Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence, March 29, 2001
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 29, 2001 The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:00 a.m. Senator Richard H. Kroft (Chairman) in the Chair. [English] The Chairman: I call the meeting to order. Honourable senators, the minutes for the last meeting have been circulated. I would welcome a motion to approve those minutes. Senator Kenny: There are two sets, Mr. Chairman. I am only moving the first set, because I was not at the second meeting. Senator Maheu: I move the second. The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Chairman: Carried. Minutes approved. You will recall that at the previous meeting we created and nominated to the Subcommittee on Finance and Budgets. Two other subcommittees have to be created, honourable senators. I would welcome nominations for the Subcommittee on Senator Services and Facilities. [Translation] Senator Poulin: I would like to nominate Senator Kenny as chairman of the Subcommittee on Senator Services and Facilities and Senator Austin as member of the same subcommittee. [English] Senator Doody: For Senator Services and Facilities, I would like to nominate Senator Murray. The Chairman: We have a nomination for Senator Kenny as chair and for Senators Austin and Murray as members. Are there any further nominations? Carried. I would ask for nominations for the Subcommittee on Human Resources. Senator Austin: I move that Senator Milne be the chair and that Senator Gauthier be a member of that subcommittee. Senator Doody: I would like to nominate Senator Comeau to the subcommittee. The Chairman: Any further nominations? Senator Kenny: I move the close of nominations. The Chairman: Carried. The next item is the Joint Interparliamentary Council. Mr. Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Committee: There is no document for this item. It regards membership. The Chairman: The membership on our side of that committee consists of Senator DeWare, Senator Milne and me. Item four: "Adoption of the Third Report." This item was discussed at the last meeting. It was to make reporting of travel points consistent with other budget items on the budgetary calendar. The proposal was to grant 64 new points effective April 1 and not have undue regard for where people were in the intervening period. Senator Kenny: I move adoption. The Chairman: Any questions? Senator Doody: Did we do that last time? Mr. Bélisle: We did senator, but I prefer you to adopt the report that will be presented to the Senate, rather than it being presented without you having seen it. Senator Doody: Very commendable and conservative. Mr. Bélisle: Thank you, senator. The Chairman: You might note a bit of that. The next item is 2001-2002 committee budgets. Senator Furey, would you like to report, please? Senator Furey: Mr. Chairman, to date, we have had our first meeting of the subcommittee. A letter has been sent to all committee chairs, asking them to submit their budgets as approved by their respective committees. Our letter indicates that we would like to get those as soon as possible. We have received a few budgets to date. It is hoped that, in order to facilitate the work of the subcommittee, the remaining budgets will be in relatively soon. An informal review of anticipated committee budgets suggests that committees may submit budget requests totalling more than $2.5 million. This figure does not include any funding for the two new committees, Human Rights and Defence and Security. The number for budget requests, therefore, will in all likelihood grow. In addition, it is likely that at least some committees will have further budgetary demands later in the year. Given that there is $1.7 million available for committees, not including $300,000 for witness expense, there is clearly a significant gap between the demand of committees and the actual funds available. Chairs can expect, at subcommittee hearings, to have to defend their budgetary requests and to be challenged by members of the subcommittee to explain the various elements of their budgets. That is Senator Doody's line. Some committees are anxious to begin their work. In fact, the subcommittee met yesterday to review one budget, that being from the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources. Given the short time frame, the subcommittee decided to include in its report today only its decision with respect to that particular budget request. Other matters, including a number of recommendations pertaining to committee budgets in general, will be reported next week. With respect to the submission by the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources, it should be noted that the request was for $425,290, which amounts to more than one third of funds available for special studies. The budget submission was unusual, in that some of the public hearings will be for a special study on nuclear reactor safety. However, the committee also expects to hold hearings on Bill S-15, the proposed Tobacco Youth Protection Act, during its travels. Given that the subcommittee has not had the opportunity to review any other budgets, members were not prepared to recommend the full budget for approval. Rather, we looked closely at the budget and decided to recommend the release of sufficient funds to cover the western portion of the committee's travel. The subcommittee is therefore recommending the adoption of its first report, which recommends the release of the following budget: professional and other services, $27,150; transportation and communications, $130,670; other expenditures, $5,000. The total comes to $162,820. Senator Kenny has brought to my attention a small wrinkle in this particular proposal. There are two legs to this particular trip, a western and an eastern. Senator Kenny has submitted to me this morning a revised budget, which is significantly less than the original anticipated budget. He has told me that there will be a relatively fast turnaround when the committee returns from out West. The committee will be returning on a Friday and intend to start travelling east on Monday. We do know that there will be funds left over from western portion of the trip. Whether those funds are sufficient to ensure that the work of the committee continues with their trip to the east, I am not certain. I would recommend that even while the committee is travelling we review the revised budget that has been submitted and take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that the committee's work is not hindered in any way when they return from their western tour. Senator Kenny: We understand the position of the budget subcommittee well, and we think they are going about things in a reasonable fashion. They proposed to Senators Taylor and Spivak that the committee find ways to economize, with the assurance from the budget subcommittee that it would fund the first half of the trip, which is in the last week of April and includes Western Canada and Toronto. Between now and then, there will be a two-week break, when we rise for Easter. The western part of the trip will take place during the last week of April. The committee will return to Ottawa on Friday evening. The eastern leg of the trip, which includes Halifax, St. John's and Montreal, starts on Monday night. There really is not enough time, between the end of the western leg and the beginning of the eastern leg of the trip, to go through the committee process for approval. We have witnesses tentatively booked, on the following basis: "If the budgets are approved and if the trip goes ahead, are you free on such and such a day?" We have confirmation from witnesses that they are available, but at some point we have know that the trip is on and the money is there. To address the concerns of the budget subcommittee, we have reduced the number of senators that will be travelling from twelve to seven - and that is the case throughout the entire trip. By making that reduction, we were not able to achieve enough economies to finance the eastern part of the trip. There is a shortfall of $70,000. The documentation is prepared and available, if Senator Furey wishes to circulate it. The documentation does not have anything in it that does not relate to the trip, with the exception of an amount of $2,000 for working lunches and dinners. There is nothing else in this budget other than what directly relates to the visits to Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Halifax, St. John's and Montreal. That is all that is in the budget for this downsized committee. Senator Forrestall: Could I ask Senator Kenny whether this committee will be bilingual? Will you take interpreters with you? Senator Kenny: Yes, unfortunately, which is why it makes it so expensive to travel. We need reporters, translation in each city, and public relations assistants in each city. Incidentally, I did not mention what the committee is studying. In Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton, the committee will be studying problems in relation to gas exports to California, how they are adjusting to deal with both gas and hydro exports, in light of the problems that California is experiencing with blackouts. Canada supplies 15 per cent of California's natural gas, which is why it is a significant issue to Calgarians and to people in Vancouver. The committee will also be looking at Bill S-15, the tobacco bill, in all three of those cities. In Toronto, the committee will be dealing with Ontario Hydro and the nuclear power study; in Montreal, with Hydro Quebec and hydro exports; in Halifax, with Sable Island gas, and tobacco; and in St. John's, with offshore oil and tobacco. Yes, we do have bilingual capacities. There is also an intention to also invite local senators, who reside in those cities we will visit, to come to the committee meeting to participate if they choose, and also to give the committee the appearance of a fuller committee, frankly. The Chairman: Are there any other comments or questions on this matter? Senator Comeau: Just a brief question. Senator Kenny, I know I probably should not be getting into the subject matter of the committee hearings, but will the committee be looking at the controversy that has arisen between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, or will you try to avoid this? Senator Kenny: We were not planning to get into the middle of that. Senator Comeau: Your committee is arriving right in the middle of it. If you are looking at offshore Newfoundland, you may be pulled into it. Senator Kenny: I appreciate the heads up; I will pass it on to the chair of the committee. Senator Milne: I do not want to get into the details of another committee's budget, but on page 2, under "Air Transportation, Eastern Portion, 2 reporters from Toronto, $2,900," I assume that refers to court reporters and not newspaper reporters. Senator Kenny: Absolutely. If they were newspaper reporters, we would be collecting from them. Senator Milne: It would be illegal for them to accept. The Chairman: Is there anything else? Senator Furey: I have only one question for Senator Kenny - and I do not wish to see the work of his committee slowed down or interfered with in any way. In fact, there is an aspect of the work - the tobacco study - that I feel very strongly about, as Senator Kenny knows, and I would like to see it get done as quickly as possible. Senator Kenny, would it be possible for the committee to postpone the eastern leg of the trip, to give us some time to analyze the actual costs of the western trip, or does it have to be done on the heels of the western trip? Senator Kenny: There are two problems that arise. One is that we have booked some witnesses, who have indicated that that is their free time. One witness is the Director of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program, and we had a very difficult time getting him to agree to come. The second is that we are trying very hard to get the bill out of the Senate and into the House of Commons, because we are afraid that the Commons will rise in June - and the rumours indicate earlier than later. Right now, we are aiming to get the bill to the Commons by the third week in May. However, because we do not know who will speak to it in the Senate or how long it will take, it becomes dicey. To lose the momentum of this tour and have it not get to the Commons until the fall would be a huge disappointment. Senator Furey: Am I to understand as well, because I have not had a chance to look at this in detail, that this is the revised final budget for the whole committee? Senator Kenny: This is the revised final budget based on the instructions that the committee received from you that you were prepared to fund the western part and to see if we could find enough savings out of the western part to fund the eastern part. We have not been able to accomplish that. Senator Furey: I notice that foreign travel has been dropped; is that correct? Senator Kenny: That part has not been addressed by the committee at all. We were only trying to answer your question about whether we can get savings out of the West to fund the east. We have tried, and this is what we have done. If I could address the foreign travel question, perhaps the chair can make his arguments to you separately and subsequently, if he is still pursuing that. Senator Furey: So this is not the final budget; it is just the final budget as it pertains to east and West travel. Senator Kenny: Yes. Senator Murray: For the record, Senator Kenny, would you tell us why it is necessary to travel, why this could not be done in Ottawa at much less expense by flying the witnesses here? Senator Kenny: I would be happy to. The value to the Senate of having senators go out and listen to Canadians in their own communities has a vastly greater impact and benefit to the Senate than holding hearings here. In conjunction with each stop in each city, we have contacted the editorial boards of all of the papers, and they have expressed an interest in meeting with members of the committee. With respect to the tobacco side of things, we have, for example, made arrangements for youth to appear and to demonstrate the projects they are putting on in relation to tobacco control in conjunction with the hearings. They have rooms booked adjacent to where the committee will be meeting. With respect to the energy side, we think it makes sense to hear them in their communities. If you are going to be talking energy, it is better to talk about it in Calgary and Edmonton than in Ottawa. The folks in Calgary and Edmonton have a real interest in the subject, as does the media. In a nutshell, that is the logic of it. Senator Murray: I appreciate your putting that on the record. I guess I am almost the odd man out on this issue - and it is no reflection on this particular committee; it is a statement that I make about the generality of the issue. It is not apparent to me that the improvement in the Senate's image that is claimed will be a result of all this travel is a reality or, indeed, in fact, that it is anywhere in proportion to the amount of money we spend on all this travel. Second, the fact of the matter is that we do have authority to pay the travel and reasonable living expenses of witnesses who come here. It is the case, believe it or not, that many people, especially those who do not come to Ottawa very often, appreciate the opportunity to come here, and not just to appear before a committee but to look around, visit the Senate and House of Commons, and all the rest of it. As I say, it is no reflection on this particular committee or the particular issues that you are bringing to the West and the East. It is just a general comment on the general proposition. My bias would be to do our business here in the Nation's Capital, where we are supposed to do it, and to bring citizens to us when it is appropriate. Senator DeWare: Senator Kenny, before you respond to Senator Murray, I wish to say that I am a little surprised at 10 staff people. I have travelled on several committees, and we have never had that many staff with us. Does the fact that Bill S-13 is being looked at the same time increase the staff required for this particular trip? Senator Kenny: It is a complex trip with two different issues being studied at once, no question about that. The Banking Committee travelled with the same number of staff when it held hearings out West. Senator DeWare: The same number of staff. Senator Kenny: You need a certain number of reporters and translators, and that is fairly constant, plus one PR person and one assistant to organize things. If I may, I would like to respond to Senator Murray, just briefly, if I have your approval, chair. The Chairman: Go ahead. Senator Kenny: I respect your right to disagree, Senator Murray. I take offence at your comment that this is where we are supposed to hear Canadians. I think that we are supposed to hear Canadians wherever it is best suited. I would be happy to make this a test case in terms of coverage and the reaction of the public to the Senate travelling, vis-à-vis any other comparable hearing that you care to have in Ottawa. Then we could see what the public reaction is. If you would like to do that, that is, have the committee examine the results of this particular trip vis-à-vis a comparable hearing on the subject of your choice here in Ottawa and then have the committee compare the results, I would be up to the challenge. The Chairman: The chair will take you up on that challenge and invite the committee to make a report giving us an evaluation of public reaction. I think it would be useful to have. Senator Austin: I want to intervene on the points that Senator Murray has made. Essentially, there is a conceptual issue here, and it is one that has not gone away in all of the years that I have been here. The conceptual issue is the trade-off between the efficiency to the Senate, both in terms of cost and time, of conducting its business in Ottawa by bringing in interested people from the regions and the public relations image that the Senate has in various parts of the country. It may have been noticed by colleagues that the Senate has a very special standing in Western Canada, where the sense of the Senate existing to represent regional interests in Western Canada, and being deficient therein, is very large. It manifests itself in various political representations, some of which are highly irrational but nonetheless are part of the perception game. I am particularly interested in the Senate appearing in Western Canada and in British Columbia and being seen on the ground for the quality of the work that we do. It cannot be seen by the public at large here in Ottawa. Senator Kenny has mentioned the reason for that: it is subsumed in its performance by all sorts of other issues and entities. When a committee gets out into the regions, the profile of the Senate grows immensely. Senator Kenny has mentioned the availability of the reach into editorial boards, TV stations, radio stations, interviews, schools, and other public bodies. Part of our job is not only to perform our work, but to ensure that the performance of it is seen by Canadians. We may not be elected, but the opinion of Canadians about this chamber is absolutely essential to our ability to be effective. My complaint for years has been that our budget is not nearly high enough for what we must do to be seen by Canadians as doing our work, particularly away from Ottawa. It may surprise colleagues who do not come from the periphery of this country, as I do, that I am talking about this geographical periphery, and not the intellectual one. That the Senate has almost no identity is the source of humour and criticism. The Senate's positive qualities are not known. I have suggested that the entire Senate move its hearings for one week to my province and to the other western provinces. Senator Murray: We could move that permanently. Senator Austin: I like that idea, but somehow I think it is not saleable. Also, if Atlantic senators are interested in this measure, we could move to the Atlantic provinces for one week. My province is prepared to assist in funding the sitting of the Senate - and I do not mean the provincial government. A university in British Columbia has offered us financial support if the Senate will come out and hold its ordinary hearings there, and if the Senate will allow its committees to sit on presentations from British Columbia interests to those committees when it is out in British Columbia. I put this on the record as something to be considered at a future time. I insist that one of our most important functions is to be seen by the people of Canada. We are not seen when we are active in Ottawa. Senator Murray: This could make for a better attitude from all these editorial boards toward the Senate. Senator DeWare: The best kept secret! Senator Austin: They react to the people who appear before us. If the Business Council of British Columbia, say, were before a committee that was sitting in B.C. and came away praising the hearing, et cetera, the editorial people and the reporters who hear that praise change their tone. Senator Doody: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to get into the philosophical discussion. I want to point out that I have earned a very undeserved reputation in this place as a penny-pinching person, and I do not see any reason to change that over the next few years. I would like to point out to senators that your budget committee has a pretty high obstacle to climb before it starts working on these budgets. It is a fact that the chairman of a committee goes to the Senate with a reference, which includes most often, the right to call witnesses and to travel, et cetera. Once that right has been given to the committee from the Senate, all the budget committee can do is nibble at the edges - it really cannot do anything, unless we get the chicken and egg sorted out. Does this committee control the budgets, or is the committee given a blank cheque by the Senate before they come to this committee? Senator Robichaud: No. The Chairman: The motion is, travel from place to place. That is in the motion. Senator Doody: To begin with, if you travel from place to place in Canada you are looking at big bucks. If the Senate approves the right to travel from place to place before the standing committee even comes to the Internal Economy Committee for budget approval, then we are pretty well committed before we start. Senator Austin: We should introduce, then, into our rules, I say as chair of the Rules Committee, a proviso that whatever approval is given by the Senate has to be subject to a budget approval by this committee, which is appealing. Senator Doody: With respect, that solution was offered at this table years and years ago, and again and again. The problem with that scenario is that it causes the Senate to wonder if it is subservient to a committee. Are we the creatures of the committee or is it the other way around? Can you pass a resolution in the Senate that makes the Senate's decision subject to the decision of a committee? Senator Austin: To the advice of a committee, yes, of course. Senator Doody: I defer to you, sir, as the chair of the Rules Committee, and you can look for a much more interesting route of recommendation. Senator Austin: You send the motion to this committee for consideration of financial aspects and a report to the Senate. Senator Doody: That has not happened yet. Senator Austin: We can change the rules to do that. Senator Furey: My understanding is that rarely would an order of reference include any allowance for travel. That comes after the fact - after it has been looked at by the budget subcommittee, referred to the Internal Economy Committee and then reported back to the house. That is my understanding of how things work. Senator Murray: It should not be a reference that includes the words "permission to travel." The Chairman: Senators, this is a very useful discussion. I want to assure you that I became engaged in this subject - actually Senator DeWare and I did when we were in our previous incarnation on the budget subcommittee - and it is indeed a dilemma. It was debated in the house late last year with Senators Kenny, Lynch-Staunton and others, expressing this dilemma. It is the intention of Senator DeWare and me to look at this process. We have already raised the issue with the Clerk of the Senate, and we intend to take it to the Rules Committee, and wherever else it has to be, to try to find a rational way of dealing with the subject so that neither the rights of the Senate chamber nor the budget subcommittee are pre-empted or this committee rendered less effective by a predetermined authority. You can be assured that this matter is in process and will be brought back to the committee. Senator Furey: I want to go back to the question at hand with respect to the budget that we have been discussing. Let me begin by saying that I agree with Senator Austin as opposed to Senator Murray with respect to travel. I think it is a good thing. Our problem in the budget committee now is more of a fiscal one than a philosophical one. If we proceed to give large sums to the first committee that comes along, are we putting ourselves in a position where we may not be able to treat all committees, when they come, equally? That is the concern I have. The Chairman: I would certainly share that concern. I am on record here as having a concern about entrepreneurial chairs who are first off the mark and, knowing the system, effective in laying early claim to funds. They also do some of the best work. That is the dilemma we have, and I include it in my earlier statement. [Translation] Senator Gauthier: I have two comments to make. First, I note that the document is not available in French. I would ask Senator Kenny to please bring copies in both official languages. It would be useful. We only received these documents today and I find it difficult to work without all the necessary information. My second comment concerns the Senate's visibility. As many others, I am still very frustrated by the present system at the Senate, a system which is no longer adequate for communications, work and media relations. It will be necessary to give particular attention to the issue if we want an improvement. We have to improve media relations and the message that the Senate wishes to pass so that the public can at least have access to the available information. My other point concerns the use of travel points. Do we use points allocated for travel? Why not use senators' travel points? [English] Senator Kenny: The question is directed to me. That is because travel points are for senators to get to and from Ottawa. You and I live in Ottawa, but there are some senators who use all of their travel points, or close to it, to travel back and forth. That is the purpose of it; it has been a long-standing rule of this committee not to poach on travel points but to fund committee travel on a stand-alone basis. Senator Gauthier: I understand that. I was in the other place previously, and when the House of Commons travel on a joint committee basis the travel points are usually used. Senator Kenny: That is not correct. The last joint committee that travelled was in 1994, the Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence Policy, and travel points were not used, sir. Senator DeWare: Senator Furey, I suggest that you ask - Senator Furey: I will just be one second, please. The Chairman: We will come back to Senator Furey. Senator Milne: I am not sure what we are being asked to do. We have the first report of the subcommittee in front of us. Are we being asked to increase the amount of this budget? I am not sure. Who is the chair of the energy committee? The Chairman: Perhaps I can let Senator DeWare speak, because she is coming at this same question from another point, and then return to you. Senator Milne: I have great reservations about overturning the very first report of one of the subcommittees that we have appointed to do the job for us. I think we should let the subcommittee do its job. I am prepared to agree with its first report. I do not think we should start the year by overturning the report of the subcommittee. If the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee needs more money, the chair should go back to the budget subcommittee with a revised budget. Senator DeWare: Senator Furey, my point was that you asked if you could postpone a portion of the eastern trip. You asked if the eastern part of the trip could be postponed. I think that is a question that you should put to the chairman. Senator Furey: I believe Senator Kenny's response - Senator DeWare: - is speaking on their behalf. Senator Kenny: Yes, I have consulted both the chair and the deputy chair. Senator Furey: Might I address the issue of the use of travel points as well, for Senator Gauthier? My understanding is that senators' travel points are a statutory allocation, whereas the travel for committee is an annual appropriation. Finance is telling us that if you were to mix the two, you would not pass the "smell test" of an audit. We really cannot do it. Senator Milne: Really, if the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources needs to redo their budget, and has actually redone their budget, they should go back to the subcommittee with it. I am in favour of this first report, but I am not in favour of us sitting around this table and increasing it. Senator Kenny: We are happy to be in the hands of the budget subcommittee. We are simply drawing to the full committee's attention that through no one's fault we have a tight schedule and we have been slow getting going - just by the nature of Parliament. We will sit this week, but then we rise for two weeks during Easter, and then the committee will be on the road. The subcommittee's proposal to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources was perfectly reasonable. They approved the first half of this trip and suggested that we should try to find enough savings in it to do the second half. If we cannot find enough savings, we should go back to them and they will take another look at it to see what they can do to finance the second half. After looking at the schedule, we were unable to see how there was time between the first half and the second half to have a meeting of the subcommittee, to report to this committee, and then to report to the full Senate - that whole process is roughly a two-week process, normally. We could not see how that was going to work, which is why we went back to Senator Furey last night. He only met with the Energy Committee yesterday, and so we went back to Senator Furey late last night. I caught him in Toronto, actually, and that is why this seems a little bit unusual. However, we are content to live with whatever Senator Furey's subcommittee concludes. He just flew back this morning and that is why this seems to be so disjointed, Senator Milne. As we look ahead, we do not see any gaps in the schedule, given the sitting plans of the Senate. The Chairman: If I could, there are other speakers that I will recognize immediately, but I would like some clarification first. We have before us the first report of the budget subcommittee, which proposes a budget expenditure of $162,820. It is my understanding that, because of the $70,000 shortfall that could not be found in the West to apply to the East, if we pass this, then the committee would delay until your subcommittee, Senator Furey, can give the additional budget. Are you still putting forward this original first report to us? Senator Furey: Yes. The Chairman: Are you looking for more time? Senator Furey: My understanding is that if Internal Economy wants to overrule that, and grant Senator Kenny's wishes, that is fine. The choice that I have is to simply put it forward and if it stands to go back to the committee and ask them to come back to the subcommittee again and look for the extra money. We cannot convene a meeting of the subcommittee now and change this, but Internal Economy, if it wishes to change it, certainly can. Senator Kenny: May I ask what the recommendation of the chair is? The Chairman: I think the chair has made it clear that it is not a recommendation, that he is putting forward this report and that unless this committee wishes to take it out of his hands that is his report. Senator Kenny: Could I simply point out that if the subcommittee meets next Tuesday and reports back to the full committee next Thursday, then the full committee can report to the Senate, but the Senate cannot deal with it because the following week the Senate is not here. The Chairman: I think that is well understood. I am looking for a view from this committee as to how it wishes to proceed. Senator Austin: Senator Kroft, I would like to express the view that the report be adopted. It is just under 10 per cent of the $1.7 million, which is authorized for committees. That is proportional to the 10 committees that spend money usually in doing their work. It allows the subcommittee to consider, when it has received other submissions, what the totality is and what can be shaved and where. I would suggest that we put the question, which has been submitted to us, in the first report. Senator Forrestall: I agree with Senator Austin, to get an idea that seems to be in gestation now, but perhaps in full time it is something we might do that is useful. I want to draw to your attention a very startling series of events that have happened in the last few weeks. I will be the very first to ask next year for - The Chairman: Can I ask you if it is on this subject? Senator Forrestall: Yes, it is on the general subject. The Chairman: I would like to bring this report of the subcommittee to a conclusion. Senator Forrestall: This is a relatively long sentence or very short paragraph. Two ministers' staffs, within the last three weeks, have indicated that they were somewhat embarrassed that they had no knowledge of the fact that the Senate of Canada had an Order Paper, which contained provision for senators' statements, oral questions, and so on, the usual, normal government business. These are staffs of ministers of the Government of Canada; so I wonder how it is we have to do some work. That is all. Senator Stollery: Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the subcommittee and I support Senator Furey. It certainly has got us into a bit of a conundrum, because we thought they would be able to do the first and second parts of the trip. I must say that it is rather difficult, and I endorse what Senator Austin had to say. The problem is that we have not faced up to the fact that airfares have been going through the roof. My own return airfare from Toronto is now $750. Not so long ago it used to be a quarter of that. We are not reflecting that increase. We are getting into this every year about the cost of committees, even though the committees actually are not doing much more than they have always done. The cost of airfare is becoming so high. Of our $57 million budget, nearly all of it goes for salaries of senators and staff; only $1.7 million goes to committees. However, the main cost to the committees, which is travel, has, as we all know, been going through the roof. Until we deal with that in a realistic way, we will continue to have these interminable conversations. I feel that I am having a "fourth life" because I have heard this conversation so many times. I do think it is important that the Senate has agreed, not only in this Parliament, but in the last Parliament, that this subject is very important. We have endorsed it. We have sent it to the House of Commons. We have something that we have all agreed on. I am not aware of any senators who do not agree - there may be one that I don't know about - but we have to get this committee going. I don't know whether it is possible for the subcommittee to meet and deal with this between trips - Senator Kenny says that that is difficult to. However, I do know that we would look like a bunch of idiots if we did not allow this committee to do what at least two Parliaments have said that it should do. Senator Robichaud: I do not feel that I will look like an idiot if I say no to what is before us now. [Translation] When committee chairs wish to have motions adopted to be able to do their work, you will remember that the leadership wants to know if these are for new travels and if a request has already been submitted on the subject. In the affirmative, we simply ask the committee to make a submission to the subcommittee of the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee that studies committee budgets. We have tried to follow that decision in the last few years in order to avoid the need for a supplementary budget. In this way, we also give all committees the opportunity to make a submission to the subcommittee so that this committee can allocate budgets commensurate with the work of the committees. That is the reason we ask committees to make their submission to the subcommittee as soon as possible, to avoid giving most of the budget to the first committee asking for funds, after making a good presentation, which leaves very little for other committees. We should follow the established procedure and give committees the time to prepare and make their presentation. We could then examine all requests. If a committee submits a request at the last minute and asks for a quick decision, this puts pressure on the subcommittee members who must act without the benefit of consultation. I do not think it is fair to members of the subcommittee and to this committee. [English] Senator Maheu: I was just wondering, Mr. Chairman, is there a commitment from this committee at large - all of us, through you and the deputy chair - that this budget be increased from $1.7 to $2.5 million? If so, it becomes easier to look at one committee taking 10 per cent. That seems logical. If not, that committee will be taking 15 per cent. Is that fair to nine other committees? If there is a commitment to go to the $2.5 million, that is another story. I agree that we should not take the power out of a subcommittee's hands. If we do, then we don't need a subcommittee. The Chairman: If that question is directed to Senator DeWare and to me, we have taken it, in our term of dealing with the budget, from, I believe, from $700,000 to $1.7 million. To say that we have been talking about this and not doing anything about it is not accurate. That is not even counting the $300,000 set aside for witnesses. There has been a substantial increase. There remains, by, I think, everyone involved in the process, a commitment that this should indeed be an expanding area of our budget in both absolute and relative terms. That commitment is long term. We are dealing with a budget now for the budget year beginning this weekend. In the light of the new committees and other emerging matters, unquestionably later in the year this committee will want to address the question of Supplementary Estimates. Now, however, a commitment to increasing that budget has to be put in those general terms. For now, the budget is what it is. We have worked hard to try to create fairness across the committees. Much of that has to do with getting everybody off the mark at an equal time, because as many have observed, the early out has an advantage. Senator Maheu: Everyone should hear this. The Chairman: This is important because it is the subcommittee. We are trying to equalize everybody's opportunity, and that is largely a matter of timing. On the subject of percentages that you raise, while it is a useful guideline, in one way it has limitations. There are some subcommittees that involve the heaviest work. There are big spenders, like Senator Milne, that we must cut down from 10 trips to five trips in an average year. There are other committees that by their nature do not travel. There are fundamental principles here. One part of the case is reaching out to Canadians. There are also large budget expenditures that involve overseas travel of a fact-finding nature. That does not have the same relationship to reaching out to Canadians, and it raises a totally different set of questions. All of these must be considered fairly in the proper role of the Senate. We cannot do all that here now, and I would only observe that pre-emptive strikes on the pool of funds without the broadest possible consideration does limit options for other committees as they come. Are there others? I know, Senator Gauthier, that you are on my list, and I have lost track of whether that was on this same subject. Senator Gauthier: I am in your hands actually. I feel uncomfortable with this issue, because I am in favour of what Senator Kenny is doing but I do not think that the process is the proper one. As I said before, the document we have this morning is not even dated. This is new to us. I do not think we should operate that way. The Chairman: Senators, judging from those who have spoken, I would interpret the sense of this meeting to be that the first report of the committee as presented in its formal form is the one that this committee is ready to approve. If I am incorrect in drawing that conclusion, I would like to hear. I have certainly understood Senator Kenny's arguments. Implicit in what we have heard is that there is an enormous amount of support and sympathy for both the principle and the specifics of what they are doing, but there is an overriding concern for proper process on the committee and fairness to all committee budgets. Therefore, in the absence of any contrary statement, I would - are we doing votes on this stuff? Mr. Bélisle: No. The Chairman: Do we have a consensus on the first report as presented. Hon. Senators: Agreed. Senator Kenny: Mr. Chairman, I accept the consensus you have described. I am content to live with whatever the subcommittee has decided. I would like to observe, however, that the process you are describing is going to result in about a three-month gap in the Senate's activities in the future in each fiscal year where nothing happens and where committees do not get out and do not function. It means that you must wait for the last committee in before the first committee out gets it. I have been through this process, and many people in the room have been through the process before. If we have to wait for every one to come forward with it, you will find that there will be an extraordinarily long delay, because to get through budget subcommittee and then through this committee and then through the chamber takes a long period of time, particularly when we have periods as long as two weeks when we are away. Our schedule has gaps coming up in every month between now and June. My second observation would be, as most members of this committee know, that requests for funding by committees have historically exceeded spending by committees. If you take a 10-year retrospective, you will find that that was the case in most years. This committee has had a practice in past years of approving more funds than it actually had available to it, confident in the fact that it was not going to have all of those funds spent, but they did not want to delay those committees that did this active programs and were going to work. I do not quibble with the consensus at all. However, I do want to observe that if you follow this process you will have constipation in this institution for about a quarter of the year, each year. The Chairman: That is a challenge for us all. The next item on our agenda is the budget for the 47th annual meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I would ask the clerk to give us a brief comment. Mr. Bélisle: Senators may wish to defer this item because Senator Rompkey, who is the deputy of this association, is absent today. He is the one who would have been in a position to defend it. This is for the 47th annual meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, to be held in Ottawa, October 5-9, 2001, for 800 participants. The budget for this is marked for $997,440, to be shared 30-70 per cent between the Senate and the House of Commons. The amount was included in the Main Estimates for the next fiscal year, but you may have questions to the deputy chair. You may wish to defer this item. The Chairman: I understand that in making this suggestion you are making it clear that the organization of the conference will not suffer. Mr. Bélisle: No. It is for October. The Chairman: Then let's take that as information, and we will look to Senator Rompkey for a report when next we meet. We will move to Item No. 8 on our agenda, the adoption of the fourth report of the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. Senator Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the curtailment of time for the organizing group to put this together. There are an awful lot of questions. I am sorry Senator Rompkey is not here. Mr. Bélisle: We will put it on the agenda for next week, senator. Senator Forrestall: Has work started? Are we already into the stuff, blocking of hotels? Mr. Bélisle: Absolutely. The Chairman: We are dealing with Item No. 8, the committee budget for the Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. Senator Hervieux-Payette is here as joint chairman of that committee to speak to that budget. [Translation] Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am here to submit to you a budget request for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001. The Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations is comprised of 24 members. The Senate pays 30 per cent of the committee's expenses and the House, 70 per cent. Moreover, this committee, which reviews all government regulations, works continuously, whether there are elections or not. The budget in question expires at the end of the month. I am therefore asking authorization to pay bills totalling, for both Houses, $111,150, of which $33,345 are the Senate's responsibility. The committee is supported by four legal counsels who review some 800 pieces of legislation each year. Our budget, which is identical to the one that was submitted last year and which covers a full year, also includes the salaries of two administrative assistants. Those are all routine operating expenses for the Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. [English] The Chairman: Having been properly preoccupied with process a moment ago, I do not want to immediately move to avoid it. This is the only committee that has an emergent situation that has to be dealt with for a budget item for the fiscal year about to end. I think that this was signalled at the last meeting. It was necessary to come directly to this committee rather than through the subcommittee process in order to meet that deadline. [Translation] Senator Gauthier: I do not wish to quibble but the money you are asking for has already been spent. Therefore, this is not a budget request, but a request to cover expenses already made. Senator Hervieux-Payette: This budget was submitted and adopted last year for the coming year. Since elections took place and we start a whole new process, this is to cover the period between the moment when elections were called and the moment when we resumed our work in March. This working group is active between election campaigns. Our regulations committee sits 12 months a year. I wish to underline that the amount of $33,000 covers the bill for two employees working for the Senate. Their salaries are already paid by the Senate and we are responsible for only 30 per cent of it. Therefore, we will be reimbursed. This is a good deal. Senator Gauthier: What was your total budget for the year? Senator Hervieux-Payette: Our total budget is $235,100. Of this total budget, $70,530 was allocated to the Senate and $164,570 to the House of Commons. Finally, the amount of $33,000 represents the balance of the $70,530. These are in fact actual expenses. [English] Senator Kenny: I think everybody understands the circumstances here. The money has been spent, and I believe we should adopt this now, sir. The Chairman: Any thoughts to the contrary? Other comments. Agreed? Senator Kenny: My observation would be that the Scrutiny of Regulations Joint Committee has found a mechanism for keeping its valuable staff during dissolution. We have had situations in the past where other committees have had valuable staff and have had problems keeping their staff through dissolution. I would like to earmark that for further study, if we could, because it is an ongoing problem, one that comes up with each dissolution. Mr. Bélisle: There have been studies. I think we should study it and come back to it at another time. The committee continued in camera.