Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 1 - Evidence for June 22, 2006
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 22, 2006
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:35 a.m., to consider administrative and other matters.
Senator George J. Furey (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: The first item on our agenda is the report of the subcommittee on review of committee budgets.
Senator Stratton: In your agenda today, you will see the first report of the subcommittee. We approached this matter on the basis that for the lower values, essentially anything under $75,000 — budgets for legislative work, lunches and dinners, et cetera — the committee did not need to hear from those individual chairs as the budgets were all fairly standard and go year to year. We recommend that those budgets be approved right away.
When you look at the overall budget for committees in 2006-2007, $3.75 million is available, which is a substantial sum. There is $400,000 set aside for witness expenses, so that leaves a balance of $3.35 million available for distribution. We received 28 budget submissions, totalling $3,086,069. These 28 budgets include 9 legislative budgets and 19 special study budgets.
Your subcommittee was committed to using a principled, consistent approach in its review of committee budgets. We felt our mandate was not to judge the work plans, which have been developed in each committee. That matter is for each committee and, ultimately, the Senate itself, to decide. Our mandate was to ensure that funds are allocated in a responsible and fair manner.
To allocate funds in an efficient and effective manner, the subcommittee divided the budgets into those that included public hearings or fact-finding missions and those that did not. It will not surprise you to hear that travel is the big-ticket item in the committee budgets. The 21 budgets that did not include travel were modest; all were under $75,000 and most were $12,000 or less. After review, your subcommittee decided to approve those budgets, which, together, amount to $421,775. In other words, those budgets are for legislative work, coffee and lunches, et cetera.
Senator Bacon voluntarily reduced the request of the transport committee for its media study from $18,500 to $8,000. Therefore, the funds recommended for release for the smaller budgets amount to $411,275.
With respect to the seven larger budgets, the subcommittee called each chair to appear to explain their submissions and, in particular, to explain the timing of their activities. This process was critical, since we are aware that committees have orders of reference pending and will only be able to submit budgets once the Senate has approved the studies. In addition, this being Parliament, there may be unexpected requests.
Not every committee is able to plan its full year's activities yet. Some committees are in the process of putting together a business plan and have not yet made a submission. For example, the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology wants to embark on three significant studies that will have significant dollars attached to them. That is just one example.
Given that we are likely to receive these budget requests, it is important that we keep funds for that possibility. We are only being prudent. Therefore, your subcommittee decided to use the phased approach, recommending the allocation of funds for all travel scheduled to take place through to the end of 2006, in addition to the regular operating expenses for the entire fiscal year. Each committee received its operating expenses for the entire fiscal year, and travel expenses up to the end of 2006, where approved, but no travel expenses beyond that into 2007.
I would like to emphasize that we tried to give all seven committees identical treatment. We recommend an allocation that will allow the committees to move forward actively with their work plans, while ensuring that committees whose requests were received later in the year are given consideration.
You will see from the attached report the specific amounts recommended. Of the seven larger budgets, four have been approved in full. These four include budgets for the Aboriginal Committee for its study on economic development, the Banking Committee for its study on the financial system; the Foreign Affairs Committee for its study on Africa; and the Human Rights Committee for its study on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Looking at these studies, you might wonder why Foreign Affairs would need to go back to Africa when they went only one year ago. I have that same question but the subcommittee did not feel it was up to us to question why. They went through the justification in their view, and it is not the subcommittee's decision to approve it. That is the decision of the full Internal Economy Committee and the Senate. You can argue the point but that is how we proceeded.
Similarly, the Defence Committee, for the same reason, had a large budget. We did not feel comfortable with them going to Afghanistan and I still do not feel comfortable about it. They plan to enter a war zone and it is dangerous, but that is only my viewpoint. The issue should be debated by the Internal Economy Committee and by the Senate.
Of the seven budgets, four have been approved in full. Funds were held back on the three remaining budgets pending a peer review of the financial requirements and availability of funds in the fall. Specifically, for the Fisheries Committee, approval was granted for public hearings and fact findings in Eastern Canada in the fall. The funds were not recommended for release at this time for travel to B.C. in the spring 2007. For National Security and Defence, the $17,000 requested to travel to Petawawa is obsolete, so that has been removed. Public hearings and fact findings in western Canada scheduled for January 2007 have been held back as have funds for a fact-finding trip to Newark and Washington in February 2007. The funds for trips scheduled for September and October 2006 have been recommended for release.
For the Transportation and Communications Committee, funds for public hearings and fact-finding in Vancouver and Prince Rupert in the fall are recommended. However, your subcommittee recommends that the funds for public hearings and fact finding in Halifax and Montreal at a later date be withheld at this time. There was no fixed date for that travel and the committee chair thought it might occur in 2007.
While these funds are recommended for release, it will be up to each chair, as I said, to defend their budgets for special studies in the Senate chamber. The subcommittee believes that each senator should have the opportunity to ask questions and to make decisions about the allocation of funds. If these recommendations are accepted, the total amount for release would be $2,457,690. It will remain available for distribution. In other words, we have kept $892,310 in the kitty because of additional requests likely to come forward in the fall.
In addition, further funds will become available after trips are completed and surplus funds are clawed back pursuant to Senate policy, meaning that once the committee has taken its trip, the excess funds are returned to the Senate for redistribution to additional requests.
I recommend, therefore, that we request the adoption of the report. If there are questions, I will gladly accept them.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Stratton.
Senator Robichaud: When the budgets were considered by the subcommittee, were any new members added? Were all budgets approved by the three people who were nominated?
Senator Stratton: The budgets were approved by the three members of the subcommittee: Senator Stollery, Senator Downe and me. For the Foreign Affairs Committee, Senator Stollery recused himself because he is that committee's deputy chair.
Senator Massicotte: I appreciate the work of the subcommittee to determine these budgets. It is a difficult task, given the many good arguments made on each issue.
I do not agree with Senator Stratton's approach that it is not the work of the subcommittee to determine whether certain travel is acceptable. There has to be a measurement of value for money. The argument could be made that the Senate should do it but, frankly, the subcommittee should do it at the outset.
In my experience, that does not happen. I have been to a few committees that have made requests for funds that were approved quickly. No one determines whether the Senate is getting value for money. I have heard it done at the end of a meeting with the words, "Let's see what the subcommittee on internal economy says."
Because of the sensitivity of the debate, it does not happen in the Senate. It is untidy to say that a committee is not spending money wisely. Such debates in public are difficult so they do not occur.
The basic premise of the subcommittee is that its mandate is not to judge the merits of the program but to allocate the funds for the program. You are 100-per-cent right in that premise but I am not certain that the job of evaluating value for money is done on behalf of Canadians, whose money it is.
Senator Stratton: If I may respond to that, each committee chair for a special study presents their report individually to the Senate chamber. For example, when the Defence Committee prepares the budget for its work, it must present that report, with the dollar amounts attached, to the Senate.
I sincerely believe that questions should be asked at that stage. That individual for the committee should justify why travel to Afghanistan is proposed. The same applies to the Foreign Affairs Committee. The chair must justify travel to Africa again. That justification should be done in the chamber because we are spending large sums of taxpayers' dollars. We should be transparent about what we present and defend in the way of spending those dollars. In my opinion, to do otherwise is wrong. If the committee chairs and members feel strongly about what they propose, as they should do given the amount of money involved, they should have no qualms about justifying the proposal on the floor of the chamber.
My intent for these larger budgets is to have individuals stand and justify why their committees need to spend those dollars to do their studies.
It should be each senator's responsibility to do that in a public forum, given the large sums of money involved.
Committees should be asked why they are going to Afghanistan in a time of war, or back to Africa again when they were just there. Those questions need to be answered.
If we do not do that, the meeting will do it on our behalf, and rightfully so. We have to be able to stand there and defend, as committee chairs, why we spend those dollars, why we are going back to Africa for a second time, and why we are going to Afghanistan a second time and in time of war. There has to be a justification for that.
I believe in their minds, there is. Let them present that justification on the floor of the chamber.
Senator Massicotte: You are probably right. That is what should occur, but I am anxious to see if it will occur. Basically, the average Senator is not well informed of the budget. Their decision comes down to whether they like the person or not. This situation gives rise to all kinds of comments, which should not be the case. I hope you are right because justification has to occur somewhere. Otherwise we are not doing our job. I hope you propose some changes or incite that debate in the Senate, but the debate has to occur somewhere.
Senator Stratton: The subcommittee is mandated to examine these budgets. Can we tell the Defence Committee not to go to Afghanistan? Can we recommend to this committee not to go back to Africa? If I had my way, that is what we would recommend. There are three of us. We felt, as a group, and I hope I am not speaking out of turn, that this issue should come to the full committee, and then to the chamber to be debated. Who are we, in that subcommittee, three of us, to say "no" to those decisions made by those two committees in particular.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: I have a question, and an option to propose concerning the process. What is the total budget for committees for 2006-07? What is the total amount that has been approved and what is the difference?
[English]
Senator Stratton: I think I presented that figure earlier: available for committees, $ 3,750,000. After you have the recommendations to all committees that you have before you, it would leave $892,310 in the kitty for redistribution down the road. There will be clawbacks also from other committees after they have completed their trips, for further distribution for new requests coming in from other committees and for future travel by the three committees that did not receive full approval for future trips in 2007.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: One of the things we have been saying for many years in the Senate is that one of our great sources of pride is the quality of the special studies we carry out and the fact that these special studies have been used by various governments in developing public policy. It is very important for all of the Senate to share in our pride in these special studies, which contribute to the development of appropriate policies for our country.
As for the process, if the subcommittee has additional questions to ask which seem to go beyond its terms of reference, should we not consider the possibility that the next step take place here, rather than going directly to the House, where debates attract a great deal of attention from journalists? I would prefer to see an intermediate step to ensure that we in the Senate take this opportunity to support our colleagues who work so hard on the special studies, be it in the field of health, security, foreign affairs, the environment, or others. This is my suggestion. The Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure would have to review the process. I do not know if Senator Stratton would be more comfortable with that option.
[English]
Senator Stratton: This committee must decide how it wants to proceed now. However, on the floor of the Senate, questions will be raised, and should be raised. The decision to take certain trips should be fully vetted on the floor of the chamber and discussed. If there is support in the chamber, there will be support in the chamber. That is the appropriate way to proceed. We have one independent on this committee, and 10 others. Other people are not in the purview of this committee and its decisions with respect to spending public funds. They should have a full opportunity to examine and discuss budget items with the chairs of those committees and justify in their minds what that committee is doing with public funds.
It is up to the Internal Economy Committee, but you cannot say that once this committee has made a decision, there should be no further discussion on the Senate floor. I disagree with that fundamentally.
Senator Poulin: I am sorry: I must not have expressed myself adequately. It was not my intention to stop the debate on the Senate floor: far from it.
It is important that we always have every opportunity to debate. I am saying that if the subcommittee, in certain circumstances is not comfortable with a budget before going to the Senate floor, should we not have an opportunity here in Internal Economy. That is what I am saying.
Senator Stratton: The committee has made its report and has recommended adoption. There should be a discussion here with respect to this report.
Senator Poulin: In this step we may find out that presentations are to be made by the chair, which would permit this committee to better understand. That is what I am saying.
The Chairman: I remind colleagues that we are public now, and these discussions are public.
Senator Poulin: Yes, I am aware of that.
Senator Kenny: This meeting was originally scheduled for 8:30 a.m. and the timing was changed just yesterday. Some of us organized our day around it. I have a press conference, so I cannot stay for the whole meeting. However, I want to make a comment first or pose a question to Senator Massicotte. Senator Massicotte commented on thorough vetting. When he chaired this subcommittee, the questions he asked were so exhaustive that it took literally dozens of hours to prepare replies.
He asked for a demonstration of value for money; a demonstration of what committees had accomplished in previous years; a demonstration of how each dollar spent was going to cause future changes in how the government would function; and what policy changes were expected from it.
He asked all the committees for detailed lists of what product the Senate and Canadian people could expect from the expenditure of these funds. Committees were required to examine their work plan and the material they were proposing, look at every trip, look at reports to be produced and demonstrate why they thought the future reports would have an impact on how Canadians were governed.
I thought that was an onerous project, but I welcomed it. I think many committee chairs welcomed the opportunity to make that sort of presentation.
Senator Massicotte, am I describing what you did correctly?
Senator Massicotte: Yes, except you were not always as pleased as you say you were.
Senator Kenny: You did not always agree with me, but I did not complain about the objectiveness of the process.
Senator Massicotte: I appreciate your comments.
Senator Kenny: In fact, I came to you and said that you were asking the right questions. Is that correct?
Senator Massicotte: Agreed.
Senator Kenny: In this case, there was no notice: there was no description of what was required. The chair of the subcommittee simply said, "Show up." I arrived with documentation, as I am sure others did. This constitutes items 1 through 12 of preparation to explain what the committee was doing. I am sure other committee chairs did exactly the same thing.
However, when we endeavoured to discuss the objectives and what would be accomplished, when we endeavoured to demonstrate that there was a track record to achieve certain objectives, when we endeavoured to show that there was value for money coming, the chair of the committee dismissed that information and said he was not interested in it. He did not want to talk about it. All he wanted to do was find out what trips we planned before November or December. Anything else one wanted to talk about, be it impact on the media, the amount of legislation introduced as a result of previous reports, or the specific objectives of every stop we had — to use my committee as and example — was available. We were prepared to talk about the proposal at great length.
I was also led to believe that the treatment of the committees was not the same. The chair said it was. I am told that only two committees were asked about the number of people travelling. For other committees, the figure of 12 or the full committee was accepted.
In my case, we had already asked each member who wanted to travel on each trip, so we were able to come forward with a lower number. We were then pressed to come forward with a still lower number. It seems to me that if one committee is pressed on that, every committee should be pressed on that.
I do not feel I received the same treatment. If other committees were not asked about that and the concept of setting money aside, it was done without any inquiry as to what other committees would need and what their estimates were.
The same question went out to every committee chair. As soon as committees met, they had an opportunity to sit down and develop a work plan for the year. There is the suggestion that people concern themselves only with what will fly at the Internal Economy Committee. I do not think that is the case. I think people sit down and discuss what they are trying to achieve. That is certainly the case in the committees I sit on: Energy, this committee and National Security. People discuss what they are trying to achieve, then come up with and discuss a work plan. All this takes place in the open. Based on that, the staff draws up a budget, which is debated, amended and adjusted. The chair then goes forward with it.
This committee will decide how things will go, but I think that the subcommittee in particular, chaired by Senator Stratton, has a duty to chairs of all committees to describe to them in advance what will be expected of them and how they should prepare for the meeting. In our case, we prepared, as I am sure others did, as we were instructed by the previous Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration. The assumption was that if you do not hear something different, you carry on and prepare as you were told the previous year and the year before that.
When we arrived, the book that you see here was of no use because it was not of interest. That is a frustrating exercise to go through. It is also surprising to have the chair of the committee say that he will attack your proposals on the floor of the chamber. That seems like a remarkable thing to say for a chair who acts, presumably, in a neutral fashion. To be singled out here seems remarkable as well. It is extraordinarily unusual for two committees to be dealt with in the absence of a review of each committee.
I do not mind if Senator Stratton will report his comments on every committee, or if in fact it is a consensus of what the three subcommittee members agreed to. That would be appropriate. If the three members of the committee each completed a review, and that review was reflected in Senator Stratton's report and it was adopted and he could circulate that report to us, that would be terrific. However, I do not know whether Senator Stratton is giving us his views or whether he is giving us the views of other members of the subcommittee.
Perhaps the members could tell us if those views are theirs, or if we are just hearing Senator Stratton's views. I do not see any of his comments in the report that was given to me.
The Chairman: Before I ask Senator Stratton to reply, I would like to make a point. No two committees or subcommittees in recent memory have operated exactly the same. I am sure you are well aware of that, Senator Kenny.
When I chaired the subcommittee, we did not do it in the same fashion as Senator Massicotte did. Now you tell us that Senator Stratton uses a different method of operation.
One problem as well with preparation time, in fairness to everybody, is that this process was done on short notice because we understood that we would finish up this week. We wanted to get the committee budgets on the floor of the chamber because we did not want to impede the work of the committees over the summer. I do not need to go into reasons why we were so late forming the full committee, because we are all aware of that, but there were some time problems. I will let Senator Stratton respond to the questions.
Senator Kenny: You told committees what was expected of them so that we knew how to prepare. Senator Massicotte sent letters saying what material to present because budgets would be evaluated on that material. I think it is unreasonable to suggest that we can read Senator Stratton's mind.
Senator Stratton: I would appreciate a chance to respond. If the other two members of the committee have a different opinion, please speak up.
The original plan this week was to approve the budgets under $75,000 this morning, and take that plan to the chamber this afternoon for approval. We planned to deal next week with the larger seven budgets that we felt required additional work. There would be more time for a proper vetting next week.
Senator Kenny: With respect, sir, I have to go. I announced before that I had another commitment.
Senator Stratton: That time frame would allow time for a proper vetting, as Senator Kenny has said, and we would have had the time to go through more detail. We are perhaps faced with adjourning today for the summer. If we leave today, we have not really had the time to review. We finished at 9:30 p.m. Tuesday. We had done that work, having started at 3 p.m. We realized we had to do this work in the event that we adjourned. We had no choice.
We did our work in that fashion, starting at 3 p.m. and finishing around 9:30 p.m., with time out for the Internal Economy committee meeting at 6:15 p.m., after the Senate rose. That is what happened.
Had there been knowledge of us not adjourning this week and sitting next week, we would have gone through in detail, as Senator Kenny has described. We had to make a decision, and that was the decision we made.
I will not try to respond to the other. There is no point.
The Chairman: Senator Downe or Senator Stollery, do you want to add anything?
Senator Stollery: There are other people on your list, but I wanted to say that I obviously support Senator Stratton's report. I am sure Senator Downe does, although he can speak for himself.
I was not in the room when our new chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee was beaten up a little. I was not there, but I did hear about it.
In his absence — and this is no criticism of Senator Stratton or Senator Downe — I wanted to make the point because the question was brought up of why, after great deliberation, the Foreign Affairs Committee has decided to go to Africa a second time, I want to make the point that Africa is a big place with 50 countries in it. The Foreign Affairs Committee has been careful because we deal with expensive places to visit in trying to stage these things over a period of time. This budgetary year is different than last year. We are obviously not going to the same four countries we went to last year. This discussion by the steering committee and then by the committee was long.
When you say "Africa," it is like saying "the world." The continent is large with huge problems, as members here are aware. The committee has discovered that the greatest humanitarian disaster on the planet is taking place there — today 1,200 people will be murdered in an area not bigger than two counties in Ontario. That is the reason — to go to a different area — the committee took the decision. I have to defend the chairman because he is not here.
The Chairman: My reason for varying from the list was to ask members of the subcommittee if they had any comments with respect to the process of the subcommittee, not the defence of the budgets at this stage.
Senator Downe: I support Senator Stratton. He was in a short time period. He was of the understanding at the time that the Senate might rise today for the summer, which may or may not be the case. The proposal he put to the committee was accepted that we consider budgets up to the end of November, and possibly the end of December, if we had to, so committees could be launched and start their work.
In the short time I have been in the Senate I have seen no evidence that committee travel is a waste of time. Committee members work hard. The reports are good. The total cost of the Senate to Canadian taxpayers is, I believe, around $82 million a year, and these committees spend $3 million. I think the value of the committees speaks for itself.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Whatever the path we choose, we never seem to be able to do the right thing at the right time. I heard several people ask that the subcommittee meet in order the examine committee budgets. I think that the committee did good work in light of the circumstances. I am sure you will agree that some unusual circumstances held things up.
I think the committee was right to want to accelerate the process to allow committees to begin their work. I have no criticism to address to the committee with regard to the fact that the committee chairman singled out two budgets, one of $675,000 and the other of $345,000; personally, I would have done the same thing, as these are the two figures that stand out in the report.
How do we go about discussing things, that is the question. The committee meets here, and today we have other things to discuss. A report will be presented in the Senate. We are told that the Senate may perhaps adjourn sometime between now and tomorrow; we will not have the time to give these budgets the attention they require. Everyone will be interested in examining them, in asking questions, and then in approving them or not. But the fact is that we are pressed for time.
So, once again, I do not think we are in a position to give these budgets all of the attention they merit.
The question I have for the chair is the following: there remains an amount of $892,000 that has not been allocated, correct?
[English]
Senator Stratton: Essentially, no, $890,000 is still in the sock. We have committed the other money, I think, as I have said earlier — so we are still saving $300,000.
Senator Robichaud: That is for the other committees that have not yet submitted?
Senator Stratton: That is correct.
Senator Robichaud: You feel, I am sure, that you have enough, because you do not really know what the other committees will come up with.
Senator Stratton: Plus clawback: Consistently, when the committees travel they do not spend all they have budgeted for. Therefore, there is a clawback. There should be sufficient funds.
Because we have the money, the argument around the table and in the chamber has been, "We should spend the full amount of the budget." We never do, nor should we: just automatically it is there should it be spent.
Senator Robichaud: I agree.
Senator Stratton: We should allow, with proper vetting, each committee to do what they think their work requires, and always leave money in reserve for outstanding contingencies for other committees.
For example, there is a request from the special committee to study Bill S-4, the Senate reform bill. We had a request yesterday afternoon from that committee for funds right out of the blue. The request will be brought to you, but the subcommittee will have to take a look at it and determine whether it is too little or too much. That budget request is $50,000 to $100,000, just like that. We have to keep a significant amount of money in reserve for those contingencies.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I have no problem with that and I agree with what you are doing.
Senator Nolin: I would also like to congratulate the members of the subcommittee for the work they did in such a short period. Things had to be done quickly because time was short, and the work was done properly.
Several questions have been raised as to the discussions that have to be organized to review the appropriateness of expenditures.
It will be our responsibility to establish a framework within which the examination of budgets will take place. There should be a discussion document for each of the committees, which would be much more specific than the committee's terms of reference alone. This would be, then, a work plan which should contain objectives, the strategy to be used to attain them, and finally the budget needed to implement that strategy. This is what should be discussed and approved by members of the committees and then examined by the subcommittee on budgets.
This may be a multi-year strategy: we heard Senator Stollery speak to us about a multi-year work plan. It cannot only be a budget request, it must also contain strategic explanations on specific objectives. I think it would be up to us to prepare that regulatory framework.
If there is a difference of opinion between the subcommittee, the members and the chairs of committees — which is quite normal — these things should be discussed here or in the House, because budget discussions are often public. I understand that Senator Poulin was concerned about the sensitive nature of these strategies, but all budget discussions are public.
Out of 105 senators, we are the only 15 senators who are privy to the details of these budgets. Thus, it is quite normal for a senator to ask questions on the famous strategies to be used to attain the objectives.
If we set up this framework for ourselves, we will be more than the mere providers of budgets; we will have a strategy to allow us to reach specific objectives. When we vote on a mandate or, particularly, on a special study to be carried out by a committee, we want objectives to be reached.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I was somewhat remiss at our last meeting in not welcoming our Speaker, Senator Kinsella, to our committee. Thank you for taking the time to help us in our deliberations.
Senator Kinsella: Thank you very much, chair. One reason I am interested in being a member of this committee is that some of our predecessors have sat in the chair of the committee. I felt that I at least had a responsibility to have a more intimate knowledge as to the machinery of the Senate, which is driven by this important committee. I would never want to sit in the chair where our distinguished chairman is sitting.
We have a unanimous report from the subcommittee to this committee. I have one question. Under the transportation and communication item of the various committees, is the amount recommended by your subcommittee, Senator Stratton, basically the amount that the committees asked for in their submissions, or are there significant cuts?
The budget item refers to six committees — from $126,000 all the way up to $468,000. Did the committees, under the transportation and communication item, receive approval from the subcommittee for more or less what they asked?
Senator Stratton: Yes: The single criterion adopted was what can you get away with in the sense of approval to do your job by the end of the fiscal year? Anything beyond that, we felt we should not approve.
Senator Downe: With respect to the Speaker's question, I asked the committees about the variations in the transportation and communication cost. We were advised that when committees travel outside Ottawa in Canada, the costs are mostly translation. When they are here, translation cost is zero; when they travel, they have to endure that additional cost.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: Our committee and its subcommittee attach a great deal of importance to accountability and transparency, as well as to the manner in which public funds are managed, and this is to our credit.
On the front page of all of today's newspapers, the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications is mentioned. This report truly contributes to the shaping of public policy on broadcasting in Canada by this government or a future government. This is a very important question since broadcasting affects the lives of all Canadian men and women.
I know that we had examined that budget carefully and that the study was done over a three-year period. This study surely cost a lot of money because several trips and meetings with important witnesses throughout Canada and abroad were necessary. But I am in agreement with this, and Senator Downe described the situation very well with very few words.
We spend $3.7 million out of a total Senate budget of $88 million, and we always say that our best work is done in committee. Thus, this is extremely important.
The example of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications bears witness today to the value of a good investment. When the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs or the Standing Senate Committee on National Defence submit a report, it causes widespread public reaction as well as giving rise to questions from government ministers and officials.
The subcommittee thus did excellent work: since the subcommittee unanimously recommends the adoption of their report, I would like to move that we accept their report.
[English]
Senator Stollery: I was not on the subcommittee with Senator Massicotte, but I have served on this subcommittee over the years many times under different chairs. I think Senator Stratton did a good job under the circumstances.
I agree with Senator Poulin. Our committee budget is 6 per cent of the Senate budget, for one of the major parts of our work. None of us is interested in spending money just because it is there. I agree with Senator Stratton.
I think the job was done as well as I have seen it done before. We went over things carefully. I hope the committee supports Senator Stratton's proposal.
The Chairman: We have a motion on the floor. It is moved by Senator Poulin that the full committee adopt the report of the subcommittee on committee budgets.
Senator Massicotte: Senator Stratton raised three or four issues of importance and Senator Nolin made a recommendation that there should be some process for how we answer those questions. Therefore, I would like to amend that motion. I agree with that motion, but that the steering committee comes up with a process of how we debate those issues, or how we ensure value for money in the long term. Do we debate it here in this committee? Do we debate it in the Senate?
The Chairman: I agree with you, Senator Massicotte, but I do not think we need to amend the motion. I will speak to that after we vote on the motion, so if you can wait for one moment, please. Senator Poulin moved it. All in favour?
Senator Robichaud: I have a question.
The Chairman: You have a question, Senator Robichaud.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: If we unanimously approve the report of the subcommittee, the motion by which we did so will be conveyed to the House. I think that that has a certain influence and that people will then not ask questions. If that is what this means, I will not abstain but I will vote against it, so that the door remains open.
[English]
Senator Stratton: If I may, so do I. I have severe reservations on certain budgets, and I intend to express those reservations in the chamber. I said that to each chair who had budgets where I had concern. I have expressed the concerns here and will do so again in the chamber.
The Chairman: The motion of Senator Poulin will be adopted on division; is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Poulin: May I ask a question of Senator Stratton? I am a little mixed up about the process. Maybe I should ask the question to you, Mr. Chair. If the report of any subcommittee comes to the full committee of Internal Economy, and it is written, "Your subcommittee recommends the release of the amounts for fiscal year," I take for granted that the subcommittee is comfortable with this recommendation. Am I missing something here?
The Chairman: I believe what Senator Stratton said earlier was while he was in agreement with approving the funding at this stage, there are questions that may be asked: for example, why would the National Security and Defence Committee go into a war zone. It has nothing to do with the budget per se.
Senator Poulin: That was my question earlier when I said we had to review the process.
The Chairman: Did I get that right, Senator Stratton?
Senator Stratton: Yes.
Senator Massicotte: What is the motion saying?
The Chairman: The motion says that we adopt the subcommittee's report on division.
Senator Massicotte: The subcommittee's report is to recommend approval of those sums without note of the three questions that Senator Stratton raised, regarding issues of budgets, and what has merits to it?
Senator Poulin: That is a good point.
Senator Massicotte: I am worried about the same issue we all raise. The Senate will hear that the subcommittee proposes something we recommend; therefore, we recommend to the Senate — that is the report to the Senate — to approve these sums. It is the same problem. Where does the debate occur on the three questions raised by Senator Stratton? If we just recommend it, it is normal for the average senator sitting there to say we agree this be re-vetted and we agree with it. Senator Stratton says no. He has questions to ask.
Senator Stollery: He did not say he was not supporting his own motion.
Senator Stratton: I would not make it. I think, for the sake of clarity, and I think what the chair, if I may put words in his mouth, is attempting to do is, we have to face the fact that we may rise today. We will know this afternoon whether we rise or not for the summer. That is why this report is in front of you today.
If we had known we would not sit next week, we could have and should have taken the time to go through these in detail, as Senator Massicotte has said previously. From my point of view, it would be recorded that I have serious concerns.
However, that is immaterial to the budget. The budget is over here. My concerns about the travel to Africa twice and to Afghanistan twice and to Afghanistan in a time of war are another issue, in my view.
How could this committee tell them not to do it? It needs vetting somewhere else. I felt that with the time frame involved, that vetting was the chief concern.
The Chairman: In response to Senator Massicotte, as a committee, we are recommending the allocation of funding, and questions on substance belong in debate, and we could debate the questions here as we have this morning. We could debate them in the larger forum of the chamber.
However, that debate has nothing to do with our responsibility here of recommending the allocation of funding.
Senator Massicotte: I may be naive, but would the debate possibly cause a change to the budgets?
The Chairman: Yes, of course. It is open to the chamber at any time to alter or amend the report of any committee, including this one.
Senator Massicotte: That is why I said earlier that I would approve the motion with the amendment — I am not a believer that the Senate will cause a due process in debate of the amounts. It is sensitive; it is personal. It will not be done. If it is not debated in the subcommittee, it should be debated here in this committee. That would be my true sense. I would amend the motion to say that the steering committee look at the process: the steering committee try to adopt a better process.
The Chairman: I think we have already adopted the motion. The question was asked and it was adopted on division, but, as chair of the committee, I will undertake to have the steering committee meet with the subcommittee to discuss process.
Senator Massicotte: I agree with that, yes.
Senator Stratton: In this case, it is a matter of who plays God.
The Chairman: The next item on our agenda is the request for emergency funds for the special committee on Senate reform.
Senator Stratton: I alluded to this example earlier. Essentially, there was a debate in the chamber between the two leaderships as to the special Senate committee on Senate reform needing money over the summer because it has a reporting date of September 28. The committee needed funding for resources, expertise in the legal field too, as an example, and that the committee did not know at the time what those requirements would be.
I am speaking on behalf of our subcommittee, because we essentially had an informal debate, thinking we might have a chance to look at that issue among the three of us. Failing that, because of the shortness of time again, and not knowing if we are going to rise today, I am speaking on their behalf right now. I ask both Senator Downe and Senator Stollery to give their comments with respect to this issue. While we would approve the $50,000 reluctantly, we still think it is too high, and there should be a careful vetting over the summer.
If additional monies is required, because that is a potential, then we express concern over that, and would have them come back to the subcommittee with any additional requests, justification and detail. Having gone through the process for a part of the summer, they will then know what they are faced with, but we did not want to approve any more than the $50,000, and we have expressed concern as to that amount in itself.
Senator Stollery: I agree with Senator Stratton. We learned of this only yesterday. As every member here knows, I think the amount is automatically $10,000 for committees.
Senator Nolin: Nothing is automatic.
Senator Stollery: But there is emergency funding, and we have been told the emergency funding might not be enough. I agree totally with Senator Stratton. The figure seems to some extent to have appeared, and we have already had a bit of discussion and reduced it from a previous number. However, I agree with Senator Stratton that they claim they need this money to get the committee going, and I think that I agree.
Senator Downe: I really have nothing to add other than the fact that we were able to reduce the amount requested substantially in verbal discussions yesterday.
If we do not rise today, if we rise next week, the subcommittee could have these people appear before us to justify their funding.
Senator Stratton: I agree with that.
Senator Stollery: Might I remind everyone, if we approve the $50,000 it does not mean that the committee would spend it all. They have a budget because they need one.
The Chairman: Senator Stratton, are you moving adoption?
Senator Stratton: Yes, I move adoption of the request for emergency funds.
The Chairman: In the amount of $50,000.
Senator Stratton: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I find the debate on this special committee somewhat strange, especially in light of the debates heard yesterday on the motion calling for a comprehensive study of the whole matter that is before us, the so-called "reform of the Senate."
I think that this is a most important question which will have a long-term impact on the Senate. While we must ensure that the funds will be used advisedly, I would prefer that we not set a limit because I would like this committee to examine the matter in depth.
[English]
Senator Stratton: We can deal with that over the summer because this committee continues through the recess.
Senator Cook: I read this letter and see that the buck stops at the steering committee of the Internal Economy Committee — we encourage it and approve of funds in excess of $10,000 to require the special committee to adopt the budget — not to exceed $50,000 — and require that it be approved by the steering committee of the Internal Economy Committee. "In excess of $10,000" gives us the mandate.
The Chairman: When I read that, I assumed that we would go with this amount and if something were to happen over the summer and the subcommittee were to meet, then the steering committee would have the authority to approve it.
Senator Cook: — but not in excess of $50,000. Clearly, the authority is given to the steering committee.
The Chairman: I assumed that would be after the subcommittee made a recommendation because we would not have a call back to full committee and the steering committee would have the authority to deal with it.
Senator Stratton: That is correct.
Senator Poulin: Could we have a motion to the effect, Mr. Chair?
Senator Stollery: It is automatic because the subcommittee is only a subcommittee of the full committee. If the steering committee of the full committee decides something, that is pretty well it.
The Chairman: We have a motion from Senator Stratton to adopt the report on emergency funds for special committee. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agree.
The Chairman: Contra-minded? Seeing none, the motion is carried.
The committee continued in camera.