Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 1 - Evidence for March 12, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 12, 2009
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:31 a.m. to consider administrative and other matters.
Senator George J. Furey (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I see quorum. Good morning colleagues.
The first item on the agenda is the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas, FIPA, Sixth Plenary Meeting in Ottawa in September 2009. We have Mr. Eric Janse, the Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate, and the chair of FIPA, Senator Hervieux-Payette.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and honorable senators. This morning, we are presenting a request to organize the sixth plenary meeting of FIPA in Ottawa, in September.
The person responsible for all budgetary matters is sitting beside me and will talk to you about that later.
I would simply like to inform you that virtually the only countries with the facilities and budgets required to host a plenary meeting are Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Canada. Unfortunately, due to the presence of Cuba, American parliamentarians have not participated much for several years.
Bearing that in mind, up until last year, we were able to go to smaller Central American countries. However, an OAS meeting is being held where we were supposed to go, and the country was unable to host both meetings. So Canada was asked to host a meeting this year, and next year, the annual meeting will be held in the Caribbean.
All of the large federations have hosted FIPA since it was created. I am the vice-chair and the outgoing international chair; the Canadian chairman is Mr. Bezan. FIPA activities focus on human rights, migration, as well as trade issues. Last December, a conference of interest to all countries dealing with the integration and rights of women in Parliament was held. That highly successful conference was organized by Columbia.
The smaller countries host conferences dealing with a specific topic. There are two or three such meetings per year. The 35 member countries participate as their means permit.
As for the integration of FIPA and COPA, which is the organization where the provinces are represented, discussions are under way with the various COPA and FIPA executive members. We will be meeting with Quebec delegates shortly. Canada is playing a lead role in this attempt to merge the two associations more quickly. Accomplishing that requires the collaboration of Brazil and Mexico.
I will ask Mr. Janse to give you an overview of the budget that has been revised downward. I do not think we will be serving hot dogs, but we are certainly able to make do with a very reasonable budget.
[English]
Eric Janse, Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate: Very briefly, on the question of the budget for the conference, normally parliamentary conferences in the past were the subject of supplementary funding. After the Joint Interparliamentary Council, JIC, considers a request from a given association that Canada be host of a conference, a recommendation is made to both internal economy committees requesting a supplementary budget for the conference.
In this case, JIC and the executive committee of FIPA were very aware of the current economic situation and had a long hard look at the JIC budgetary envelope, which is the budget for all the parliamentary associations. They noticed that over the past several years, considerable amounts have been lapsed. There has been a large surplus, mainly because we are in a situation of minority Parliaments. Therefore, the delegations that go abroad to various conferences and such are usually reduced in numbers, which results at the end of the year in a considerable budget surplus. For example, in 2007-08, over $800,000 was lapsed and for this year, the JIC anticipates a lapse of close to $600,000. The recommendation is that the funding for this conference not be subject to supplementary funding and that attempts be made to manage this within the JIC budgetary envelope. Only if that proves to be insufficient will a request be made to both boards for supplementary funding for any difference. I am quite confident that the full conference budget will be absorbed by the JIC budgetary envelope.
The Chair: Thank you. Honourable senators, JIC is asking that both the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons and the Standing Committee of Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration of the Senate approve slightly under $400,000 for this conference. The JIC is estimating a surplus that will be able to absorb that. However, in the event that this surplus is not sufficient, we are asked to agree to pick up the difference. A normal division of such an amount would be 70 per cent House of Commons and 30 per cent Senate. Are there questions?
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Mr. Chairman, thank you for your comments. How many people from how many countries are expected?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: First of all, I am going to explain how participation works; countries like Brazil and Mexico never ask for CIDA contributions. Generally speaking, a certain number of delegates are invited using the CIDA budget to enable smaller countries to participate. I assume the other countries are facing tough economic times. I am under the impression that delegations of eight or nine people are quite rare. I would say that the average in recent years has been three or four delegates, and generally about 20 of the 35 countries participate.
Some countries, including Mexico, show up with a virtually complete delegation, about 10 people. That is an exception. If we say 20 countries with about four people, that makes 80. That is an average, with the maximum being about 120 people. We will likely be about 100 people.
Mr. Janse: The number of delegates does have an impact on the budget. We operate in four languages: English, French, Spanish and Portuguese. That has an impact on the budget for the plenary sessions and the committee work, as interpretation is available in the four languages for all delegates.
Senator Massicotte: I have a general question that nevertheless warrants an answer. Taxpayers pick up the tab for this participation, how does Canada benefit? Is there anything in particular we are looking for or expecting apart from dialogue?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I think that our relations with Brazil, especially as regards Embraer and Bombardier, hot topics like that, have perhaps a less negative impact or a lesser impact because we have the opportunity to discuss them. Meeting face to face with people, where disputes are involved, enables us to advance these files.
FIPA was created as a result of the free trade area of the Americas, so advancing the most important issues requires the assistance of members and senators. Bear in mind that in other parliaments, the government does not adopt these measures. The government negotiates, but the parliaments do the approving. Parliamentarians enable progress on free trade agreements. Look at what has happened in recent years; negotiations are underway and have yielded results. Those countries participate in FIPA. We have conducted training sessions through FIPA so that members and senators from the Americas understand the scope of the free trade agreements which are often perceived negatively, in particular because our American neighbour has not always had a good reputation. So we are somewhat of a link that enables dialogue with the Americas to go on.
Senator Massicotte: The additional costs have now been included in the budget, congratulations. Based on past experience, when the budget is prepared, $397,000 in this case, is there a surplus? Is that an accurate figure?
Mr. Janse: That is an excellent question, and it is the next item on the agenda. It deals with the OSCE conference. That is the first time we have run a deficit. Normally, our budget projections are always on target. I will explain in a moment, when we move to the next item, that for the six or seven years that parliamentary conferences have existed, we have always been on target.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: I did not quite understand the Canadian International Development Agency's, CIDA, participation.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: To have the participation of the parliamentarians from the Caribbean or Central America, CIDA contributes to the travel expenses not included in this budget. This expenditure falls under certain programs of CIDA. This occurs not only in Canada but also when we go to other countries. The last time we went to Brazil, CIDA covered expenses because they have a special program for Latin American countries.
Senator Tkachuk: Brazil did not cover the expenses for the Caribbean countries, but we covered them.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Often, they pay for other expenses. For example, in the past they have contributed in other countries with translation services into Portuguese because they are the only Portuguese-speaking country in the Americas. They pick up the tab for other expenses. It is the same with Mexico.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: Since Canada has the power to extend invitations, I assume we have the privilege of inviting who ever we want. Is Cuba invited to this conference?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: When FIPA was founded, all of the countries participating in Ottawa voted. The question dealt with including Cuba. Participants decided that Cuba was part of the 35 OAS countries. Therefore, Cuba is a full-fledged participant like the others and has participated in all conferences since FIPA was created.
[English]
Senator Downe: I remind people that this organization was created at the initiative of Canada in many ways. It is something of which we can be proud. The Prime Minister has spoken on more than one occasion about the importance of the Americas, and I support this initiative.
Senator Munson: I also support the initiative. When you talk about extra expenses that might not be in the budget and that we might cover, is that $10,000 or as much as $100,000?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: The budget covers all the expenses of the conference. I do not want to hide the fact that CIDA is contributing and that that is in their budget. FIPA makes a special request to CIDA, which has special programs, such as IT. They would not send delegates if Canada were not footing the bill. They do not pay for all small countries, but they usually contribute to four or five. As well, other countries help with other participants.
To be precise, they pay for the airfare for all those who attend, and they pay for their rooms. We do not cover any of those expenses. When we cover expenses through CIDA, most of the time it is just the airfare.
Senator Prud'homme: We have these national conventions.
[Translation]
Could you consider that members and senators are members of the Canadian section and would like to attend could help as hosts? I did that in Vancouver for the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum.
[English]
I created it with people from Japan. Unfortunately, when they came to Vancouver, I was an independent, and they came looking for me and could not find me because I was not a delegate. I was asked to help receive because, unfortunately, there was no delegate from British Columbia. Would you consider that if parliamentarians wish to be part of the Canadian delegation, they would be welcome, as we decided yesterday at the JIC for another conference?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: It is the same thing. You are all welcome. There is no restriction for the host country on any parliamentarians who want to attend. Even if you have not paid your dues to the association, you are most welcome.
We did one during a session and the attendance from Canada was very low, and I must express my sincere wish that the Conservatives participate. They were the hosts, but it was the Liberals who attended. We had a very large delegation, and it was a bit embarrassing. I hope that the whip on the other side will ensure Liberal and Conservative senators attend because I think it is important. We are not sitting between the September 12 and 15, which is why we chose that date. All the facilities are available, and I hope people will take the time to attend. Our working days are very long. Colleagues who have attended the meeting know we start at nine o'clock and finish at six o'clock every day; and it is with simultaneous translation, full days, at least eight hours a day with very specific and knowledgeable people as speakers.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Hervieux-Payette. I appreciate you coming and your comments and responses to your questions. Thank you also, Mr. Janse, but I will ask you to remain for the next item. Colleagues, we need a motion to approve the recommendation set out in tab 1, that the Internal Economy Committee approve the holding of the plenary meeting on September 12, 2009, and that the JIC estimated surplus absorb the budget and, in the event there is a shortfall, come back for supplementary funding. Moved by Senator Downe. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
The next item on the agenda, colleagues, is the fall meetings of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, Parliamentary Assembly. Mr. Janse alluded to the fact that we had an issue with respect to the attendance. We anticipated 150 members coming to the meeting. In fact, it went to 400 members. Mr. Janse will speak to the reasons for that.
Mr. Janse: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Following on Senator Massicotte's inquiry, of the nine major conferences that International and Interparliamentary Affairs has organized since it was created in 2001, being well over several hundred participants, this is the first time we have encountered a deficit situation, as Senator Furey outlined, and there is a good reason for it.
In 2007, based on a recommendation from the JIC, both boards agreed that this conference would be held in Toronto in September 2008. We were told by the headquarters of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly that we could expect 150 parliamentarians and 50 accompanying persons, for a total of 200 delegates. That was budgeted for and planned for.
In the middle of the summer of 2008, as everyone recalls, the crisis in Georgia erupted, including the military intervention by Russia, and that caused a great deal of interest for the OSCE conference in Toronto, including the fact that the foreign affairs minister of Georgia was slated to speak at the conference. Suddenly there was great interest by countries to send more delegates.
The OSCE does not limit the number of participants at its conferences, and the total number of participants doubled to over 400. That resulted in the deficit, which is estimated to be approximately $100,000. It was not possible, again, because this happened during the summer, to convene a meeting of the JIC or Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons and the Standing Committee of Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration of the Senate, but Senator Di Nino, the chair of the Canadian section of the OSCE, spoke to the chairs of the committees and indicated that he would like to proceed with accepting the increased number of participants and that the deficit be absorbed later on.
As indicated with the FIPA budget, the JIC is anticipating a very large budgetary surplus in its envelope this year. The dissolution and prorogation had an impact on the number of trips. Again, it is not seeking any new funding from you but simply approval to absorb the deficit for this conference from within its own JIC envelope.
Senator Kinsella: I support the recommendation that has been made, but I would also like to place on the record that our colleagues, Senator Grafstein and Senator Di Nino, played a central chairing role during this conference.
As you will recall, there was a general election, so there was a much lower participation of members from the other place. They did an excellent job, as the Clerk has indicated. The question of Georgia was a very hot item, and no one was sure how this would process, but at the end of the day, through the skill of our colleagues, all the competing parties around that tragic file found that Canada, by hosting this, had made an incredible contribution in terms of world peace. I wanted to place on the record that Senator Grafstein and Senator Di Nino did the Senate proud, and Canada, by hosting that because of that one issue. There were other issues as well, but the feedback from parliamentarians all across the group was very laudatory to the work of Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Thank you for your comment. An additional $100,000 was spent; 200 people were expected, but 404 came. The report does not provide much by way of explanation for the increase in costs. Are there many fixed costs? Are there variable costs? What cost $100,000 more than expected?
Mr. Janse: It was hospitality. When you host a conference, a bit like FIPA, delegates are responsible for travel expenses to Canada, but during the conference, their expenses for food and some entertainment, and so on, are covered. Most of the $100,000 went to paying three meals per day for an additional 200 delegates.
Senator Massicotte: For how many days?
Mr. Janse: The conference lasted four or five days.
Senator Massicotte: So we are looking at an additional 600 meals at a cost of $300 each?
Mr. Janse: Yes.
Senator Massicotte: There is a shortfall of $100,000. One hundred thousand dollars has gone unpaid. What creditors have not been paid?
Mr. Janse: I do not understand your question.
Senator Massicotte: There is a shortfall of $100,000. Suppliers or someone are out $100,000. If we say no, who will not be paid?
Mr. Janse: We paid the amount using other funds from our branch, while waiting for the JIC to meet, to have members of both Houses, so that we can then proceed with this request.
Senator Massicotte: The JIC decided to use the funds without the authority of the two boards and if the boards say no, you are going to reimburse the loan? What will happen?
[English]
The Chair: Senator Massicotte, I guess Mr. Milligan and I will be putting our hands in our pockets. We were consulted by Senator Di Nino a couple of times; I think it was in August. It was impossible to bring both committees and the JIC together to do anything with it at the time. Therefore, we said, "Look, we understand there will be a surplus; we understand there will be no new money needed. We think this is a really good conference." Basically, without approving it, we said to spend the money, and we would bring it back after the fact and look for approval. If we did not get the approval, we would be in a quagmire.
Senator Massicotte: Does the authority of the JIC permit the steering committee or whatever to spend that kind of money?
The Chair: It permits the co-chairs to approve, subject to going back to the JIC for ratification, which happened.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
Senator Prud'homme: Following what I said earlier, it would have been good to know about the crisis pointed out by Senator Kinsella. It would have been be good if a whip had sent a reminder to those who could have been free to support the delegation, since there was an election and many members could not go. Of course, I was free and I would have been delighted to go. However, I did not remember that we had voted for it, and I was not a delegate.
That is a message I would give to the whips when something unforeseen happens that diminishes the number of parliamentarians who can attend this kind of conference where much has been invested.
Senator Tkachuk: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Tkachuk that the recommendations set out on tab 2, page 8, be approved. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you, Mr. Janse.
The next item on our agenda is the membership of the Joint Interparliamentary Council. Senator Cook, Senator Tkachuk and I were originally approved by the committee as representatives for the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Senator Tkachuk has asked that Senator Prud'homme replace him as the third official representative at the JIC. Are there any problems or questions about that, colleagues?
Senator Massicotte: I presume it has nothing to do with the fact that if we had refused the last resolution, he would have to put up $50,000 out of his own pocket.
Senator Tkachuk: Thirty thousand dollars.
The Chair: Could we have a motion to replace Senator Tkachuk with Senator Prud'homme? It is moved by Senator Munson. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
The adoption of the minutes of proceedings of February 26, 2009 (public portion): Are there any questions on that, honourable senators? If not, it is moved by Senator Robichaud. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Next on the agenda is the creation of the subcommittees and advisory working groups.
Paul C. Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments: The last time there was an organization meeting, you agreed to the composition of the steering committee and the JIC. Other advisory working groups — that does not mean the membership has to be from this committee — and other subcommittees need to be struck. The chair will go through the four or five of those.
The Chair: I think we spoke about the Advisory Working Group on the Review of International Travel last week. We are just looking for approval now. Senator Massicotte and Senator Nancy Ruth have done that in the past; rather than interrupt the work they are doing, it was agreed that they move forward.
For the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets, we are recommending that Senator Robichaud chair that subcommittee and the members be Senator Dawson and Senator MacDonald.
The Advisory Working Group on the Review of the International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate, IIAD was conducted by Senator Massicotte and Mr. Rob Merrifield. We are asking that Senator Massicotte continue because there were some comments on the report done up by the International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate. We will ask Senator Massicotte to come back to the JIC at a future date and respond to those comments.
We did not ask Mr. Merrifield because we did not feel it would be appropriate as he is now a member of cabinet. However, I think Senator Massicotte can hold the fort for that report. Hence, we are asking that he stay on that advisory working group.
The Advisory Working Group on Communications was struck the last time with Senator Di Nino and Senator Dawson. We are asking that that stay in place so they can complete their work.
The Artwork Advisory Working Group remains basically the same: Senator Moore, Senator Joyal, Senator Mahovlich, Senator Johnson, Senator Meighen and Senator Dallaire.
Are there any questions, colleagues?
Senator Prud'homme: Yesterday at the JIC, I was temporarily replacing Senator Tkachuk. Senator Massicotte will be asked to come back on April 25 to explain his extensive work on how to reorganize the parliamentary association. That is point number one.
Point number two is the question of communications. If you see fit to have a third voice that is not a member of any official party, I would be more than happy, for the very few meetings left before I leave, to participate on that advisory group. It would be good to have a voice from the unaligned political group in the Senate.
The Chair: Thank you for that, Senator Prud'homme. The issue right now with that particular advisory committee is that they pretty well moved forward as of last year on a number of meetings. I will leave that to Senator Dawson and Senator Di Nino. Thank you for volunteering for it, but I will leave it for them to draw upon any resources they wish, including another member, if they want.
On the issue of Senator Massicotte, I would ask Senator Massicotte if he has received yet the comments of the IIAD to the report.
Senator Massicotte: No, I have not.
The Chair: I will ensure you get that this week.
Senator Munson: I have a question through you, chair, to Senator Massicotte. When would he anticipate a report on the international travel?
Senator Massicotte: The last time we debated, I was waiting to hear who should be the other committee member helping me to complete the report. Now I have the answer — Senator Nancy Ruth.
Only one meeting is left of importance. We did get a report from the Clerk as to his recommendations. We need to meet with him and then conclude the report. We have had our meeting, so I presume we will do that the first week we are back. Hopefully, you will get a report from us four to six weeks from now.
Senator Downe: I just have a question, Mr. Chair, to jog my memory. Was the report that Senator Massicotte prepared for the JIC circulated? Have we seen that?
The Chair: It was done for the JIC. It was considered by the Joint Interparliamentary Council and passed over to International and Interparliamentary Affairs for comments. The process is still ongoing in that Senator Massicotte will now come back and discuss the comments of the IIAD with the Joint Interparliamentary Council.
Senator Downe: Assuming they are approved, does it come back to us for approval or does it just get approved by the JIC?
The Chair: It was a review of the workings of the JIC. There is no reason why this committee cannot have it. If they wish to look at it, we can certainly circulate it. However, I would suggest that we wait until the review process is complete. Then I would ask Senator Massicotte probably to distribute it to members of this committee.
Senator Downe: I have no problem with that but I am trying to understand the process. After the JIC approves it, it is the policy. At what stage do we have input?
The Chair: That is a good question. It is a review of the IIAD, which is a combined operation of the House of Commons and the Senate. If at any time any member of this committee wants to look at it, nothing will be finalized until Senator Massicotte comes back. Senator Prud'homme says that it is now April 25. We can hold off any final approval if you want to have a review of it here. I have no problem with that.
Senator Downe: I will leave it to the other members of the committee.
The Chair: The Clerk seems to think we are at cross purposes here and that we are talking about two different things. I will ask the Clerk to comment.
Mr. Bélisle: Based on Senator Massicotte's comments that he would seek my advice, I have given him written advice on international travel. Senator Massicotte is looking at a separate mandate, and then there is the JIC.
The Chair: I believe that Senator Downe and I are talking about the same thing.
Senator Downe: We are talking about international.
The Chair: He is asking a good question. At what point does this committee look at the review of the JIC. You raise a good point, and I will undertake to ensure that it is not finalized until it has been distributed to this committee. If we want to discuss it at that time, we will do so.
Senator Massicotte: It is a good question. If it is the authority of JIC to decide those issues, then perhaps the report should be circulated before JIC decides so that the members can comment and influence that decision. It depends where the decision lies, but if it is a decision of JIC, then have their comments before it is made.
The Chair: I do not think that will be a problem, Senator Massicotte, as long as Senator Downe says that there is some opportunity for that before things are cast in stone.
Senator Massicotte: If international travel is such a contentious issue, perhaps we should take his recommendation and make it effective in this way. He will have some responsibility for the controversy that it will cause.
Mr. Bélisle: I do not know if we should put that in the minutes.
The Chair: Before we move on, international travel that has been approved always includes a tag-on whereby a report has to be filed with the Senate. I would ask the Clerk to review international travel that was approved by the Internal Economy Committee and do a follow-up for the committee on the reports to ensure that they were all filed. If any deficiency is found, I would ask that the Clerk notify the individuals who were approved so that it can be complete as required.
Mr. Bélisle: To my recollection, this committee has not approved international travel in the last two years perhaps, so I will review back two years.
The Chair: Certainly, it has been one year. We stopped that process about one year ago when we struck the subcommittee.
Mr. Bélisle: I will verify that and report back to the committee.
The Chair: That is an essential part of the process from our perspective and should be followed up to ensure that it was done.
Senator Downe: Correct me if I am wrong, but the rules on international travel require you to table a report in the Senate or to this committee.
The Chair: I am not sure if there was an order, but certainly a report should be tabled somewhere. We will have the Clerk check that and report on the approvals done by this committee to determine whether any follow-up is required by the committee.
Senator Downe: Not all approvals led to a trip. I was approved but, because of a conflict, I did not travel.
The Chair: Honourable senators, on another issue, when we approve the advisory working groups on subcommittees, I would ask that we not consider the Artwork Advisory Working Group for now. Senator Tkachuk wishes to discuss the membership of the group in some detail outside the meeting, and we will report back at the next meeting. I ask for a motion to that effect.
Moved by Senator Robichaud that the committee consider subcommittees on advisory working groups with the exception of the Artwork Advisory Working Group. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, you will recall that there used to be a working group — Senator Massicotte was responsible on the Senate side — where we discussed security for the parliamentary precinct. Will this committee be struck again at some point or have we simply forgotten about it?
Mr. Bélisle: Senator, an action plan called the Master Security Plan exists; I am to receive a copy today; it is the second copy I have received, a draft. It will have to be approved by both Houses. I have already talked to the steering subcommittee about putting the item on the agenda for the next meeting. The recommendation may be to reconstitute the subcommittee to study the report.
[English]
Senator Prud'homme: I like how carefully the Clerk says that, at the next meeting, we may think of reconstituting the subcommittee. I attended the first meeting with Senator Massicotte, Senator Stratton and three others. We sat and there was no progress. I am sure our security people would say that. It is a very long process to touch even one gate. Rather than say that we would reconsider appointing, I would strongly recommend that the Clerk come back to the committee with a recommendation to reconstitute and not delay the subcommittee on security any further. Of the five that were there, you may choose someone else if you like.
Mr. Bélisle: Is there a motion to reconstitute the subcommittee on security?
Senator Prud'homme: I do not see anything wrong with that. If Senator Robichaud wishes, he could move and I would second to reconstitute the subcommittee and see what the work will be.
The Chair: I doubt that we can do it now without consulting the members to ensure that they would be prepared to do it. Certainly, we will do that and discuss it at the next meeting, Senator Prud'homme, if you are okay with that.
Senator Prud'homme: I agree. We have two of them here today — the Chair of Internal Economy and Senator Massicotte.
Senator Massicotte: The subcommittee's principal usefulness was reaching consensus with the whips of the House of Commons on security of the Parliamentary Precinct. I thought the subcommittee made more progress when that consensus was achieved on the approach and measures to be taken. Does that joint Senate and House of Commons committee still exist or would it have to be reconstituted as well to have its purpose?
Mr. Bélisle: Senator, I believe that you are talking about the committee chaired by Mr. Preston.
Senator Massicotte: We were co-chairs.
Mr. Bélisle: I do not believe it has been reconstituted. I will check with the Clerk of the House of Commons but I do not think that has been done
Senator Prud'homme: In all fairness to the members in the other place, some people outside of the parliamentary group — bureaucrats — do not like this kind of committee, but tough luck. The working group should do everything it can do. In all fairness, some people do not like that kind of committee and they are not parliamentarians. The Hill belongs to the House of Commons and to the Senate, as Senator Massicotte pointed out. Therefore, both houses should be involved. If there is more pressure on the House of Commons to not participate, then I do not understand why we senators would not know what is happening with security. The details will affect all of us. The Senate will be faced with a fait accompli decision without participation.
As a senator on his way out, I recommend that we not be pushed around and that we be told the truth about these matters. No one is hiding the truth, but I know what is happening behind our collective back, and people do not like that kind of thing. You should have seen the bureaucrats having to report in the National Capital Commission. I have not heard anyone say, this one is leaving soon or that one is not leaving soon, but they change staff continuously. You should see what goes on when the RCMP appear: I finally asked one guy, who is in charge? You remember the famous quote: "I am in charge." Of course, we all started to laugh because it was a repeat of what Mr. Hague said that year in Washington at the White House. What he proposed was frightening. The working group might not do much but the fact that it is in place is good.
The Chair: I have asked the Clerk to revisit that and ensure that it is on the agenda for the next meeting.
The next item, honourable senators, is the first report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two reports to present. I will, of course, begin with the first one.
The Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets has undertaken to examine budget requests in due course. To date, we have received 12 requests for fiscal year 2008-2009, and, since the fiscal year is drawing to a close, it is not surprising to note that the amounts requested are really quite low and apply primarily to working meals.
In fact, all of the budget requests come under amounts authorized for contingency funds that are currently set at $10,000, and most of the amounts requested are well below the maximum amount. While the committees in question had already received funds, following the approval of requests for emergency funding by this steering committee, the funds are considered an advance on funds for draft budgets.
The subcommittee has looked over the draft budgets it has received. Since the amounts in question are very modest, the subcommittee does not hesitate to recommend approving all of the budgets submitted, for a total of $51,025. Senators Dawson and McDonald, whom I thank, and I are well aware that the budget process for 2009-2010 will probably be more demanding and that the amounts requested will be considerably higher.
Honorable senators, I move the adoption of the first report that you have in front of you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Robichaud. Do honourable senators have questions?
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Thank you for your report, Senator Robichaud. I do not have a problem with your first report, but I would like us perhaps to set the parameters for the ones to come, because the amounts requested will be considerably higher. When you submit your report, two questions are important, to my mind: when taxpayers' money is being spent, the first question is: what will that mean for our country, what contribution will it make? Will it improve quality of life for Canadians? Perhaps at the same time, we could look at each committee's track record: how has it contributed to achieving that objective?
Some committees produce a number of reports, but do not affect Canadian policy or make a major contribution. I would like us to consistently look at two things: first of all, what is the purpose for spending the money; it is not just to produce a report, that is not a good enough answer, we must ask ourselves how it will change our policy. Secondly in the past, how has this committee contributed to achieving the desired change for our great country?
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I believe that our committee's mandate is to examine the requests and look at how the requests enabled the committee to achieve the objectives of the mandate it has received from the Senate.
Senator Massicotte: What does that mean?
Senator Robichaud: That means that each committee in the Senate has a mandate to conduct work and research. If we look at the Foreign Affairs Committee at present, it is studying Russia, China and foreign trade, and it will draft a report.
When we consider a budget, we have the mandate the committee has received from the Chamber in front of us, and we look at whether the activities correspond and are consistent with the objective the mandate proposes to achieve.
Senator Massicotte: I agree with you, your role is not just to ensure that the numbers add up. When a committee requests public funds, it is your committee's role to recommend approving or not approving those funds. In other words, you assess whether the committee will meet the objectives set. The objectives set are not just conducting a trip; they include travelling with a view to accomplishing something in the interest of our country. Someone somewhere must provide an opinion, and say "yes, the money will be well spent."
Some committees spend huge amounts. Are those amounts well spent, will they enable the committees to achieve the objectives that have been set and do you agree with that or not, that is the question?
Senator Robichaud: On the issue of whether or not a committee meets its objectives, committees normally present a report. You will see that when a committee requests a mandate to study certain issues, there is always a deadline for submitting a report to the Senate. Senator Stollery has reminded me that the Foreign Affairs Committee prepared a rather comprehensive report on Africa and that the report was tabled in the Senate. That, I think, represents an opportunity for honorable senators to judge the work accomplished and determine whether the committee has met the objectives it set.
Senator Massicotte: With your permission, I was hoping we could have aimed higher. We have a ton of reports on the table and a ton of money that has been spent without necessarily having focused on any goals or obtained real results. If this is just to publish a Senate report just for the report's sake, then I would have preferred that we say no, that we state our goals and hear opinions on whether or not the money would be well spent. If the idea is simply to publish reports for their own sake, we already have a ton of those.
Senator Robichaud: I understand, but reports appear on the Order Paper in order to be debated in the Senate, is that not so? I think it is the responsibility of all of us to consider them from the perspective of what the committee wanted to achieve. If we, the subcommittee, are to undertake that consideration, then committee budgets may end up being passed late in the session and we may end up not having the time to spend these funds.
I understand what you are saying. If we were presented with requests for money that we feel is not justified, and I think it would be our role to turn those requests down, and I think that in the past, committees have always been quite clear in their requests about their reasons. At times, they have requested a significant amount of money and it is still our role to share money fairly between the committees and ensure that we will have enough money for the whole year.
I understand what you are saying, but if you are demanding that the subcommittee move in that direction, then perhaps there should be another subcommittee to look at results, and we, for our part, will stick to the budgets.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: I just have a question of clarification on the budget. Am I correct in understanding that this is just emergency until the committees work out what they will be working on until April 1?
Senator Robichaud: We have received budget submissions for the end of this fiscal year, which only lasts a few more weeks. There will be a process where committees will submit budgets for the coming fiscal year. It so happens that the budgets that we received were all approved, those that I put before you, by the steering committee. We are formalizing the process because it is part of the total budget for this year.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: I would like to come back to a point raised by Senator Massicotte. Senator Massicotte, I am a member of this subcommittee and with all due respect, I do not think it should be up to our subcommittee to evaluate the performance of the 22 other committees who were given a mandate by the Senate. That being said, I agree with you that there should be a way of evaluating results.
I think there is another type of assessment that is necessary. Even if the report is excellent, if it has not been communicated to the public, regardless of whether or not it is a good report, regardless of whether or not the goals were good, if it has not been communicated adequately to the public, then the consequences are as serious as not having crafted a good report.
One thing is clear, that is that I absolutely agree with the chair; I do not think it is up to the subcommittee to assess performance. Should that be someone's mandate? Perhaps, but I can tell you that when I decided to sit on the subcommittee, its mandate was not to be judging the 22 other committees.
Senator Massicotte: I absolutely agree, it is very difficult to evaluate results. I would say however that it is still your role to ensure that when a request is made, the stated goals are very clear and that there is a communication plan. There is no point in producing a report if it is not communicated properly; if public opinion is not changed, then nothing will happen. The goals have to be very clearly stated, and there has to be a concrete and realistic plan that corresponds to those goals. I agree.
We also have to consider the fact that over the past four or five years, there have been less productive committees. They have produced many reports but not results. Perhaps that should guide your decisions and your requirements with respect to those committees.
It is not up to you to make a judgment, but you can still be practical in your recommendations.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: There is a process in the Senate for doing all of that. The reports are tabled in the Senate, Senator Massicotte, and you and all of us can ask questions and get into debate. We can debate not only the budget but also the travel and the actual performance or what you think of the quality of the report.
We may not agree. Many times we do not agree on even the recommendations of the report, but I do not want the budget committee to get into that. That will drive them crazy. It is tough enough in there already.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tkachuk. We have a motion from Senator Robichaud to adopt the first report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets, seconded by Senator Jaffer.
All those in favour? Carried.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I also stated that I had a second report. I believe you have that second report before you.
Your subcommittee has reviewed the budget process for working meals and recommends that beginning on April 1, 2009, expenditures for meals when committees meet in Ottawa be funded from the general fund managed by the committees directorate. Based on historical expenditures for meals, it is recommended that this fund, which is currently set at $400,000 for witness expenses, postal expenditures and coffee/tea/juice at committee meetings, be increased to $500,000 per fiscal year from the total envelope of $3.75 million for committees.
I would like to give you some additional information. It was brought to my attention during the subcommittee's meeting that we should reassure the chairs and the committee members that it will not be up to the committees directorate to decide who will be obtaining meals or ordering meals; this does not change anything. The clerks will still be responsible for those tasks.
Under the current process, committees have to budget for all meals in Ottawa throughout the session, which means that much more money than is normally required is set aside.
As you know, now, the committees' directorate is withdrawing $400,000 from the general fund to pay witnesses, and committees will no longer have to worry about expenditures related to witnesses.
We want to add $100,000 to the $400,000 in order for the committees' directorate to be responsible for meals here in Ottawa. Committees will still be responsible for meals during travel.
Is that clear? Are there any questions? The purpose was to simply simplify the whole process.
[English]
The Chair: Essentially what you are recommending, if I am reading it correctly, is that $100,000 be taken from the $3.75 million. There is no additional funding. It will be used for block funding for meals, which will take the necessity of committees coming cap in hand when they begin start-ups for meals and things. I do not see any problem with that. Are there any questions on it, colleagues?
Senator Robichaud moved the adoption of the second report. All those in favour? Carried.
There is one other issue with respect to committees. Last year, we had adopted a policy with respect to requests for committee contracts for consulting and personnel services, signed off by the chair and deputy chair of the committee; where there were issues, it was to go to the full committee.
We understand that has become cumbersome. Therefore, we are recommending that if the chair and deputy chair of an originating committee do not agree with the sign off, the matter will be presented to the steering committee of that particular committee for resolution. If the matter still remains unresolved, it will be presented to the steering committee of Internal Economy to be reported back to the full committee.
It will simplify matters and ensure that people who have bona fide contracts do not get delayed in being paid. However, the ultimate decision with respect to the contracts, where there is dispute, will come back here.
Are there any problems with that, colleagues, or questions? If not, can we have a motion for adoption?
It is moved by Senator Robichaud. All those in favour? Carried.
The committee continued in camera.