors. The issue of giving the books to someone comes under either a protocol or gift category. For gift giving, it is useful to keep it relative to Parliament.
We should not become a clearinghouse for books on a wide range of subjects. I see books every day on all kind of subjects that I know dozens of people would be fascinated to read. I do not know how we can sensibly limit that. I appreciate the sentiment behind your remarks, but if I could simply buy books and disburse them to people, it would not be appropriate.
As you know, I do not approach these matters from a parsimonious angle, but in this case, we need a definition that if a senator is giving a gift, it must be on behalf of or in connection with the Senate or Parliament.
Senator De Bané: As you say, there could be potential abuse, but that could be handled through limiting the budget for that type of purchase. How can we argue reasonably that I am entitled, without any oversight, to use my entertainment budget to invite someone to have a discussion, which is a limited budget to prevent abuse, but I cannot send that person a book on an important topic? I can invite him for lunch, but I cannot send him a book.
I understand your point. A senator should not spend $5,000 or $10,000 to give people books. No, that makes no sense. We could put a ceiling on it.
Senator Kroft: I have not thought this matter through enough to take a position.
The Chairman: There are too many senators missing from the meeting. We will come back to number 5 and number 6.
However, I will comment that if you want to make personal gifts, you should pay from your pocket. I do not ask the Senate to pay for it. If you want to give a book to someone about the Senate, you can use the money in your budget. However, if you wan to make a gift to somebody, you can pay for it. It is your personal decision.
Senator De Bané: If we will come back to item, I am content.
The Chairman: We will come back to it.
The committee adjourned.