Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of March 4, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:15 p.m. for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Colin Kenny (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome. Senator Manning is here today. This is his first opportunity to sit with the committee.
The purpose of this meeting is to examine two budgets. I apologize for the rush, but I have real concerns about us getting budgets through the system in a timely way in the event that we will travel to the United States and to Afghanistan.
In the event we do not go, the second budget is less urgent. However, in the event we are going, work would need to take place sooner.
It is an easy matter to strike something off a budget. Committees have done that on a regular basis when a trip has not worked for one reason or another. They simply advise the Internal Economy Committee that the trip will not be taking place. The expression is that the funding gets clawed back for every aspect of the trip. I also think that seeing the costs involved allows for a better judgment of the trip and whether senators believe there is value for the trips.
Senator Wallin: Before we get into the substance of the budget, I want to make some general comments as a newly appointed senator. I am someone who comes to this institution with great respect for what it does and the hard work that senators are engaged in here. I have the benefit of having been someone who watched the Senate a little closer than some other members of the general public may have.
I am particularly aware of the importance of the work of this committee. As you know, I travelled to Afghanistan as part of the Manley commission in an earlier incarnation. There is not anything more pressing than these kinds of issues as far as I am concerned.
I say that by way of introduction of the way we will proceed. I was appreciative, Senator Kenny, that you invited me to some earlier meetings that you had before this meeting. I really hoped and looked forward to the opportunity of working in a productive and cooperative manner. I want to say thank you for that.
I would like us to be able to proceed in way where we can be thoughtful, smart and intelligent and use taxpayers' money wisely and use our own time wisely on this committee.
Before we proceed further in our discussion, I would like to remind everyone of what we discussed the other day. We should make no references to when and where we are going with any date attached.
Let us return to these issues. Yesterday, I was a little surprised when we had a hasty meeting of the steering committee, and you presented the fact that you thought these budgets were urgent. I feel they are a little less urgent and I have some questions for the clerk about that. I guess you have put on the agenda the note that our agenda is a draft agenda, even though you may really mean "budgets.'' Therefore, there was not much notice of that for us.
Let me get into some of the other issues. I apologize if I may be unfamiliar with some things because I am the new kid on the block. It is my understanding — and you two gentlemen explained this to me yesterday — that we do have an emergency fund. Perhaps I will address this to the clerk of the committee. We have an emergency fund of $17,000, which I think is this first one, which is available between now and the end of March.
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Committee: The Internal Economy Committee sets the emergency funds limit at $10,000. That is a provision for committees to obtain funds prior to the submission of a formal budget. The yellow copy that you have is more of a formal budget.
Senator Wallin: Therefore, between now and March 31, we have access to $10,000.
Ms. Anwar: You have access to up to $10,000.
The Chair: That was a question we had not ascertained yesterday because we did not know whether we had used the emergency funding at the beginning of the fiscal year. The answer is that we did not.
Senator Wallin: Between now and the end of the month, how will that $10,000 be spent? Will it be used up on salaries and sandwiches? Please give me a little history on its use.
The Chair: It is for whatever the committee purposes are. The clerk tells us that we did not use it at all at the beginning of this fiscal year. In some years, parts of it have been used. In other years, all of it has been used and, in some years, none of it has been used.
Senator Wallin: If we needed to make emergency trips or book hotel rooms, we do have funds.
Ms. Anwar: There are funds up to the end of March 31, 2009. April 1 is the new budget.
Senator Wallin: We have not spent any of that amount.
Ms. Anwar: Not for this session of Parliament, no.
Senator Wallin: I have a couple of issues. I think I mentioned this to you yesterday, Senator Kenny. Again, being new to this committee and taking my responsibilities seriously, I want to ensure we are doing things properly so we are not subject to any questioning further down the road about how we approach budgeting, spending, agendas or travel plans.
I want to ask this question of other committee members but also the clerk. My understanding is that our reference has not yet been adopted in the chamber. What does that mean? Should we even be doing this? Do you have a view or precedent in that regard?
Ms. Anwar: The order of reference for the committee was adopted by the committee but not adopted yet by the chamber. Senator Kenny gave notice of motion of that yesterday. It would be considered at the next sitting of the Senate, which would be this afternoon.
In terms of the normal flow of events, an order of reference would normally be adopted by the chamber before the budget would be considered by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Senator Wallin: That would occur before it would be considered by the Internal Economy Committee, but we could be looking at what would be considered a draft budget in this committee.
The Chair: No. This committee reviews a budget and adopts a budget at some point.
Senator Wallin: But after our reference is —
The Chair: No. We can do it any time we like. What happens is that the Internal Economy Committee will not consider it until we have an order of reference. There is no point in us giving it to the Internal Economy Committee until the house has adopted our order of reference.
Senator Wallin: We can discuss it, though; is that correct?
The Chair: We can discuss it and adopt it, but adopting it does not mean we have the money. When we adopt it, it stills go to the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets and then to the full Internal Economy Committee. After that, it is reported to the Senate, and only when the Senate adopts it will it happen.
I have had experience, as have other committee members, where the Senate stood up in September and we did not receive our order of reference and our funding until December 10. It is a very slow, time-consuming process.
Senator Wallin: What happens if there is a procedural delay in these budgets such as the Senate being slow to deal with them? Is there a way to commandeer funds?
The Chair: No, we have only the $10,000.
Ms. Anwar: There are only the emergency funds.
Senator Wallin: We will have a new emergency fund starting April 1; correct?
The Chair: Funds not spent this year are not rolled over.
Senator Wallin: If we needed to spend the $10,000 before March 31 and, say, put a hold on hotel rooms or airline tickets, does the money have to be used before March 31?
The Chair: Yes. Everything from this year has to be used before the end of the fiscal year.
Senator Banks: We cannot sign a contract to commit hotel funds to book rooms in Washington, for example, until and unless the budget has been approved by the Senate.
Senator Wallin: Thank you. That was one of my questions.
We have all done a lot of international travelling, and we are obliged now to sign a contract rather than just booking rooms and putting a deposit down. What does that mean?
Ms. Anwar: The committee enters into a contract with the hotel reserving rooms for a fixed cost. The one distinction I wanted to make is that we are in one fiscal year now. Whatever we commit for funds cannot go past March 31 of this year. April 1 of the next fiscal year requires a new budget and a new set of contracts. The emergency funds for this fiscal year cannot be used to reserve travel after March 31.
The Chair: That is why there is concern as to whether we will get the system moving in time. If the Senate approved next year's budget, then Ms. Anwar can book the rooms for next year.
Senator Wallin: I have another general concern that you are aware of because we discussed it briefly. The short notice for meetings is very difficult. We have one member absent because he could not change his plans. Senator Nolin, thank you for being here. Both Senators Manning and Tkachuk had to cancel important meetings. I had to cancel a less important meeting. It is really difficult.
This notice of meeting was sent out, albeit late, and that is no fault of the clerk. However, it did come late. As I mentioned to you yesterday, if you want to consider a budget, we want to think this stuff through. This goes to the core of our responsibilities to the taxpayers of Canada. We need senators focused on those issues, not just rearranging their schedules frantically so they can be here.
I think it is more important to decide what it is we want to do, what we think our priorities are and what we think is important and then focus on a budget, rather than letting a budget — or lack thereof — dictate what we might do. A budget of some kind will go ahead; of course we need a budget and, of course, we will approve one at some point. The issue is how we go about it and the time and respect with which we treat our fellow senators so that they have time to come to the table.
Senator Kenny, I know you have years of experience with this and you know, roughly, what you want to do and you roughly know what that has cost you in the past. However, for those of us who are coming at this for the first time, I want to be careful and wise about how we approach this.
I am now looking at these two pieces of paper. Again, clerk, I am not casting any doubts on your ability, but I know yesterday afternoon you did not have a budget and now you have one. I have to ask you whether you think that is due consideration in putting forward these kinds of numbers. Were you able to get the research done in an appropriate way? Do you think you are giving us a reasonable 2009-10 look at numbers? Could you deal with some of those questions?
Ms. Anwar: In terms of the costing for the trips, I did not have a lot of time. Normally we contact travel agents, hotels, bus companies or whatever the case may be, based on the instructions or wishes of the committee. Certainly, that was not possible to do in less than 24 hours. Therefore, the figures we used are based on past trips made by the committee, with some adjustments. For instance, in the past, not all nine members of the committee travelled. We knew that in advance, so we were able to adjust our numbers accordingly.
Senator Wallin: Have you done this based on everyone going everywhere?
Ms. Anwar: Yes, everyone travelling to all of the places, as was discussed at our last meeting. However, in terms of costs — airline tickets and hotels — no, there was no time to verify those numbers.
Senator Wallin: Did you use last year's number and add 5 per cent?
Ms. Anwar: We did not increase any of those. We used the same data we had for last year.
Senator Wallin: To your knowledge, has anything changed, such as per diems?
Ms. Anwar: I believe the per diems have changed since, although not a lot.
Senator Wallin: We know that airfare is up.
Ms. Anwar: Airfare is really variable depending on the time of year we travel, a variability that would apply as well to hotel accommodation. However, as I said, there was no time to verify against the schedule that the committee discussed at Monday's meeting.
Senator Banks: We do not have dates, in any case.
Ms. Anwar: We have ranges of dates.
Senator Wallin: You are right. That means things are different.
From your experience in the past — because I know this was a concern raised yesterday — if we were to take a trip in July, how much notice would you need to give to book hotel rooms or airfares?
Ms. Anwar: It would depend on where we were going. If we were going to London, England, it probably would require more notice; but if we were going to Kelowna, it might take less time.
Senator Wallin: You have experience with this. Can you give me an idea?
Ms. Anwar: I can tell you that the Afghanistan trip last year probably took the better part of two to two and a half months. However, it really depends on where we are going and the purpose of the trip.
Senator Wallin: That is making plans for all the destinations that planes might land.
Ms. Anwar: There is that, but Afghanistan presents particular issues in terms of having to coordinate with different departments.
Senator Wallin: Given my experience on the Manley commission, my feeling is that kind of trip takes that much time because you cannot firm up your plans anywhere.
I raised some concerns. Committee members have shared others with me, but I do not want to speak on their behalf. I know they all have their own concerns, so perhaps you could give them a chance to voice them as well.
The Chair: I would like to comment on some of your comments first.
I did go out of my way before the committee was founded to sit down and spend a great deal of time talking to you about it. I also gave you documentation ahead of time.
Senator Wallin: Which you asked me not to share with my committee members.
The Chair: No, what I asked you not to share was a personnel matter, which you promptly went and shared.
Senator Wallin: No, actually, you asked me not to share the budget, and so I did not because you asked me not to do that. That is why I am making the point here again that they have not had time to look at this, and I do not think that is fair.
The Chair: Then there is an error.
The document that I gave you was my best guess. There was a range — not what you see here, but a range of other trips on it as well. The intention was to give you some sense of the problems that were faced going ahead.
As far as cancellations or last-minute meetings go, I do not like last-minute meetings more than anyone else. I spoke to you about that. I said the best thing we can possibly do is to work out a schedule ahead of time so that we do not have people getting jerked around unnecessarily. I have spent too much of my time in the Senate being jerked around, so I am really conscious of the point that you raised.
In my case, I cancelled a lunch with the commander of the navy today. I do not get a chance to have lunch with the commander of the navy very often, but it was cancelled because I felt it was important to go ahead with this. That is simply because when I looked at the number of days involved and the fact that we needed a budget for this year and a budget for next year — and if Afghanistan is going ahead — the likelihood of us having funds by the middle of March is going to be nip and tuck.
Senator Wallin: This March?
The Chair: April, rather. We are in March now. There is time off during this period, and when you are dealing with the Internal Economy Committee, they move at their pace. Nothing that I have been able to do in the past has got them to move at a faster rate. As a chair, you learn to accept the fact that they will go at whatever rate suits them.
It is a two-step process with Internal Economy, and then there is a third step with the Senate itself. Therefore, it is a very slow process. It would not make much sense for us to want to travel somewhere — say Washington — in the middle of April if we did not have any funds until the second week in April.
That could easily be the case. There have been numerous years where it has taken that long to do it. The committee gave me clear direction at the last meeting —
Senator Wallin: To go and put the budget?
The Chair: — to go ahead for Monday to get the commanders of the army, navy and air force at the meeting. I thought, wow, I do not know how we are going to talk about budget then. Are we going to put it the week after that? The week after that, the Senate is not sitting, so will it be the week after that?
Frankly, it would be terrific if we had not prorogued. It would be terrific if we had not dissolved before that for an election, but we have had a long period of time where we have not had a chance to do much.
The committee's ability to get together for the first time was Monday. This is normally the time for the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs to meet and it was the earliest time.
If other people do not feel the same urgency about getting a budget through, I suggest they have not been in the position of chair where they were trying to get a budget through. As chair, I have found myself in situations where what the committee could do was limited. We have staff that would like to prepare for it. They get paid, but they do not get paid if there is no budget.
Senator Wallin: As you heard at the meeting the other day, all of us are eager to go to work or we would not have agreed to hear from the three commanders on Monday, nor would everyone had turned themselves in knots to get here today.
As important as what we are doing is the need to do it right and to be seen to be doing it right by all the different masters we serve — most importantly, the taxpaying public.
As we discussed in our meeting at length, this is a tough atmosphere for people these days. Thousands of people are literally losing their jobs; one organization, whose board I sit on, fired a whack of people. These are tough times.
Not only do we need to be careful, we need to be sensitive. It is just as important to have a justification — well thought out and well discussed on the part of all committee members — for what we need and hope and believe we should do.
Mr. Chair, I am listening to you and I hear you; I know the timing is important and it is difficult if we do not get our budgets. However, I want everyone to feel that they have participated in this discussion and that they are doing the right thing and are comfortable with it. We need to have our priorities straight and determine what is important to this committee and then work it out, instead of simply putting out a budget with what most people in the country would think are some pretty big numbers. We all need to be comfortable with that.
I apologize; I did mean to let other senators speak.
Senator Banks: You are right in saying that we have to be careful, but we must also be prudent in terms of time. The magic fact is that given the schedule to which we all have agreed, we would not otherwise be able to begin to consider a budget until March 23. If we begin to consider a budget on March 23, there is no way on earth that we will travel anywhere in April or May.
Senator Wallin: For a point of clarification, do we have Monday confirmed? Is that day filled?
The Chair: No, we are waiting.
Senator Wallin: Theoretically, we might have some time on Monday to go at this.
Senator Banks: Not if we are meeting —
Senator Wallin: That is what I am saying.
Senator Tkachuk: You chose that. You knew we had to do the budget.
The Chair: I am so sorry, can we have one conversation at a time? I have a list with Senator Manning next, if you are finished, Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: Yes, I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Manning: I apologize for possibly asking questions that have been asked before and making comments that have been made before, but I am new to this table. However, I have served as Chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and am aware of challenges in getting things through. I come here in the spirit of cooperation, but I have no intentions of making decisions today, tomorrow or any day on something about which I have no knowledge. I need to be able to operate on a schedule.
I arrive here on Monday morning from Newfoundland and Labrador and I leave on a Thursday night if I am lucky, so every hour of every day is pretty well set. If Wal-Mart can operate on a schedule, I am sure that we can do it, too. We need to have a schedule in place that we can all live by, although emergencies always arise, which I understand. The bottom line is that I am sitting here and being asked for my opinion — which I am entitled to give as a member of this committee — on a budget that ends March 31 and on another budget for next year, which includes many, many pages of information that I have several questions about.
Some people in my neck of the woods would ask what I am doing on a $15,000 trip and what part of the moon I plan to land on. I need to have some idea and detail on these things. I did not realize we were discussing the budget today until about half an hour ago. We are asking for about $1 million to be approved. To be honest, I feel inadequate and not in a position to offer any constructive discussion today for the simple reason that I not informed well enough on the matter.
Maybe I am missing something and maybe colleagues could enlighten me. We have to be fiscally responsible, and I am sure that we all are. Part and parcel of dealing with the budget process is information and knowledge. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I feel that this process is a bit rushed today, and I do not operate well in a rush. I like to take my time and delve into things and ask questions. I understand this is important. We are a country at war, so these matters cannot be frivolous in nature. We need to have more clarification and discussion on some of these items. If I could ask some questions on the budget, is this the time to do so?
The Chair: It will be time shortly, Senator Manning. I have some comments I would make in response to your comments.
There was a three-hour meeting that took place on Monday night. I am the servant of the committee and the documents you see before you reflect that meeting. The blues of that meeting have been available.
Senator Wallin: The budget was not discussed.
The Chair: The budget was not discussed.
Senator Wallin: That is what we are dealing with.
The Chair: I am sorry, if you would like the floor, I will give you the floor.
Senator Wallin: My point is —
The Chair: I am awfully sorry, but during the meeting —
Senator Manning: Hang on. I just asked a couple of questions and would like answers.
The Chair: I am giving the answers right now, in fairness, and I was trying to do that until Senator Wallin started.
Senator Wallin: You said you were going to give me the floor, so I was going to take it; but it is all right, I will give it back.
The Chair: In fairness, these documents put dollar figures to the events that the committee discussed that night and said they wanted to work on over the course of the year. There is nothing in these two documents that does not reflect the discussion that we had that night.
What we did not have was a document prepared that shows a budget — frankly, it is difficult to decide on doing something if you do not have the dollars to go with the events. Last time, we discussed only the events that committee members want to do. What you have seen is a lot of hard work on the part of the clerk and others to put dollar amounts beside the requests that the committee made at its last meeting. We have tried to reflect what those costs would be if all of the wishes of the committee are met.
Senator Wallin: Senator Kenny, please. These were not requests —
The Chair: Would you put her name on the list?
Senator Wallin: Thank you, but you are reading things into the record that are not exactly accurate.
The Chair: I listened to you for the first 20 minutes of the meeting when you said a lot of things that did not make sense either, but I did not interrupt you and say that.
Senator Tkachuk: Just a minute.
The Chair: She just said I was reading things into the record that are not correct.
Senator Tkachuk: Not as far as I remember.
The Chair: You left the meeting and were not there for the last hour.
Senator Manning: Do I have the floor now?
The Chair: If you would like the floor.
Senator Manning: I want to set one thing straight. I gave up a very important meeting today with two businessmen from Newfoundland and Labrador that I had promised to meet with. I rearranged the meeting. I did not come down here to listen to you, Mr. Chair, and Senator Wallin to have a little battle across the table. I came to see where we are at. If we are dealing with the issue of time and the schedule, let us stick to that. You might have the time to be at that, but I do not. Just get to the issue that is right here at the table. That is my view, for what it is worth.
Senator Wallin: To be clear about our earlier meeting, it is my recollection — and please correct me if I am wrong — that we wanted a budget worked up so that we could look at the numbers. As well, we wanted to hear from the commanders and others that would help us to make the decision on the priorities of the committee for travel and hearings, et cetera, which then need to be budgeted. I do not think it is quite fair to say that we asked for all of these trips, that we have agreed and now you have presented a budget. It is kind of the flip way on that one. To be clear, I think we all wanted both Monday meetings so that we could get a better handle on the committee's priorities and know what we want to accomplish. We hope that the four people we will talk to at some time on Monday will help us to determine that. My colleague's comment is better in that he has questions of substance.
Senator Manning: I would like to know whether we have agreed as a committee.
The Chair: If we could, we have a list of speakers — Senator Nolin, followed by Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Nolin: I am more focused on the documents before us. If my colleagues have more general questions, I am ready to wait.
Senator Manning: I apologize for missing Monday's meeting, but I could not make it. I thank Senator Nolin for filling in for me.
Have we agreed, as a committee, to conduct all this travel?
The Chair: No.
Senator Manning: Can you explain the process to me?
The Chair: Yes. At the last meeting, a menu of events was put forward as possible things that the committee could do. Also, there is no reason individual senators cannot come forward and say, "I do not like any of these things. I want to do something altogether different.'' There was a discussion of the pros and cons. I have a copy of the document that was circulated. There was a discussion of the order of reference, which resulted in the motion of which I gave notice yesterday. That will be dealt with in the house today. There was a discussion about how much time was available. The 10 days that you see is likely to be less than that if there is any travel. There was a further discussion of how long people wanted to sit, and there was a layout of how many witnesses you could hear between now and the end of June if we had that.
The topics are under paragraphs 3(a) through to (e). The pros and cons of those items, along with the reasons for them, were given and different members of the committee commented on them.
Item No. 4 indicated places to which the committee might go to if it were to accomplish some of Part 3. Item No. 5 was a work plan approval. Item No. 6 was a budget discussion. We could not do the budget discussion because to prepare a budget like this, you must have a committee like this up and structured and functioning. You will notice that it is signed off by the principal clerk and by the Director of Finance. Without that in place, you cannot have a working budget. That is why we did not get to that discussion.
It was agreed at that meeting that we would meet with the commanders of the army, navy and air force this Monday — that is, if they were free, as we believed they were — and that we also would consider travel to points east after consulting with David Mulroney, who is the deputy minister in charge of Afghanistan. He had come forward with proposals relating to both Washington and Afghanistan for consideration.
Senator Wallin: That meeting is to take place on Monday.
The Chair: The committee wanted to hold any judgment on those trips in abeyance until that meeting with Mr. Mulroney took place.
Senator Manning: I had an idea to propose a trip of the committee to Happy Valley Goose Bay, Labrador.
I apologize again for my ignorance about some of this because I was not here on Monday. When I look at this, it locks in some things. Are you telling me that there will be opportunity for me to put forward a plan or a proposal to the committee to discuss the possibility of visiting Happy Valley Goose Bay, Labrador?
The Chair: Any time you want to do so, senator.
Senator Manning: That is the process here.
When and if we get around to approving the budget at this table, there is a process whereby it then goes to the Internal Economy Committee for final approval.
The Chair: No, not for final approval; for intermediate approval. It is a two-step process. When it goes to Internal Economy — at least in years past, it goes to a subcommittee on budgets. Normally, the clerk and I go to defend the budget on behalf of the committee. It then goes to the full Internal Economy Committee, which can adopt, reject or vary the budget. It then goes to the Senate, which can adopt, reject or vary the budget. It usually is about a month-long process, sometimes longer.
Senator Manning: I have experience going before the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy. The process here seems to be quite different than in the other place.
The Chair: It is a bizarre process, but it is our process.
Senator Manning: I have some questions on the details, but I will wait.
Senator Wallin: Might I have some information from the clerk on that one? Can the Internal Economy Committee actually strike things from the budget?
The Chair: I just said that.
Senator Wallin: There is no appeal.
The Chair: Yes; you go to the house.
Senator Wallin: Oh, that is the appeal process.
Senator Tkachuk: Mr. Chair, today's meeting was called while we were all in caucus. It contravenes what I would call normal good manners. I had a meeting set today with the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group, of which I am the co-chair, at 12:30. There was no indication given by you or by anyone else that there would be a meeting today at 12:30. One man's demands, which were yours, made me discourteous — and I do not like that — to people who elected me, to consider a budget in the other place. I consider the Banking Committee more important than Canada- Japan or this committee — not the Defence and Security Committee, because it is a committee of the Senate. Nonetheless, we have another life.
At 9:15 this morning, you called a meeting for today to discuss a budget. If you had given any indication whatsoever on Monday that we would be sitting today, at least we would have had two days of notice and would have been able to phone the people we work with to give them a couple days of notice of our need to be absent, rather than letting them know, in my case, while I was in national caucus. We had to inform other people with whom we have noon-hour meetings that we could not attend them. We had to recruit other people to take our place and brief them because we could not be there.
Mr. Chair, if you want to have a committee that works, these kinds of decisions cannot be made in this way, because this committee will not work. I do not want to go through another year like last year, but we will, chair, until there is some courtesy shown by you to our side, maybe with the cooperation of other members, but I do not believe it.
This is not your committee, Mr. chair. This is a committee of the Senate, and we belong to this committee. We are not your servants. You are the first amongst equals. We are senators. We have a right to be consulted and we have a right to be asked. We need cooperation. This is not a good way to start the year.
We have a $1 million budget. You said that we discussed this. We discussed Afghanistan and we should focus on that; that is in the order of reference. We discussed a number of things. We did not say that we were going to go to Afghanistan necessarily; we said we would explore the possibility. We did not discuss hiring consultants. We did not have that discussion. That is a discussion that all of us should have here. We should also have a discussion about whether they should be sole-sourced, because we know how the members of the Internal Economy Committee feel about this. They put out special instructions last year on this matter.
The guide for committee chairs, which you should read, Mr. Chair, states that:
Every effort should be made to give committee members, staff, and witnesses adequate notice of committee meetings. However, committee meetings may not be scheduled until an Order of Reference has been received.
I know that we are walking on the edge here. We have a funny little thing called "consideration of draft agenda.'' We do not have an agenda item that says "budget,'' which is really what this meeting is all about, because if we had that, we would not be able to have this meeting. That is getting around the system, Mr. Chair, which is not a good thing for us to do.
I am not finished yet.
In these times, there is no question in my mind that people who want to do us harm will take advantage of our preoccupation with the economic situation we have today. The economic situation causes us problems funding our military and the wars that we have. It makes us take our eye off the ball from what I would call constant terrorist issues.
We are a target. We are part of North America; we are close to the United States; the terrorists have said themselves that we are a target. These are important times and we should be doing important work. This is one committee where we should be able to approach the issues in a way that does not cause these arguments. We should be able to come together on these issues.
The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have a long history of defending the military. We are not the NDP and we are not the Bloc Québécois. We are what we are. We have a responsibility to figure this out and not to get into a pissing match — excuse my language — about a budget item that could have been discussed next Monday. We could have been given notice this past Monday and we could have talked about it this coming Monday. However, Mr. Chair, you said that was the only day those three people could come.
You know what? I have my doubts about that now, Mr. Chair. I am not very happy about this and I do not think we should be having this meeting, frankly. I think we should leave this meeting and start again.
This budget should be discussed by the steering committee. We have a chair, a deputy chair and a very capable third member. They could have meetings between now and Monday to discuss this budget, make sure that it is done properly and brought to us in a way so that we have some notice and we know what we are doing.
Even the clerk says she did not have time to telephone people and get proper estimates and numbers. Those are questions that the Internal Economy Committee will ask when we consider this budget. I have knowledge because I am the Deputy Chair of the Internal Economy Committee. How do you think I will answer those questions?
Mr. Chair, I think this has been a disaster and not a good way to start the year, frankly. I move the adjournment of the meeting.
The Chair: That is non-debatable motion. I would like to see those in favour? I count four. Those opposed? Defeated.
I would be happy to respond to some of your comments and some of your righteous indignation. It is typical, but, frankly, it does not impress me very much.
The request for the meeting went forward yesterday afternoon. The Liberal whip dealt with the matter at about 3 o'clock and he did not get any response from your seatmate. The fact that your seatmate in the chamber does not talk to you is not my problem; but Terry Stratton did not give a response back until what time?
Ms. Anwar: I did not receive notification of Senator Stratton's response until 6:30 a.m. this morning.
The Chair: If your whip had gotten off his ass, we might not have this problem.
Senator Tkachuk: Just a minute; I will not listen to insults about my whip.
The Chair: I listened carefully to you and you will do the same for me, thank you very much.
Senator Tkachuk: He is not here. He can defend himself.
The Chair: That is not my problem. You are complaining about receiving short notice and hearing about this meeting in caucus. Your whip got a request at 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon. Stop complaining about the time. We did our very best to get it out in a timely fashion. To suggest that you only heard about it in caucus is unreasonable and unfair.
Senator Tkachuk: Could I have a copy of that notice?
The Chair: The clerk cannot send out a notice until she hears from both whips, and she did it as soon as she could after that.
Senator Wallin: There were many outstanding issues.
The Chair: You are not the only person who is in bad shape for lunch.
Senator Tkachuk: I am not calling the meeting, though.
The Chair: I understand that. It is even worse if you are calling the meeting. I had to call the person I was having lunch with and say I was sorry.
Senator Tkachuk: That is too bad.
The Chair: That is too bad for you.
As far as sole-sourcing goes, Internal Economy addressed it and came to the conclusion that it was not a functioning way to work, that we could not go through a bidding process. You will discover that if you check the minutes of the Internal Economy Committee.
As far as this committee being my committee, it is not my committee. I never said it was. It is also not my budget. It is before this committee to consider, to decide and to dispose of as it chooses.
Frankly, I am not making a case and have not made a case for any item here. What I have done is to endeavour to cost the items that came forward at our last meeting. I would be remiss in my duty if I did not say you ought to know the costs of what we are talking about. These costs are not perfect. I am not pretending they are, but they were the best we could do given the time we had.
If you look at moving forward given the disruptions that take place, the likelihood of this committee doing the things it was talking about is very small. The Internal Economy Committee does not move at our pace. They move at their pace.
Senator Banks: When we are considering the work plan of the committee, if we are saying we want to go to military bases in the east, to Happy Valley Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, or to Afghanistan, one of the questions we need to ask is how much it will cost. It is not okay to say we do not know. We need to do these things one after the other, in some reasonable order. In the history of this committee, they have always been done concomitantly as it goes along because we cannot make judgments about where we will go if we do not know how much it will cost.
Senator Tkachuk: We could have been here a week before we were, but the chair did not want not to have a meeting that week, so we did not have it and missed a week.
The Chair: That is not true. We could not get a full turnout. That was the problem of the meeting. We canvassed and people were not available.
Senator Tkachuk: Four people. I was available.
The Chair: You might have been available. I was available.
Senator Tkachuk: We could have had our half, maybe not your half. I am only pointing out that we had an extra week. You decided not to have the meeting.
The Chair: You are pointing it out.
Senator Nolin: If the general questions are over, I am ready to dig into a more specific —
Senator Tkachuk: Do you have an extra French copy? I have the yellow one. I do not have the green one, and I am working hard on my French.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: It would be a good way to cheer up everyone. I am sure you will agree, Mr. Chair.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I presume you want to deal with the remainder of this year. Therefore, the yellow budget is the first one.
Do I understand that you have not sought emergency funding from the Internal Economy Committee?
The Chair: No, it has not come up. It is not something I would preclude. There has been no discussion of it.
I did not know until this meeting what the status was at the beginning of the fiscal year and whether or not we had used some of it.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Chair, along with the steering committee, did you contemplate preparing a legislative budget?
The Chair: No, the steering committee meeting took place concurrently with the decision to refer that bill to us. That has not been considered yet. We do not have a legislative budget.
Senator Nolin: If you need one, you will have to rush.
The Chair: We will have to ask for that.
Senator Nolin: That is more of a technical question.
I see the signatures of Ms. Lank and Mr. Tremblay. Do they review all budgets before we study them?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Nolin: I have never noticed that.
The Chair: That is one of the hurdles we face, moving forward on that.
Senator Nolin: I thought they did that after.
On the numbers, why do we need a writer for the remainder of March?
The Chair: That is a good question and I do not have a good answer for it. What I said to the clerk was to do one twelfth of the budget. It was a time question, Senator Nolin; no more, no less.
Senator Nolin: My more general question relates to items 2, 3, 4 and 5 under "Professional and Other Services.'' Do we really need those people for the next three weeks?
The Chair: If we are going to look at the legislation. In fairness, in preparation for the Monday meeting, if it goes ahead, we have asked for a briefing from them already. They are not getting paid for it, but they are doing it.
Senator Nolin: That is why 4 and 5 are the ones we may need, the general and Mr. Denofsky.
The Chair: We may also want to have a communications consultant, but I would like to go in camera before I discuss it.
Senator Nolin: I have a question on that and will wait for the in camera session.
Senator Wallin: Other than the consultants and the writers, this does not reflect the clerk's work or legislative researchers. That never gets touched here.
The Chair: The library does not get touched here and the clerks do not get touched here.
Senator Wallin: That work would go on. They would be able to provide research, in a pinch.
The Chair: They regularly provide research. I should say that we are shorthanded in the library now.
Senator Wallin: Due to the woman who is leaving.
The Chair: She is leaving this week.
Senator Tkachuk: The number is $17,150. Is that $7,150 over the $10,000 limit for emergency funding?
The Chair: It is.
Senator Tkachuk: Will that require a different process for approval rather than the $10,000? I think we just sign off on the $10,000 in Internal Economy, so it rolls right out.
The Chair: It is easy to get the $10,000.
Senator Tkachuk: That is right. I have signed off on many already.
The Chair: What we will need is a budget for the legislation, and we did not have time to prepare it.
Senator Tkachuk: We did not have time to prepare the budget for the legislation. Is this extra $7,150 for the legislation? I am lost.
The Chair: No, it is not. It has nothing to do with the legislation. We could have had a figure of $10,000 and no explanation, and instead we chose to have something that spells out the funds. The $10,000 normally comes in advance of any budget being approved.
Senator Tkachuk: That is correct.
The Chair: It comes without any questions asked, without any consideration.
There has been some discussion at this meeting about things being transparent and clear about what we are spending the funds on, so it seemed more rational to break out what the funds would be spent on rather than saying, "Give me 10 grand and see you later.''
Senator Tkachuk: I understand that. However, the $17,150 is $7,150 over the $10,000, making it more difficult, making it impossible to get unless you go through the whole budget process.
Ms. Anwar: The emergency funds, if you think of it like an advance on a future budget, represent a $10,000 advance on a formal budget application. It assumes the formal budget is forthcoming. There is no limit on how much a committee can ask for in its formal budget.
Senator Tkachuk: I understand that.
Ms. Anwar: This emergency funds request has not been put through.
Senator Tkachuk: Therefore, the $10,000 will be used for part of this budget.
Ms. Anwar: We have not made a request.
The Chair: In fairness, we still do not know from the Internal Economy Committee how they will deal with this fiscal year. We are guessing that they will revert to the normal process in the next fiscal year. I have been here for 25 years and have never had to ask for a one-month budget at the last month of a fiscal period. I do not know how Internal Economy intends to deal with it.
My assumption has been that because they would be small amounts, they would find a way to expedite this type of budget. From a taxpayer's point of view, it does not make an iota of difference if it comes out of the $10,000 emergency fund or whether you have a budget of this nature.
Senator Tkachuk: Have we asked for the 10,000?
The Chair: No, we have not.
Senator Wallin: Is this one twelfth of last year?
The Chair: No, just of the salaries.
Senator Tkachuk: With respect to the $3,250 figure for a communications consultant, we already have communications people assigned.
The Chair: I asked if we could discuss that in camera.
Senator Tkachuk: When will we do that?
The Chair: Senator Nolin raised it.
Senator Tkachuk: I think the bells are ringing.
The Chair: I understand that, but there has been a lot of other discussion and we have not had a chance to get to it.
Senator Tkachuk: I think we have to go to the chamber. When the bells ring, I think the meeting is done.
The Chair: The rules, which we like to follow around here —
Senator Tkachuk: No, you do not.
The Chair: I resent that.
Senator Tkachuk: I am appreciative of the fact that you resent it.
The Chair: That is fine.
Senator Wallin: Let us figure out whether we leave this minute or in six minutes. Our time is fast running out.
I have a procedural question. We have a meeting with David Mulroney booked on Monday at 11 o'clock with the steering committee. He will give us, we hope, pertinent information about what our thinking and priorities should be about where we might travel and so forth.
The chair probably knows better than most, but we have asked for these three heavy hitters. When do you suppose we might know about that?
The Chair: When they are pleased to tell us.
Senator Wallin: How late could that be?
The Chair: I would be surprised if it was any later than tomorrow, but it could be Friday.
Senator Wallin: If for some reason only two appear before the committee or only one comes or no one comes, then I think we should agree here that on Monday, because that is our regular sitting day, we will wrestle with all the questions that Senator Manning and Senator Nolin have raised.
Procedurally, I would ask the clerk that if she is given a heads up, even if she gets rejections, it would be pertinent information to us. That would mean that we would know we would have a little time to deal with this.
Ms. Anwar: Right now the response from DND is, "We will get back to you.''
Senator Wallin: If you had to wager, having done this before, what is your sense?
The Chair: When you are asking for the three chiefs, it is a singularity. It has happened once before.
Senator Wallin: Never in history.
The Chair: I cannot go that far, but it is in recent history.
Senator Manning: On the matter of consultant services and the names here — and we will discuss the communications issue in camera — they may be in the room for all I know. I am still on this learning curve. How do we determine who the consultants are?
The Chair: The names you see here have been with the committee for six or seven years, since the committee was founded. That is why they are there. However, this committee can pick whomever it wants.
Senator Manning: I do not know these people. I just see names here and I wondered about the process. Have these people worked with the committee and consulting services in the past?
The Chair: They have.
Senator Wallin: I am trying to make provisos for Monday if we do not have the three commanders present. It would be useful, obviously, if we had all of the consultants come in and talk to us. I am not really referring to an interview process; it is more of a getting-to-know process for those of us who are present. We might have questions for them directly. Do you think that is doable?
The Chair: I think it is doable. I am unsure about Mr. Denofsky, but I believe the others are available.
Senator Wallin: That might be useful.
Senator Manning: Again, I am on this learning curve, so I will ask a lot of questions. What exactly is the work that they will be doing? Can we share that here?
The Chair: Sure. If you start at the top, "working meals'' is self-evident. I do not think it has to be $400 a meal. Occasionally I like egg salad sandwiches or pizza, which are cheaper.
Senator Manning: I do not want to deny the right to eat.
The Chair: We have had a writer for our reports to date. We have endeavoured to aim at, I would say, about a grade 7 level to make sure that people understand what we are writing about. We try to write the reports so they are not dry documents that are difficult for people to read, and we try to write them in a way that people find intriguing or interesting. Mr. Turner has done that very successfully. If you have had a chance to read any of the previous reports, they tend to catch your eye and they tend to encourage people to read through them.
Senator Manning: Will his job be to write up the final reports?
The Chair: He does that, but the committee has had a tradition of going through every line and every word of every report. We do not just take concepts. One person reads the report aloud and we go through it. It is a long, tedious process, but since day one, the committee has said they wanted to read every word that went out over their signature, and they have done so. They change many of the words and punctuation. You will hate commas and semi-colons by the time we are done.
Senator Manning: From my experience in the past with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in the House of Commons, we had an analyst who worked with us and wrote the reports. Is the situation different here?
The Chair: Yes. We have not found anyone who can write with the same skill that this individual can. The individual is a very good communicator.
We will save the communications consultant topic for the in camera portion of our meeting.
The next consultant, number 4, is a retired major-general who has served as an interpreter. Sometimes it is difficult to get the military to speak either official language; they have a language of their own.
Senator Manning: I get blamed for that sometimes, being from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Nolin: We want to talk to you about that.
The Chair: The retired major-general also gives us insights into why people are doing what they are doing in that department, and he has proved to be very valuable to those members of the committee who have used his services. Prior to our hearing military witnesses, he also gives an oral briefing on the witnesses we will be seeing. Afterwards, the committee normally meets for half an hour and we discuss whether we thought the witnesses were credible. The retired major-general also comments on that, and he frequently will say, "You guys got snowed on this because that is not true,'' or "This part is really true, and he could have elaborated on it.''
He gives a running critique, which also gives the researchers an opportunity to hear your views and those of other members of the committee on what they would like in the report as we go along day by day.
Senator Banks: Chair, I am sorry to interrupt, but we are going to run out of time. We can explain Mr. Denofsky's role.
Senator Wallin: We can do that on Monday.
Senator Banks: May I propose and, if it is appropriate, move that on Monday we consider these matters, notwithstanding whatever the time might be, whether or not the two generals and the admiral show up; and that if they do show up, that we continue the meeting on Monday until these matters have been properly considered?
The Chair: Are there comments on the proposal from Senator Banks?
Senator Tkachuk: Do you mean we would continue after 7 p.m.?
Senator Banks: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: Therefore, we would meet from 1:30 to 7:00 and then we would discuss the budget. Can we not discuss the budget the following Wednesday? We have not yet chosen a chair for the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, so we have the time. At least we would know now that we actually have a budget meeting, unless the commanders do not show up.
Senator Wallin: Yes, that is what I think.
Senator Tkachuk: If we can do it within that time period and we are stuck with it anyway, I have no problem with it.
Senator Banks: That is what I said.
Senator Tkachuk: However, if we are going to stay longer, I do have a problem.
The Chair: The approval we received from your whip was that this meeting was a singularity at the Wednesday time slot. I would ask you, if we are going to go to Wednesday, if next time you could intervene with the whip and ask him to let us meet twice.
Senator Tkachuk: If we all agree on the meeting, our whips will be very agreeable.
The Chair: Your whip was agreeable. I am saying that he qualified it.
Senator Tkachuk: I understand.
Senator Wallin: If we can reserve Wednesday at this time, because that gives people some time to plan, we will deal with our respective whips. We will see what happens on Monday, and if we can do it in the time frame, then that is easier.
Before we wrap up, I would like to make one other comment. I want to thank all of you, particularly the clerk, Senator Kenny and others, for being incredibly patient with us as we walk through this. We are taking this very seriously, and I appreciate your patience.
The Chair: I welcome your comment, and I have a question for Senator Tkachuk.
You are concerned about continuing after 7 p.m. How would you feel about meeting before 1 p.m.?
Senator Tkachuk: The chances are good that my plane will not be in. It usually arrives at 12:00, but it has been late three weeks in a row, so I cannot count on it.
Senator Banks: Could you come on Sunday night?
Senator Tkachuk: No, I do not want to come on Sunday night.
Senator Banks: I do not want to either.
Senator Tkachuk: I do not have to explain why I cannot come on Sunday night.
Senator Zimmer: What time on Wednesday would we meet?
The Chair: We would meet after caucus, and that is why we said 12:15 p.m.
Senator Zimmer: That is fine.
Senator Nolin: I understand the sensitivity on the matter of the communications consultant. Is that a question that the steering committee will raise and make a recommendation on?
The Chair: The steering committee has already had a discussion briefly about the issue, but it needs to have more of a discussion and perhaps an interview.
Senator Manning: What time on Monday?
Senator Tkachuk: 12:30 p.m. and then 1:00.
Senator Manning: I think my flight arrives at 12:30, so I may be a few minutes late.
Senator Banks: If you have an opportunity, chair, would you finish explaining to Senator Manning about Mr. Denofsky?
The Chair: Barry Denofsky is a former member of the RCMP. He was in the security service. He moved from there to CSIS after the McDonald commission. His last job was head of counter-intelligence in Canada. He has been a very useful adviser to the committee on matters relating to CSIS and the RCMP.
Senator Wallin: Could we get biographies?
The Chair: We have biographies, and they are in the back of every report that we publish.
Senator Wallin: That would be great.
The Chair: I am told we have run out of time. This meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)