Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 1 - Evidence for February 14, 2008
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 14, 2008
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: Good morning, colleagues. The first item on our agenda this morning is an application from Senator Chaput for international travel. She has been kind enough to join us and explain to us the purpose of the travel.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Honourable senators, thank you for giving me this opportunity to explain the request that you have before you. As you can see, it is an international travel application. I would like to use my senator's travel points to attend a symposium in Paris. I was invited by Senator Joyal.
Before becoming a senator, Senator Joyal played a very special role in fostering and developing francophones in minority communities when he was Secretary of State. Francophones in Manitoba have a great deal of respect for Senator Joyal and appreciate the work he has done for us. So I am very honoured to be invited, and all the more privileged because the symposium program interests me greatly.
One of the topics to be discussed there will be the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec City. I still recall the nuns' Canadian history lessons: the founding of Quebec City by Samuel de Champlain, the first French-speaking bastion in Quebec, from which French then spread across the Canadas and into my part of the country, the west.
In that context, I should mention that, in Manitoba this year, we are also celebrating the 100th anniversary of the founding of the city of Saint-Boniface.
So these ties — the history of French, the founding of Quebec City by Samuel de Champlain, the spreading of French across the country, which, for me, as you know, continues to be not only a particular interest but also part of who I am — interest me greatly. I would like to go back into francophone history again, to listen to these presenters, to discover a new perspective on the ties that bind speakers of French around the world, in both France and Canada.
I am certain that this new knowledge will make me a better parliamentarian, not only in the Senate but also when I am at work in Manitoba representing the French-speaking community. A topic such as Canada's and France's evolution towards a social model based on humanist values is, as you know, very close to my heart.
France's colonial empire and Aboriginal nations is of even more particular interest because, just in our last break, I was approached for the first time by the French-speaking Metis of Manitoba — who are experiencing a renaissance of energy at the moment. They asked for my support for a project to retrace their origins. I think that this symposium also ties in with that project through which I will next be supporting my community in Manitoba.
France's legacy in Canada is, I feel, about my heritage because I share the same language.
So, for all these reasons, and for others that I am sure I have forgotten, I would feel privileged to receive your permission to attend this event. I recognize that it is expensive and that the notice is short; I recognize all that.
I am ready to answer your questions; you can be sure that I will respect your decision.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions, honourable senators? We are public for this portion of the meeting.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Senator Chaput, I think that it is important for Canadian parliamentarians to participate in conferences like this, especially when they are celebrating the 400th anniversary of Quebec City — four years after we celebrated the 400th anniversary of the founding of Acadia, I should note. But this is still very important.
Did the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages feel that this trip, this seminar, could be a conference that would be useful for its members, and specifically for you as its chair? Some committees use their own budgets to attend conferences that hold a specific interest for their members and for the committee's mandate.
Senator Chaput: I must confess that my first thought when I received the information was to come to Internal Economy right away because the request was for international travel. I did not think of making the request to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages as its chair. It just did not occur to me.
Senator Robichaud: That could be a way to do something like this, because, in this case, I think that is very relevant to the activities of the official languages committee. It is up to you, as chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and to the members of the committee, to make that decision. In any event, I would be in favour of a trip like this.
Senator Comeau: Senator Robichaud raises a very important point. It would be good for the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages to be involved in this event. Because this application was made of the last minute, it turns out that the official languages committee has not had the opportunity to become involved. Senator Chaput had to look at other ways to come up with a budget. But your point is certainly very valid. The fact that the chair of the committee is attending this symposium can certainly serve to further the committee's work.
[English]
The Chair: We can discuss the pros and cons of that approach.
[Translation]
Are there questions for Senator Chaput? Senator Chaput, thank you for your presentation.
Senator Chaput: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, dear colleagues.
The committee continued in camera.
[English]
The committee resumed in public.
Honourable senators, we are in public for discussion of our next agenda item.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I will start by wishing everyone a happy Valentine's Day. The Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its third report.
The consideration of committee budgets is certainly one of the most important tasks undertaken by the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Committee work is at the very heart of the Senate, and ensuring that committees have the resources they require to undertake their work is essential, as is ensuring that these resources are allocated and accounted for in an efficient and effective manner.
Your subcommittee recently completed its consideration of budgets for 2007-08. In the course of reviewing those budgets, a number of issues came to the attention of the subcommittee which, in its judgment, require further consideration prior to the 2008-09 budget process. You should all have a copy all of this report in front of you.
[English]
Miscellaneous Expenses: One issue of concern was the variance between committees in the amounts budgeted for miscellaneous expenses. Your subcommittee recognizes that when drafting a budget for a fiscal year, it may not be possible to foresee every expense, and including a small amount for unexpected contingencies is understandable. That being said, your subcommittee recommends that committees include only one line for miscellaneous expenses under "All Other Expenses" of their general expenses — that is, expenses not allocated to a particular activity — and that amount should be modest. Most committees already demonstrate this restraint, budgeting between $500 and $2,500 for this purpose.
Likewise, your subcommittee recommends that within each activity envelope there be only one line for miscellaneous expenses under "All Other Expenses," and that the amounts requested be modest.
Conferences: Another area where your subcommittee found significant variance between committees was in the amount budgeted for conferences. A historical analysis also indicates a large variance in spending between committees, with some committees never sending members to conferences and others doing so on a regular basis.
After discussion, your subcommittee concluded that committees are best positioned to determine whether conference attendance is of benefit to the committee and decided not to recommend imposing a cap on the amount to be allocated for conferences at this time. However, your subcommittee reserves the right to recommend a reduced allocation for conferences should a particular demand appear excessive or should there be a shortage of funds.
[Translation]
Another issue of interest relates to the matter of consultants. The General Materiel Management Policy requires that "consulting services having a value exceeding $35,000 and goods and other services having a value exceeding $25,000 shall be procured through a competitive sourcing process (a `competition') held in compliance with the rules established in this policy." The policy also states that requests from committees for sole sourcing shall be pre- authorized by Internal Economy or an authorized subcommittee thereof at the time of the budget application.
Historically, requests for sole sourcing have usually been made verbally at the time of the chair's appearance before the subcommittee on budgets. Your subcommittee believes that a more formal process should be in place. Therefore, your subcommittee recommends that committees include the intention to sole source in the written budget, if possible with the name of the contractor.
In addition, whenever possible, each proposed contract should be clearly identified in the budget, rather than consolidating them into one line in the budget. Committees are reminded that contracts must be drafted to ensure clear accountability and that invoices must be detailed, normally including an hourly accounting of tasks performed during the billing period.
Your subcommittee notes that current practice is for committees to delegate to the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk the authority to commit funds and certify accounts. Given that contractors work for the whole committee, even though they may be working under the direction of the chair, the deputy chair or the steering committee, your subcommittee suggests that committees consider having invoices from contractors signed off by both the chair and the deputy chair.
[English]
Communications: Your subcommittee notes that the Senate has invested in the Senate Communications Directorate to develop in-house expertise for Senate committees. Despite these investments, a few committees continue to hire outside communications consultants. Your subcommittee intends to inquire further into this matter through consultation with various interested parties and will report back at a later time.
Another area of considerable interest to your subcommittee is that of the reporting of expenditures. Current policies and practice allow significant flexibility for committees in the use of their funds. For instance, within an activity envelope there are no limits on the transfer of funds between categories so that, for example, if airline tickets are more expensive than had been anticipated, funds which had been budgeted for other purposes — within that envelope, of course — on the trip may be used to cover the shortfall. That being said, once the activity is completed, all surplus funds are clawed back. They are not available to the committee for other purposes.
A decision was taken by the steering committee of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration in 2007 that the Finance Directorate prepare detailed financial reports following the completion of each committee activity and that these reports be presented to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on a regular basis. These reports will include a line-by-line breakdown of the budget and expenditures with an explanation of any significant variance. Your subcommittee recommends that detailed post- transactional reports also be prepared for all general expenses — that is, non-activity related expenditures — to be submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
While your subcommittee does not have a firm recommendation on the frequency of these reports, twice per year appears to be a reasonable standard. The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration may wish to refer all committee post-expenditure reports to the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets for consideration. Copies of committee contracts and invoices could be appended to the report.
[Translation]
In conclusion, your subcommittee believes that the adoption of these modest recommendations will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the budget process.
We wish to remind senators of the importance of the budget process and of committee members' responsibility to carefully consider their committee's needs prior to the adoption of the budget and its submission to the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration for consideration. Your subcommittee expects committees to be responsible for their use of public funds, while ensuring that the requirements of senators and staff are met. So, for example, funds should be budgeted for interpretation on fact-finding trips should the need exist.
The work of your subcommittee will be greatly facilitated if committees are clear about their needs and detailed in their budget submissions. Once budget requests for 2008-09 are received, your subcommittee will determine the approach it will take to the recommended release of funds.
Respectfully submitted, myself as chair, Senator Downe and Senator Nancy Ruth.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Robichaud, for a very comprehensive report. I would like to thank Senator Downe, and Senator Nancy Ruth in her absence, for your report and presentation.
Are there any comments or questions, colleagues?
[Translation]
Senator Comeau: My question is about communications. If memory serves, we decided in the past that communications work would be done by Senate staff. You indicate in your report that there are still committees who use outside services. I am trying to remember whether it was a directive that we gave to committees to use Senate communications or whether they still had the option of going outside. If not, what seems to be the problem in using in- house communications? I cannot see why we would need to look for these services outside.
Senator Robichaud: I do not think that it was a directive because committees have had the choice for some time. You will recall that, in a report that the subcommittee presented, we said that we were going to look at it, because, in fact, we were trying to put in-house expertise at the committees' disposal. We started to look in that direction by asking some committee chairs about it. At the time, we felt that we needed to consult a little more become coming here with recommendations. Of course, that would certainly require a meeting with senior communications staff. That is certainly something that we want to look at in more depth.
[English]
Senator Goldstein: My observation relates as well to the use of outside communications people. We started the current session of the Banking Committee with an outside communications person, who was excellent. However, we discovered as well that excellence comes with a significant cost and, therefore, decided to make use of the Senate communications people. To our very pleasant surprise — and Senator Massicotte will bear this out because he is very active on that committee — we discovered that the communications people at our disposal in the Senate are perfectly adequate to the task. They might not have the brilliance that outside super-experts might have, but given the nature of the publicity that we do and seek, I do not know that we need superstars to do it. I would opt for making it the rule to use the Senate facilities at our disposal with only an exceptional recourse to outside public relations or communications people. I would urge your subcommittee to consider that suggestion.
On another item, the second last sentence of the second to last paragraph of the English version of the report states, "Your subcommittee expects committees to be responsible in their use of public funds." That expectation presupposes that the committees have not heretofore been responsible in the use of public funds, and I do not think that was the intention. I would propose that the wording be changed to read, "Your subcommittee understands that committees have been responsible in their use of public funds, but they must ensure the requirements of senators and staff are met." That avoids the judgmental aspect of the wording as it currently stands.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I understand perfectly, Senator Goldstein, and that was not the intention.
Senator Goldstein: I know that it was not your intention, but it gives that impression.
Senator Robichaud: It could be confusing, but I assure you that people are responsible, and our recommendations are modest ones only. As for your comment about the direction, that is exactly what we wanted to understand before suggesting something that would be more definitive.
[English]
Senator Dawson: In a previous life, I spent 20 years in Canada's largest public relations firm. I can assure you that without exception all companies in Canada have both internal and external communications facilities because of the fact that you do have some perpetual communications that must be done inside the organization. However, there are documents, such as annual reports or a report on an annual conference, that you want to have done outside the organization. It is not just a question of funding but a question of being able to respond to needs.
Our biggest problem in communications is probably senators not being sensitive enough to the communications side of things. I have had both internal and external communications consultant on committees that I have worked with. A case in point is the excellent report on Africa, but for all kinds of reasons we did not get to communicate the project. It was not a problem of internal or external communications but rather our capacity as a committee to communicate.
I do not like to disagree with the senator, but having a rule that we are not allowed to go outside would be a big mistake. I believe that debate should continue because it is complicated.
[Translation]
It is not just a question of deciding for or against.
[English]
There will always be exceptions. If we fall into the trap of thinking that we can impose all of our problems on the communications services of the Senate, we would be making a big mistake.
Senator Jaffer: I thank the committee for the excellent report. We have has this discussion on communications before. In my opinion, there are two issues.
First, we need to build our communications team in the Senate; we need to build capacity.
The second issue is messaging. Yes, we will need outside communications people, but I suggest that the committee look at a way that even when we hire outside communications people, they would work directly with someone in our Communications Directorate so that institutional messaging is always kept in mind. They would work with our communications team rather than just directly with the subcommittee so that institutional messaging and building our own capacity are taken care of.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Congratulations; the report has a lot of merit and I support it completely.
[English]
Communications is a sensitive issue and you should do a lot more work. Three or four years ago, I did the same thing and I consulted with the chair of every committee. The general opinion was that outside help is critical to doing a good job.
If you look at every poll, the Senate has a poor image in Canada in regards to the work we do. We suffer immensely in terms of credibility and image. I would add a side note by saying that the non-partisan activity of the Senate will not help much. However, the committee work and the reports we table are very good. We have to be extremely more proactive in getting the message across about just how good our committee work is.
The majority of the committee chairs I spoke to wanted to go outside for communications help as need be. Quite frankly, I suspect that the specialists or the expertise you need is not in-house. If you look at total cost, on a marginal basis it costs money to go outside. However, I am not sure that going outside for most of the work is cheaper than what we are doing today. Take a look at it.
Senator Stollery: The communications conversation has been going on for at least the 20 or more years that I have been on this committee. I agree with Senator Massicotte, and I think Senator Dawson and Senator Massicotte are saying the same thing. I do not think Senator Goldstein said the opposite.
We had a policy that when a committee went to the Internal Economy Committee with a budget, it would not be approved unless they had laid out a communications strategy. I thought that was a very good policy. For years I have been putting forth budgets of the Foreign Affairs Committee. However, it was a policy of the Internal Economy Committee that you could not get your budget approved if it did not include a sum for outside help.
This is not a criticism of our committee. Senate communications are much improved. Nonetheless, you did not have to spend; you had to present a strategy to publicize your report. I never understood why we abandoned that policy because I thought it was a good one.
I think that we should be encouraging people to "communicate" our reports. I will not bore you with the adventures of the Foreign Affairs Committee and its Africa report. Overall, we did pretty well with it. I think it generated quite a lot of good publicity for the Senate.
I agree with what Senator Massicotte and Senator Dawson are saying: There is expertise outside of the Senate that we can use, and we should not interfere with any committee that says they have a plan.
This conversation has been going on for years and is extremely important. It is more important now because the Senate has been under attack, and we have to respond with the work that we do. We have to tell people, for God's sake.
Senator Stratton: I am not disagreeing with any of what has been said, but the key is "value for money," as Senator Massicotte would say. If a committee goes outside the Senate for communications expertise, the committee should have to justify it. In other words, come before the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets and justify it, as Senator Stollery says. You cannot just go out and hire willy-nilly, even if you tender; you have to justify it.
Senator Massicotte: I would go back to what Senator Stollery said as well — justify it. I believe we have issued 368 reports over the last 10 years and the public remembers 2 or 3. I would do the reverse: Justify why we should spend time doing a report if we are only going to talk about it amongst ourselves. If we are not going to make the Canadian public aware of the reports, they are a waste of time and money. Committees should have a communications strategy.
Senator Dawson: Being the new guy on the block and not having been here for 20 years like Senator Stollery, I would say that normally in a situation like this you have a communications audit. It is the same thing as having any audit when people from outside come in and look at the reports from the last three or four years. They may say, "Here is what is being done and how much it costs, and this is how you should be looking toward the future." It is a communications audit. It has been done in bigger organizations that, in some cases, have better reputations than we have. That should be considered by the committee.
The Chair: I think the general wish of the committee is to adopt the report, subject to the change in the second last paragraph of the conclusion as recommended by Senator Goldstein. Could we have a motion to adopt the report?
Senator Massicotte: I so move.
The Chair: All those in favour? Contra minded? Carried.
Thank you Senator Robichaud, Senator Downe and, in her absence, Senator Nancy Ruth. We will hear back from you again on the issue of communications as you suggested in your report.
The committee continued in camera.