Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 1 - Evidence for April 10, 2008
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:02 a.m. to consider administrative and other matters.
Senator Terry Stratton (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I ask for the adoption of the minutes.
Senator Prud'homme: So moved.
The Deputy Chair: Any discussion? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: The next item is the fifth report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets.
Senator Robichaud, would you mind taking us through that, if you please?
[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 fifth report. I believe each one of you has a copy of this report.
You will recall that one of the issues discussed was communications. Speaking of communications, your subcommittee met with Diane Boucher, Director of Communications, who explained the services that her Directorate can provide to Senate committees.
Ms. Boucher noted that communications officers are assigned to each committee and that the resources of the directorate are over-subscribed. She noted that there may be instances in which certain communications services cannot be provided by her directorate.
Indeed, some committee chairs expressed concern that their communications needs had not been met, while others expressed full satisfaction with the services their committees had received from the Communications Directorate.
[English]
Committees are encouraged to discuss their communications needs with their assigned communications officer to determine if additional funding for communication services should be included in their committee budgets. Ms. Boucher emphasized her willingness to meet with committee chairs and deputy chairs to explain the services that can be provided by the Communications Directorate.
The Senate's General Materiel Management Policy — we are changing subjects — 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 the Internal Economy Committee or an authorized subcommittee thereof at the time of the budget application.
After reviewing the requirements of a competitive sourcing process, your subcommittee has concluded that such a process would only rarely be feasible in a committee context.
With the adoption of your subcommittee's third report on February 14, 2008, there is now a requirement that committees include the intention to sole source in their written budget, if possible with the name of the contractor.
Your subcommittee further recommends the following: first, that all requests for committee contracts for consulting and personnel services be signed off by both the chair and deputy chair of the committee; and, second, that all committee invoices for consultants and personnel services be signed off by both the chair and deputy chair of the committee before the invoice is paid.
[Translation]
Your subcommittee has also considered the matter of funds for administrative staff being included in committee budgets.
At present, one committee has administrative support paid for by the committee and working out of the office of the Chair. Your subcommittee was informed that this individual worked full time on committee-related business. Historically, other committees have not requested funds for this purpose, though one other recent budget submission includes a request for funds for research/administrative assistance.
[English]
Your committee requests guidance from the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration regarding administrative staff being paid from committee budgets reporting exclusively to the chair of a committee.
[Translation]
There is a significant range in the amounts that committees include in their budgets for conferences, as well as great variety in the amount of detail given regarding conferences that committee members may attend. Spending on conferences also varies significantly between committees.
In addition, some committees ask their members to report on what they learned at each conference, while others have no such requirement.
[English]
In general, activity-based allocation of funds has been for public hearings, fact-finding trips and conferences. In the case of public hearings and fact-finding trips, surplus funds are clawed back at the conclusion of the activity. With respect to the conference envelope, funds are available for the fiscal year and are not clawed back.
This approach appears to have created some confusion about the degree of flexibility that exists for committees with respect to their use of funds in the conference envelope. A budget submitted for 2008-09 includes, for the first time, a request for funds for "Conferences, meetings and other matters related to committee business," while another committee requests funds for "Promotion of reports, meetings and other matters related to committee business," in addition to requesting funds for conferences. Your subcommittee believes that these headings are lacking in specificity and are the equivalent to a large request for funds for miscellaneous purposes.
Therefore, your subcommittee recommends the following: first, that committees specifically identify in their budgets the nature of the activities for which they are requesting funds; and, second, that funds allocated for conferences be used for conferences only, unless explicit permission is granted by the Internal Economy Committee to use them for another purpose.
This report is respectfully submitted by the members of your subcommittee: Senator Nancy Ruth, Senator Downe and myself.
Senator Kinsella: I would like to have identified, for a clear understanding, the subject matter that is being communicated by a committee. For example, in the past some committees have completed their work and have had press conferences laying out the content of the report. Usually it is done after the report has been tabled in the chamber. The great confusion, and what I consider to be misleading and therefore a danger, is that the Canadian public comes to regard this report as the view of the Senate when in fact it has not been adopted by the Senate. Effectively, it is the view of that committee. In the study undertaken by the subcommittee, did this issue of the subject matter or content of what is being communicated come up — making clear the distinction between the work of a committee and a report of the Senate?
Senator Robichaud: No. When we review committee budgets, we look at the budget that has been approved by a committee requesting certain funds for certain purposes. As long as the purposes reflect the mandate of the committee and the studies they want to complete, we stay within that.
In relation to reports, one committee put some money in its budget for the promotion of reports. We have not looked at the fact that the report is not a Senate report before it is adopted by the Senate.
This is not the first time that we have mentioned that some committees will submit their budgets through the clerk on the Friday and get all the press over the weekend from that report, which is then considered by the public and the media to be a report of the Senate. No, we have not looked at that at all. I do not think it would be for our subcommittee to do so, unless Senator Downe wishes to add that we should look into the matter. I think it is a broader question than what we are mandated to do.
Senator Downe: I have a concern about the larger question of the subcommittee's mandate. Members should be aware that this report was passed on division. It was not unanimous.
Senator Stollery: I have a comment on Senator Kinsella's observation. I happen to have some experience with a report that had worldwide publicity but was never adopted by the Senate. The situation in the Senate is such that it takes only one senator to keep a report going for years without it ever being adopted. This could bring the whole thing to a halt. Obviously, under the current system the whole thing could just stop. Of course, when a report comes out, senators generally agree that it should get publicity because it is a report of the committee pursuant to the committee being tasked with the job by the Senate.
I am looking at point 2 on conference budget amounts. I do not know what the implications are, although I am sure the subcommittee discussed them. In the business of allocating funds for conferences, some committees, and that includes the Foreign Affairs Committee, apply for the amounts and use them for conferences. I had never conceived of them being used for anything else. I would like to hear where and when there has been a problem because I did not know there were any problems. Do we have recommendations for the sake of having recommendations? In our case, going back some years, we are careful to use the allocated amounts for conferences only.
Senator Robichaud: We are not pointing the finger.
Senator Stollery: Is there a problem?
Senator Robichaud: There is not a problem. I mentioned, when introducing this subject, that fact-finding trips and public hearings are identified as activities. When the activity is completed, there is a report and the funds that have not been used are clawed back. The funds are used for that activity only. If you have a heading that refers to "conferences, meetings and other matters related to committee business," then the amounts under that broad title can be shifted within that envelope such that monies that were budgeted for conferences can be used for other meetings. We feel that there should be a little more clarity whereby if the funds are used for conferences, then they are for conferences only. If a committee has funds left over from that envelope and wants to transfer the amount, the committee can ask the Internal Economy Committee and the request will be considered. This matter has been raised to clarify that funds are not moved around at will.
Senator Stollery: I accept the advice of the Chair of the Subcommittee. However, it is important that we do not get ourselves down a road into an awkward position that takes away important flexibility.
Having had some experience with this, I cannot think of using the budgeted amount for other than a conference. I can envision a situation different from that of my experience where a committee might deem an activity important for a senator to do related to the business of that committee. You are saying that if this were to happen, then the committee has to bring the matter to the Internal Economy Committee. If this recommendation is approved, what is the change to the current process?
Senator Robichaud: If this recommendation is approved, conferences will be a separate item.
Senator Stollery: Are they not separate now?
Senator Robichaud: No. This is what I was trying to say. At times, conference amounts include business meetings and other matters. The subcommittee thinks that the category is too general and broad. We would like to know what we are approving and for what purposes. This change will bring a little clarity to what we are doing.
Senator Stollery: Is that a unanimous recommendation of the subcommittee?
Senator Robichaud: I would ask Senator Downe to respond because he is the one who said that this report was not unanimous. Perhaps he could tell us in what sense it was not unanimous.
Senator Downe: Thank you for that request for clarification. There are a couple areas where I had concerns, but I guess the overall concern relates to the mandate of the subcommittee. The subcommittee was to review budgets and we are now doing other things, which is good because we have identified some areas. However, my concern is this: Should caucus and independent senators be consulted before these things are passed by this committee without input from all senators?
Senator Stollery: Chair, you have heard me on the subject.
The Deputy Chair: Senator, we would like to move along.
Senator Comeau: Briefly, I have three items. The first one is on communications. My understanding is that there is no decision at this point on the issue of asking committees to stop using outside communications; is that correct?
Senator Robichaud: There is a decision in that we are saying that some committees are doing well with the services that are being offered. Ms. Boucher has said that her services are fully utilized. However, some committees have not found the expertise within the directorate and therefore have had to go to outside sources. We say that we will continue the practice, and Ms. Boucher has offered to meet with committee chairs to discuss their needs. We are not closing the door. We are making the point that if we were to say exclusively that we do not think Ms. Boucher could supply the services —
Senator Comeau: I understand completely. It is something that could be looked at again in the future.
Senator Robichaud: Yes, if it happens that we have more services. However, I want you to understand that we are not trying to close everything down; we are just trying to look at better ways to make whatever we do clear and transparent.
Senator Comeau: My opinion has always been that we should be using in-house communications, but that is neither here nor there. It is something for the future.
The second item is on page 3 of the report where you refer to administrative staff for chairs. This is just my opinion, rather than great reasons why, but I think we should stick with not having administrative assistants for chairs of committees. If they cannot do it with their own staff at the present time, something is lacking.
In the current economic climate that we will be facing in the next couple of years, it is extremely hard to justify to Canadians how we are going to be hiring more staff. I do not know how many committees we have now, but if we offer an administrative assistant to one committee, it is automatic that we would have to offer the same thing to all committee chairs. I do not think we should do that in the current economic climate, but this is something for this committee to determine as a whole.
The Deputy Chair: In reviewing the scope of this, realize that there are 18 committees.
Senator Comeau: I do not see how we could say no to other committees if we allow it for one. That is my opinion.
My next point has to do with conferences. In the very last recommendation of the report, I note the reference to "conferences only," but there is a provision whereby if there is a specific request and it is explained, the door is still open.
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans rarely goes to conferences, but it does have, and has had in the past, occasion to go to trade shows, where committee members probably meet with virtually every member of industry who attends those trade shows to exchange information.
I know that the Fisheries and Oceans Committee was refused funding in the past to attend such shows because they were not conferences. As I understand the last line of your second recommendation, it would still be open for a committee like the Fisheries and Oceans Committee to attend such trade shows.
Senator Robichaud: If the request is made and it is clear that funds are being used for a certain purpose, the committee will take it into consideration. However, I bring to your attention — and this will come later in the second report — that if we lack funds because we have used the whole committee budget envelope, these are the places we will have to scale back to ensure that committees have enough funds to perform their core activities.
These requests will be considered on a submission basis; when they come, we will ask questions about the benefits. Usually, I do not see any problem, but I cannot say yes or no in advance.
Senator Comeau: I understand, but I think you have left the matter such that there is ample opportunity for precision and specifying the nature and benefits of the request.
Senator Stollery: I agree with what Senator Comeau has raised. None of us know what all 18 committees do; they all operate slightly differently. From my perspective, I think we should think about this proposal for a week.
As Senator Downe says, the budget subcommittee is basically there to review budgets. These recommendations are concepts as to how the subcommittee should operate — rules and things of that nature. Before we change things, I think the committee should have a week to study these proposals. Does it matter? We have not passed the report yet. Why do senators not have an opportunity to look at this report before we do something?
The Deputy Chair: I do not think anyone around this table is — at least I am not — pushing for the adoption of this report in this committee today. I would like to back off a bit and suggest that if some areas require more thought, which is where this is obviously going, then are there other problem areas? For example, there are two recommendations with respect to communications on page 2. Do you see any problems with them? In my view, we should be able to deal with those two recommendations today. They read as follows:
That all requests for committee contracts for consulting and personnel services be signed off by both the chair and deputy chair of the committee; and
That all committee invoices for consultants and personnel services be signed off by both the chair and deputy chair of the committee before the invoice is paid.
Does anyone have a problem with that?
Is there a mover for those recommendations?
Senator Comeau: I so move.
Senator Downe: I have a comment, Mr. Chair. The current arrangement, as I understand it, is that the chair has the authority to do that now. We are going to change that without consulting any chairs, except the chairs in this room. I think Senator Stollery's point is well taken. We should not only consult our caucuses; we should consult the independent senators. There may be unanimous agreement for these proposals, but we should have a discussion, rather than have them hear about it after the fact.
The Deputy Chair: I am not in disagreement with that suggestion. However, on behalf of Senator Robichaud and his subcommittee, I think the argument is that this is called transparency and the public has a right to that transparency.
Senator Downe: What is not transparent that was transparent before?
The Deputy Chair: Both sides have sign-off authority, which is more transparent than the current situation.
Senator Dawson: You had said it is worth thinking about the second part of the committee report for a while. Since there seems to be a bit of disagreement over it, I do not know why we would have to adopt half the report today and not adopt the other half.
I also agree with Senator Downe on the fact that some of these decisions are related to policy and others are budgetary. This one seems to go beyond a question of funds.
I want to make it clear that I agree with the recommendations. However, I think this is going beyond the mandate of a committee that has the responsibility of looking at budgets. It is a policy decision. I think there should be more consultation, and an extra week will not kill anyone.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Dawson, I quite agree.
As we go through this report, I was wondering whether we could deal with any non-contentious issues. If you feel that the entire report should be put on hold and reviewed, I am in your hands.
Senator Comeau: That seems to be the desire of members of the committee, namely, that we look at all the recommendations to be put on hold for a week for reflection. I am prepared to withdraw my motion.
Senator Robichaud: I would ask the committee to come to a decision before we start the consideration of other budgets. We are planning on doing that next week so that we do not keep committees from doing their work. It would be important for us to know.
The Deputy Chair: If I understand the direction here, the problem that Senator Robichaud has is that we have fairly significant budgets coming up for approval. We have to make a decision on the contents of this report before we can approve those significant budgets, and they involve travel.
Senator Comeau can correct me if I am wrong, but the idea is that there would be travel for five committees only the last week of this month and the first week of June. We are facing a fairly significant timeframe.
Senator Robichaud: Our second report deals with the committees that are considering travelling in either May or June. Those are okay.
The Deputy Chair: In your mind, then, what is the significance of dealing with this report in a particular time frame?
Senator Robichaud: We will soon be looking at all the major budgets for the whole year. I think committees are waiting for approval so that they can plan their activities.
The second report deals with funds that are needed in the immediate future. Committees will want to know about that, too.
The Deputy Chair: What I need from you, sir, is a time frame or your best guess as to when you think this report should be adopted.
Senator Robichaud: Our plans for next week were to start considering the rest of the major budget requests.
We are in your hands. We can put it off and we can look at special requests in the meantime, if there is any urgency.
Senator Tardif: If I understand recommendations no. 1 and no. 2 correctly — the consulting contracts — the difference is not the amount. It has nothing to do with the $25,000 or the $35,000, but rather that committee invoices be signed off additionally by the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Robichaud: I think committees give the signing authority to either the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk so that both sides of the committee are aware of the contracts that are asked for and the invoices that are paid. They should be signed by the chair and the deputy chair. The clerk should not sign as the second signature. However, in some cases, he is asked to sign. We thought the responsibility should rest with the senators.
Senator Tardif: It has nothing to do with the amount. For example, if it is a $2,000 contract, it has nothing to do with the amount.
Senator Robichaud: No. These amounts have been approved in the budget submission. It will not change the amounts.
Senator Tardif: On page 3, you ask for guidance about the committee budgets and the administrative staff reporting exclusively to the chair of the committee. In that context, you have not put forward a recommendation on that, have you; that is, you are not expecting a recommendation on that?
The Deputy Chair: No.
Senator Robichaud: Not at this moment, but we are asking the committee to give us some markers as to where we should go. The argument was made that if this service is allowed for one committee, then all committees should have equal access to that service. I agree with that. However, going that way involves a lot of funds. There are issues about whether committee budgets should be used to supplement staff in senators' offices. I believe that committee budgets should be used for committee purposes under the supervision of the Committees Directorate, but there are different opinions in relation to that issue. This is why we brought it to the full committee.
Senator Tardif: Do you see this becoming part of the consultation process more widely?
Senator Robichaud: It would then be up to the Internal Economy Committee.
The Deputy Chair: Ultimately, it will be this committee that decides. Once this committee decides, the matter then goes to the floor of the Senate.
Senator Kinsella: I was wondering whether we could table the item we are on until we deal with the next item. Senator Robichaud has baited me and I have taken the bait. He suggested that some questions may be answered when we consider the next report. Would it be helpful to table this item until we complete our study of the next item? We can then come back to this; that is, if honourable senators want to table it until another meeting. Will we learn things from our examination of your submission concerning the next item on the agenda. It will help us deal with what is before us right now.
Senator Robichaud: It was said that certain committees would need funds to operate in April, May and June. That is why we should take a decision on this report now.
You indicated that the other report I will present will take care of those committees that have activities in the near future. A decision is needed as to when we consider the rest of the committee budgets.
The Deputy Chair: The second report is not contingent upon approval of this one.
Senator Robichaud: No.
Senator Jaffer: I am feeling very uncomfortable. I have been listening to this discussion carefully. I think we are putting too much emphasis on our subcommittee on budgets to also look at policy. If we want a subcommittee to look at policy, that is the kind of mandate we should give it. We should not mix policy issues with budgets. It is a slippery slope. I think more consultations need to happen.
Respectfully, I do not agree with the chair that it is an issue of transparency. We are talking about the signing of invoices where a budget has already been approved by the committee. It is not like the chair is signing without having had the approval; that is a bigger discussion.
I am also not comfortable that we only have a week to discuss this matter. This is a very big issue, and I submit that we take some time on it. In the meantime, perhaps we can give some directive to the budget subcommittee until we come back from the break. We certainly should not get the budget subcommittee to look at policy issues.
The Deputy Chair: Any other comments by anyone?
Senator Stollery: I think it is important also to remind the members that you cannot sign off on your own expenses around here.
The Deputy Chair: Just bear with me. I ask that you please ask for recognition before jumping in.
Senator Stollery: I am sorry. I just wanted to remind everyone that in terms of integrity and transparency, no chairman or anyone else here can sign off on their own expenses. If the chairman has expenses, he must get the deputy chairman and the clerk, as I recall, to sign the thing. You cannot sign off on your own expenses. That has been a very successful policy. I am not clear as to where the problem is.
Senator Robichaud: This is not what we are looking at here. This has to do with contracts and invoices.
The Deputy Chair: The consensus is that this should be tabled for now. I think we need to impose some kind of deadline, otherwise the subcommittee will be faced with these large budgets coming up for travel by various committees without any direction.
I argue, having been the chair of the subcommittee on budgets, that when the subcommittee sees problems in budgets that are being put forward, it is their responsibility to bring forward recommendations to this committee. Whether this committee deems it to be policy or not, I think it is their responsibility.
I congratulate the subcommittee on bringing these recommendations forward. For that reason, I commend them and would recommend that we have a serious deadline so that the subcommittee is not handcuffed in approving budget requests. Remember that we are facing deadlines for these budgets to be approved by the middle of June when we will rise for the summer recess.
Senator Downe: I do not think there is a linkage between approving this report and handcuffing the committee. The committee can continue all approvals of all budgets regardless of whether this report is passed or not. We can approve the committee budgets attached in the second report without having approval of this report.
These are recommendations, and I think the consensus is that there should be consultation. We can send them out to all senators, talk about them at caucus and with independent senators. We get some feedback on them and then go forward with a document that has broad support in the Senate.
The Deputy Chair: My concern with that approach is that it means "never." That is what that means to me. I am serious. We need a deadline here.
Senator Robichaud, did you want to respond to Senator Downe?
Senator Robichaud: No, it is not a matter of responding. It is a matter of saying that if we brought the recommendations before you, it is because we thought we wanted to do things in a certain fashion. We are not pointing fingers. We are not saying that things are happening in a way contrary to accepted practice. In my view, we are simply trying to clarify things and ensure that everyone knows what is happening. That is all. It does not go any further than that.
If the committee chooses to wait, as Senator Downe said, we can consider the budgets before us. I would have liked some direction on having some items more clearly identified so that everyone knows what we are approving and what is being requested. That is all. We can continue as it was done in the past.
The Deputy Chair: Having been involved in approving budgets in the various committees that I sit on, my concern is that once one committee decides to do something such as seeking approval for a staffer to help the chair and an amount is budgeted for that staff person, then other committees say, "Well, if that committee has that right, then we have that right." We lose control of the budgetary process in the meantime if we do not do something.
Senator Downe: That is a good point, chair, but it is really the job of the subcommittee to say yes or no.
The Deputy Chair: I do not disagree. My concern is that you accept the fact that the subcommittee then indeed has the right to make those decisions. It can be argued, as Senator Dawson has said, that these are policy matters. That is the conundrum and that is why I think we need a deadline.
Senator Downe: On that point, chair, I think you are right again, but the subcommittee really does not make a decision. It makes a recommendation to this committee. As a member of the subcommittee, I would have no problem saying no to chairs who are looking for what one chair has requested based upon their workload.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator Stollery: Chair, you just made an important observation. This is a policy. I personally think that the policies we have used have worked pretty well. The committees have done more important work in the last 10 years that I have been here. Changing or amending policy is a very important thing. When something works pretty well, great thought should be given to it. I have been at the same committee that you have, and I know the difficulties of the subcommittee. In fact, I was on this committee before we had a subcommittee, when all the budgets were approved by the full committee.
The Deputy Chair: I would like to move this along, Senator Stollery.
Senator Stollery: Changing policy is an important thing, and thought should be given to it.
Senator Comeau: I congratulate the committee on what they did. These are four absolutely excellent recommendations. They are easy to understand. I do not think we need any more than one week to consult with others, to bring the recommendations to our individual groups and come back with either a yes or no next week. I would suggest that we put this item on the agenda for a week from today and deal with it.
The Deputy Chair: If we do not deal with it next week, we then have a break week, and then we have the likelihood of a committee week. I think is critical to deal with this now. Do you want to put forward a motion to that effect?
Senator Comeau: Put it on the agenda for consideration next week.
The Deputy Chair: That is all I was really getting at.
If I understand the consensus in the room, the intent is that the report would go to each caucus next week for discussion. If at all possible, come back a week today with a recommendation or recommendations with respect to possible adoption of this report. Is it agreed?
Senator Comeau: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: We will move along, then, to Senator Robichaud's next report.
Senator Robichaud: If I may, I am looking again for clarity. Who brings the report to caucus? I think the chair and the deputy chair of this committee should take it to our respective caucuses.
The Deputy Chair: I do not disagree, except, Senator Robichaud, you know what will happen. You will be asked in your caucus. I will get Senator Nancy Ruth to answer questions in our caucus with respect to the report and its recommendations.
Senator Robichaud: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Do you agree with that process?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: We can now move along to the next report.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Senators have received a copy of the sixth report. I would simply like to outline briefly the contents of the report and what our work entailed.
Your subcommittee is aware that committees have ambitious workplans, and it is important for us to work efficiently and effectively to ensure that committees have the resources they need to carry out their work. With that in mind, your subcommittee has already heard from three committee chairs whose committees have activities planned for very early in the fiscal year.
In addition, your subcommittee has carefully reviewed the budget submissions to date and is comfortable recommending the release of funds for legislative budgets, as well as modest special study budgets that do not include significant travel or the hiring of staff. For the more substantial budgets or those including unusual elements, your subcommittee will be inviting chairs to appear to explain their budgets and answer questions.
The sixth report includes a recommended total release of $147,053 for legislative and joint committee budgets, as well as an additional $705,910 for special studies.
[English]
In the case of the Banking Committee budget, it includes funds only for working meals in Ottawa and a fact-finding visit to Washington, D.C., in May or June.
In the case of the Special Committee on Aging, the committee has a reporting deadline of September 30, 2008. Its work plan includes four sets of public hearings and fact-finding trips in May and June. The budget also includes a request for some $80,000 for conferences.
After hearing from the chair, your subcommittee decided to recommend the release of full funding to enable the committee to do its work with the exception of funding for conferences, which we have reduced to $20,000.
Your subcommittee is of the view that priority must be given to funding the core activities of committees, such as public hearings, and that funding for conferences is contingent on the availability of funds. Your subcommittee has already received some $3.5 million in budget requests and is aware of several large budgets that are pending.
The total available budget for distribution to committees is $3.35 million. While we are fully aware that committees do not spend the total amount allocated to them, we must be responsible in our allocation of funds to ensure that sufficient resources are available to all committees for their core business.
For the same reason, the recommended release for the special study on general issues of the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee is less than what had been requested by the committee. Again, while recommending full funding for the general expenses of the committee, your subcommittee has reduced the recommended allocation for conferences from $70,000 to $20,000. Of course, should the Foreign Affairs Committee decide that this is not sufficient, they will have the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to request a further allocation.
Therefore, I move the adoption of the sixth report that is before you.
The Deputy Chair: We will have discussion on the report.
Senator Comeau: What does "general issues" mean?
Senator Robichaud: "General" is general. In this case, it implies —
Senator Comeau: I think I know that it means.
The Deputy Chair: For clarity, perhaps it should be better defined.
Senator Dawson: On another subject, the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee has budgeted $60,000 for travel to Washington, D.C., but Washington is supposed to be included in national travel.
Senator Jaffer: That is separate.
Senator Dawson: I do not want to move to the next point on Senator Downe's agenda, but the reality is that there has to be something. If you go to Washington, it is supposed to be a normal trip. Why should we fund it twice?
Senator Jaffer: It is my understanding that those trips are for what individual senators are doing, but this is committee work.
The Deputy Chair: Are you satisfied, Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: No, I am not.
Senator Stollery: I do not understand the business of general issues. The Foreign Affairs Committee has a reference from the Senate that is not general in nature. The reference relates to Canadian trade issues with China and Russia.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Stollery, if I may interject, Senator Robichaud might have an answer now.
Senator Robichaud: This is exactly what Senator Stollery is doing. The general expenses are related to the mandate of the committee.
Senator Stollery: There are also general issues, which are separate from general expenses.
Senator Robichaud: It is usually for general expenses to meet the mandate of the committee. In this case, they include professional and other services, transportation and communications and all other expenditures. The expenses are in relation to the general mandate of the committee.
Senator Stollery: My point is that we have a general order of reference at the Foreign Affairs Committee, as we always have had, for items that come up. It is a general reference for things that come out of the woodwork that we do not expect so we can deal with them. It does not cost very much.
The Deputy Chair: We are all on the same page.
Senator Stollery: We just had an important meeting of the committee last night. I want to bring to the attention of the members here why conferences of the Foreign Affairs Committee are so important. If we do not travel as a committee, which can be quite expensive because we are the Foreign Affairs Committee, we can sometimes use the conference budget to send individual members, which can save money. If we do not go, then we do not spend the money, and it does not cost anything.
The Deputy Chair: We are in agreement with what you have said, Senator Stollery. I do not think we are treading new ground.
Is there further discussion with respect to the report?
Senator Comeau: Not to reopen the subject in any way, we might want to come back to this issue because committees of the Senate do not have a general mandate. The only two committees of the Senate that have a mandate are the Rules Committee and the Internal Economy Committee. Otherwise, committees do not have a general mandate. As such, they must seek their mandates from the floor of the Senate.
The Deputy Chair: You are absolutely right, Senator Comeau.
Senator Comeau: Having said that, I can understand that committees might wish to conduct general activities. House of Commons committees are handed a general mandate upon formation, and we might wish to look at that in the future for Senate committees.
Senator Robichaud: I will read from the Journals of the Senate. The Honourable Senator Di Nino, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver, moved that:
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, in accordance with Rule 86(1)(h), be authorized to examine such issues that may arise from time to time relating to Foreign relations generally.
Senator Stollery: Yes. That is the small item that does not have much of a budget attached to it.
Senator Robichaud: This was approved by the Senate.
The Deputy Chair: We are all on the same wavelength. We are moving into areas that we need not go.
The question is on the floor. Is there further discussion with respect to the approval of the subcommittee's recommendation for committee budgets? All those in favour? Those opposed? Carried.
The committee continued in camera.