Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 1 - Evidence for March 6, 2008
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 6, 2008
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:06 a.m. to consider administrative and other matters.
Senator George J. Furey (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. The first item on the agenda is the request for international travel from Senator Rompkey.
Senator Rompkey: Mr. Chairman, I have presented to the committee the reasons for international travel. They are laid out and I assume that committee members have been able to go over them.
This travel proposal involves a visit to war graves in France by a delegation from Newfoundland. I have been asked to lead that delegation. This visit is very important for our province, as you know. The Royal Newfoundland Regiment fought in the First World War. The Battle of Beaumont-Hamel, in particular, is very important to our province. This group wants to raise a plaque there, which they have prepared. They will be visiting Beaumont-Hamel, as well as other sites where the regiment fought in the First World War. There will be some visits to Second World War gravesites as well.
That is the purpose of the trip and we have laid out the cost. The cost is roughly the same as a visit to my own province, so I am asking to be able to use a point to do this.
The Chair: Honourable senators, are there any questions or comments?
Senator Downe: What is the name of the group that has asked you to go, senator?
Senator Rompkey: It is a group of men and women from a particular school in Newfoundland. This school lost many people in the First World War. The regiment was formed as a result of cadet organizations based in schools. Much of the early part of the regiment was formed in that way, and that is the group that is going over.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Rompkey.
Senator Rompkey: Thank you, sir.
The committee continued in camera.
The committee resumed in public.
The Chair: We will resume in public for the report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: The Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its fourth report. Your subcommittee recommends the following partial, pro-rated release of funds for fiscal year 2008-09:
National Security and Defence (National Security Policy), Professional and Other Services: $47,900; Transportation and Communications; $109,600; All Other Expenditures: $7,500, for a total of $165,000.
The recommended allocation is for: $40,500 for contracts through June 30, 2008; $1,500 for working meals; $5,000 for courier charges; $15,000 for promotion of reports; $103,000 for a trip to Washington, D.C.
[English]
Your subcommittee notes that these recommended allocations are based on the presentation by the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence regarding the committee's needs until June 30, 2008. Your subcommittee will conduct a further review of this budget once other budgets for 2008-09 are received. No assumptions should be made regarding future allocations for expenditures forecast after June 30, 2008 in this budget.
[Translation]
Your subcommittee intends to carefully review all committee budgets as early as possible in the fiscal year.
Respectfully submitted by the subcommittee composed of myself, Senator Nancy Ruth and Senator Downe.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Robichaud, is it $40,500 for contracts — plural — through June 30? Does that mean that none of those contracts are above the policy limit of $35,000 for public tendering?
Senator Robichaud: This is a tricky question that we will have to deal with when we consider the budget for the full year. This represents three or four contracts, so it is broken down. It deals with parts of contracts that were requested for the full year. This is why we have said at the bottom of page 1 of our report:
No assumptions should be made regarding future allocations for expenditures forecast after June 30 . . . .
We want to look at this because in the submission before us for the full amounts, I believe three of the four exceed the $35,000 limit, whereby if you do not go to public tender, you sole source and you get the permission of the committee.
The Chair: In Senator Kenny's overall budget, I see that there are three requests for contracts above the $35,000 limit. That limit is a Treasury Board guideline that we have adopted. By sawing it off and allocating a certain amount between now and June, are we skirting the guideline of $35,000 for contracts by not going to tender now? Would this proposal survive an audit?
Senator Robichaud: It is just putting it off, in a way, because the numbers asked for are for a certain period and they are not over. I remind you that we also have the authority to sole source.
The Chair: Only in prescribed circumstances.
Senator Robichaud: This is the question we will have to answer when we look at the full budget. I cannot speak for the other members of the subcommittee, but I am very uncomfortable with that. I believe that if we have markers or guidelines, we should keep within them, or else we should just dump them and do as we wish. When we consider the full budget, this is why we will have to consider those limits seriously, as well as whether we allow sole sourcing.
The Chair: The current policy is that you can only sole source contracts of $35,000 or less. Beyond the $35,000, the Treasury Board guideline that we have adopted stipulates that the contract has to be tendered.
If we know that the contract request is above that limit, as is the case in Senator Kenny's full budget request, are we within the guidelines by just approving part of it because that part is below $35,000?
Senator Robichaud: I am looking for guidance.
The Chair: Perhaps we could ask Mr. Patrice to comment from a legal perspective and our Director of Finance to comment from an audit perspective on what would happen if we were to approve it.
Michel Patrice, Assistant Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: As you say, the policy adopted by the Senate for procurement of goods and services provides for a limit of $35,000 in terms of contracts that can be sole sourced. The policy also provides that you can go above the $35,000 for sole sourcing where so approved by Internal Economy. The committee has the authority to approve contracts over the $35,000 limit.
In terms of contract splitting and the spirit of a policy, whether the policy of Treasury Board or our policy, you cannot split contracts to go around the $35,000 limit. I understand that an amount less than $35,000 has been approved. One could say that this is not subject to the sole sourcing policy at this time, but when further funds are requested from the committee it could bring that amount above the $35,000. That is when the question will arise as to whether the committee approves the sole sourcing contract, to avoid the contract splitting.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I understand the finesse of what you said, but the line in the report that says "No assumptions should be made regarding future allocations for expenditures" was our way of getting out of the bind that you have suggested. We have approved it, but we are saying, "Don't count on it, baby." That is why that is specifically there.
Senator Robichaud: The argument put to us is that some committees have developed a certain expertise over the years that cannot be found elsewhere. The argument is that if we go to the public for contracts, we risk losing those experts and the committees would not get the services they now receive.
I am all for the public tendering of contracts. That argument can be made, but if we have guidelines, either we stay within them or we change them.
The Chair: I know the committee has the authority to approve the sole sourcing of contracts beyond $35,000, but before we approve, that argument has to be made before this committee. We have to be convinced, along the lines that you just spoke of with respect to expertise, that there is a bona fide reason to sidestep the public tendering process. That is not being done here.
I am satisfied with Senator Nancy Ruth's comment that once you have included in your report that this is a one- time request and it is not to be construed as approval for anything beyond the $35,000, we should feel fairly comfortable that this is not an indirect way of trying to get around the $35,000 limit.
Senator Stratton: My only real concern is that here we have three contracts totalling $128,000. There may be valid and good reasons for the sole sourcing — I have been on committees where that has been deemed to be important — but three?
I understand the special requirements of that particular committee; I am not denying that fact. However, surely to goodness, with respect to a consultant — writer/communications — there are dozens of individuals on the Hill who you could perhaps go to and ask. It may turn out that if the committee were to put the contract out to tender, they would find someone better. That is one area where I feel something like that could be done.
Senator Robichaud: We are discussing something that is not before us at this moment. This is certainly something we will take into consideration when we do a study of the full budget for the full year.
Senator Stratton: Once you have approved these amounts, that is it.
The Chair: We are not approving these amounts, Senator Stratton.
Senator Robichaud: You are just approving what is before you in this report.
Senator Stratton: I understand that. I am looking at the amount of $47,000 for "Professional and Other Services." Where is the detail on that? There is $40,500 for contracts through to June 30. What are they? Are they a portion of those contracts?
Senator Robichaud: They are a portion of what is before you.
Senator Stratton: Thank you.
The Chair: Does that include the contract for research and administrative assistant? If it does, is that research and administrative assistant available to the full committee?
Senator Robichaud: This is a question we should ask of the committee. That $47,900 is prorated for three months: April, May and June. It covers that part of the salary that was asked for the year, or the contract.
There was a question as to what that person was doing — if she was working, as you were saying, for the committee. The answer was that the work she does is in relation to the demands that come to the senator's office concerning the work done by the committee, if I can put it that way.
I do not know if the members of the subcommittee wish to speak.
The Chair: Is everyone satisfied with that response?
Senator Robichaud: Yes and no, because we want to look further into that matter. The question that must be put is this: Should committee budgets be used to hire staff in a senator's office?
The Chair: I think the answer to that is a blunt "no." If an assistant is available to the full committee, we have done that in the past, but we certainly cannot use committee budgets to supplement or augment senators' office staff.
Senator Robichaud: This is the grey area, Mr. Chair. The case was made to us that this person works exclusively, if I may use that expression, on things that are related to the work of the committee in the promotion of reports, the organization of meetings with media, the organizing of schedules, the writing of answers to people who call in for reports and who ask questions on the reports, et cetera.
A list was submitted to us as to the work that person was doing. We are looking at that. We found that some of those tasks could very well be done by other resources at the disposition of the committee.
The Chair: I again rely on the comments of Senator Nancy Ruth with respect to no assumptions here.
So as not to impede the work of the National Security and Defence Committee, the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets is asking that we approve this particular report on an interim basis. The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence wishes to get on with its work until June. All of those issues we are discussing now will be debated in full before the full budget is approved; is that correct?
Senator Robichaud: Yes.
The remark made by Senator Nancy Ruth appears in the report. Given that we had agreed to certain amounts, we wanted to make sure that no one took it for granted that they could project over the year and that funds would be forthcoming. No assumptions should be made in that direction.
Senator Cook: Help me to understand this issue. You pro-rated an amount of $47,900. Those people go about their business and perform their tasks until June, when we may or may not shut them down. Is that where we want to go? You start off on a journey and then you abort it.
Senator Robichaud: It is do it now or do it later.
Senator Cook: I am looking at four talented, experienced people starting a function of work until June, and then someone may or may not shut them down. It does not make any sense to me.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Senator Kenny always takes a gamble and a risk, and all staff should know that.
Senator Robichaud: It makes sense to me in that these are contractors. Contractors usually are hired for certain periods of time and have to resubmit if they want to continue working.
Senator Cook: So these are contracts.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I have one issue about the Treasury Board guidelines. How do you work it creatively? Three contracts are above $35,000 and two of them are only $5,000 above that amount. It would cost more than that to put an ad in The Globe and Mail to recruit a body of people to come and bid on a contract; and it is only for a part-time job anyhow.
When I sit on the committee, I am not sure what to do. My business experience tells me that for $5,000 this is crazy, so don't do it. I understand that is the guideline we are given, but I do not know how to operate with it so it is creative and useful.
Paul Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Committee: Treasury Board provisions allow you to have a multi- year request for proposal, or RFP. You would tender for multiple years in an effort to select people who could ensure continuity with the committee. I am not sure how long that multi-year proposal would be, be it three years or five years, but it is up to you to decide. That is also possible within Treasury Board guidelines.
Senator Nancy Ruth: You understand my problem. For $5,000, why would you do this?
The Chair: You are talking about the limit of $35,000?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Yes, when the contract is only $40,000.
The Chair: You have to set a guideline for a certain amount, as Treasury Board does. If it goes beyond the $35,000, irrespective of the cost, you have to tender it. That is the rule. You have to set the limit somewhere. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
Senator Robichaud: It was suggested that we go the way of a standing offer, whereby we put out a call for persons interested in providing certain services and they tell us how much they want. If the standing offer stands for, let us say, three years or so, would that work for us?
The Chair: We would have to look at it in more detail.
Senator Stollery: It is not the only place where we have problems with Treasury Board guidelines. There are other weird anomalies.
The Chair: I would ask counsel to comment on Senator Robichaud's remarks.
Mr. Patrice: It falls under Senate policy and not Treasury Board guidelines. Perhaps we have adopted the spirit, but it is Senate policy. I want to make that clear.
The second point is that standing offers may work well for generic services such as editing, communication services or administrative support. However, the nature of committees is that they are created at the beginning of a Parliament and then cease to exist. Not knowing their mandate or the studies that they will undertake makes a standing offer for specialized personnel problematic at times. There are time constraints in terms of standing offers for preparation, submission, review and approval. Yes, a standing offer can work for a certain range of committee activities, but in other areas, it might be more problematic for committees to go the route of a standing offer. That is the basis of Senate policy on sole sourcing and the Internal Economy Committee having the authority to approve sole sourcing above the $35,000 limit.
Senator Prud'homme: I have 90 per cent of my answer from Mr. Patrice. The nature of Parliament is not exactly what we see with other departments. There is no continuity. With a new Parliament, there could be a change in the chairmanship of committees. We could have staff on a three-year contract, but what would they be doing? That is why I am listening attentively.
The nature of our job is different than any other job. If there were an election, committees would not reconstitute for perhaps six months, if the summer recess were involved. What do you do with full-time people on three-year contracts? You pointed out better than I could, for example, that a new chairman might well have a different approach to what the National Security and Defence Committee should study. What would these full-time people be doing while they fulfilled the remainder of their contracts? What if there were a conflict of personality between the new chair and these full-time people who had been hired for three years?
The Chair: We have a motion from Senator Robichaud that the full committee accept the fourth report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets. All those in favour?
Senator Nancy Ruth: I speak for Senator Stratton in saying, on division. He had to leave.
The Chair: That is fine.
Senator Prud'homme: I do not know if I can revert back. When they talk about transportation, especially the trip to Washington, can it not be charged to the committee? Can they not charge it to one of their four trips?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Good point.
Senator Robichaud: Usually, when committees go on committee business, the committee budget covers the expenses for those trips.
Senator Prud'homme: I see the clerk is in agreement with you, but I will push it further. You said, usually.
Senator Robichaud: No, always.
The Chair: Always, Senator Prud'homme. With respect, the four trips to Washington are for individual senators, not for a committee.
We will say that the report has been accepted, on division.
Senator Jaffer: I am not comfortable with that. You cannot accept a vote on division when the person is not in the room.
The Chair: We will defer the acceptance of the report.
Senator Jaffer: We will accept it this time, but let us not make it a precedent.
The Chair: We will not do it at all, Senator Jaffer. I agree with you that he should be here. We will wait until Senator Stratton returns before we take the vote on this report.
Senator Prud'homme: Senator Nancy Ruth said she spoke on behalf of Senator Stratton.
The Chair: We will wait. Senator Jaffer has made a point.
Senator Downe: She is on the subcommittee.
The committee continued in camera.