Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Issue 14 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 3, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-35, to amend the Canada Labour code (minimum wage), met this day at 9:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Mabel M. DeWare (Chair) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chair: We are considering Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code with respect to minimum wage. Appearing this morning is the Minister of Labour, Mr. Gagliano.
Mr. Minister, welcome to the committee. We look forward to your presentation.
[Translation]
The Honourable Alfonso Gagliano, P.C., M.P., Minister of Labour: It is a pleasure to appear before you and to have the opportunity to discuss Bill C-35, an Act that amends the Canada Labour Code with respect to minimum wages paid in Canada.
I would like to outline briefly for you why the government has brought this legislation forward.
The federal minimum wage legislation was last updated in 1986. At that time, the rate was set at $4 per hour for all employees under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code.
A lot has changed since then. Wage rates have increased substantially as provincial and territorial governments continue to play a more active role in labour matters within their own jurisdictions. Therefore, it is time that the legislation be brought up to date to better reflect today's economic, social and political realities.
[English]
We are not proposing any sweeping reforms to the labour market with this bill, but the legislation does make two important and positive changes.
First, it completes the government's promise to raise the federal minimum wage rate from its former level of $4 an hour, a rate that was set 10 years ago and which has become practically irrelevant in today's market.
Second, it will improve the efficiency of the act by automatically aligning the federal minimum wage rate with the general adult minimum wage in each of the provinces and territories. This is largely an administrative change. It will reduce unnecessary paperwork, administrative duplication and red tape which occurs as we attempt to keep pace with the many changes that take place at the provincial and territorial government levels.
When the first minimum wage legislation was introduced in 1965, it set the standard. It was the highest rate in the country and the same rate applied everywhere. Over time, however, every province and territory has introduced new minimum wage legislation so that we now have a wide variety of rates across the country.
Worse, the federal rate is not in harmony with any of them. For example, in British Columbia the minimum rate is $7 an hour, while in Alberta and Newfoundland it is $5 an hour. Minimum rates in the other provinces and territories are anywhere in between these two levels.
It is not surprising that the provinces have taken the lead on this issue, since they have jurisdiction over 98 per cent of the workers who are affected by minimum wage legislation.
[Translation]
As I think members of this committee know, the federal minimum wage legislation applies only to those workers in federally regulated industries such as banking, communications, transportation and so on, industries that are governed by the Canada Labour Act. In reality, very few employees in these sectors are in minimum wage categories.
In other words, this legislation affects a comparatively small number of workers. Nevertheless, as a matter of fairness, it is important that these workers not be disadvantaged vis-à-vis their provincial counterparts because of a disparity in the federal and provincial minimum wage rates.
This bill ensures fair treatment of workers by establishing in law that the federal rate will be the same as the provincial rate.
The new legislation will also make for a more efficient system.
Currently, in order to keep up to date with provincial changes, the government must introduce changes to the minimum wage rate through regulations published in the Canada Gazette. This is a costly and time-consuming administrative process.
Mrs. Robillard who preceded me as Labour Minister announced the government's intention of raising the federal minimum wage in September 1995 via a two-stage process. We proceeded immediately to set the federal minimum wage at the provincial levels by regulation. These regulations came into effect nearly one year later, that is on July 17, 1996, following the required delays for publication in Parts I and II of the Canada Gazette.
[English]
Since July, five provinces have raised their minimum wage rate: Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan. Scarcely had they come into effect and the new minimum wage rates needed to be updated.
Bill C-35 proposes to change the law so that the federal minimum wage rate will be automatically updated whenever a change is made provincially or territorially. It will produce a much more efficient and cost effective system; one that will reduce red tape and administrative overlap.
To summarize, there are two important practical advantages to be had from implementing this legislation.
One is to ensure fair treatment of all Canadian workers under the federal minimum wage legislation. The second is to harmonize the administration of federal and provincial minimum wage systems in a smoother and more cost effective way.
It is also important to note that the federal government is not giving up its right to set minimum wages with this legislation. On the contrary, the new act specifically retains that power for the Government of Canada.
However, as a matter of practical reality, we recognize that there are differences in labour markets and social and economic conditions in different parts of the country. We also accept that the provincial and territorial governments are in the best position to set minimum wage rates that they see as being consistent with their regional needs.
[Translation]
Our challenge has been to find a way to respect the role of the provinces in this area but to guard against potentially unfair treatment of workers under federal minimum wage legislation, without creating a cumbersome administrative burden. I believe we have met this challenge with Bill C-35 and I am pleased to note that our colleagues in the Senate, on both sides, have seen fit to express their support for it too.
It is a simple but effective solution. Passage of Bill C-35 will also send a message that the Government of Canada cares about fighting poverty and that it wants to improve working conditions for Canadians, and especially for our youth.
Minimum wage legislation is a supportive element in the fight against poverty. It is neither our only tool, nor is it our main tool, but it does complement other initiatives of the government aimed at helping Canadians find and keep gainful employment.
Thus, this legislation is consistent with the government's broad national objective to protect the working poor.
This legislation takes a balanced approach. It provides more incentive to seek work on the one hand, while minimizing the negative impacts on job creation on the other hand.
The legislation also promotes equality of treatment for workers within the same local economy, whether they work for provincially or federally regulated employers.
[English]
We are well aware that there is a growing number of so-called "contingent" workers in Canada -- that is, those who are not part of the traditional nine-to-five work force, but who might be part-time workers, independent contractors or other forms of self-employed. Over the past decade, the number of these workers has grown twice as fast as traditional employees and it is more important than ever to harmonize workplace standards such as minimum wages rates, in order to add stability to the workplace.
We will continue our pledge to protect the most needy and have launched the "Collective Reflection" to consider our changing workplace. As chairman, I hope to encourage public dialogue, identify trends and highlight potential solutions to these important issues.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, while Bill C-35 does not introduce any sweeping changes to the Canada Labour Code, it does introduce some important and necessary amendments that will ensure the system works fairly and efficiently.
In addition, passage of this bill will complement the government's policy objective of fighting poverty and helping Canadians to find and keep worthwhile employment. At the same time, it will reinforce the message that we are in favour of equality of treatment in the workplace and of harmonized workplace standards.
It is for all these reasons that I have brought this legislation forward on behalf of the government. We are close to the end of the process to turn this bill into law and I welcome the continued support of all colleagues and members of this committee. If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them.
[English]
Senator Bosa: I sponsored this bill in the Senate. The amendments make such sense to the Canada Labour Code that in a moment I will move that the bill be adopted and reported without amendment.
By harmonizing the minimum wage with the provinces, the federal government does not relinquish its prerogative of going a different way. Since you only recently were given this portfolio, is it unfair to ask if the federal government ever used the minimum wage to set guidelines for the provinces, for example, to set a base from where the provinces could increase their minimum wage?
Mr. Gagliano: I believe that there is no specific case, but when the federal government moved and adopted the minimum wage legislation, there was a need. Since then, the provinces picked up from where we started. The provinces are the current leaders in minimum wage and the federal government has fallen behind.
This bill tries to correct this situation and catch up to the provinces, to harmonize and ensure that the minimum wage is high and reflects the regional, economic and social conditions. My officials, who have been in this job longer than I, may be able to give you a more appropriate answer.
Mr. David Head, Director General, Parts II and III Review Task Force, Department of Human Resources Development: I would agree with the minister's answer. In the past, the federal government led the provinces. However, since this bill represents the first change to the act since 1986, the provinces have leap-frogged past us. We never actually set the pace in law; we were more leaders by moral suasion.
Senator Bosa: It only affects 2 per cent of the labour force. Is that 2 per cent located in any particular region or province, or is it spread evenly throughout Canada?
Mr. Gagliano: It is spread throughout Canada, unless we have statistics to prove otherwise. It is mostly in one or two industries.
Mr. Head: That is correct. In most cases, those workers subject to the minimum wage in Canada on the federal jurisdiction are actually paid the provincial minimum wage simply because of market forces. There are very few who are only paid at what is now the federal minimum wage.
Senator Bosa: In future, even though the minimum wage is not parallel from coast to coast, if a province changes its minimum wage, this will change in accordance with the changes that take place in any given province?
Mr. Head: Yes.
Mr. Gagliano: Yes.
Senator Bosa: I am prepared to move that the bill be adopted without amendment.
The Chair: Some people may still wish to ask questions.
Senator Bosa: That is fine, but the motion is made. We do not have to put it to a vote right away.
[Translation]
Senator Maheu: Mr. Minister, I am not a regular member of this committee. I would, however, like to ask you a question. Regarding existing interprovincial barriers that we would like to lower, will the $2-dollar disparity in the various provincial minimum wage rates, that is $5 in some provinces and $7 in others, lead to problems if interprovincial free trade comes to pass? Do you anticipate a problem? At what point will you step in to address the problem of people earning $5 in one province, and $7 in another?
Mr. Gagliano: At present, I do not think that this issue has complicated the negotiations between the Industry minister and his provincial counterparts on interprovincial free trade. The problem is not this bill or the minimum wage legislation in general. Of course, if a problem does arises in the future, we can always review the legislation, if necessary.
As things now stand, harmonization with the provinces will be an improvement. It might even help the negotiations between the provinces and the Government of Canada if we could settle this matter.
[English]
Senator Bonnell: At the present time, is not the Government of Canada acting upon this legislation without having the legislation before it? In other words, the legislation did not pass yet, but is it not in effect as it is drafted today?
Mr. Gagliano: An order in council passed in June came into effect after 30 days. Since July 17, 1996, the federal minimum wage has been the provincial minimum wage.
Senator Bonnell: If I have a job with the Government of Canada which is controlled by the Labour Relations Board and I get minimum wage and I happen to work in British Columbia, will I get more money than if I had the same job in the province of Newfoundland?
Mr. Gagliano: Yes.
Senator Bonnell: The Government of Canada pays Canadians different fees for the same job in different provinces? I thought the federal government would have a set rate across the country.
Mr. Gagliano: It is not the federal government that pays.
Senator Bonnell: I am talking about where the federal government pays.
Mr. Gagliano: We do not have any employee in the federal government that makes minimum wages.
Senator Bonnell: They will if we keep cutting back.
Mr. Gagliano: The employees of the federal Government of Canada make more than the minimum wage. However, if Canadians are working in federal industries or businesses under federal jurisdiction where the Canada Labour Code has authority, minimum wages will be in effect. In other words, the federal minimum wage becomes the minimum wage of the provinces.
Let us not forget that the cost of living is different in different provinces. When the minimum wage is set in the provinces, the provinces take into account their regional and local situation.
Senator Bonnell: Do you think that under this legislation you will have the tail wagging the dog rather than the dog wagging the tail? If the provinces are to dictate to the federal government what the minimum wage will be -- that is, if the federal government takes leadership from the provinces -- is that not the tail wagging the dog?
Mr. Gagliano: It is a question of perspective and how we interpret it in our sittings. Before July 17, the federal minimum wage was $4 and the lowest minimum wage in the province was $5. We must admit that the provinces were doing much better than we were doing.
Instead of trying to have a federal minimum wage rate, we decided to harmonize with the provinces. We believe it is a better system. However, we do not know where the future will take us. As a result, we retained in the legislation the authority to intervene and reimpose a federal minimum wage if the system with the provinces does not work.
Senator Bonnell: Is there any real need to pass this legislation now? Are things not going along just fine the way they are under the regulations without passing this legislation or, by passing the legislation, are you just covering up what you have done by regulation?
Mr. Gagliano: Perhaps I can ask Ms Weinman to answer that question.
Ms Judith Weinman, Legislative Consultant, Part III Review, Department of Human Resources Development: I believe the minister referred to it in his speech. By regulation, we raised the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years to that of the provincial rate in effect.
Since that time, all of five provinces have increased their rates. Once again, we are out of sync with the provinces and lagging behind the provinces. To be in sync with the provinces, we would have to be making regulations constantly.
If this bill passes, the rates will automatically be aligned. There will be no lag, or gap, or delay. As civil servants, presumably we will be doing things that are more useful than constantly upgrading regulations.
Senator Phillips: Such as?
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I supported this bill at second reading. I am, however, concerned about one thing.
It is rather astonishing that the federal government has never deemed it advisable in the past ten years to increase the minimum wage. Perhaps it just did not have the opportunity to do so. Why should the federal government be following the provinces' lead when it comes to setting the minimum wage? Why are the provinces the ones that, to all intents and purposes, will be setting the minimum wage rate?
The discrepancy between the minimum wage in Prince Edward Island and the rate in British Columbia is too great. Should setting the rate not be the federal government's responsibility?
What is the minimum wage in Prince Edward Island? When we were first quoted figures, I understood that it was considerably lower than elsewhere.
Mr. Gagliano: I believe it was approximately $5 an hour. It has recently been increased.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: You are telling the provinces that you have no problem with the minimum wage being $5 in Prince Edward Island and $7 in British Columbia.
Mr. Gagliano: The minimum wage is indeed $7 an hour in British Columbia.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Should this not be the federal government's responsibility, given that it wants to ensure fair and equitable treatment for all workers? Must it follow the provinces' lead? Does it make any sense to have a $3 discrepancy from one province to the next?
We think these figures are arbitrary. We feel that the minimum wage should be $6.50 or $7.50, regardless of whether Prince Edward Island chooses to set it at $5 an hour.
[English]
The Chair: You will have a backlash from your provinces, senator.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: They do not have to raise it. The federal government does not have to be at the mercy of provinces who perhaps underpay. None of us work at $5 an hour, never mind $3 and $4 an hour.
Senator Maheu: In Newfoundland, yes.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: That is the only concern I have about this bill. Harmonizing the minimum wage with the provinces is not a bad idea. However, the federal government must not end up paying its employees a barely decent wage just because it is harmonizing its system with province A, B, C, D or F.
As an employer, the federal government has some responsibilities toward its employees and now it is abandoning them in some way by saying that it plans to harmonize the federal minimum wage with the provincial rate. I am not opposed to harmonization as such. However, I do see a risk and this brings me to the thrust of my question. On page 8 of your submission, you state the following and I quote:
... passage of this bill will complement the government's policy objective of fighting poverty ...
I fail to see how you will fight poverty when some workers in certain provinces will continue to earn very low wages. That is my concern, not the issue of parity.
Mr. Gagliano: I will endeavour to answer all of your questions. Firstly, we are not talking here about government employees, but about employees in federally regulated sectors such as banking, rail, maritime or interprovincial transportation and telecommunications and about all employees of Crown corporations.
Let me say right away that government employees are paid more than minimum wage. As for the minimum wage legislation in federally regulated sectors, barely 2 per cent of employees earn only minimum wage.
We are upholding the government's priorities and commitments to fighting poverty. Since July 17, by adopting regulations and enacting shortly this legislation, the federal government has provided for a one-dollar-an-hour increase in the minimum wage rate. Admittedly, this rate has not been increased since 1986. Why was no action taken until now? I cannot answer that question. I was not in charge of the department at the time. Our government did move immediately on this issue. We have in place a system whereby we consult with both management and unions. We felt that the quickest way to increase the federal minimum wage rate without waiting another 10 years before agreeing on a rate was to proceed as we have done. This also allows us to harmonize the rates and at the same time to reserve the right to step in.
If the government is of the opinion that a province is not increasing the minimum wage rate quickly enough, then it can always step in and set a minimum rate. Since taking office, we have increased the minimum hourly wage by over one dollar.
Changes have recently been introduced in Newfoundland. The province had not increased the minimum wage rate and the federal government stepped in to increase it by one dollar an hour, which nonetheless represents a substantial increase.
At the same time, the federal government reserves the right to set a rate if, for example, a province was to take drastic steps and cut the minimum wage rate by $2 an hour. We would be able to intervene.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Which provision in the bill gives you this authority? I am reassured to hear you say this.
Mr. Gagliano: It is clear in the bill that we maintain this authority. We are not ceding any power to the provinces. We are merely harmonizing the two rates. If things change overnight, we can step in at any time. As Minister of Labour, I want to assure you that if the situation does change, I will take action.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: You are leaving yourself room to manoeuvre in case the provinces drag their heels, be it for valid reasons or for political reasons. To which provision of this bill are you referring?
Mr. Gagliano: To clause 178.(3)a) and b).
Senator Lavoie-Roux: You state the following on page 8:
... and helping Canadians find and keep worthwhile employment.
This is a pious wish, because the legislation has nothing to do with this. What kind of impact can it have on this area?
Mr. Gagliano: I would like to refer you to Part III of the Canada Labour Code which concerns workplace standards. As you well know, at the end of August, I announced that a team of experts would be examining technological changes in the workplace, globalization, and traditional employment as we know it, that is a person working from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. or from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The number of home-based part-time workers is increasing. We are looking at all new types of employment as well as at jobs and job sharing. Consultations are taking place and we should be tabling a report and making recommendations to the government by the end of March regarding which policies and legislative measures should be adopted to assist the new economy which has created the need for jobs not necessarily viewed as traditional.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I feel confident that your intentions are good. However, the statistics are far from reassuring. Unemployment has risen, not fallen. My question to you is this, and you do not have to answer: Are you going to look at employment levels which are not increasing?
Mr. Gagliano: This government's priority is job creation, even if all economic indicators are positive. Even though we have created nearly 700,000 jobs, the unemployment rate remains high. We are well aware of this and that is why we are looking at new types of jobs.
Fewer and fewer so-called traditional jobs are being created. We must examine and develop other types of employment.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: We can debate that issue another day.
[English]
Senator Phillips: I was intrigued by Senator Bonnell's question. This regulation is already in effect by order in council. Which department prepared this regulation? Was it the Department of Human Resources Development?
Mr. Gagliano: Yes, sir. Labour has been part of Human Resources Development since 1993.
Senator Phillips: I was also intrigued by the fact that the witnesses are all from the Department of Human Resources Development. What sort of ministry of labour do we have? Is it a paper head or is it a department of labour?
Mr. Gagliano: We have a labour program with a Minister of Labour. It is part of the Department of Human Resources Development. It has an assistant deputy minister of labour and various divisions within it.
In terms of harmonization, all the Labour Canada offices in the regions have been integrated in the Canada Manpower Centre or with Human Resources Development. We are trying to have one-stop shopping, and that has been working.
We also kept intact one of the divisions, namely, the federal Mediation and Conciliation Services, which deals with industrial relations. This is one section of the labour program. In that division, we have experienced people from the old department of labour assisting with many difficult collective labour negotiations.
The legislation before you now is minor legislation. In the spring, you will be receiving a major piece of legislation dealing with Part I of the Canada Labour Code. It deals with industrial relations and will also reform the Canada Labour Board.
Even though labour is part of a larger department, labour issues are very much at the fore. We now have the "Collective Reflection" on Part III. In the spring, we may also bring forth a bill to deal with Part II of the Canada Labour Code which deals with health and security.
Senator Phillips: What is the budget of labour, separate from your ministerial budget?
Mr. Gagliano: I do not have the exact figure with me and I do not want to give you an incorrect figure. Since the Human Resources Development Department Act was adopted, the Minister of Labour has had the authority to go directly to Treasury Board for its own budget, even though it is part of the larger budget. Those portions are directly under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour, who has the authority to go directly to Treasury Board to defend the budget or ask for additional funding.
Senator Forest: My concern was with respect to what would happen in the event that any province fell behind in such a way that it would impinge upon the rights of people in the lower brackets. As long as they have that authority, I am in favour of the legislation.
Mr. Gagliano: Yes, we kept the authority to set any minimum wage intact.
Senator Cools: I have not so much a question as a comment.
The minister has told us, prompted by Senator Bonnell's question, that the substance of the legislation is already operative. We are being told that the government has governed by use of orders in council.
The issue of government doing as it chooses and then coming to Parliament ex post facto is a very serious matter. It seems to be increasing in frequency. It is something which senators should address.
I wish to urge the minister to use his good influence in cabinet to press cabinet not to do this quite so frequently and to be a little more considerate of the position of senators.
I am prepared to agree to report Mr. Gagliano's bill without amendment but, for the sake of principle and to make the point, when we do so, perhaps we could include a line or two urging caution regarding the phenomenon of the Senate being asked repeatedly to pass laws ex post facto. It is a very serious matter and we will come to serious blows about it at some time.
Senator Bosa: I move that we report the bill without amendment.
The Chair: There is a motion on the floor that Bill C-35 be accepted without amendment and reported back to the Senate.
Senator Cools: Yes, with that line contained in the report.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
I wish to thank the minister for appearing before the committee. As a former minister of labour, I can assure you that I understand the complications with raising the minimum wage in any province in the country. When you have 11 provinces doing it at different times, it is easy to understand the dilemma in which that the federal government finds itself in trying to keep up with that kind of activity. Therefore, I can see the reason behind this type of legislation.
Are senators agreed to attach the particular observation that Senator Cools brought up this morning to the report back to the Senate?
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I did not quite get your point.
The Chair: Will you explain it again, please?
Senator Cools: It was my impression that we just voted on it.
Basically, I was saying that there seems to be an enormous increase in requests for Parliament to pass legislation ex post facto, for example, Bill C-42, which we just passed. It contained an entire clause which basically rationalized and gave the effect of law to several payments that had already been made.
This practice is not a desirable one, but it seems to be increasing. We want the government to be able to do its business, but at some point we must start making notes somewhere and sending people the messages that we would prefer if government were not functioning that way.
I thought that we should add an articulate statement in the report basically expressing an exercise of caution when asking Parliament to pass legislation ex post facto.
Senator Losier-Cool: I agree with the idea, but I do not think that is the place to do it.
Senator Carstairs has a notice of motion which deals with that point completely. She wants to study that whole issue. If you put it in here, it will be lost somewhere.
Senator Cools: No. It does not get lost. As a matter of fact, it gets lost if you put it down as an inquiry.
I made the suggestion as part of the vote. I said that I was prepared to report the bill without amendment and include that observation in the report. That was my initial proviso.
In any event, the place to make these types of statements is in the report of the bill. That is what the report of the bill is. We have done this countless times to flag different concerns of the committee.
The Chair: The committee has sent a letter to the minister, asking him to take it into consideration rather than attaching our concerns to the bill. We have done that many times as well.
Senator Cools: We have done that in different circumstances. However, in this situation, I was proposing that this note be included in the report that goes to the Senate so that it forms part of the record. A letter to the minister will never form part of the record.
The Chair: We must have a decision on your proposal.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I agree.
Senator Cools: It is not in the motion.
The Chair: I am asking if you agree that Senator Cools' observation should be attached to the report. How many agree?
Senator Bonnell: I should like to see the report and what is attached.
The Chair: Reporting back means that we report the bill unamended. Senator Cools is suggesting that we also attach an observation about what the government seems to be continually doing, namely, passing legislation and having it come into effect before it comes to committees to be passed. That is being done more and more.
Senator Bosa: Is Senator Cools saying that, for instance, the Minister of Finance has no right to propose a budget and that, effective from the day in which he announces his budget, monetary policy, taxes or whatever, even though the legislation has not been presented to Parliament, we would have to oppose that kind of situation?
Senator Cools: No. We are running into an enormous procedural problem here because I made a proposal as part of the vote.
Conveniently, we have voted on the bill and now we are having the discussion concerning my proposal. In any event, I am not proposing anything to do with the Minister of Finance, or the execution of budgets, or anything.
A report on a bill from a committee is supposed to include the observations of the committee on the bill. I did not ask for an amendment or anything of that nature. It is an observation. We have moved dozens, even scores, of observations as part of the report of the bill.
I am not questioning anyone's ability to do anything other than the particular fact that we have observed this ex post facto phenomenon and it should be noted. That is all.
The Chair: I understand that. However, we must have an agreement from this committee that we do that.
Does the committee agree to attach the observation to the report?
Senator Forest: Before you put that question, I agree with the premise that Senator Cools is putting forward, but I am a rookie in the Senate and I am not sure how it can be done most effectively.
Senator Cools: It is done in the reports of bills.
Senator Forest: That is what I am concerned about. How can we register our concern most effectively?
Senator Lavoie-Roux: We do it all the time when committees report.
Senator Cools: Yes. We do it all the time. That is what the report is.
The Chair: Only two senators have agreed.
Senator Phillips: May I suggest that when Senator Cools makes her remarks, she can speak on the report and that she do that in the chamber?
Senator Cools: No, I moved it. My motion was to include it in the report.
The Chair: All those in favour of having the bill reported without amendment and with Senator Cools' observations, please raise your hands.
Senator Bosa: For the sake of keeping peace in the family, it would not do any harm to have the observation that was made by Senator Cools included in the report.
The Chair: Do you agree?
Senator Bosa: Yes.
Senator Bonnell: I do not agree with the last motion that you put forward. We already have a motion that the bill be reported without amendment.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Bonnell: You just said: How many agree that the bill be reported without amendment and with this observation attached to it?
The Chair: My clerk tells me that Senator Cools did make a motion.
Senator Cools: My motion was clearly put as an amendment to the main motion.
The Chair: I am sorry. I did not put it that way. It was my mistake, Senator Cools.
Senator Bosa: I have no objection if the rest of the committee should like to do that.
The Chair: All right. All those in favour? Senator Bonnell, you do not agree?
Senator Bonnell: I agree that the bill be reported without amendment. I do not disagree with Senator Cools' suggestion. However, I should like to see what it will look like in the report. I should like to have Senator Cools prepare the observation that she would like to add to our report and that it then go to the steering committee to be approved by them before it is included in the report. We may then see what it looks like.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Before us this morning, we have the budget for our Subcommittee on Post-Secondary Education, which was approved at the Subcommittee on Post-Secondary Education. They are asking us to approve it.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I looked at it this morning. I am concerned about travelling with respect to transportation and communication. It is very expensive. The committee wants to add $125,000 to the budget. What is expensive, apart from the travelling, is that we must also bring committee staff, researchers and interpreters. I do not know who the 14 participants are, but I suppose it is the total. I cannot agree with these expenses. Money is scarce. We could take this $125,000 and give it to 10 families. This is a large amount of money for travel. We could hear people in Ottawa, if they are motivated to do so.
Senator Bonnell: I agree with the budget. I move that the budget be accepted without amendment.
I should like to add that our good senator from Quebec is always correct, but she forgets that she is not chairman of Internal Economy anymore. It is up to the chairman of Internal Economy to decide how to save money.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I was on the budget committee for three years. Everyone knows that I monitored the spending of public money. Yes, I am now on this committee, but I still have the same preoccupation with taxpayers' money. I do not think it makes a difference. Of course, I am not giving the final approval, which was the case formerly, but every member of the Senate should have the same preoccupation so that every dollar we spend is well spent.
Senator Cools: I am not sure that I follow Senator Lavoie-Roux.
Are you saying that you are against the whole budget or that you are against parts of it?
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I saw in some paper last week that we will travel to Toronto and Montreal. Why must we travel to Montreal and Toronto? We should bring those people here. As we move out from Ottawa, we must travel with our support staff, which is very expensive. When we first talked about travelling, I thought -- and perhaps my memory is failing me -- that we were to go to Vancouver and Halifax. Those were the two places. All of a sudden, we are travelling to five cities.
The Chair: The original idea was to travel to five cities. The committee did discuss Montreal and Toronto. I think it was our intention to do so. If we went to Montreal, we were going by bus.
Senator Cools: Now I understand. I was attempting to understand Senator Lavoie-Roux's objection.
You are not objecting to the committee travelling, but you are objecting to the committee travelling to Montreal and Toronto.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I did not raise an objection when it was first raised approximately one week ago. However, we must be careful how many people travel and the cost of travelling with support staff. First, why do we need two researchers? One might be enough.
We must travel in a very economic way and go to the least number of places possible with the least people possible.
Senator Cools: Based on that, you are arbitrarily saying that we should omit Toronto and Montreal?
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Yes. They are so close to us, why should we move interpreters and the rest of our support staff to Toronto and Montreal? It takes only two hours to travel from Montreal to Ottawa by bus. It is longer for Toronto. I do not see why we must travel to Montreal and Toronto.
The Chair: A large number of students from Montreal have asked to appear before this committee. They cannot travel to Ottawa because there are too many of them. We would have two days with them.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: They should come here if they wish to appear before the committee.
The Chair: They said that they could not come here.
Senator Cools: As a senator from Toronto, I should like to hold up the flag for Toronto and for Ontario. We have not had a Senate committee travel to Toronto for quite some time.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: You answered part of my question when you said you had received requests from students to meet with them. A visit by a Senate committee to a university student on campus would certainly boost that student's morale.
During the committee hearings, we heard that students were worried about their debt load. I think we could ask them to set their studies aside and come meet with us. Since the start, I have deplored the fact that we have not heard from Francophone students outside Quebec. These are the students with the highest debt load in the nation. I am referring to Acadians. I would support the proposal if it would allow us to travel to Halifax to meet with students from the University of Moncton.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: If you want to hear from Francophone students, then go to Moncton instead of Halifax. There are not many Acadians in Nova Scotia, except for a handful in Chéticamp.
[English]
The Chair: Actually, Senator Lavoie-Roux, we had to pick certain destinations to be able to establish a budget. The committee may decide that Moncton would be more feasible because witnesses from P.E.I. would be closer, as would those from Halifax. It could be more central than Halifax. We will leave that for later discussion.
Senator Phillips: I noticed on your list of proposed travel that you will travel to the provincial capitals of Halifax, Toronto, Regina, Victoria, but not Quebec City. Why not?
The Chair: A number of requests have been received from the Montreal area.
Senator Phillips: You are saying, then, that you have not received anything from Quebec City.
The Chair: There is a proposed travel budget for the committee before you. We should like to have an agreement on this today, if possible.
Senator Bonnell moved that we adopt it as tabled.
Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Bosa: On division.
The Chair: That motion is agreed to, on division.
There is one other item on the agenda. Bill C-41 will be coming before the committee. There is a lot of pressure on us as a result of that bill. The phone calls are beginning. Many of you have probably been contacted. We will try to hear officials tomorrow afternoon during the sitting of the Senate, probably around three o'clock. We will ask for permission to sit.
We have no choice on this. Senator Graham has asked that we pull out all stops and hear witnesses in this committee in order to deal with this bill as soon as possible.
Also, we have a problem with the subcommittee on veterans affairs. That committee is not yet established. There are four members on it, which is enough to form a quorum. We need two more members. Senator Romkey agreed to sit on it, but he is no longer on this committee.
I believe that Senator Cohen would agree to serve on it. Is there anyone else who would agree to sit on that committee?
We will have the clerk call a meeting this week in order to have that committee commence its meetings. Be prepared for a meeting tomorrow afternoon.
The committee adjourned.