Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 1 - Evidence for December 6, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 6, 2007
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:36 a.m. to consider administrative and other matters.
Senator George J. Furey (Chair) in the chair
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, this morning I will stray from the agenda because Senator Oliver is here to make a presentation with respect to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU. Mr. Eric Janse, from International and Interparliamentary Affairs, will speak to this issue as well. We will begin the meeting with Mr. Janse.
Eric Janse, Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I will be referring to a business case that has been distributed.
[Translation]
We are here today to seek the approval, in principle, of the Internal Economy Committee about the possibility of the Canadian Parliament hosting a conference of the IPU in 2010.
[English]
The last time we hosted was in 1985, and this morning we are appearing before the committee simply to request agreement in principle to give us — and specifically Senator Oliver and the executive committee of the Canadian branch — the authority to negotiate with the IPU Secretariat in Geneva concerning the possibility of Canada hosting the conference. I will turn it over to Senator Oliver to give you a short brief.
Senator Oliver: The Inter-Parliamentary Union is the largest group and assembly of parliamentarians in the world. It represents 144 countries. When there is an assembly, there are about 1,500 delegates, not your standard 500- to 700- member group. Canada has not hosted this conference since 1985, and so we have applied to the IPU formally to host the 2010 assembly. Anders B. Johnsson, Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, came to Ottawa a few months ago and held meetings with the Speaker and many other delegates. He met with a number of people about the logistics for a conference. Even though we are only looking for approval in principle, there is one problem I wish to bring to your attention. In order for any country to host the IPU, it is necessary to sign a contract with the IPU that includes a provision stating that any delegate from any country in the world associated with the Inter-Parliamentary Union who wants to come to the assembly must be granted a visa by the host country.
In 2004, the United Kingdom wanted to host such a conference. The European Community told them, after the U.K. had laid out a lot of money, booked the hotels and the conference space, that they could not do it because there were certain people from Zimbabwe and other countries for whom they would not give authorization to grant visas. In the end, the U.K. could not host the event.
We have been in touch with the Department of Foreign Affairs. Under the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, we have asked the department to determine whether it is possible for us to grant the visas they want under that act by giving special status to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. That can be done under the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.
A formal letter to that effect has gone to the minister. There have been meetings with the minister, and lawyers in the minister's department are still studying the matter. The point is that we have no intention in Canada of entering into any contracts and spending any money until such time as we have clarity on that matter.
All we are seeking today is general approval in principle so that we can proceed quickly once we get clearance from the Department of Foreign Affairs. When it comes to booking accommodations for a conference of 1,500 people, 2010 is not that far away.
The Chair: To recap, you are asking for approval in principle, subject to approval from the Department of Foreign Affairs and the government with respect to the visa issue.
Senator Oliver: That is correct.
Senator LeBreton: Is there a dollar amount attached to this conference at the moment? Is the House of Commons also involved?
Senator Oliver: Yes, the House of Commons is also involved, as is the Joint Interparliamentary Council of the Senate and House of Commons. We have already made a presentation before the JIC, we will be making one before the House of Commons. Of course, we are making a presentation before this Internal Economy Committee now.
We think that the cost of the overall conference will be about $4.5 million to $5 million.
Senator LeBreton: Is a dollar amount attached to making representations in Geneva?
Senator Oliver: Can you say that again?
Senator LeBreton: For making representations to pitch Canada in Geneva, is there a dollar cost attached to the preliminary —
Senator Oliver: No, there is not. We have not spent any money yet at all. We have not entered into any contracts and have not incurred any costs whatsoever. The protocol people have gone to certain centres in Canada where the executive is looking to host the conference, if that were possible, but, again, there is no cost to Parliament as a result of that work.
The Chair: To enlarge on that question, Senator Oliver, you mentioned a general amount. The Senate will be responsible for 30 per cent of that figure; is that correct?
Senator Oliver: That is correct.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: The preliminary budget is $4.5 million. I see in note B that this involves some of our parliamentary staff and that the cost of overtime will be included in this $4.5 million. Is it still possible that, at the time of the conference, we might be told that a lot of additional personnel are required to meet needs and that these personnel costs might not all be included in this $4.5 million? Might that be a significant cost and perhaps a major surprise?
[English]
Senator Oliver: The overtime, the staff, the translations are all included in the global figure of $4.5 million to $5 million that I have suggested. Many of the numbers are not hard figures yet because once the IPU enters into the contract with Geneva, our protocol officers will have to negotiate a number of things with Geneva. For instance, most of the staff in Geneva are employees of the United Nations and their salary scale is at the UN level. We also have to negotiate with them a number of conditions in relation to overtime. We are just not at that point yet. I would hope to personally be involved in those negotiations to ensure that the amounts we pay are in keeping with Canadian standards.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: To clarify my question, I agree that we should approve the concept, but when you present the budget to us for final approval, I would very much like to see whether this amount of $4.5 million is correct; and, as far as the cost of personnel is concerned, not only the cost of overtime but also, if a reasonable allocation were made for the cost of the personnel involved, this would be an additional amount of how much?
[English]
Senator Oliver: Do you mean what we are budgeting for overtime?
Senator Massicotte: No, not overtime. In here, you say the $4.5 million will include overtime. However, we should also be informed separately of the cost of the allocation of our personnel besides overtime, because these people are working and there is obviously a direct cost to organizing the event. It is nice to say $4.5 million, but if there is to be a proper allocation of our manpower cost, there would this additional cost to organize the conference — not only overtime, but basic pay.
Senator Oliver: We have already drafted a pro forma budget. It is only pro forma because we do not even know where the conference will be held. There is no question that when we come back, we will have some hard numbers.
Senator Massicotte: Not only overtime, but the cost of personnel.
Senator Oliver: Yes.
Senator Massicotte: You said that a presentation was made to the Joint Interparliamentary Council.
Senator Oliver: We can only guess at how much overtime there may be, based upon previous conferences.
Senator Massicotte: I appreciate that, but we will hold your feet to the fire anyway.
Is the JIC recommending this?
Senator Oliver: Yes. We have approval in principle from the JIC.
Senator Comeau: That is the question I wished to ask, whether the JIC would make a recommendation to this committee or not.
You noted that the conference would not necessarily be held in Ottawa. Are other places in Canada under consideration? I know this is a huge conference; I have been to some of them before. It requires rooms with interpretation and so on. Could other centres in Canada host this event?
Senator Oliver: The protocol officers have done a lot of preliminary research; they have been working on this event for over a year. They have determined that there are three places in Canada where the conference could be held. Regretfully, one of them is not Halifax.
Senator Comeau: We may get a portrait museum there.
Senator Oliver: One of the centres is Vancouver. As you know, in 2010 another event will be going on in Vancouver. There is Toronto, which is not the greatest cultural centre in the world. There is also the Province of Quebec. It is really back to the Province of Quebec and the cities of Montreal and Quebec City. That is what we are looking at.
The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments?
Could we have a motion to approve in principle the idea of hosting such a notable conference, subject to the proviso that Senator Oliver will report back with respect to the Department of Foreign Affairs? There will be absolutely no allocation of funds or anything at this point.
Senator Jaffer: I so move.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is anyone contra minded?
Carried.
If everyone has had an opportunity to review item 2 on the agenda, the minutes of the last meeting, I would ask for a motion to approve.
Senator Comeau: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Comeau. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra minded?
Carried.
Next up is Senator Robichaud, who will be speaking to the report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Honourable senators, before moving the adoption of the first report of our subcommittee, I would like to share a few comments with you. The subcommittee is aware of the ambitious work plans of many Senate committees, and we are committed to an efficient and effective review process.
At the beginning of the fiscal year, $3,750,000 was available for committees. From this amount $400,000 was set aside for witness expenses, of which $166,073 was spent prior to prorogation. Therefore, the balance of funds for witness expenses is $233,927.
With respect to committee budgets, $3,531,755 was released to the committees, of which $499,584 was spent prior to prorogation.
Therefore, the balance of funds for the committees amounts to some $2.85 million.
To date, we have received some $2.5 million in budget requests, and there are other budgets pending.
In deciding on which chairs to invite to appear before the subcommittee, we decided to invite those whose budgets included any hiring of staff or travel, including conferences. Even though there are funds remaining for committees, these are public funds, and due diligence is essential. Part of this due diligence is post-activity reporting, so the subcommittee will be receiving reports from Finance following each committee activity indicating how much was budgeted and how much was spent for each item in the activity envelope.
Having heard from the committee chairs, we are recommending the release of $2,423,810, including $169,420 for legislative budgets and $2,254,390 for special studies.
Even though we are recommending full funding for committees this fiscal year, we are fully aware that the approach we took this time is unlikely to be replicated when we review budgets for 2008-2009.
[English]
A number of items raised concerns during the meetings earlier this week. I would like to put committees on notice that the subcommittee will be reviewing its approach to those and other items. These include: First, many committees are budgeting for outside communications consultants. It is our understanding that the Senate decided several years ago to invest in the Senate Communications Directorate in order to have in-house communications expertise, especially for committees. Given that we have Senate communications officers, when is hiring outside help justified?
Second, the demands for conferences vary tremendously between committees. While some committees know which conferences they would like to send delegates to, others do not. Should there be a cap on the amount we give to each committee for conferences?
Third, there is an enormous range in amounts that committees set aside for miscellaneous expenses. We would like to see more specificity in the requests and so we are looking at clearer reporting on the use of such funds. Should there be a standard amount allocated for miscellaneous expenses?
Fourth, there is a wide range in the level of details with respect to funds budgeted for consultants. Lump sums to cover several consultants make the work of the subcommittee more difficult. We would like committees to specifically identify how much they intend to include in each contract rather than lump them all together.
At this point, I remind senators that sole-sourcing for any contract over $35,000 for consulting services must be pre- approved by the Internal Economy Committee at the time of the budget application. For other goods and services, the limit is $25,000.
Fifth, indexing was another area that raised questions. Two committees included funds for indexing or coding of testimony and reports in their budgets. We are wondering whether this is a necessary service and, if so, whether it should be made available to all committees. We have asked staff to provide us with more information on this matter to assist us in preparing next year's budgets.
These are just some of the questions that arose, although I am sure there will be more. I would like to emphasize that the subcommittee was in the position of having sufficient funds to cover the requests, so the decisions were easier than we expect them to be in the next fiscal year. Of course, we expect committees to be prudent and responsible in their use of funds, and any surplus funds will be clawed back as per Senate policy.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: The subcommittee wishes to thank Heather Lank, the clerk responsible for the committees, for her crucial help.
[English]
In the meantime, I request the adoption of the first report of our subcommittee.
The Chair: Before going to questions, Senator Robichaud, I take it that the subcommittee will be making recommendations with respect to all of the items that you have raised before we go to budgeting for the next fiscal year. Those recommendations will be made to the full committee. Are my assumptions correct?
Senator Robichaud: Yes, absolutely, because the subcommittee does not have the authority on its own to set criteria. It is difficult for the subcommittee to say no to certain expenses when the full committee that is asking for those resources has taken a decision to approve all of the items before it: consultation, communications, et cetera. In some cases, depending on who defines it, what is reasonable becomes a big question mark. In the near future, we would like to put some suggestions before the steering committee of Internal Economy and then to the full committee to help the Subcommittee on the Review Committee Budgets establish guidelines that would enable us to say "yes" or "no." It is a difficult situation when a budget has been before a main committee three times, and we, the members of the subcommittee, are members of some of these committees as well. Without proper guidelines, we have to ask, "Who are we to second guess a committee?"
The Chair: We look forward to your report, Senator Robichaud, and a more fulsome debate in the full committee on suggestions that you may make regarding future budgeting.
Senator Robichaud: If the other subcommittee members — Senator Nancy Ruth or Senator Downe — wish to add to my comments, I, as chair of the subcommittee, would welcome them.
Senator Downe: No.
Senator Nancy Ruth: No.
Senator LeBreton: In terms of requests for funds to attend conferences, I appreciate the questions that Senator Robichaud has put on the table on behalf of the subcommittee. Whether or not there should be a cap is a good question because some committees in the past have budgeted for conferences and then trolled the world to find conferences to attend, which I do not think is appropriate.
With respect to miscellaneous expenses, Senator Robichaud is quite right: There should be clearer reporting and a standard amount should be set to allow for control over that budgetary item.
On the matter of outside communications consultants, within Senate Administration, the Communications Directorate has grown. It is now a large in-house directorate. I remember the necessity for outside communications consultants when we did the health care study with Senator Kirby. It was necessary at the time, but the valid question now is whether outside communications consultants have to be hired. I have my doubts.
In terms of sole-sourcing contracts, again, I think it is very reasonable that committees should have to come back to Internal Economy for any sole-source contract over $35,000.
With regard to specific committees, each committee drafts, discusses and then approves their budgets. They then go to the budget subcommittee of Internal Economy. Does the subcommittee probe the reasons for requesting this money? For instance, I heard yesterday that there was a debate in the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry about taking a trip to the North to study rural poverty. I know that several committees have gone to the North. With the issue of rural poverty, it is hard to make the leap. Many other issues relate to the North. Poverty is certainly one of them, but I do not know whether it can be narrowed down to rural poverty. I cannot understand why the committee would not have to explain to the subcommittee on budgets and then to the full committee why they actually think that is a worthwhile expense. That is one example.
In any event, the questions Senator Robichaud asked are good ones.
Once all the committees make their presentations, Internal Economy makes its recommendations. I realize we are dealing with fiscal year 2007-08 and will have to go through all this again. However, will there be an opportunity for the full Internal Economy Committee to extract something like that from the report of the subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets and put it before the whole committee of Internal Economy and actually call the committee chair to appear?
The Chair: If the full committee thought it was necessary, of course, Senator LeBreton. If that was a recommendation of the subcommittee, we would do it immediately.
Senator LeBreton: It is my plea, then, that the subcommittee be very aggressive. Where members of the subcommittee feel they require further explanation, they should recommend to the full committee which committee chairs to call.
The Chair: In fairness to considerations of the subcommittee, the subcommittee is dealing with orders of reference that have already been passed by the full chamber. A more fulsome debate on what a particular committee is doing or wants to do is perhaps best done in the full chamber when this comes up at first instance.
By all means, if the subcommittee wishes us to engage committee chairs, we would be more than happy to do it.
Senator LeBreton: In some cases, it might be better to have the debate here before it gets thrown to the floor of the full chamber. We always have that option.
Senator Robichaud: If I may respond to the comments about communications, those committees that use the services offered by the Senate Communications Directorate are happy and satisfied with the quality of the work they receive. This is why we asked to look into that.
As to the clear reporting of all activities, this will be done in the post-activity report. We are looking forward to seeing how budgetary allocations are used, the transfers between various envelopes and that kind of activity.
In relation to the Agriculture Committee travelling up North, this travel will form part of their study on rural poverty. The case was made to the subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets. The members of the Subcommittee questioned the chair of that committee as to the reasons behind the request for travel. The territories of Canada were the only part of the country to which the committee had not yet travelled. The Agriculture Committee had been everywhere else in the country, from one coast to the other, studying rural poverty. They felt that to leave out the North would not give a complete picture of how families in Canada's rural areas feel that poverty and how they live it. Having received the comments of the chair on that matter, the subcommittee thought it would go along, as this travel had been approved in an earlier budget but the Agriculture Committee did not have a chance to complete the trip because of prorogation.
Senator LeBreton: Was travel included in the earlier budget, or did the committee have to come back for additional funds?
Senator Robichaud: I understand it was included. Most of the budgets before you are part of a budget that was approved in the first part of —
Senator LeBreton: I understand that.
Senator Robichaud: They were coming back to complete whatever they had started.
Senator LeBreton: Because of the new session.
Senator Jaffer: I also want to thank you for the detailed report.
I am very concerned about the communications issue, and perhaps we need to have a subcommittee do something more after the report. I have been a member of many committees, and when there were communications issues, a person from the Communications Directorate would be assigned to work with the committee throughout, a practice that has been useful within the Senate. My concern is this: How do we build capacity within our Communications Directorate if we still need to go outside the Senate for these services? How we do that is a question we need to ask here, not of the subcommittee.
The Chair: I think you are correct in your assessment, Senator Jaffer, and I look forward to the recommendations of Senator Robichaud's subcommittee so we can have a debate at the full committee.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: The fact that Senator Robichaud raises these questions for the subcommittee confirms that our selection of members for our subcommittee was a good one since to my mind these are valid questions and I congratulate him. I too am eager to debate the points you have mentioned.
For example, when we talk about communication, there are two approaches, that is, the one that says we are going to go outside because maybe it costs less and gives each committee some flexibility, combined with internal resources. I am anxious to know what the people inside have to say.
I think there is another very important comment: I do not think that the subcommittee should rely too much — I do not wish to discourage them — concerning the budgets recommended by certain committees, on the fact that perhaps some of the committees have members who are on the Internal Economy Committee.
When I sit on committees, honestly, I rely a great deal on the Internal Economy Committee and especially your subcommittee to do an in-depth review because we do not do it.
When we are committee members, we act on our prejudices to support budgets and, in my experience, we do not have a very detailed study of the needs. We really have to rely on your subcommittee and the Internal Economy Committee for an in-depth review, because that is not how it happens, in my experience.
Concerning the other comments by Senator Robichaud, I get the impression that maybe he is trying to limit his responsibility respecting his recommendations but, knowing him as well as I do, I am certain that he took his job very seriously and I have complete confidence in him. I lend my support to his recommendations and I will accept these recommendations from the first report of his subcommittee.
[English]
Senator Goldstein: Congratulations to the subcommittee for obviously a well done and well-thought-out job. I have a question about why the Official Languages Committee budget does not appear to be in this report.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: It is quite simply that we did not receive it.
Senator Goldstein: You are not serious?
Senator Robichaud: We made every effort on the subcommittee to meet as early as possible in order to examine all the budgets that had already been submitted to the Internal Economy Committee so as to report on them today and allow the committees to undertake their studies, their travel and all their activities as early as possible.
But, as I mentioned in my remarks, we did not receive the budgets from all the committees. There are still some to be received.
Senator Goldstein: I am going to do whatever I must to ensure that the budgets are submitted to you.
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chair, I would like to mention the fact that, although I very much appreciate the comments made by Senator Massicotte, I do not consider that sitting on this committee is a lifetime job for senators, beginning with the chair. As far as I know, we did not sign a contract. Furthermore, I do not know what sort of clause could be included in order to do so. In the end, at some point, someone has to do it.
It is important for all the honourable senators to understand that they have a responsibility to the committees to look carefully at the budgets submitted to us since, who are we, three of us, to reject a budget that has been approved by committees on which 12 or 15 senators are sitting?
When we submit a budget, we do not know whether all the senators are aware or not of this budget. We are told that it was approved by the committee, that is all. If unusual situations were to arise, we would take action, but these are exactly the reasons for which we want to set some guidelines, so that we can operate within a certain framework and ensure that the chairs and members of the committees are familiar with these guidelines. This would simplify our work enormously.
For the next fiscal year, as has been done in the past, we will have to make some choices at some point, because probably it will not be possible to fill all the requests from all the committees, for lack of money.
Senator Massicotte: I agree, every committee should look at these recommendations in detail. Still, I am ready to bet that this will never be the case or, if so, seldom. This is called a conflict of interest. The members of the committees want to make trips and pursue their studies, I know that would be desirable, but it will not be the case. Unfortunately the ball ends up in your court again and it is up to you to do a very detailed study and ask the real questions.
Senator Robichaud: I will not sign the contract right away.
[English]
Senator Cook: Thank you, Senator Robichaud, for taking on such a challenge.
First, is "Miscellaneous Expenses" a big ticket item overall? If we were to take the aggregate of all the committees, would we be talking about a lot of money here?
Second, in budget forecasting, I think that "miscellaneous" should be contained within the ticket item. It should be a minimum, and we might consider putting a cap on it or listing the items.
In my other life, "miscellaneous" meant postage stamps, a container of coffee and such things. As far as possible, if such items cannot be spread out over the budget, then there should be a listing within. I mean, this is the public purse. I do not envy you the job, and I can tell you some wonderful stories about miscellaneous expenses.
Senator LeBreton talked about a communications consultant. I was on that committee. It is fair to say that we had a zealous chair and we became a committed group. We wanted to tell our story, so we bought into that principle. However, upon reflection, it was not a good experience. I do not know if my colleague over there will remember, but we paid a lot of money for consultants, but the message did not reach the Maritimes. There were three Maritime senators on that committee, and I got calls from the other two. Our findings did not hit the news or our newspapers. I know who to call here, but I did not know where to find the consultant.
I think consultants have to be handled very carefully. If we have the expertise in the Senate, why are we using the public purse to bring in experts? We have them here.
Finally, the worth of conferences has to be explored. Again, from my own experience, which is a snapshot in time, we were dispatched across this country to tell the story about our primary health care system, which was a landmark report. I went to conferences often as a luncheon speaker or a keynote speaker. I stayed two days and became part of the conference. I learned because I went into this issue and that one.
If conferences are to be part of our expenditures, Senator Robichaud, my suggestion is that they must be relevant to the topic that the committee is studying at that time. A conference in any other context is a waste of taxpayers' money.
Senator LeBreton: Senator Cook is absolutely right. At the time, I was the deputy chair of that committee. We felt there was a need for consultants, and the two gentlemen we hired basically did the mainstream media. However, now we have support from the Senate Communications Directorate, which we did not have then.
In any case, the senators on that committee, most particularly the chair, sold that report, not the people we hired to do the communications. I agree totally with Senator Cook. That is why I think a communications division in the Senate should be assigned committees and take instructions from them. There should not be any necessity to hire outside communications consultants.
Senator Comeau: I also would like to thank the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets. This is a tremendous way forward and I appreciate it.
I would like to repeat what others have said in order to emphasize the issue of in-house communications and consultants versus outside help.
It has been my long-standing belief that we should be building capacity, as Senator Jaffer said. I see no excuse not to build our own capacity because most of our committees, other than on rare occasions, are permanent entities. They continue one year to the next and study various domains.
I recall, at one time, the excuse being used on the floor of the Senate that there was a need for outside consultants because the proceedings of the institution being studied had to be translated into civilian language. If we are talking about a standing committee that will be there for a long time and we hire a consultant to translate the terminology of an institution into civilian language — in this case, it was the military — why not build that capacity in house? The danger is that after these communications people are gone, all the expertise that we have built up disappears as well. I agree entirely with your direction, senator.
Senator Downe: With respect to communications, one of the concerns is why so many chairs had confidence in and gave a vote of support to the Senate Communications Directorate and other chairs felt that their needs were not being met and they had to hire outside expertise. It is a cost-benefit analysis: Is it cheaper to get that expertise or is it better to build it in house? That is one of the areas we want to study.
Senator Stollery: I would like to respond to Senator LeBreton and her comment about chairs appearing before the full Internal Economy Committee. Up until not long ago, I remind everyone that in fact all the chairs reported to the full committee because that is how budgets were done. I am aware of this because when Senator John Stewart chaired the Foreign Affairs Committee, he never liked to go to Internal Economy for budgets; I used to be the one to come before the committee. That is how it was done until the establishment of the subcommittee. I want everyone to be aware of the fact that we now have a subcommittee to take the load off the full committee, which can be quite a deal if all the chairs have to appear before the full committee.
On the business of communications consultants, I appreciate the work done by the subcommittee chaired by Senator Robichaud. We have gone around in circles for years on this issue. The Foreign Affairs Committee reported on its study of Africa and did not use any outside people. We did very well publicizing the report, which was looked after by Senator Segal and myself, with the help of the staff in the Senate Communications Directorate. Perhaps other committees need outside consultants, but it is hard for me to comment. Some of these decisions are best left to the committee.
With regard to conferences, I will reference the Foreign Affairs Committee because it is very budget conscious. We have never spent a lot of money, but we do require a budget for things that do arise related to the work of the committee. We are very particular about that. By the way, we do not use up many of the various funds in our budgets. I do not know the situation with other committees, but we are small "c" conservative regarding conferences, which are crucial for our committee. I have had to pay the bill myself a couple of times when Parliament was not in session. I went out-of-pocket $8,000, and I do not think that should be the case when we have a series of minority parliaments and dissolutions.
Senator Joan Cook (Acting Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: I would like to thank the members of the subcommittee for their excellent report and recommendations. In order for me to properly understand one of the recommendations you put forward, Senator Robichaud, regarding the indexing of reports, could you give me, and the committee, some more details? What is this about exactly?
Senator Robichaud: That is the question we asked. For some committees, who wrote a series of reports, it seems that this makes it easier to access all the material in the reports when a system of indexing, of codification of information, has been established. That way, it is much easier for the researchers to have access to it.
The question has been raised. Now, perhaps someone could say it more clearly; we are told that, with all the electronic research tools available to us now, maybe we do not need that. That is why we wish to get the information. Could someone enlighten us on the matter of indexation?
[English]
Senator Downe: This is one of these public policy decisions that you will have to make. The Library of Parliament does indexing, but they do not have the resources to do all the detailed indexing required. Should we fund the Library of Parliament to do that? We were advised that they will tell us to hire someone to do the indexing. Three of the committees thought to ask for it and many of the other committees probably do not know it is available.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Ms. Helene Bouchard, Director of the Information Systems Directorate in the Senate, will enlighten us on the concept of indexing.
Hélène Bouchard, Director, Information Systems Directorate: I am not the expert on information management, even though I require resources for information management. The Library of Parliament does not have the resources to do indexing or a system in place to do the automation, but they are looking into it. Information management is a big issue in the federal government, including the Senate and the House of Commons because they do not have the resources.
[Translation]
Good information management results in good decision-making and will also improve the research and information that we need to do our job.
That is really the issue of the day. I find it interesting that you are talking about it; it is exactly what we are experiencing in the Senate, because the information is not intelligent. That is why it is important to put systems in place to support it.
Yes, I agree, the library cannot meet this demand. I should not speak for them, they can speak for themselves, but I know, from working with them, that they do not have the resources they need to do so.
[English]
Senator Nancy Ruth: In light of what has been said, it sounds like this is an issue for the Library of Parliament to develop further and get the capacity rather than us putting it out in separate budgets.
The Acting Chair: Does anyone else wish to comment on this subject?
Senator Downe: I do not want to belabour the discussion, but this is part of the structural problem. Some committees knew to ask for this service and others did not. It is almost as if we need a meeting of the committee chairs prior to preparation of their budgets. They could be given a chart of the various items and would then fill in the blanks. That way, everyone would be treated equally. As it is now, someone comes in and asks for a communications consultant, a research assistant, indexing services, et cetera — the things others do not know about or do not need.
The subcommittee dealt with a range of budgets that were questionable with respect to allocations. When we probed, we realized that they really meant this and not that. A budget item for one research assistant at $70,000 turned out to be for two people.
Senator Andreychuk and her clerk, in my opinion, had by far and away the best budget. They did not build in false flexibility. They put in what they needed and the information was very clear, while others were very vague. We need a standard format so it is clear what people are asking for, which would help reduce our workload dramatically.
Senator Tardif: We will have to come back to this issue, but I understand better now the nature of the issue and it entails.
Senator George J. Furey (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: We look forward to your recommendations, Senator Robichaud, Senator Downe and Senator Nancy Ruth.
I believe we have a motion to adopt the report of the committee. It was moved by Senator LeBreton. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
The committee continued in camera.