Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 1 - Evidence for May 7, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 7, 2009
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:38 a.m. to consider administrative matters and in camera to consider other matters.
Senator George J. Furey (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. The first item on the agenda is the fourth report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In its third report, adopted by the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on April 23, the subcommittee recommended the release of some $1.2 million to fund the activities of the committee until the end of October. Since then, we have received eight other budgets from four other committees, which we reviewed according to the same principles. These budgets include two statutory budgets and six special study budgets. The total of these requests is approximately $1.3 million.
[English]
In order to ensure that there will be sufficient funding for the core activities of committees, your subcommittee is recommending the release of no more than $20,000 per committee for conferences at this time.
Your subcommittee notes that while most committees ask for funds simply for conferences, in a couple of cases committees have requested funds for conferences while defining this activity as being funds allocated for one or more members of the committee or any staff to participate in different events related to that committee's mandate. Your subcommittee has agreed that any committee wishing to use conference funds for anything other than conferences requires the prior approval of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets in order to ensure transparency.
Your subcommittee would also like to thank those committees who have respected the directive of the Internal Economy Committee to keep miscellaneous amounts modest. All three of the budgets from the Agriculture and Forestry Committee are modest, and your subcommittee recommends the release of funds as requested.
With respect to the three budgets from Foreign Affairs, your subcommittee recommends that the two special study budgets of $10,000 be funded in full, while reducing the legislative budget by $1,000 to respect the current limit of $20,000 for conferences for each committee. You will note that each budget as submitted included $7,000 for conferences.
With respect to the budget for Fisheries, the general expenses and the trip to the Western Arctic are recommended for approval as submitted except for a reduction to $2,000 for miscellaneous funds for travel, and $20,000 is being recommended for approval for conferences at this time. Funding for the other major activity in the Fisheries budget, a trip to British Columbia in the fall, will be considered by the subcommittee at a later date.
Finally, with respect to the budget request of the Committee on National Security and Defence, your subcommittee recommends the release at this time of funds for consultants and advisers only until the end of October 2009 to allow further review, in particular with respect to the communications consultant and the writer consultant.
In addition, your subcommittee is recommending the release of $2,000 for miscellaneous expenses under general expenses, a reduction of $8,000; the reduction of one committee clerk in the number of staff travelling on the fact- finding missions to the East Coast and Ontario military bases; and, as for all other committees, a limit of $20,000 for conferences.
Finally, your subcommittee is recommending that no funds be released at this time for activity 8, promotion of reports, meetings and other matters related to committee business, since there was an insufficient level of detail.
Your subcommittee looks forward to receiving a more detailed budget submission approved by the committee for our consideration. In the meantime, your subcommittee recommends that the eight budgets submitted be funded through the release of a total of $822,103.
Honourable senators, I move the adoption of the fourth report and I thank the other members of the subcommittee and staff who have assisted us in preparing this report.
The Chair: For clarification, Senator Robichaud, my understanding from what you have just told us is that there is a blanket amount of $20,000 granted to each committee for conferences but that a more detailed report on what those conferences are has to go back to your subcommittee for approval.
Senator Robichaud: The funds for conferences are limited only to conferences; it also says "and other related activities." We think that whatever is used for conferences should be for conferences. Otherwise, if we say "any other related activity," it opens up that item to be used in any way. We feel that, for transparency reasons, we should know and we should approve the purpose for which these funds will be used, if not for conferences.
The Chair: Does this mean that a committee that receives $20,000 can use that money as it sees fit for conferences, without going back to you?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: The committee chairs have a budget for conferences, and, in some cases, they list the ones that they would like to attend. Most of them, however, say that they cannot list all of the conferences right away because they do not have a complete list of what is being offered and because they want to allow for the possibility of attending conferences that may interest them later in the year.
Therefore, they can use the budget for conferences that are considered worthwhile for members of the various committees.
[English]
The Chair: That is reported back to the chamber when they do their report on all travel; correct?
Senator Robichaud: That is reported back in the report that is made later.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: I have to admit that I really like the report that was submitted. Senator Robichaud spoke to us about what had been requested and what had been approved. All of that should appear in the report, but, basically, what we read in the report are your findings.
Rather than make the budget request orally, it would be useful to include in the report a column entitled "budget requested". I think that is an important piece of information.
The policy for conferences should be more formal. Although the subcommittee's current practice is valid, I would recommend to the Committee on Internal Economy or to the subcommittee that it use a more formal procedure when passing the conference budget. It is possible that Senator Robichaud may not be here next year, so we run the risk of forgetting to pass the budget. But with a conference policy, the practice would be more formalized.
Senator Robichaud: Senator Massicotte is right. I might not be here next year, and this is a job that requires a lot of concentration. I do not think that there is that much abuse when it comes to conferences, but I think that we should know what is requested and what is approved, if only for the sake of transparency.
I would like a little more information about the promotion of reports. We have funds, a lump sum that can be used either for the promotion of reports or for other activities. I am not saying that the money is used in a way that does not benefit the committee.
A report was prepared once the activities were completed; it included the amount that had been approved and the amount that had been used. I have to say that, if we did that for each committee, it would take a lot of time.
We are going to review how the money was spent for each activity and for what purpose. This is what I would call a rather labour-intensive exercise.
[English]
Senator Munson: Just a clarification on the National Security and Defence Committee — it went by a little fast — with regard to the writer and communications. There was something about only to October. Could you repeat that so that I could have a better understanding about the funding for that?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: We examine the expenses associated with each committee's activities and the overall budget that the committees need to operate until the end of October. Then, we must make sure that the committees are able to carry out their work.
It was brought to our attention that the communications service was hiring people to write reports.
Senator Dawson was telling us that, on the communications side, they were in the process of figuring out which kinds of services the Senate Communications Directorate could provide to the committees and, if those services were not adequate, how committees' needs could be met. He expects that, by the fall, they will be able to find ways that the Senate Communications Directorate can better serve committees.
Perhaps Senator Dawson has something to add.
Senator Dawson: Yes, briefly. I have another meeting this morning with Senator DiNino on the communications study. The thinking of some committee chairs is that the services are not satisfactory, so they hire someone to do the work. What I hope to convince them of is that we should be able to serve them.
In other words, if 22 of 23 committees are satisfied with the communication services, we do not understand why one committee would be allowed to hire a communication manager when all of the other committees work with the Communications Directorate. If, at the end of our study, we find that changes need to be made within the Communications Directorate, we may, in six months' time, say to the committees who requested a separate budget for communications: "From now on, you are going to use the Communications Directorate like everyone else."
Senator Robichaud: We are not saying they cannot do it; we just want to give the subcommittee time to study the issue. By the time September or October rolls around, we will be in a better position to look at these budgets again.
[English]
Senator Dawson: I was behind that debate with my colleagues. Everything we have budgeted for every other committee is based on between now and October. We were thinking it is very difficult to say, except for that committee, that they are allowed to hire people until next March. We are sort of saying if we will be budgeting in phases, everyone should be budgeted in phases, and that is probably where we are going in the future. We do not want to be in a situation where in six months we are cutting someone who has a very important project because we presumed that one case was easier than the others and they were allowed to spend their money for the next six months.
It is not only an issue of communications per se; it is an issue of trying to be constant in the way we approve our budgets for the next year.
Senator Munson: Thank you for that.
[Translation]
Senator Comeau: As for the issue of a consultant, a sole supplier, does that affect the people working for the committee — the committee consultants and advisors?
Senator Robichaud: They are people who have worked with the committee for a while, and who, according to the committee, are subject-matter experts. In order to ensure continuity in their work, they need the two consultants for military and security matters.
Senator Comeau: So, it is because it is a specialized field.
Senator Robichaud: It is fairly specialized or specific, so we need people from the field to make sure that they provide good service. That being said, I want to remind you that it is the committee that decides whether it wants to have these people or not.
Senator Comeau: To come back to Senator Dawson's question, he said that, if the Senate cannot provide these services through its Communications Directorate or if the services are not adequate, we should, in the future, look at how we can provide those services in such a way that that expertise stays in the Senate.
In other words, we are in the process of hiring these people, and when they leave, we lose that value. But, if we had that value inside the Communications Directorate, it would stay in the Senate.
Senator Robichaud: Yes, in fact, we could ensure some continuity, as we do with the clerks, who become very familiar with their committee's activities.
I do not want to imply that there is a general dissatisfaction with the Senate Communications Directorate. Some chairs, some committees, use its services and are perfectly satisfied. That is why we have to examine the issue and see whether there is another way to do things; otherwise, we will make the obvious decision.
Senator Comeau: In the Committee on National Security and Defence, how many consultants have been hired?
Senator Robichaud: Two.
[English]
They are the senior military adviser and the senior national security adviser.
[Translation]
There is a communications consultant and a reporting consultant.
Senator Comeau: So four consultants. I also see that it is almost mid-May. Around mid-June, we will be going on summer recess, and we will probably come back around mid-September. That means that in about a month, we will be away from the Senate for a while. I assume that very little committee work will be done over the summer. What are these people doing from mid-June to late September, since the contract is up in October?
Senator Robichaud: We do not say that the contract is up. We say that there is a release of funds so that they can operate until October. Then, we will take another look, first, at whether there are funds and, second, at whether the committee is requesting those funds.
Senator Comeau: The reason I ask that question is that, generally speaking, the committees do not conduct many studies or consider any legislation during the summer months. All in all, there is generally very little activity during that time. Unless the Committee of National Security and Defence plans to conduct studies during the summer months, what will these people be working on? They cannot receive instructions from their committee. In that case, do they take their instructions from the committee chair? The chair's job is to chair, not manage.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Comeau, in fairness, if I may interject, a number of those people do a considerable amount of work over the summer months, and it is generally on the direction of the committee, from what I understand. They do work over the summer months.
Senator Comeau: That is what is interesting.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: In the case you are talking about, the committee has seven activities planned; it will visit border points, seaports and airports to study security issues. There will be a fair bit of activity. Most of the defence committee's work will be done before the end of October.
Senator Comeau: So, these studies will be done during the summer months?
Senator Robichaud: Yes, I take it that they will.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: I would like to thank Senator Robichaud and the committee for work on the budget and specifically on National Defence and Security. Even though I am a member of this committee, I am also a member of that committee, and I want everyone to know that my views were not the same as the chairman's when he presented the report to the budget committee.
I also understand, Senator Robichaud, the principles that you are trying to impose and that the budget committee is taking on these budgets. On the question of consultants, though, when I was first appointed to the committee, it was a problem for me because there was no consultation on the consultants. In every committee I have been on in my 15 years here, whenever consultants were hired — and I am talking about committees chaired by Senator Kolber, Senator Fairbairn and Senator Kirby — be they communication consultants or others, there was consultation on both sides, and we felt that the people who were hired worked for the committee.
No such consultation takes place on this committee. The communication consultant was put before the committee. I do not want to bring in trash talk from previous meetings, but the hiring of people by committee will be a serious problem for the Senate if this principle is allowed to continue.
I believe that 45 per cent of our budget is spent on library services now, but that does not seem to be enough for National Security and Defence, so they are hiring three other people. We have a writer, two consultants and a communication person.
I agree with Senator Comeau that over the summer months it will be make-work. Most of our travel will be completed by the end of June. I think we are preparing for travel, but we have clerks and the Library of Parliament to prepare for travel. We really do not need anyone else.
The Chair: Senator Tkachuk, I take your point, and it is a good point. Consultants work for committees, not for individual senators, chairs or otherwise. If there is no consultation, that is an issue for committee members. I really do not think that is an issue that Senator Robichaud should be asked about.
Senator Tkachuk: I tried to make that clear at the beginning.
Senator Dawson: When someone comes before us, we know there might have been a debate at the committee level, but when the chair reports, we take it for granted that the chair is reporting on behalf of the committee. We are under the impression that there might be a second debate happening. We made it clear that if any committee has internal problems, they must solve them. That is not the responsibility of our subcommittee. We made it clear that we do not want to get involved in how committees arrive at conclusions.
However, we would appreciate guidance from the Internal Economy Committee on the concept of consultants. We feel very comfortable that you would qualify when consultants can be hired.
I do not agree as far as the summer is concerned, because on that basis we would suspend a lot of personnel during July and August for everybody around here, and the concept is that we work on a 12-month basis. We are basically already budgeting for 11 months instead of 12 because we are, and everyone is, a little late in the operation. If we tried to evaluate July and August, then what about the Christmas break? If we want to have quality consultants, I think we should be consistent.
The Chair: That is the same as the point that you made earlier with respect to communications. It is a work-in- progress, and we should give your subcommittee time to report back to the full committee. I suggest that the approach you are currently taking is the right one. I do not see a huge problem with it right now.
I know there are internal problems with some committees, but that is the bailiwick of those committees. They are masters of their own domain, and they should solve those problems internally.
I do accept your point, Senator Tkachuk, that consultants and communications people, whether for research or communications, work for the committee, not for individual senators.
Senator Massicotte: The issue of consultants has come up many times in many committees. Perhaps Senator Dawson's suggestion is a good one. Maybe we should look at it and provide guidance to the committees on how the process should occur.
I want to congratulate Senator Tkachuk, because it looks like that committee had a real debate on their budget. I know, from being a member of other committees, that often that does not occur. Usually committees pass their budgets very quickly and depend on this committee and the subcommittee to examine them.
Thank you for what you did. Maybe we should provide guidance regarding consultants for the future, because it is an issue.
The Chair: It is obviously an issue, because a number of people on both sides are talking about it. I will take it upon myself to talk to Senator Dawson and see how he is progressing with respect to communications, then maybe we can report back at a subsequent meeting and perhaps have a subcommittee of this committee look into the whole issue of consultants and give us some guidance for the future, or we could ask the subcommittee to do it.
Senator Munson: I served on National Defence and Security and, without getting into the consultation part, the consultants that were hired were excellent. They provided a valuable service to that committee.
The Chair: I do not think anyone is questioning that, nor are they questioning the work they do, Senator Munson. The issue is whether we have expertise in-house that we are not using. None of this is meant to derogate from the work done by people who are hired. I think everyone is quite satisfied that they are competent, that they work very hard, and that they earn the money we pay them. It is an issue of balancing what we have internally in-house with our needs when we go external.
Senator Tkachuk: I would like guidance. We do not want to carry this debate on any further. We would like to go on with the business of the committee. We would like to vote on these budgets to approve them, but we would like to make our views known. We want to support our deputy chair on the budget of National Security and Defence and stand opposed to the acceptance of it, but we would like to pass the rest of them. I do not know exactly how we do that. Perhaps we have to move an amendment and have it defeated. We would like some guidance from the chair.
Senator Prud'homme: In a situation like this we can quickly vote on each item. There is no need to move any amendments. When you arrive at the matter that seems to be dividing the committee, you will see whether there is a vote to be taken.
The Chair: There no substitute for experience and institutional knowledge. The devil knows what he knows because of his age, not because he is the devil. Thank you.
Senator Massicotte: To be clear, I thought the issues of dispute were included from the request of the committee. What is the problem?
Senator Tkachuk: The consultants.
Senator Massicotte: That is included in these numbers? How much would that be in these numbers? It is only until October, right?
Senator Tkachuk: It is one third of the budget.
Senator Dawson: It is much less than that, but it is still substantial.
Senator Tkachuk: It is not much less. It is $123,000 for consultants, so it is one third of the budget.
Senator Dawson: Professionals and other services includes not only the consultants. Every committee has professionals and other services of $12,000 or $15,000.
Senator Tkachuk: Maybe there are other services included.
Senator Robichaud: In general expenses there is a communications consultant, sole source, for $39,000 on a yearly basis. We were told the $39,000 was for 11 months, so we agreed to release six elevenths of the $39,000 at this moment.
Do you follow that?
Senator Massicotte: So that is $20,000.
Senator Robichaud: Just about. There is $41,000 for the senior military adviser, sole source, Keith McDonald, on the same basis. There is $41,000 for a senior national security adviser, sole source, on the same basis — six elevenths of that. There is $50,000 for a writer consultant, sole source, on the same basis, six elevenths.
Senator Tkachuk: I do not know what happened at the committee, but last year those numbers were for 12 months. This year they were for 12 months, not 11 months. We had that same discussion.
Senator Robichaud: We definitely asked, because we cannot pay retroactively. It must start when the budget is adopted by the Senate. We made sure that we could not pay for services that were rendered or delivered before this budget was accepted.
Senator Dawson: I would not want to have been misled. If the subcommittee was misled and it is not for 11 months, but it is the same budget as it was for 12 months last year, I think our subcommittee might have been misled. I am not on that committee and I was not part of those debates, but the question was clearly asked by the chair, "Is this for 12 months?" The answer was, "No, this is a budget that was calculated since we have only 11 months of budgeting time." If there was a debate at the committee and something else was said, I would like to know.
Senator Tkachuk: That is what the chair said.
The Chair: It is important, Senator Tkachuk, since you raised it, that if Senator Dawson thinks there might be a need to have the chair back to revisit this whole budget, then we should do that, particularly if there is information that we do not have.
Senator Dawson: We will have a second kick at the can when we talk about the second part of the budget. We can probably adapt it at that time. I will certainly ask the question in a more defined way when that chair, in particular, comes in front of our committee. We did not budget for 11 months, anyway; we budgeted for six months.
Senator Tkachuk: We are fine with all of it except that last part. Why not go ahead and do that, Mr. Chair, and approve all the budgets?
The Chair: I want to know where we are going with this, Senator Tkachuk. Are you saying that you do not want to vote for National Security and Defence but you are okay with the rest of them?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
The Chair: You are okay with most of National Security and Defence except for one item?
Senator Massicotte: That is $90,000.
Senator Tkachuk: Let us put it this way: That is correct.
The Chair: Can we sever that out, Senator Massicotte?
Senator Massicotte: Ask that question of Senator Tkachuk. What is the issue? You have more information than we do. Is it because, as a matter of principle, you do not want to vote for consultants given that there is not an adequate framework for the engagement of consultants, or because, in your personal opinion, we have hired the wrong people?
Senator Tkachuk: Our point always was that there was never full consultation. We did agree to two of the four consultants because we worked with them last year. The other one we worked with we were not in agreement and the communication consultant just appeared.
Senator Massicotte: It is relative to the choice of the persons, not the lack of framework.
Senator Tkachuk: That, as well as the whole principle that if this becomes the way we do business, we have not sorted all that out, we do not believe. If it is good for one committee, it is good for all of them. We now have another problem on our hands. How do we relate this to the Library of Parliament and the rest of it? That was our discussion.
It is sort of unfair — that is my point of view. The members on the other side who were in that committee room are not here to put their views forward, so I am very uncomfortable with this. I just want Senator Robichaud, Senator Dawson and Senator MacDonald to know that. I am very uncomfortable with it. We just want to make the expression of our opinion known, and we can go on with the business of the committee. We have lots to do in this committee and it is already a quarter after nine.
Senator Robichaud: I moved that this report be adopted. There would have to be an amendment to the motion for the adoption of this report.
I understand, Senator Tkachuk, what you are saying. This is something we try not to do when people come to our subcommittee, namely, to have the argument that was held in the committee. I made it very clear to the chair and to all other chairs who come before the committee that we are looking at what is presented to us that was approved by the committee. I feel that if we get into debates as to what happened in different committees, it will go on forever.
Senator Tkachuk: I agree.
Senator Robichaud: If there are problems with consultants and other things, I think that should be looked at separately. Every time we present a report, we will get into a long debate about what happened in the different committees. I take note of your points; I have no problem with that.
The Chair: Senator Tkachuk, would you be satisfied if we undertook to have the steering committee strike a subcommittee to look into the whole issue of consultants and give some direction for the future to the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets?
Senator Tkachuk: We want to make our views known as to how we feel about the whole idea and the principle of consultants and how they are engaged. Therefore, we will vote against this part of the subcommittee report. We have no problem with the rest, but we will vote against this part.
The Chair: Procedurally, probably the best thing for you to do is to vote against the whole report. If we have a majority, then it passes.
Senator Tkachuk: If you do that, then that forces us to make an amendment to the committee and we do not want to do that.
Paul C. Bélisle, Clerk of the Committee: There could be a motion in amendment to the report and then the motion could be voted on by this committee. You can then proceed to the adoption of the report, if amended, or not amended. Or you can proceed as Senator Prud'homme has said.
Senator Massicotte: No one has seconded the motion. You could easily amend the motion to do it per budget.
Senator Comeau: I was going to propose an amendment that we go line by line. Given what Senator Massicotte just said, that motion has not been seconded, then I would propose a motion that we deal with this report line by line. I want to make it perfectly clear that this is not a reflection of the work the subcommittee does. We appreciate the work the subcommittee does. It does not have the mandate to deal with internal issues of individual committees. We are not asking for that at all.
As the Internal Economy Committee, we must look at what is being reported to us. If we have problems that are outside of your jurisdiction, this is when we bring it. This is what Senator Tkachuk brought in this morning.
Therefore, I move that we proceed with this report line by line.
The Chair: Before you go there, procedurally, Senator Comeau, we have a problem, because we do have a valid motion before the committee that does not require a seconder in committee. We have to deal with it as it has already been moved. Procedurally, we are in a bit of a quagmire here.
Senator Comeau: May I move the amendment as proposed by Senator Prud'homme? It would be an amendment to Senator Robichaud's motion — that we deal with individual committee budgets.
The Chair: Sure. Go ahead. It was moved by Senator Comeau that we deal with each budget individually.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I do not second that.
[English]
The Chair: Do you have a problem with that, Senator Robichaud?
Senator Robichaud: I have no problems. This is the committee that decides everything that happens in relation to the administration of the Senate. We submitted a report to the best of our knowledge. If people have other ideas, I have no problem with that. We must keep on going. If things have to be looked at, that is okay. I do not know whether other members of the committee have any problems with that.
The Chair: All those in favour of Senator Comeau's amendment signify by saying yea.
Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: Contrary-minded? The amendment is carried.
We will deal with each budget individually. Move the adoption of each one, Senator Robichaud.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: We have before us the Fourth Report. Agriculture and Forestry, Legislation, for an amount of $3,850.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Robichaud: Agriculture and Forestry, Agri-Food: $16,210.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Robichaud: Agriculture and Forestry, Forest Sector: $17,460.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Robichaud: Fisheries and Oceans, Policy Framework: $398,650.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Robichaud: Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Legislation: $9,000.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Robichaud: Foreign Affairs and International Trade, General Issues: $10,000.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Robichaud: Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Russia, China and India: $10,000.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Robichaud: National Security and Defence, Special Study, National Security Policy: $356,933.
[English]
Some Hon. Senators: Carried.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Senator Tkachuk: I think we would like to make our views known, so we would like to vote.
Mr. Bélisle: Honourable senators, I have checked the list. All of the members here are entitled to vote. We have one ex officio member and the rest are members. Senator Tardif.
Senator Tardif: Yes.
Senator Comeau: No.
Senator Cook: Yes.
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Senator Downe: Yes.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Greene: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Senator MacDonald: No.
Senator Massicotte: No.
Senator Munson: Yes.
Senator Prud'homme: Abstention.
Senator Robichaud: Yes.
Senator Stollery: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Mr. Bélisle: Four no's, ten yes's, and one abstention.
The Chair: The budget is carried.
Before we move to the next item, I do not want to waste time in full committee, but I understand representations were made to the subcommittee in my name with respect to one of the budgets. I am wondering whether the subcommittee would afford me a few minutes at the end of this meeting to have a little chat about it. If you could stay behind we can have a chat about it. It will take only a couple of minutes.
We move to the first report of the Advisory Working Group on the Review of International Travel.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. As you know, you appointed Senator Nancy Ruth and myself to review our practices with respect to international travel.
[English]
Senator Nancy Ruth and I looked at this stuff. We were appointed about a year ago before some delays. I have general comments. I presume you have read what we have prepared.
It is a difficult issue because many of you can disagree with what the general principle should be. We reviewed what is being done in other countries and other provinces. As a general rule, including the House of Commons, international travel on an individual basis is not permitted. If you look at the U.S. Senate — the Australians as an example are a bit more relaxed — the House of Commons and many other places, as a general rule it is tough to allow individuals to travel internationally because they are obviously spending taxpayer money.
However, the argument can be made, which we were convinced by, that given the role of our Senate — somewhat individualistic where we have certain causes and we are somewhat thick in our own right — in some cases there is merit and benefit to our country to allow individual senators to pursue certain activities in international travel. You can pick up instances where that has a lot of merit.
We came to the conclusion that, yes, it should be permitted, but merely on an exception basis. In other words, as a general rule it is a no, but if the case can be made on an individual basis that it has significant merit and the merit is demonstrable and clearly indicated, then it should be permitted. It is like an income tax — it is a negative test, but there are some instances where it could be allowed. That was the general principle.
The second principle we came to is how to get the approvals done. It is our opinion that the current process whereby senators come to this committee and make an application does not work very well when personalities and relations of personalities become too important, too dominant in that decision making. Members of this committee are somewhat uncomfortable. We asked some questions, but it seems to be influenced by who is asking and the relation of that person to the committee.
We are recommending that application be made to the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets and that a very real discussion occur as to the merits of that travel and why, with full information. It is a real testing of the merits of the trip and so on.
The second principle we adopted is that this is taxpayer money after all, and if the trip has obvious merit, the report should be made public, not only a report back to the Senate like we have seen in the past. If possible, after the trip a report should be filed on the senator's website and be available on the website for 12 months, saying here is the objective of the trip, here is what it cost and this is why taxpayers funded it. If the individual senator's website is not available, we are suggesting a Senate website, and let the merits dictate.
As a general principle, there is a lot of merit in certain circumstances, but not very many. Allow the process to take the case to the subcommittee, where a non-personal, real approval process takes place, looking at the significance of the trip, and no favours — a real discussion. If the answer is yes, allow the trip and allow the costs as well as the purpose of the trip and the objectives achieved relative to the objectives initially set out to be publicly demonstrated for all people to acknowledge the merits. If a senator made an error, he should be responsible for having spent that money.
There are many details, but overall that is what we are recommending. The only other exception we make is that the current policy allows for trips to New York. Senator Nancy Ruth has specific points make. Sorry, currently it is Washington. Obviously we are a small nation in a big world. The world is getting smaller, and the argument can be made, very successfully, in my opinion, that it should also include New York for United Nations matters only. Not New York for business, but the UN is a very important institution and we should be an active member there. The exception for Washington should also include New York for the United Nations. Those are the overall principles. You can read the details here, but I would be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chair: I cannot find it right now, but I remember reading last night, Senator Massicotte, that the subcommittee should put a cap on the budget.
Senator Massicotte: I think Internal should come up with a budget for the whole year because it should not be a free- for-all.
The Chair: The problem I have with that is if it is on the 64-point system, it is difficult to do that.
Senator Massicotte: Oh, I agree.
The Chair: Your overriding principle that it should be the exception covers that, but you cannot put a cap on it because it is not coming out of a larger budget. It is still tagged to the 64-point system.
Senator Massicotte: Or an arbitrated amount, so that the subcommittee will have some guidance.
The Chair: Yes, some idea of what is going on. I assume you are saying here that with the report should come the disclosure of the costs.
Senator Massicotte: Definitely.
Senator Comeau: Senator Massicotte, why are you asking that the report be done on a website rather than just submitted in the Senate, as we have historically done? For example, I do not have a website, so if I were to travel outside the country I would prefer to do the report on the floor of the Senate.
Senator Massicotte: Many senators do not have a website; many do. The approach we are taking is that this is taxpayer money, and there should be full transparency. As you see on the government side, when ministers travel, there is full transparency of their trips. We are saying that when a senator makes an application, it is an individual application on behalf of his senator role and it should be on his website. If not, we suggest the Senate website.
You will notice the practice in the past years. The report simply gets lost and no one looks at it. We think the report of Senate travel should go back to this subcommittee. We should receive an individual report here, we should look at it and it should be posted for public transparency.
Senator Comeau: I am not sure I completely accept your argument that something deposited in the Senate goes into a great big void. If that is the case, the Senate has very little use at this point in time. That begs an even larger question: if I submit a report there and it becomes meaningless, I think we have to reconsider.
Senator Massicotte: If you look at the reports and the number of hits they get, it is nominal.
Senator Comeau: You mean the Senate website, the number of hits? I am coming back to the issue of submitting a report in the Senate. If it becomes lost in a void because no one looks at what the Senate is doing, this begs a much larger issue and we may have to start questioning the value of the Senate itself.
Senator Massicotte: I totally agree.
Senator Comeau: If my personal website is of more value to Canadians and gets more hits than the Senate's website, we have a problem, but that is a whole other issue.
Senator Massicotte: We are trying to make responsible the person who initiated the expense.
Senator Comeau: Yes, but what is more personal than submitting it right there in front of all of my colleagues, 105 senators? It is in Hansard, in the public domain. Nothing can be more exposed than a report submitted in the Senate. That is my argument.
The Chair: I think you have made your point, Senator Comeau.
I have to say, Senator Massicotte, that there is some substance to it from the point of view of not all senators having a website. I do not think it would be fair to have the reports posted of only those who are diligent enough to have a website.
Senator Comeau: On page 2 of your report, you speak of value for money. That is in the third paragraph, the final lines. What do you mean by the terms "value for money" and "equity"?
Does "value for money" mean that if a senator goes outside the country and does something, there must be value for money there? My thoughts have always been that it is a quality thing and not a value-for-money thing.
Senator Massicotte: I agree. Look our recommendations at page 3. We say there is a need for a more rigorous process of application and approval, particularly in ensuring that travel is of value to the Senate's or the country's objectives, and reporting. We are not saying dollar to dollar, but there must be a judgment call by someone saying that there is value for the money spent. It is not to be measured in a balance sheet sense; it is value for the country or the Senate.
Senator Comeau: What is "equity"?
Senator Massicotte: It is the same issue. It is a judgment call by someone saying it merits that expense. You are using taxpayer money. You are saying, "I will spend your money, but I will ensure I deliver some value."
There must be that judgment call. To spend it and hope that there is value is not good enough, in my mind.
The Chair: We have quite a list of senators who want to comment on this. We will move on to Senator Dawson, Senator Tkachuk and Senator Jaffer.
Senator Munson: I had my name in earlier than that.
The Chair: I am sorry. Senator Munson is next.
Senator Munson: That is fine. I want to briefly congratulate the subcommittee on this report. In terms of value, our value as senators goes far beyond the precincts of Parliament and this country. I have found the quality aspect of what we do on these international trips immensely valuable.
For example, I am an ambassador for Special Olympics, and on a couple of previous journeys I was dealing with families, just being there with the families, either cheering them on or making speeches. People care about that. People really care about your presence at an international event, and about what you do and how you talk about what I would describe as a Canadian value. Our Canadian values on all sides of the Senate Chamber are extremely important as we message what we do as individual senators for individual causes.
I just want to say briefly that I thank the subcommittee for this report. I think we have to be responsible in how we spend our money, but I appreciate what has been said today.
Senator Dawson: When I attempted to go on the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets, it is sort of like the gift that keeps on giving. The reality is that that is a nice place to make friends, as you know. We have more friends after three meetings than we had before we started these meetings.
Someone said that Senator Massicotte is giving us this gift without having asked us whether we wanted it, but the reality is that it will still be personalized. You understand that when a senator must come in front of 15 senators and talk about his trip, it will not be that much nicer when he has 3 of them. We will still have a personalized attitude.
I would certainly want guidance along the road. I do not want to speak for the chair, but I will permit myself, after a few of these experiments, to come back here and say, "It is nice, but give it back to Paul." I am not sure it will be as nice as what Senator Massicotte is saying.
I am ready, as one of the members, to do this on an experimental basis for a while, but I am not sure we should be committing ourselves for more than a test period.
With respect to New York, you do have on Washington a proviso that says that you are going to Washington, but it is not a step over to Florida. It should be clear that when you are going to Washington, to the UN, it is not a way to go and play golf in Arizona. I do not play golf, personally. It is not a stopover for going anywhere else. That is clear for Washington, and I think it also should be clear for New York.
The Chair: I think that point is made in the report. Thank you, Senator Dawson.
Senator Tkachuk: I had a couple of questions. Senator Massicotte, thank you for the report.
When there is travel to the United States, do they have to come before the budget committee, in the same way as they do for international travel outside of the United States?
Senator Massicotte: If it is not Washington or the UN in New York, it must be approved.
Senator Tkachuk: So out of the four, we can visit a border state? I am thinking that in Saskatchewan, we always have issues in North Dakota or Montana.
Senator Massicotte: Subject to approval by Internal Economy. It is a personal experience, but I think it is easier for the senator to go to the subcommittee than to this committee. It is less cumbersome. I know you do not make friends, but it is a more real review of the expenses, as we see for the committee budgets, than having the person come here. It is always uncomfortable, but it is much harder for the person to come to the full committee than to the subcommittee regarding the approval of the matter, and it gets more detailed.
Senator Tkachuk: Just so we are clear, I will repeat it again. Washington and New York, on the travel points, you do not have to go to the budget committee?
Senator Massicotte: Right.
Senator Tkachuk: But if you want to travel to any other points in the United States on a particular issue, on points, then you have to go to the budget committee?
Senator Massicotte: Right.
The Chair: There is the limit that you are only allowed to do that twice in a year.
Senator Tkachuk: It says four.
The Chair: Sorry. Four it is.
Senator Jaffer: I have two concerns. One is the value of the trip in terms of foreign countries. I need more clarification on that.
The report is very good and I congratulate you. At long last we will have some guidelines. Thank you for doing that.
This is something we may need to look at later on. I am raising something that might bring up some problems. Some of us travel to other parts of Canada. Obviously, they are not the same standards; you use your 64 points.
Senator Massicotte: We were asked to look at international travel, not within Canada, so we do not comment on that. Perhaps it requires clarity.
Senator Jaffer: Let us leave that for another day.
I would like clarification on the value of the trip. It is vague.
Senator Massicotte: We did not get that. One could write a 100-page report on value for money or one could leave it at one paragraph. We think it is such a subjective matter. No matter what you write on it, it is for the subcommittee and eventually Internal Economy to debate that issue. It is very one by one. It will be a gut call by people.
Senator Stollery: I think this is an excellent report. I had three points. I think Senator Tkachuk makes an important observation. There are border states near Saskatchewan, or people from the Atlantic provinces may have things to do in Boston, which I think is legitimate. I really do not think a person should have to come to the committee. I know it is not the subject, but I think it is something to be studied.
I have been a member of this committee for many years, and I recall that the problem in travel to the U.S., as Senator Dawson has said, is that we do not want people going to Florida. It is one thing to go to Washington for business or to New York, which I thoroughly agree with. However, I recommend that the issue about people in the neighbouring U.S. areas be looked into. I would not go to Montana because it would have no concern for me, but I think it is a legitimate concern.
We started with Washington, as I recall, by drawing that line. You could not go south of Washington. That is to stop people using the privilege for, as someone said, to play golf. That is an important issue for the committee to deal with and it is becoming increasingly important with all of the trade disputes we have, such as the pork, cattle and other things.
Second, New York is just obvious. It is a no-brainer that we should be able to claim with respect to the UN. I remember that when I came to Parliament as an elected member, we had a program with the UN, and MPs went to the UN for quite a major program. I myself was a delegate. The program was to encourage parliamentarians to become knowledgeable about what goes on at the UN. It seems to have died off. I strongly support New York.
On the business of the foreign travel — again, it is a good report — I think we should also remember that we have had a series of minority Parliaments, and the problem with minority Parliaments is that when Parliament is not sitting, you stay home. That is great. I do not have an objection to that.
I am speaking for myself; I personally have had to pay to go on a trip. The World Bank had a meeting in Paris and one thing and another, so I paid to go. I came to the committee for my hotel expenses.
I think we should be looking at this. We are having minority Parliaments, but the world goes on outside of Canada, and things come up. That it now goes to the subcommittee is very important because it means there does not have to be a meeting of the committee. I do not think anyone has thought through what happens if for months at time there is no Parliament and, therefore, we are out of business.
Senator Massicotte: If you look at U.S. policy, at every province and at the House of Commons — we should all be grown up about this — it is generally prohibited to do foreign travel without many exceptions. It is nearly a flat-out no. For instance, U.S. senators that travel to countries, it is nearly a no.
We should acknowledge that when we do international travel, we are subject to a lot of criticism, review and media attention; let us not forget that. The rule has to be there. In other words, there must be demonstrable value to the country.
To make it very broad, we said no to that. The big decision is to even permit it. We say permit it, but make sure it is of real value to Canadians.
The Chair: A point of clarification on U.S. travel. My understanding from the report is that the recommendation is that the existing four points that senators are allowed to use for Washington now be used for Washington and/or New York. We are not adding a whole new —
Senator Massicotte: No. We made it very clear. The existing application rules are very good, and we are making only slight amendments. It is very good. It covers a lot of possible exaggerations.
The Chair: The four points do not change; it is just "and/or" now.
Senator Downe: I would like to congratulate Senator Massicotte and Senator Nancy Ruth for the report. I can only imagine how difficult it must have been.
I have a couple of questions; the first is a concern. One area not covered is sponsored travel. It is my view that if it is important to go to Taiwan or to Israel, for example — and I believe it is, for a host of reasons — then that cost should be incurred by the Senate as opposed to a foreign government or institution that is sponsoring travel. Did you discuss that issue at all?
Senator Massicotte: Yes, we discussed it. It was not really part of our mandate, but we had a discussion, and we could probably not agree on a conclusion. There is a good debate to be had there, and maybe it should come back to this committee. It is questionable. The whole purpose if someone else pays for your trip is influencing future opinions. Should we permit it? We could not come to any conclusion there, so it is not part of our report.
Senator Downe: Mr. Chair, or perhaps the clerk can inform us, other than have the trip registered with the Ethics Officer, is there any way the Senate knows where senators are going and who is sponsoring trips for them?
Mr. Bélisle: No, other than registering with the Ethics Officer, there is not.
Senator Munson: Which is public.
The Chair: Hold on. I do not think it is public, is it?
Senator Munson: Yes.
The Chair: You register with the Ethics Officer, but I do not think it is public. Can you answer that, Senator Robichaud?
Senator Robichaud: I will have to check, but I think it is.
The Chair: Okay. Senator Prud'homme is next. Are you finished, Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: I would like to hear from Senator Prud'homme. I think it is on this point, and then I have another question.
Senator Prud'homme: It is exactly on this point. I will share with you my personal experience on this issue. We agonized very much in the House of Commons on it.
To be clear, before we said you have to talk to the Ethics Commissioner in the House of Commons, we decided, because of public opinion, to have a book on the clerk's table in front of everyone, and everyone who accepted a trip — which I encourage. I will fight publicly for that. I encourage members to accept these things as long as they reveal and explain themselves.
In the House of Commons, we invented a book, and that is why there is a perception that the house is more open. Then they invented the Ethics Commissioner in the house, so you had to put things through the Ethics Commissioner, but the book still exists.
In the Senate, we must report to the Ethics Officer about anything; if you are being honoured or invited, you report to the Ethics Officer. Unless someone asks specifically, these things are not as fully reported publicly as in the House of Commons. In the House of Commons, the book is published by the Ethics Commissioner.
I think my suggestion to you would be to reflect and do likewise. I am a critic of the House of Commons, but sometimes something good comes out of there, having been there, as have Senators Stollery, Robichaud and Dawson.
Maybe we should have something equivalent, and if people want to see it, the Ethics Officer will publish it, as the House of Commons does. I hope I am being clear. There was nothing, then we invented a book and people were satisfied. The book outlined who, where and how much. That was it. It then it went to the Ethics Commissioner, who published a little book. That is why you have so much publicity in the newspapers about trips abroad.
I would hope never to consider cancelling this approach. That will take away the joy of the bureaucrats who do not like members arriving in their countries suddenly and finding things they do not report to parliamentarians but they report only to their political bosses. It is a way to educate members by accepting that and being ready to defend the value of their trip. I have no objection. I did not take part in that practice, but I encourage it.
Senator Downe: Obviously, I very much respect your experience in that area, but I think we disagree a bit. In my view, I am sure that trips are justifiable, but if they are, then they should be claimed through international travel — for which we now have a procedure in place — and paid for by the Senate as opposed to the host country or sponsoring group.
Senator Prud'homme: If you limit it to $50,000 per year, there will not be many trips.
Senator Downe: The cap has been removed at the suggestion of the chair because it would be an impossibility under the 64-point system.
The Chair: Senator Prud'homme, as I was saying earlier to Senator Massicotte, you cannot attach it to the 64-point system and then put a cap on it, but you can monitor how much is being spent, for sure. There is no question about that.
Senator Massicotte: We have said $50,000 maximum spent by someone.
Senator Downe: To conclude that first point, I would recommend, chair, that you and the steering committee consider giving a reference to Senator Massicotte's committee to explore the options in that area. It is an opportunity for us to get ahead of the curve. Senators will not be denied legitimate trips, but we take away any stigma that might be attached to accepting sponsored travel.
Senator Dawson: Then they will send it to us.
Senator Downe: My second point concerns a posting on the website, and I think Senator Comeau covered most of it.
I think the report should simply be tabled in the Senate. I do not think there is a need to have it posted on the senator's website. When it is tabled in the chamber, it is automatically on the Senate website.
The Chair: Are you moving a motion that we amend the report by deleting that?
Senator Downe: Yes, I am.
The Chair: We can move right to your motion, because even Senator Massicotte agrees that that could be removed.
All in favour of the amendment to remove posting it on the website?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra-minded? Carried.
We now move to the report as amended. It is moved by Senator Robichaud. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra-minded? Carried.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I am delighted by the fact that we have found another way for the budget subcommittee to make friends.
I want you to understand that there will be a lot of subjectivity involved in everything that you give us, namely, value. At some point, compassion will come into play. I am telling you ahead of time: we will ask all kinds of questions. If it ends up coming back to us, we will do our best.
Senator Massicotte: Senator Robichaud, we are taking this approach because we have so much confidence in your committee.
[English]
The Chair: Thank, you Senator Robichaud. We appreciate that.
(The committee continued in camera.)