Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 1 - Evidence for June 18, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 18, 2009
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:32 a.m. to consider administrative matters; and in camera to consider other matters.
Senator George J. Furey (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, first let me apologize for the confusion about the meeting. It was on-again and off- again. We had originally planned to meet with the Deputy Minister of Public Works, but on Monday we received notice from the minister that he would be giving an update, and he invited the Internal Economy Committees of both houses to the update. We thought it would be best if we met with the minister first.
Subsequent to that, I was informed by Senator Robichaud that he did have one subcommittee budget review to present. Given, as we all know, that next week turns into a crazy time, we thought we would meet briefly this morning to discuss that and two other brief issues so that the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples will not be without funding for their plans over the summer.
The first item on the agenda is the eighth report of the subcommittee.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe you have a copy of the eighth report. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Persons submitted a supplementary budget application following a decision to modify its work plan for its special study on matters generally relating to the aboriginal peoples of Canada. The committee had previously received $130,512 to hold public hearings in Alberta. The committee has since decided to travel instead to British Columbia to hold public hearings, and possibly undertake some fact-finding.
[English]
The budget for this activity, which is scheduled for September 2009, is in the amount of $172,495. Therefore, your committee recommends that the funds for the previously approved activity be clawed back and that the supplementary budget be approved as submitted.
I move a motion for the adoption of the eighth report.
The Chair: Are there any questions, colleagues?
[Translation]
Senator Comeau: I see that there is a difference of about $3,000. Correct?
Senator Robichaud: No, the difference is greater because the projected cost of the trip to Alberta was $130,512, while the projected cost for the trip to British Columbia is $172,495. However, the initial funds allotted have been clawed back, and now we are approving a budget of 172,495.
Senator Comeau: Thank you. You have answered my question.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other questions, honourable senators? If not, we have a motion by Senator Robichaud to approve the eighth report. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra minded?
Carried.
We will now deal with the second report.
Senator Robichaud: Senators, you have the ninth report before you. Your subcommittee reports, and I quote:
The present guidelines for the reimbursement of witness expenses allow witnesses to be reimbursed for the minimum number of nights hotel stay. However, there is no limit on the amount that a witness can claim for a night. This is contrasted with senators' travel when using points "under the 64-point system," where hotel costs are capped at $200 per night.
[Translation]
Despite the importance of a limit on hotel costs, it must be recognized that circumstances may lead to a lack of reasonably priced hotel rooms. Witnesses are often called on short notice, and may be appearing at the same time as special events which will impact on both the availability and pricing of hotel rooms. Any new policy should include a mechanism to deal with such exceptional circumstances.
Therefore, your subcommittee recommends as follows:
That witnesses be limited to $200 per night for hotel expenses, and that the chair of each committee be authorized to allow higher costs in unforeseen circumstances.
I move the adoption of this report.
[English]
The Chair: Questions?
Senator Downe: I have a comment, as I do whenever we use words that are open to interpretation by others. I think "exceptional circumstances" is one of those examples. We could change that to "other circumstances." In other words, as you indicate in your previous paragraph, there may be a convention in town or hotels are not available. The word "exceptional" calls into question whether it was that important to get the witness or whether the topic was that important, as opposed to what you are trying to do here, which is the issue of the availability of affordable hotel rooms. I just throw that out for discussion.
The Chair: Do you have any problem with amending the report, Senator Robichaud?
Senator Robichaud: I have no problem, as long as it is clear and is not open to different interpretations. I would think the two other members of the subcommittee, Senator Dawson and Senator MacDonald, would think the same way.
Senator Comeau: In order to protect the chair who would be authorizing the exceptional expense, would there be any provision to submit a report to the subcommittee saying, "On this occasion, I used this exceptional provision and this is the reason"? In other words, if all the chair needs to do is sign off on it, is there a means by which he could say, "These are the circumstances because there were no rooms available that week"?
Senator Robichaud: When witnesses are called to appear before committees, the clerk usually will advise them of the $200 limit and any other conditions that may apply. I would suppose that if they could find such a room, the clerk would probably help them find one. If hotel rooms are not available, the clerk would inform the chair and things would move on from there. The invoices would come back to the Finance Directorate to be paid. I am sure a record of whatever efforts were made to find a room would accompany that.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: I would also like to add that witnesses are now eligible for the government rate. In the past, a hotel would not necessarily accept that a witness called by the Senate or Parliament was on government business. This is extremely helpful in terms of getting a better rate.
Senator Comeau: It makes sense.
[English]
The Chair: We have a motion from Senator Robichaud, as amended.
Senator Downe: I have one minor point. If senators have to spend more than $200 for a room because of lack of availability, we have to send a note to the Finance Directorate explaining that. I assume the same policy would apply here.
Senator Robichaud: I want to make sure that we know the meaning of Senator Downe's amendment.
What are the words you were using, Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: I am a broken record on this issue because if these words are left to the interpretation of others down the road, it can get us into trouble. The greater the clarity, the better. I am not married to any particular wording, but I think the word "exceptional" should be removed and another word considered. I had not read this before this morning. Perhaps "unexpected" would be better.
The Chair: Unexpected circumstances?
Can we substitute the word "unexpected," Senator Robichaud?
Senator Comeau: "Unforeseen," perhaps?
Senator Robichaud: Is the wording "higher costs in unforeseen circumstances" acceptable?
The Chair: Is that acceptable?
Senator Tkachuk: That is acceptable.
[Translation]
The Chair: How should this read in French?
Senator Dawson: I think the reference should be to "circonstances particulières".
[English]
Senator Stollery: The rule we have, as I understand it, is that $200 is our normal limit. As we have done for years, occasionally we cannot get a room for $200, so we have been allowed a certain amount of flexibility. I do not think there is anything new about that. That is the way we have always worked it. We aim for $200, but that is not always possible depending on the city. I do not see that this is such a big deal.
Senator Robichaud: I do not see it being a big deal either.
The Chair: We are dancing on the head of a pin here.
We have a motion from Senator Robichaud, as amended by Senator Downe to read "in unforeseen circumstances" instead of "in exceptional circumstances."
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: So then, the French would read "en cas de circonstances particulières."
[English]
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Robichaud. All those in favour? Contrary minded?
Carried.
The next item on our agenda is the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The Canadian group of the IPU is negotiating and wishes the approval of our committee and the Board of Internal Economy from the House of Commons — the latter of which they have already received — to continue negotiations over the summer to host the IPU General Assembly in Canada in 2012. Attempts were made to do this in 2010. However, due to issues related to immigration and security, it did not come off.
Senator Oliver is in the process of working with the Canadian group to negotiate for 2012. There is absolutely no cost involved in the negotiating process; it is just approval in principle. If they reach agreement or a memorandum of understanding with the IPU, a detailed budget will be prepared and brought back to the Joint Interparliamentary Council to seek approval from both boards. All we are asking for this morning is the approval of this committee to continue the negotiations.
Senator Jaffer: I am, of course, in favour of continuing the negotiations. In reading what was provided to us, I would like a clarification. I realize that we may not get it today. Will we respect travel bans decided upon by the United Nations or by Canada? Our travel bans are much stricter than those of the United Nations. What are we looking for exactly?
The Chair: Let me explain what happened the last time. There will have to be some movement on the part of the IPU if we are to host it this time. The IPU General Assembly has a rule that all members of the IPU are permitted to attend general assemblies irrespective of where they are held. Canada, of course, saw this as an infringement on its sovereignty and said, "Hold on, there are certain things on which we want to have a say. For example, if someone is coming into the country with a history of terrorism or of communicable diseases, we want a say. The IPU did not change its rule.
Senator Oliver tells us that at the Joint Interparliamentary Council, this time around it looks like the IPU may move more toward the UN's acceptance of delegates and the rules that they apply. The rules that they apply are less stringent and give the host country a little more say in issues of security and health. That is my understanding.
Senator Jaffer: I understand that. I am ringing some bells. It is not really within our domain at the moment because the UN's rules of restriction are very different from our rules. We have strict rules on who we will admit if they have been accused of terrorist activities, which is often very different from the UN's rules. I do not want us to be put in an embarrassing position.
When Senator Oliver is negotiating, perhaps we can ask him exactly what he will negotiate and then make sure that our government agrees to it. I am being cautious. We do not want to negotiate something and then find that our government does not agree.
The Chair: I agree. I assure you that nothing will be done before we see it again anyway. I can doubly assure you that the government of the day will not surrender its sovereignty with respect to hosting a conference of any kind on issues of security and health, nor should it. The issues are intertwined. For example, as a blanket rule, if we said that no terrorists are allowed, we would never allow Nelson Mandela into the country.
It is a delicate issue. Foreign Affairs and Immigration will be involved in the negotiations, I am sure.
Senator Kinsella: I can add some information on this particular point.
Anders Johnson, the Secretary-General of the IPU, visited Canada last year. There was a reception at Senator Carstairs' home, and a number of us present had a good discussion with the executive head of the IPU on this topic. The IPU has come a long way. They have a strict interpretation of the visa question but have moved away from that. The note here indicates that they discussed it again at the last meeting, which was held in Ethiopia or some place. They think that the UN criteria for international gatherings is better and are moving in that direction.
It is not so much our domestic visa issues or regulations. Every country has more or less the same kinds of visa regulations, but it is applied to certain countries, usually the same kinds of countries. Obviously, those countries are very sensitive to being effectively discriminated against and, from their point of view, rightly so.
However, at the IPU meetings proper, certainly at the executive level of the IPU, they are moving in the direction of using the UN formula. No country gives up its absolute sovereignty, but as an international interparliamentary organization, equality among parliamentarians is pretty darn important.
Second, the U.K. agreed to host this event. They put down a lot of money to reserve hotel rooms, and then the IPU backed off. The U.K. Parliament was left holding the bill, which they had to pay. It was in the thousands and thousands of dollars.
Senator Dawson: I participated at most of the meetings between Senator Oliver and the IPU. At the last meeting, we went over the head — if I may use that expression — of the secretary-general and met with the president, who is a lot more cooperative and willing to try to find a compromise.
The reason we need a "question of principle" is that last time when we were in Ethiopia, because Bangkok was in turmoil, they could possibly have asked if we were ready to host the 2012 conference. There was no agreement between the House of Commons and the Senate that, if circumstances permitted, we would want to be a candidate to host the conference. We could not even bluff and say we would get an agreement. At that time, there was the potential of a prorogation. As well, there are threats of elections all the time.
We require permission to be able to continue our negotiations with the IPU. They are evolving in the right way. An invitation was sent to the president and the secretary-general to come and visit us next autumn so we can arrive at a compromise.
Senator Stollery: The Foreign Affairs Committee has had a lot of experience with this. One of the problems will be that if a country has had a civil war, anyone who was part of a party in the civil war will not be able to come into Canada. The Canadian rules are so onerous in some instances that for countries such as the Congo, for example, almost no one is eligible to come into Canada because they were part of a faction in the civil war. There are several countries like that. It is not just a small thing. I could name 10 countries off the top of my head where almost anyone in the political process at some point has been involved in a faction in a civil war. I would think they probably would be excluded from coming into Canada.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we have a motion to approve the negotiations, moved by Senator Jaffer. All those in favour? Contra minded?
Carried.
There are two other quick issues. Last year, the Internal Economy Committee discussed the formation of an advisory group to look at the inner workings of the Senate with a view to making recommendations to both the Internal Economy Committee and the Rules Committee with respect to the actual operations. Senator Oliver, Chair of the Rules Committee, and I have discussed meeting again to resurrect that committee. We will try to do that next week and report back to this committee in due course. I wanted to pass that along to you for your information more than anything else.
The Clerk has just passed me a note that Treasury Board announced yesterday that a 1.5 per cent economic increase in 2009-10 and 2010-11 was approved for executives in government. We would need authority to do the same here, and this would be our last meeting to do it.
Paul C. Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments: To add to what the chair has said, this process is normal. We usually go with the spirit of Treasury Board's directives. We have kept pace with them. As you will recall, there is legislation that all government employees would be receiving 1.5 per cent, but there had been no formal announcements for the executive group in the government. It was announced yesterday that they will receive 1.5 per cent. We are not subject to Treasury Board, but we always go in line with Treasury Board. The recommendation is to proceed with the 1.5 per cent increase.
The Chair: Are there any questions, colleagues? If not, could we have a motion? It is moved by Senator Robichaud. All those in favour? Contra minded?
Carried.
Is there anything else anyone would like to raise? If not, thank you very much for your indulgence and for bearing with the changes. Also, the minister has invited us to the meeting this afternoon, so anyone who can, please attend.
We forgot to adopt the minutes of the last meeting. Could we have a motion to adopt? Moved by Senator Jaffer. All those in favour? Contra minded?
Carried.
I have been asked if staff can attend the meeting this afternoon. I do not imagine why not. Senator Kinsella informs us that staff can attend.
Mr. Bélisle: The board of the House of Commons usually meets in camera — very private. They never have staff attend. I will check with the house and let you know.
The Chair: The Clerk will email all members of the committee.
Thank you, honourable senators.
(The committee adjourned.)