Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 1 - Evidence for November 20, 2007
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 20, 2007
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 5:02 p.m. to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Paul Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, the first item of business today is to elect the chair pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate of Canada.
I am ready to receive motions to that effect, please.
Senator Kinsella: I move that Senator Furey become the chair.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélisle: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Kinsella, seconded by the Honourable Senator Downe, that the Honourable Senator Furey do take the chair of this committee.
[English]
Before doing so, I have the duty to also ask if there were other motions to that effect.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Mr. Bélisle: Thank you. Honourable senator, you are elected chair of the committee.
Senator George J. Furey (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues, for your vote of confidence and welcome back. Hopefully, we will have a productive session and I look forward to working with all of you again.
The second item on our agenda is the election of a deputy chair. Can we have a motion for the nomination of a deputy chair?
Senator Cook: I move Senator Stratton become the deputy chair.
The Chair: Motion is carried.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chair, Senator Stratton is not here.
[English]
Mr. Bélisle: He was here. He left for a few minutes. He is making a phone call.
Senator Cook: Elected in absentia.
The Chair: Can we have a motion to print the committee's proceedings? It is suggested that 200 copies be printed for distribution to senators, MPs, officials and others.
Senator Robichaud: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Robichaud, seconded by Senator Massicotte. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra-minded? Carried.
Can we have a motion for the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure? It is proposed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, commonly referred to as the steering committee, be composed of the chair, the deputy chair and Senator Cook.
Senator Massicotte: I so move.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Massicotte.
Senator Comeau: I second that.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra-minded? Carried.
We need a motion that the members of the steering committee be the committee's representatives on the Joint Interparliamentary Committee, which is traditionally co-chaired by the chair of the committee and either the Speaker or the Speaker's designate from the House of Commons.
Senator Jaffer: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Jaffer, seconded by Senator Comeau. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra-minded? Carried.
I want to go back to the steering committee. I forgot to include, and with your indulgence we will include, in the motion that if the full committee is unable to meet that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, the steering committee, be authorized to deal with and resolve immediate administrative problems and report its decisions at the first meeting. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senator Stratton, you are the deputy chair of this committee. Welcome.
Senator Stratton: Thank you.
The Chair: Can we have a motion to adopt the committee's draft first report, which is the actual budget report. That money has already been spent by the committee.
Senator Massicotte: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Massicotte, seconded by Senator Jaffer. I will indicate that most of that, if not all, had to do with meals, and since I have lost a fair bit of weight since we met last time, perhaps that will go down a bit. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra-minded? Carried.
Next is the Advisory Working Group on the Security of the Parliamentary Precinct. It would be advisable to go with the same committee for continuity because the House of Commons has already been meeting. My recollection is that the committee was chaired by Senator Massicotte and the membership from our committee was Senator Robichaud and Senator Stratton. All in favour? Sorry, are there any comments?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: We have Senator Prud'homme and Senator St. Germain.
[English]
Senator Stratton: There were four.
Senator Massicotte: Five.
Senator Robichaud: Five.
Senator Stratton: Yes, you, Senator Massicotte.
The Chair: Yes, because it is an advisory working group as opposed to a subcommittee, Senator St. Germain was on it and Senator Prud'homme, who is also a member of this committee, was on it so they will be included. Thank you, Senator Robichaud, for reminding me. May we have a motion to that effect?
Senator Cook: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Cook, seconded by Senator Comeau. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Jaffer: In future, I do not think we should have a whole male committee. These gentlemen are wonderful, I have nothing against them, but in light of the number of women that we have in the Senate, it is not a good idea to have an all-male committee.
The Chair: That is a good point, Senator Jaffer. Thank you for raising it.
Senator Jaffer: Only for in the future.
The Chair: For now, I think it is important to continue with the same. It is a good point. Thank you for raising it.
The Artwork Advisory Working Group, again, is not a subcommittee. Last time, it was composed of Senator Moore, chair, and Senator Joyal, Senator Mahovlich, Senator Johnson and Senator Meighen. Also, it has been requested that Senator Dallaire be added as a member. Do I have a motion to that effect?
Senator Jaffer: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Jaffer.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Next is the Advisory Working Group on the Review of the International and Inter-parliamentary Affairs Directorate, IIAD. Again, that group was put together to review the IIAD and its workings and financial structures. It is recommended that we go with Senator Massicotte again, who chaired that group the last time. It was composed of Senator Massicotte and Mr. Merrifield from the House of Commons. I need a motion to that effect.
Senator Massicotte: May I propose an amendment to the mandate?
The Chair: What were you thinking about, Senator Massicotte?
Senator Massicotte: It is not to scare anyone but the way the mandate is worded, it would be strictly to look after the directorate per se and maybe without authority, but we have also had discussions about the effectiveness of the whole budget for the International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate. We would like to make comments about the whole $3 million; not only the directorate but ways to make it more efficient to make sure we operate at maximum efficiency. I would like to see the wording "financial and human resources and effectiveness of International and Interparliamentary Affairs and its Directorate."
The Chair: No problem. You are moving an amendment.
The mandate will read:
The mandate of the Advisory Working Group will be to examine the financial and human resources and effectiveness of the International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate.
Senator Massicotte: No, "Affairs and its Directorate." I do not think it should be limited strictly to the administrative costs.
The Chair: I agree.
Mr. Bélisle: I will speak to the Clerk of the House of Commons to ensure that they change their mandate accordingly.
Senator Massicotte: Agreed.
The Chair: That should not stop us from doing it. If that is what you wish, Senator Massicotte —
Senator Massicotte: Exactly. It would not have stopped us anyway, but I thought it should be consistent.
Senator Cook: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Cook that the mandate be so amended.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That is carried.
I need a motion to adopt the advisory working group.
Senator Downe: I so move.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That motion is carried.
One item is not on your agenda, colleagues, and now is as good a time as any to discuss it. It is the creation of a subcommittee on committee budgets. If we cannot come to a quick consensus today, we can come back to it at our next meeting. I want to do it today because I understand that a number of committees have already started submitting budget requests to the Internal Economy Committee, so I would like to move quickly on it.
I will recommend, subject to your approval, that we create a subcommittee. Problems arose last year, with respect to the reporting mechanism more than anything else, at two levels. The first is reporting back to the committee on expenditures, and the second is the actual reporting of a budget to the chamber.
I recommend that we form our subcommittee, but that a maximum be placed on the amount of a budget that the subcommittee can approve and bring back to the full committee. If that maximum is exceeded, the chair of the committee requesting that budget would go to the full chamber for approval, because it will end up there anyway. The subcommittee and the full committee often end up with a black eye when chairs of the committees that are looking for these amounts of monies are not even in the chamber and people are screaming for members of the Internal Economy Committee to find out what the process was.
I have not looked at the average amounts requested by committees last year, which I think might be the best guideline, but we could set the limit at $400,000, for example. If all committees requesting up to $400,000 go to the subcommittee, I am sure that well over 50 per cent of the committee budgets would be approved in an expeditious fashion. Any committees requesting more than that amount would bring their full requests to the chamber initially for debate there. Once it is approved by the chamber, it is finished.
Senator Massicotte: I have two things to clarify. You said the subcommittee will have authority to approve budgets of a certain maximum. You probably did not mean the subcommittee, but rather this committee.
The Chair: No, the subcommittee only brings to this committee.
Senator Massicotte: The subcommittee will always only recommend. It has no authority, per se, right?
The Chair: That is correct, Senator Massicotte.
Senator Massicotte: I have only one problem with the balance of the proposal. You say the Senate should decide on budgets in excess of $400,000. As you know, I have the utmost respect for the Senate, but the problem is that, first, it is not our money and, second, we are all nice people. I am concerned that if it were done that way, given the collegiality of the Senate, the review would not be as detailed or demanding as it should be. I think it is an easy way out.
Senator Stratton has been on the subcommittee. It is a tough process, but necessary. If you want to go that way, at the least, the chair of the committee should make a presentation to the Senate. I have no difficulty with that, but it should come also with a recommendation from this committee and from our subcommittee, because to simply throw it into the lion's den will not be effective.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Senator Massicotte just now raised that question. Rather than go directly to the Chamber, the committee should decided whether to set a limit on the amount that the subcommittee on committee budgets can approve for committees. This is an issue for this committee to consider. In that respect, I concur with Senator Massicotte.
[English]
Senator Stratton: In the last Parliament, we found that the subcommittee did not exert any pressure on the chairs. We questioned, but it was like a rubber stamp, frankly. The questions were asked but, in the end, the requests were rubber stamped. My fear is, that would occur again, unless there is a strong chair of the subcommittee and a second person who is willing to take the hit when the answer is no. That is a prerequisite for that committee to work. Otherwise, it simply does not work.
I do not have a problem with bringing it here, and I agree with Senator Massicotte in the sense that you can do the questioning here because enough individuals here know the detail of budgets that they can ask the appropriate questions. However, it will go to the floor anyway.
If we approve a large budget here, what do we do when it goes to the floor of the chamber? Those on this committee who approved it would need to vote for it. That is where I see a problem. If you recommend to the chamber that this budget be passed, what do you do? Will you only rubber stamp it again? That is my concern.
You need to look at that. I would like Ms. Lank to look at the amount of $400,000 because, as Senator Massicotte knows, perhaps 80 per cent of the smaller budgets are non-contentious; that is, they have good chairs and they do good work. I think we should set the mark based on that level rather than plucking out of the sky the amount of $400,000. Perhaps it is $500,000 or $300,000, but we need a little more information before choosing that number. I, for one, would like to review the budgets from the last couple of years to determine what level we feel comfortable with.
I firmly believe that the larger budgets need to be vetted by the chamber. I do not think our side will stand back and be angels with respect to larger budgets. I fought that battle for the last few years, but virtually alone.
That problem is the one you and I have, Senator Massicotte. We need people around the table who are willing to take the issue on, and not operate on collegiality. The same thing happens here — collegiality. "Oh, no, he is one of ours. We have to pass it." I am not talking about Liberals or Conservatives; I am only making a point. We need to have people willing to take on the tough job and to fight for what is worth fighting for on these gigantic budgets. Why would you put the responsibility on the chair and say it is the chair's fault?
That is what he is fed up with. That is what I am fed up with. If you have a magic solution, let me know. In the meantime, I think we can look at the number for the subcommittee to examine but the larger budgets have to be properly vetted.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I will not cut off debate on this issue. I will go to Senator Jaffer, Senator Stollery and Senator Robichaud again, but I will say this: I do not think we will resolve it today.
Senator Stratton: No.
Senator Downe: Agreed.
The Chair: The steering committee will meet on Thursday morning and bring back a proposal to the full committee for more debate. That proposal will come with some hard numbers, as Senator Stratton has suggested. In the meantime, if anyone wants to have input, by all means let us know. Email me, write us, phone me, whatever. I want to hear as many comments as we can because it is a significant issue. I think it has chewed up a lot of chamber time in the past, and I want to see something done to try to resolve it. It might not be what I propose — I do not suggest that is a magic solution — but I want to hear what the steering committee says. At least, I want to see them come back with something that we can debate.
In the meantime, if there are any emergencies with respect to committee budgets, the steering committee will need to look after them. I anticipate having this debate a week from this Thursday.
Senator Jaffer: I do not mind what the level is, whether it is $300,000 or $500,000. I do not think we can go directly to the house with the larger number. I believe this committee has a duty to vet it. If we do not want to recommend it, then we should give our notes and observations about the budget to the chamber and let the Senate decide. Simply sending it to the chamber would be awkward. Will they go through every line? What will they do? I think we should send it with our observations so that the chamber has something to work with.
Senator Stollery: As the chair said, we will not make this decision today. I find myself agreeing, in a way, with Senator Stratton. We are the committee that has been instructed by the Senate to deal with these matters. We are saying, then, that we cannot deal with the issues so we are sending them back to the people that told us to do the job. That approach is the committee system, and how we have worked for the last 150 years in the parliamentary system.
I have been on the subcommittee under Senator Kroft and with Senator Stratton, so I go back a few years on that subcommittee. I do not think it is only a rubber-stamp operation. I know we have sent chairs away. In fact, when I went with Senator Massicotte, I was sent away with my application and needed to sort it out.
Senator Massicotte: Certainly with good reason.
Senator Stollery: Yes, and I am not complaining. I needed to go back because it was not clear even to me. I knew what I was doing but Senator Massicotte threw a curve at me with the details and that is fine. I went off, sorted myself out, came back and we managed to deal with it.
I do not think that it is a rubber-stamp operation. I know several cases where we sent people back and said, when are you going, what is this all about and that sort of thing.
The next step, we will say, is that this committee does not approve it. When this famous application over whatever sum of money we agree upon goes to the Senate, the Senate is put on the spot because the senators will say, "The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration did not approve this budget and now they want us to approve it." We are sending the person who made the application into a death march. The senators talk about being under pressure but they are then put in a position of doing the opposite from what was clearly the recommendation of this committee. I see this proposal having a lot of implications.
I have never heard of a parliamentary committee being given a role to do and then saying, "We do not want to do this job. You do it." That is basically what we are saying, but then we will have a week or so to talk about it.
The Chair: I want to correct one small point on your comments. I appreciate your comment, Senator Stollery. Your assessment of going back to the chamber is accurate. However, there is a difference regarding your comment of sending someone into a death march by saying that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration did not approve the budget. We would not even consider the budgets, so it would be no-approval or non-approval. The proposal that I made was that if they go beyond a certain amount, they go directly to the chamber to approve that amount. It is not a question of going into a death march. Your other comments are accurate, and we will take them into consideration.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: For starters, Mr. Chair, should we not strike a subcommittee that would report back to the main committee? Why would we not do the study here, since in the majority of cases, budgets are fairly straightforward and repetitive? Moreover, since we are somewhat more familiar with the issues because we sit on this committee, we could ask questions that relate directly to the budget requests submitted to us and to the operation of certain committees.
Since certain committees are already ready to meet but have not yet had their budget requests approved, why not proceed immediately to review these budget requests at our next meeting, so that committees can undertake their work?
If we wait until next week to strike a steering committee — and perhaps the matter of setting a $400,000, $500,000 or $600,000 limit will not yet be settled—that will push things back two week. What will happen in the meantime? Committees can operate with a $10,000 emergency budget, but that money will not last long. This is a suggestion, rather than a formal motion.
[English]
The Chair: You make too much sense, Senator Robichaud. I agree with you. Perhaps we should put the committee in place and then have the committee report back to us with respect to how it will operate. Then we will approve it. Again, we will hear from other people.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: That is not what I said. I said that at our next meeting, we should look at the budget requests.
[English]
Senator Stratton: There are no budgets here.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: A number of budget requests have already been received. Correct?
[English]
The Chair: I misunderstood you, Senator Robichaud. I thought you were talking about forming the subcommittee now and have it report back to the full committee for approval on how it wants to operate for the full committee. I apologize; I misunderstood you.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: That is not what I said. I said that our committee should start by looking at the budget requests to see how things could work, because we understand the process well. This would give us time to strike a subcommittee and to decide whether or not limits should be set on the amounts that can be approved. We should not refer the matter directly to the chamber. I think the committee should take on this task.
[English]
Senator Comeau: When the steering committee looks at various ways to handle this matter, you might consider my proposal that it be Committee of the Whole. Once the budget leaves this committee, it might be referred to Committee of the Whole in the Senate. The advantage of this proposal is that the rules in Committee of the Whole are different, making it faster to review the budget. The chairs of committees must appear as witnesses, unlike in the house only. In this case, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration would respond on behalf of the committee to the Committee of the Whole, in the witness box under scrutiny and under cross- examination.
This process can be intimidating. It would force the chair to be extremely well prepared. It would give those members of committees that have been questioning the amounts of budgets given to certain committees over the years an opportunity to go after the budget amount being requested.
Those few committees that have extremely high budgets must obtain the money from somewhere, so it means taking it from other committees, so some committees suffer. It would give these committee members a chance to prepare to question the chairs of committees that ask for an oversized budget.
I am not touching what has been suggested by others that there be a further role for this place but, at least as an end process, it would be helpful if this item were referred to the Committee of the Whole rather than the whole Senate.
Senator Massicotte: We all agree with the fundamental issue: At what level is the best decision made. I agree with Senator Stratton. We have to appreciate that the budget might look simple but we owe it to the taxpayers and to our institution to ensure that the review is adequately detailed so that we arrive at the best decision. We also must appreciate that when we say no to a committee's budget, it is a sensitive issue. Ego and pride are involved. I am convinced that a good subcommittee — maybe as Senator Stratton said it was not good enough — is the best choice to deal with that level of detail. To have the Internal Economy Committee spend the time required to do a proper job on these budgets takes at least one hour per budget. Often the chair of the committee must come back with further details on the need for the trip, the need for so many people traveling on the trip, the need for translators, et cetera. The issue is complicated and merits a subcommittee. As well, for the sake of ego, pride and reputation, these budgets are best dealt with by a small committee. As you know, coming before the full committee and then before the Senate, which often deals in a personal or partisan way, often involves personalities adding influence. Much of that activity occurs because of lack of detail and substance.
I highly recommend that we keep the subcommittee structure, make it effective and avoid this contest of personalities to allow us to do our proper job. That is my opinion.
Senator Stollery: I have one brief intervention, chair. Remember that the chair is the committee. When a budget comes before the subcommittee or other mechanism, the chair acts on behalf of the members of that committee. It is not the chair per se but rather committee members that have given the chair the responsibility of obtaining the budget.
Before a chair goes to the subcommittee or this committee, the budget has already been vetted by the clerk of the committee. When Senator Massicotte threw me out of the room, it was because I had not understood the vetting that my clerk had done of my budget. That was all fair enough, and I do not mind. However, there is a process. It is not simply a case of a chair requesting a couple hundred thousand dollars and a couple of drinks. A process takes place. It is a mistake to leave the impression that a process has not taken place.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Stollery, and thank you honourable senators for your comments and observations. The steering committee will take them into consideration on Thursday morning and will report back to the committee within a week, when there will be further open debate on that proposal. Thank you for your contributions and input.
Senator Robichaud: Are you taking applications in the meantime?
The Chair: I now have the distinct pleasure of introducing the new Director General of Parliamentary Precinct Services.
As honourable senators know, this past year Mr. Gourgue, our former Director General of Parliamentary Precinct Services, retired. As we have heard in the chamber, Mr. Gourgue served us extremely well and we were happy and proud to have had him in our employ and working with us.
Today, I am pleased to announce the recent appointment of Gilles Duguay to the position of Director General of Parliamentary Precinct Services. He replaces Mr. Gourgue. Mr. Duguay started a most impressive career with the RCMP in 1976. Over the years, he has acquired operation police experience in federal enforcement, in national security, in protective operations and in high profile investigative operations.
Mr. Duguay's successful track record comes from working with diverse groups and from facilitating cooperation between agencies and individuals in Canada and abroad. He is recognized for his leadership skills and has received numerous citations and awards to that effect.
Honourable senators, it is indeed a pleasure to introduce Mr. Duguay today. We are happy and honoured to have him with us in the Senate. Join me in welcoming Mr. Duguay and wishing him the best.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Gilles Duguay, Director General, Parliamentary Precinct Services: I appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee. I am pleased with the welcome thus far at the Senate. The clerk need not worry that I am looking for another job. I have loved every minute of my past life — 32 years in the RCMP — but for the last three months with the Senate, it has been an honour and a privilege for me to serve my country and senators in this way. I confided to my wife recently that I felt guilty that I did not think about the RCMP any more and that I was focused only on the Senate. Thanks very much for the warm welcome.
As you know, I am accountable to the Senate and to the Senate's interests regarding security, long-term accommodations issues and for delivering ongoing protective and facilities management services. Bearing that in mind, the clerk has given me three issues to focus on: the master security plan; the long-term vision plan; and the program review of the Parliamentary Precinct Services.
In terms of the master security plan, before running I wanted to crawl and establish good relationships with the partners.
[Translation]
Those responsible for security, whether members of the RCMP or the House of Commons security staff, are former members of the RCMP and former colleagues. Therefore, I have to say right away that I am very fortunate.
[English]
The cooperation has been tremendous. One of the first things with respect to security is to compare our standards and standardize the operations between the three organizations. We are well underway in accomplishing this goal. With respect to the master security plan, a draft will be submitted shortly. I am also waiting to see what this draft will look like. I had a peek at it, and it is lengthy. It needs to go back to the drawing board for some fine-tuning, but it is coming.
[Translation]
I want to emphasize that any change will have to bear in mind the independence of both Houses while seeking to enhance cooperation and communication between the different parties.
[English]
I can assure you of that.
[Translation]
The long-term vision and plans for the Parliamentary Precinct are elaborate and complex. I have attended several meetings. The person selected in consultation with my colleagues to head up the team is Ms. Brigitte Desjardins.
[English]
She comes from Public Works and Government Services Canada and has 20 years of experience there. The moment she was approached and offered the job, I knew we had the right person. That is because Public Works offered her a promotion at greater pay than she would receive with the Senate. Therefore, there is no doubt that Brigitte will be an asset to the Senate with respect to the Long Term Vision and Plan.
The program review is ongoing. Some changes have taken place, which will maximize the efficiency of the way we operate. Building services have now inherited trades and printing, and we are well underway with this reorganization. I will be happy to answer any questions.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I want to let you in on something. Mr. Duguay was born in the same small town in which I grew up. That is his good fortune. You are in the presence here of two proud Acadians.
Senator Massicotte: Mr. Duguay, personally and on behalf of the other senators, I want to welcome you here. I am confident that we will work well together. I note that you have learned the first lesson well, namely that the Senate is an independent body. Congratulations. That is excellent. You are a good salesperson. However, you will learn that serving 33 million people is perhaps easier than serving 105 individuals. I wish you the best of luck and I very much look forward to working with you.
Mr. Duguay: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: We will go in camera now, as we need to deal with two other items, honourable senators.
The committee continued in camera.