Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 8 - Evidence - Meeting of May 12, 2008
OTTAWA, Monday, May 12, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4:07 p.m. to consider future business of the committee.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
Senator Banks: Mr. Chair, are we dealing with an invoice for Jessica Post?
The Chair: That is correct.
We are in public now. You should be aware of that.
Senator Banks: Thank you. I object to the regulation that has been brought down by Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration with respect to this procedure, and I have voiced that objection. I will continue to object. However, you are asking that we address it today.
One of the problems, if I recall correctly, is that there are payment schedules set out in contracts similar to this one.
The Chair: That is correct, and I can circulate these if you would like.
Senator Banks: I believe there is a provision in it that — I cannot remember what it is — it has to be paid by a certain time.
The Chair: Yes, there is a requirement in the contract that the contract be paid 15 days following the due date.
Senator Moore: We have three days to pay this.
The Chair: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Banks: One of the arguments that I will continue to make about this to Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration is that I do not see how the present policy as announced by them can be reconciled with the Appendix B, ``Terms of Payment,'' on page 8 of the document that has just been circulated, which says that the Senate will be due to pay interest if it is not paid within 15 days, et cetera.
The whole thing does not seem to me to reconcile with the idea of a contract, and in this particular case, the budget to engage Ms. Post has been passed by this committee, by the budget subcommittee of Internal, by Internal, by the Senate. All of these things add up to why I disagree with that policy.
What you need, I think, is a motion to pay this invoice; is that right?
The Chair: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Banks: I move that the committee pay this invoice.
The Chair: Other comments, please?
Senator Tkachuk: As you know, three invoices came, and I signed the other two. I asked for some information on one of them. They were very complete. I did not sign this one because I looked at some of the items, and it is unusual. This is an unusual contract because it is a contract for the chair. The other consultants have a contract for the committee, and they work for the committee.
Here, we have, for example, monitor Defence Committee media coverage, 16 hours. I sit on the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. We get regular updates from communications of the Senate on Defence Committee news and Senate news. Since we have one of those people working for us, why are we duplicating that effort? Sixteen hours seems like a lot of time to do that.
Then we have updated defence database, nine hours. I thought we had another contract in the budget for updating the database. Then there is correspondence and emails. If there are emails, I would like to see them. Fourteen hours worth of emails is a lot of emails.
Anyway, I had a lot of problems with it, and I did not feel comfortable signing it. It is up to the committee.
Senator Day: I have in front of me Invoice Number 04-8 for the month of April 2008. It is for the amount of $3,750. I look at Appendix B to the contract that you have provided, which, as Senator Banks has indicated, has been duly accepted. The debate as to whether we need it or should have had the contract is not in issue. The issue is whether the contract requirements are being met by us, and the terms of payment in (b) indicate that for the month of April, $3,750, payment for work performed shall only be made by the contractor, us, upon presentation of a detailed invoice. The invoice must include an hourly accounting of tasks for work performed during the billing period. I see it here. It is for the amount that we have contracted to pay, and there are hourly amounts and a detailed invoice of the work that was described. I believe that we have a contractual obligation to pay it.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there other comments?
Senator Tkachuk: That is your opinion.
Senator Day: Yes, that is my opinion.
Senator Tkachuk: That is not my opinion. I did not sign it. If the committee wants to make a motion to pay it, that is up to the committee.
Senator Day: I so move.
The Chair: Thank you. We have a motion on the floor.
Senator Banks: Can I ask a question of Senator Tkachuk?
The Chair: Yes, of course.
Senator Banks: We do have a contract. The Senate has a contract with a contract employee that says in Appendix B, to which Senator Day has referred, on page 7, that we will pay, will be dispersed, $3,750 for the month of April, 2008. There is an extent contract, and it is a contract. Are we not bound by that contract?
Senator Tkachuk: The unusual thing about the contract is that the lady in question, as far as I am concerned, does no work for me or for the committee. I do not feel comfortable signing that contract, and I will not sign the contract. However, if the committee wishes to pass the contract because they believe all this work and these hours were to provide defence update and respond to committee-related emails, they may do so. I have not seen any committee- related emails, and if they would like to table them, I would love to see them, since they belong to the committee. I have not seen any documentation whatsoever, so I am not comfortable signing this contract. If you are all comfortable signing it, you can pass it. However, I will not sign for it, and I will not vote for it.
Senator Mitchell: I would like to say that this type of discussion that reoccurs continually is very frustrating to me because I believe that it undermines the ability of this committee to spend its time doing what it should be doing substantively. It does exceptionally good work. We have an exceptionally good chair. It may be somehow that the quality, the level and the intensity of the work somehow offend a senator who wants to undercut and undermine the work of this committee. That is why dealing with this in the steering committee is so much more appropriate.
Having said that, I do not know what model of committee work Senator Tkachuk would have in mind when he says that this person should work for the committee. First of all, she does. I look at all the work she has done: I am glad that she is putting together reports on media. I am glad that she is responding to media inquiries. I am glad that she has created and updated the defence database. That is work she is doing on my behalf because I want the committee to work well and communicate well with the public.
The flip side of that would be the logical conclusion of what Senator Tkachuk is saying, unless we all agree on exactly the work that that person is to do, and it is only for all of our interests, and one of us could not have an interest that is different than everyone else's and still get work done, it could not work. That is just untenable.
I also just want to make a point. I do not know whether it is a coincidence, but Senator Tkachuk has problems with two contracts, one for a man and one for a woman. It is the one for the woman that he will not sign. I am just asking whether that — I guess that is a coincidence.
I think we should sign this and get on with it. It is consistent with the agreement. When you sign an agreement, it is actually signed; this is not a handshake.
Senator Tkachuk: I never realized how low Senator Mitchell would go.
The Chair: Senator Tkachuk, you have had your turn. Let us see if other people have a comment. Senator Zimmer, you have the floor.
Senator Zimmer: Thank you, Mr. chair. I have just three points.
First, if the words were changed so that she reported to the committee rather than to you directly, would that make any difference? If she reported directly to the committee and the wording was changed, would that make a difference?
Senator Tkachuk: Go ahead. You are asking me another question, so I will not respond right now.
Senator Zimmer: I was wondering if that would make a difference on that portion where you said that she is working directly for the chair.
Senator Tkachuk: Do you want me to answer that, or does someone else want to speak as well?
The Chair: Perhaps you could put your three questions, and then Senator Tkachuk could have the floor.
Senator Zimmer: Second, with respect to the media, I know the generic work that the people at communications do. However, when the press call you in the morning, you need information and material very quickly. You cannot wait to get there and in two or three days get the material back, so I do see a viable service that is required.
Third, with respect to the emails, 14 hours a month is only about a half an hour a day. I do not see that as a large amount.
On those three issues, based on the contract, based on the explanation of the services, I do think they are in order. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Zimmer. Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: I do not want to respond to Senator Mitchell's points. First, I have never tried to undermine the work of the committee. It has never been my intention to do so. I take issue with certain areas in the operation of the committee. I have made my views known, to all of you. There is no great secret about it. When I saw this particular document, I examined all three documents. I had a few issues with the other one, which I signed, and I asked for some further information. On this one, I have not seen any emails or correspondence or media reports, and if any of you have, I would love to see them. If you have the monitoring of the media, and if you have a package, I would love to see it. I have not seen it. If all of you have seen it, that is terrific. Maybe you can send me a copy.
I have not seen any of this material; hence I am not signing it. If you feel comfortable passing it, then the committee has the right to do so. You go right ahead, but I will not vote for it.
Senator Moore: We have a contract with this lady that says that we have to pay. I do not want to see all this stuff. You are the chair. She is doing work for the committee, and it has to involve you. I do not want to see everything you are doing.
For example, did you get any calls today about the Prime Minister being in Halifax?
The Chair: Yes, I had four press inquiries about that.
Senator Moore: I do not want to hear that from you. I do not want you to phone me and say that you had four calls, that you need to do some research and that you will respond. I do not want to hear that. You are the chair; you know how it functions.
The media do not come to me. They go to you because they know that you have the expertise and that you can probably give them an accurate answer.
I do not know what we are talking about here; this is only consuming time. It is as though we are saying that we do not belief the woman has done the work.
We have a contract saying that we have to pay her. Therefore, let us pay her and get on with it.
Senator Banks: I want to make a point on the record since we are discussing this. The committee considered it carefully when the idea of hiring someone for the position that Ms. Post now occupies arose because it is unusual. It looked at the work that was proposed, and it considered very carefully where that work should be done. It reposed in the chair, as Senator Moore has said, the responsibility of ensuring that it is done.
I am satisfied that the work is done. This is not a reflection on the other people who work with the committee. It is a reflection of the fact that, by any comparison, this committee gets more ``action'' than any other committee in the Senate in terms of the number of witnesses, media calls, Internet hits, et cetera. Further, the lightning rod for the work of this committee, quite properly, is the chair.
The committee considered these factors very carefully before it decided to engage a committee person to work on a contract basis where it was thought to be most practical, that is, in the office of the chair. That is unusual, but this is an unusual committee in terms of its activity, what it does and the effect it has on public policy.
I only want to ensure that is on the record.
Senator Zimmer: I like the fact that we have a detailed description. I think that is very responsible; we should do that.
I am not sure what the norm is and how much generic information you should provide. However, it appears to be quite detailed in reading this. If there are other details we can provide, maybe we should.
This is probably the normal amount of information that is given, and reflects the details of the services. Therefore, I think it is well-documented and would support it.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Could you, either now or at some point, tell me about the media coverage item, the monitoring of that and how what this person does is different than the person doing communications for you or what the Senate does for you?
The Chair: In a nutshell, when matters come up in the newspaper, the response time can be minutes or hours afterwards. I can come into the office at 8 a.m. and already there are hits for which I have to start preparing responses. Ms. Post is there to assist in tracking down the information.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Therefore, she is reading the newspapers on-line or clipping articles.
The Chair: No, there is a service where we do key word searches that bring up these stories. Sometimes, within minutes of them popping up, we have reporters telling us that this was on-line, and asking us to comment on it and if this affects what was said the other day, et cetera. To have someone who can dig up the information is very useful.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you.
Senator Tkachuk: You have handled various administrative work related to the committee. What administrative work would Ms. Post be doing that is not done by other staff members?
The Chair: She put together the document that we circulated to you a few minutes ago. She also pulled together the backgrounder that I have on the Canada First Defence Strategy that we will pass out to committee members tonight.
It came forward today, and all of our staff are busy with a range of duties. They are totally occupied with the Washington trip, preparation of the Afghanistan report and the first responders report. They are going flat out. I am getting requests to delay meetings because people cannot keep up with the level of work.
The clerks came over to me today to update me on this information. Then they had to leave that meeting, determine what the cancellation costs would be and still get this meeting going on time today.
You have a very busy group of staff.
Senator Tkachuk: Ms. Post handles all of that?
This is three days of work totalling 25 hours. You can do a lot of administrative work in three days.
The Chair: We are talking about a month here.
Senator Tkachuk: We only meet once a week, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: No kidding, but the press call seven days a week.
Senator Moore: Let us have the question. We have spent enough time on this.
Senator Mitchell: Mr. Chair, if Senator Tkachuk truly wants to get at this, why would not he talk to you in your office in a cordial fashion and work that out?
There is something more to this, and it is wasting upwards of an hour of our time because he wants to administer practically everything this committee does himself. We have delegated that to a committee chair. That is how committees work. We do not all have to run the committee. We have confidence in you that you would do it. This is a waste of time.
Senator Tkachuk: Mr. Chair, first of all, this is a rule. If I do not sign off, then the committee has to discuss it, and the committee has to pass it. I am not forcing anybody to do anything. You can do what you want. We will have a vote, and you will vote for it.
Senator Mitchell: We want to vote.
Senator Tkachuk: Good. Do not question my motives, Senator Mitchell.
The Chair: The motion is that the committee authorize the chair to certify the invoice for Jessica Post dated April 30, 2008 in the amount of $3,750 for payment from the committee's budget.
Senator Day: Does certify mean to get paid?
Ms. Anwar: Certify means the chair will sign off on it.
The Chair: Those in favour? Those opposed? Motion carried.
Senator Moore: Mr. Chair, is it correct that will they pay her within the time frame so that interest does not accrue? Will you pay according to the agreement?
The Chair: We will see that she gets paid as quickly as possible. The clerks will convey the information to the finance department first thing tomorrow morning.
Senator Day: I am sure they are still there working.
The Chair: Perhaps we could send it over to them advising the finance department that this committee has approved the invoice.
Senator Day: Please proceed.
The Chair: Colleagues, I need some direction —
Senator Tkachuk: I have a couple questions on budget items and a couple motions I would like to make.
The Chair: I understand that, and I was about to ask the committee. We have a request from Senator Tkachuk to deal with a couple of motions, and we have the committee report to address.
Would you care to deal with Senator Tkachuk's motions now?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Tkachuk: We have a preauthorization for travel. It is a motion that a request for authorization to travel with an estimate of expenses be submitted by all committee members to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure for their consideration prior to travel on behalf of the committee.
Do we have copies of this? Could you pass it out? It is in English and French.
Senator Moore: It sounds confusing, but I will look at it.
Senator Tkachuk: It is pretty straightforward.
The Chair: If I could have a copy of it please, madam clerk.
Senator Moore: It states:
That a request for authorization to travel, with an estimate of expenses, be submitted by all committee members, to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure for their consideration . . . .
That means I would have to submit a request for permission to go along with an estimate of my expenses to some steering committee if we were to travel to Washington this week.
I am not doing that. I am a senator. This is just another erosion of Senate independence. All the budgets have been approved by subcommittees and by the Senate in total. Why are we dealing with this? It has been approved by the Senate of Canada, whether you like it or not, it has been done.
Senator Tkachuk: This is a motion to approve all committee travel that is not approved by the budget.
Senator Moore: There is not any such travel.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, there is.
The Chair: All committee travel is approved by the budget.
Senator Tkachuk: We have travel that is not specified, for example, trips to Toronto on behalf of the committee by the chair. That was not in the budget.
The Chair: It is in the budget.
Senator Tkachuk: It was in the promotion of the budget, but it was not specified as a travel budget. We passed motions to that effect at this committee. I am just moving a motion to formalize an accepted practice.
Senator Moore: It has been formalized. You are nitpicking. It has already been done. It has been approved by the committee. As far as I am concerned, it is done. We are wasting more time. These budget issues have been dealt with. I do not want to come to every committee meeting and spend an hour rehashing material that we have already decided, Mr. Chair. I want to get on with the agenda and the work of the committee.
The Chair: Are there other comments?
Senator Mitchell: I agree with Senator Moore, but it is important to note that it is not as though your trip to Toronto is not under prescribed expenses. You are allowed to spend only so much on a hotel, an air flight and a taxicab; you receive a prescribed amount for meals. Therefore, what information would you be giving to some sort of steering committee that we would not already have?
I agree with Senator Moore. I am so tired of the amount of committee's time that Senator Tkachuk is eating up. We are trying to deliberate more important issues, such as the war in Afghanistan. If he had bothered to come on that trip, he might have understood how significant and important it was. Of course, he does not want to do that because it is important work that might demonstrate to him just how weak his arguments are in eroding this committee. Let us stop wasting committee time and get on with what we should be doing, which is substantive, quality work.
Senator Zimmer: On a point of clarification, are we talking about approving the budget overall for a trip, or are we talking about the individual trips that the chair took to Toronto?
The Chair: It reads, `` . . . all committee members . . . `` and ``. . . travel . . . .''
Senator Tkachuk: It is to be `` . . . prior to travel on behalf of the committee.''
Senator Zimmer: It includes individual senator's travel, individual trips, not just the trip to Washington.
Senator Tkachuk: In the budget, you have to get prior approval.
Senator Zimmer: A section approves an amount, which this is covered under, but then you are asking for additional approval on specific trips within that portion of the budget?
Senator Tkachuk: That is in the rules.
Senator Banks: May I ask a question of Senator Tkachuk directly?
The Chair: Please do.
Senator Banks: Senator Tkachuk, please explain to me, so I understand, the sense that someone's travel to Toronto, as you cited in your example, would not be in a budget that has already been approved by everyone in sight.
Senator Tkachuk: It has not been approved. We had to approve it at the last meeting when the chair asked for permission to do that.
Senator Banks: It is in the budget.
Senator Tkachuk: You cannot ask for money that is not in the budget.
Senator Banks: That is right. We cannot spend money that is not in the budget of the committee.
Senator Tkachuk: That is right, but our budget is not specific. Our budget has $25,000, of which only $15,000 was approved for the promotion of the committee and for conventions. They are fairly open-ended. Therefore, it requires a motion through the steering committee, which is what most committees of the Senate do. However, we do not do that, so I put it forward as a motion.
Senator Banks: It is usual to have these things approved by the whole committee not the steering committee.
Senator Tkachuk: The steering committee does not meet.
The Chair: The steering committee does not meet if the full committee can deal with the issue. If the full committee meets and approves an item, presumably that is better authority than just the steering committee.
Senator Tkachuk: That is correct.
The Chair: Thank you.
The Chair: Those in favour of this motion? Those opposed? Motion defeated.
Next motion, Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: I would like to move a motion on travel. Since I cannot go to the steering committee, I will have to bring it to the full committee.
The Chair: You can go to the steering committee because it is meeting this Wednesday, we hope.
Senator Tkachuk: The motion is for authorization for me to travel to Toronto on a date to be determined later to meet with representatives from the Toronto Sun, the National Post and The Globe and Mail. Have you motions to that effect in both official languages?
The Chair: Are there comments?
Senator Tkachuk: There is money left in the budget for one trip.
Senator Day: What is the purpose of your trip?
Senator Tkachuk: This is a general motion, which is the same as the chair's motion.
Senator Day: Will you promote the reports?
Senator Tkachuk: I will be promoting the work of the committee. There is a budget allocation for that but, before a person goes on a trip, it has to be approved. I ask that it be approved.
The Chair: Are there other comments?
Senator Banks: Should we assume, by way of example, that you will be meeting with the editorial boards of the newspapers in these cities?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, of course.
Senator Moore: I know pretty much from my few years on this committee what has taken place in the past when the chair has travelled: It has been an accurate and positive presentation of the work of the committee to the good of the committee and truly to the enhancement of the Senate. I want to know from Senator Tkachuk that he will carry on in that same vein.
Senator Tkachuk: Why would you ask me a question such as that?
Senator Moore: I ask the question because of your comments earlier today. I have a real problem with your motivation, as was raised by Senator Mitchell, and I want to know the answer to the question.
Senator Tkachuk: I have been here for 15 years.
Senator Moore: It does not matter to me.
Senator Tkachuk: It does not matter to me either.
Senator Moore: You have not proven it so far. I have read your other letters to the media, and I have not seen the proof of your support of the work of this committee.
Senator Tkachuk: We have a right to disagree in this country. I am afraid that right exists.
Senator Moore: Oh, yeah.
Senator Tkachuk: If I want to write a letter disagreeing with what the chair writes, I can do that.
Senator Moore: You should be accurate in your facts before you do it.
Senator Tkachuk: Oh, yeah.
Senator Moore: It is rather important.
Senator Tkachuk: I love to take lectures from all of you.
Senator Mitchell: The question is in the meaning of ``promotion of reports'' and ``other related committee business.'' You are saying that you will promote, so we expect that you would do so.
Why could you not travel from Ottawa to Toronto, as you are interested in saving money, instead of from Saskatoon to Toronto? Could you not do it on your way home?
Senator Tkachuk: I live in Saskatoon, and it happens that the Chair lives in Ottawa. I like to make my own plans.
Senator Mitchell: You could meet with them on Friday to save some money, or meet with them on Monday on the way through.
I would; I live in Edmonton.
Senator Zimmer: Senator Mitchell hit it on the head; he used the word ``promote.'' That is a positive word. I would support the motion.
The Chair: Any questions?
Those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Do you have any other business, Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: I have a couple of other motions which I will bring to the steering committee. I would like to give notice for future travel, based on the budget being approved. I am not sure if it will be approved for other trips: One to Montreal, one to Halifax and one to Vancouver. However, I will bring those to the steering committee, if I could give notice to that, notwithstanding the fact that the budget has not yet been approved but to move the motion for the travel on the likelihood that the budget is approved.
The Chair: So noted. Space will be made on the agenda of the steering committee.
Senator Tkachuk: I appreciate that.
The Chair: If there is no other business, could we have a motion to move back in camera?
Those in favour?
Carried.
The committee continued in camera.