Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence for December 10, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 10, 2009
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:33 a.m. to consider administrative matters; and in camera to consider other matters.
Senator George J. Furey (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, the first item on our agenda this morning is the adoption of the minutes of proceedings of November 26, the public portion.
Is there a motion to adopt?
Senator Tkachuk: I so move.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra-minded?
The motion is carried.
Item 2 is the hosting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union General Assembly in Quebec City. We have with us this morning Mr. Eric Janse, who will walk us through the request that has been made by IPU. Of course, our colleague Senator Oliver is here. We have seen Senator Oliver here before making an effort to do just this project. He has done outstanding work to get it to the stage it is at now.
I congratulate you, Senator Oliver. Please enlighten us.
Senator Oliver: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am delighted to be here. As honourable senators know, the Inter- Parliamentary Union is the oldest and largest parliamentary association in the world. The Inter-Parliamentary Union has 152 national parliaments as members, and Canada has been successful in winning the right to host one of these assemblies in Quebec City in the fall of 2012.
Canada has hosted before: the first time in 1925, the second time in 1965, and the third time in 1985. It is a huge honour to host one of these events. There will be in excess of 1,500 delegates from the 152 countries, plus their interpreters and support staff, so about 2,000 people will come to Quebec City for this event.
The IPU studies international problems. It meets twice a year. The spring session of the IPU in 2012 will be in Uganda, and in October of 2012, the plan is to meet in Quebec City, Canada.
We have a wonderful team, headed by Mr. Eric Janse and the international interparliamentary affairs group, who are experts at seeking out and working on all the details that are required to put on a wonderful and successful convention.
This is a great opportunity for us in Canada to showcase Canadians, Canada, Quebec, our political system and the things that we are so much respected for around the world. This is a huge opportunity.
As honourable senators know, we have appeared before the Joint Interparliamentary Council, JIC, and before the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy. This is the final leg of these approval requests.
Honourable senators, earlier today, I heard Barack Obama give his speech accepting the Nobel Prize. One of the incredible things he said is that we now need an expansion of our moral imagination. We will have an opportunity to do that when Canada brings delegates from these 152 national parliaments to Quebec.
I therefore ask for your support for us to take the next steps in this progress. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Oliver.
Do you have anything to add, Mr. Janse?
Eric Janse, Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate, Senate of Canada: As you said at the beginning, Mr. Chair, this is a testament to the work of Senator Oliver and the Canadian group of the IPU who convinced the IPU to modernize its policy on visas and to accord Canada the right to host something it did not think we were due to host for another 10 or 20 years. It really is a testament to their excellent work.
Senator Comeau: Senator Oliver, have you discussed this at all with the people at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to see whether there will be involvement from their end?
Senator Oliver: I speak with Foreign Affairs all the time about IPU-type matters, and they are fully aware of the many efforts we have made over three or four years to be able to host. The answer is yes; they are very much aware of what we are doing.
Senator Comeau: They are departmental and ministerial, whereas this is parliamentary. Will they be at all involved in the preparations? This will involve a huge number of countries, but not at the ministerial level.
Senator Oliver: Yes, they will, senator. The IPU never goes to any event without researchers from the Library of Parliament and without officials advising us from Foreign Affairs. In most IPU assemblies, there are three separate committees that deal with separate topics, and each of those topics will normally have a resolution. The resolutions are vetted by Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs goes through each line and each word of those resolutions to ensure that they comply with Canada's standards and policies. We have a series of briefings by officials from Foreign Affairs before going to any of the sessions. We of course have access to a number of their private working papers.
Senator Comeau: I think we looked at this a couple of years ago, and I should have read the briefing notes more fully. There was some kind of visa problem the last time we looked at this. Has that been resolved?
Senator Oliver: Yes, it has. Mr. Janse referred to that. At the meeting in Ethiopia earlier this year, the executive committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the main body, called the National Council, agreed to adopt the rules of the United Nations. The article to be put in the IPU will give the IPU and any hosting country all of the rights and privileges to retain the rights of a sovereign state to determine to whom they grant visas.
Senator Massicotte: On that note, I read that you received a letter from your minister on April 8, 2008, which basically says that there will be no discrimination. However, based upon my reading of the documents and the contract that you will sign, I worry that there is a conflict between what the minister expects and what you are signing. What you are signing says that anyone they decide is eligible to come should be able to come. The minister says that there will be no discrimination at all based on race, religion, et cetera. Are you entirely convinced that there is not a gap between what you are legally committing to and what the government wants to apply regarding visas?
Senator Oliver: We thought about clause 5 for years and years, as Senator Dawson knows. The main difference is that the United Nations rules that were adopted by the IPU at their general council meeting in Ethiopia last year mean that on a case-by-case basis, if there is a reason not to grant a visa, we now have the right and the discretion to refuse it, in the same way that the United Nations does. The United Nations rules now apply to us.
Senator Massicotte: At our discretion?
Senator Oliver: Yes, because Canada is a sovereign state.
Senator Massicotte: It is not clear from the documents, but if you say that, I will accept it.
Senator Oliver: The article 5 that you see in your binders is the old wording. Once we got approval from the JIC and the committees on internal economy, we will be presented with a new document that will reflect the new wording based on the United Nations conventions that I have just described.
Senator Massicotte: I have a secondary question. You are asking us today to give approval for the conference to proceed. Yet, you have a lot of weasel words in there relative to the budget. You basically said, "Past experience shows it will cost us this much, but please approve it irrespective of the fact that we have no budget."
However, I presume that the number you have there is a solid number, that we will not come up with a 20 per cent increase but simply come up with more details to support the reasonableness of the number, and that is it a strong representation of what the total costs will be. Am I interpreting that correctly?
Senator Oliver: You have it exactly right. For instance, because we have not had your approval, we have not gone to the hotels to see what kind of deals we can get, so we cannot give you a precise figure today for the hotel accommodations or for the convention centre. We do not have those numbers.
Senator Massicotte: We can look at the total number as the global budget?
Senator Oliver: Exactly. The officials, such as Mr. Janse, who have done this kind of thing before are familiar with some of the rounded numbers, and that is what you see here. After we get approval, we will go out and get hard numbers and bring them back to you.
Senator Massicotte: We will not suffer the experience of being told about a couple of surprises.
Senator Oliver: That is not our intention, sir.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
The Chair: I want to follow up on that. It is difficult to come with any kind of budget until you know what your requirements will be. We know the overall picture, but once you get into the process of pre-booking, what outlay will we have to make in the immediate future, and what is our risk if this all goes sideways down the road? What is our risk of losing that initial outlay? What kind of a down payment do we need to book rooms, and what would our loss be if everything went sideways? I hope and am sure it will not, but what would be our risk in the down payments?
Senator Oliver: I will answer the general principle and then ask Mr. Janse to give you the specific number. The United Kingdom wanted to host one of these conventions more than five years ago, and they were faced with article 5 that Senator Massicotte just referred to. The United Kingdom group did not sign the document, but they went ahead and booked their hotels and conference centres and entered into contracts for a number of other things. The IPU then told them there was a European travel ban they were bound by and wanted to know whether they would get around that travel ban or alternatively agree to give a visa to everyone who wanted one. The United Kingdom said they would not give visas to people from Zimbabwe and so on. The IPU withdrew their right to host, and at that time the English had committed several hundred thousand pounds in contracts they subsequently lost.
In Canada, we have been working on this project for more than four years. We have not spent one cent of anyone's money in terms of commitments, and we refuse to spend any money until we get the commitments from the JIC and the internal economy committees in the House of Commons and the Senate. We have spent no money and there are no liabilities to date because we have not incurred any commitments.
On the other hand, once we start booking convention centres, it will be a different case.
Mr. Janse: In terms of the budget generally, we are in a vicious circle. It is hard to predict an exact number until we have had a site visit from IPU officials. We expect that visit in early February, provided that this committee adopts the proposal. Until we have that site visit, we cannot determine an exact figure for what it will cost.
Down payments for hotels and conference centres should not be all that much because we have dealt with these individuals and institutions an awful lot over the last number of years. We had a major NATO conference in Quebec City not too long ago. We had the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, CPA, conference, the last and second- largest next to the IPU conference, and that, too, was in Quebec City, and we used the same convention centre and the same major hotel. They are joyous when we come with the notion of another conference, so they will not ask for a whole lot in a down payment, but they want to secure the dates and times of the conference as soon as possible.
Senator Oliver: Apart from hotels and motels, will other costs be incurred?
Mr. Janse: The rest will come the year of the conference itself for hospitality, transporting delegates from the airport to the venues, and so on. There should not be all that much in the next two fiscal years. The bulk will come in the fiscal year during which the conference is held.
The Chair: We will be looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars as opposed to tens of thousands, right?
Mr. Janse: In terms of holding space?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Janse: No. To be perfectly honest, I would say it would be more in the range of tens of thousands of dollars rather than hundreds of thousands to hold the space, because we have a good rapport with these institutions.
The Chair: Excellent.
Senator Tkachuk: Have the Americans rejoined the IPU?
Senator Oliver: That is a fascinating question. The Americans have not been members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union for more than seven years. Under previous U.S. administrations, there was no interest in rejoining. Under the Obama administration, there is a large interest in rejoining. The United States Congress has sent delegations to the last two IPU meetings. There have been profound negotiations trying to determine whether the U.S. will come back. I have been involved in some of those negotiations with Nancy Pelosi and others, and I believe there is a real chance the Americans will rejoin. As the largest democracy in the world, the U.S. would add a lot of strength to the IPU.
Senator Tkachuk: I have been to only one IPU conference, but most of it was America bashing. It drove me nuts. I would hate to see that in Quebec City. Is that still the tenor of IPU, or have they modified their stance now that they do not have Clinton and Bush to rake?
Senator Oliver: There is not as much U.S. bashing as there has been in the past, but there are 152 parliaments represented, some from the Middle East, some from Africa and some from other trouble spots. Those trouble spot issues come out in debate in the forum of the IPU.
Senator Tkachuk: Does Israel belong to the IPU?
Senator Oliver: Yes, it does, as do a number of Arab states, and those issues are hotly debated in meetings of the IPU.
The Chair: One last point, Senator Oliver, which you made at the Joint Interparliamentary Council: it is important to inform senators that the IPU usually has two meetings. The general meeting is in the spring, and there is a more abbreviated executive meeting in the fall. This particular meeting is scheduled for the fall, but it will be a full-blown meeting; is that correct?
Senator Oliver: That is no longer correct. I received a letter a couple of days ago, and it seems we need some more negotiation on that. Our understanding when we got the approval from the executive, from the council, was that it would be a full-time meeting. However, I received a letter from the president yesterday, obviously drafted by the IPU Secretary General in the administration, indicating something to the opposite. Our intention is that it will be a full meeting.
The Chair: The numbers you gave us at the beginning of your presentation would be for a full meeting?
Senator Oliver: That is true.
Senator Downe: I would like to follow up on this new information Senator Oliver told us. It is the first I have heard of it. What was the letter? What did the letter indicate?
Senator Oliver: It is brand new. The letter is dated December 8. I received it yesterday.
Senator Downe: It changes the nature of the meeting?
Senator Oliver: It shortens the meeting. It is supposed to be a full meeting, like the spring meeting. This letter that arrived in my office yesterday ends with "good wishes and warm season's greetings" and indicates they would like to have an abbreviated meeting.
Senator Downe: Does that mean a shorter time frame?
Senator Oliver: Yes, but we have not had an opportunity to deal with this in our executive, and there are many ways that this can be rebutted.
Senator Downe: That could have a major impact on your financial request, as well.
Senator Oliver: That is correct.
Senator Jaffer: Senator Oliver, I want to share my concern about people obtaining visas. Perhaps we can do some proactive work to avoid embarrassment. I have no doubt that there will be no discrimination on the part of our government on the basis of race, colour or religion. That is not an issue. However, we know there are inadmissible classes under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Everyone uses the example that if Mandela applied he could not come here without a temporary permit from the minister because of our immigration laws.
Is there a way some proactive work could be done if someone in particular was known to be coming to ensure that we did the work beforehand rather than be embarrassed by declining entry to a country's president? Presidents normally do not come to IPU, but if there were some person and we could do some proactive work beforehand, that could be important. It is such an important meeting and a lot of money is being invested, so, obviously, we do not want to let one incident mar the whole conference.
I will ask that you know who is coming beforehand and do the proactive work before. We know that under the inadmissible classes, some people will not be allowed to come to our country.
Senator Oliver: We have already addressed that in meetings with the president and in meetings with Secretary General Anders Johnsson and other officials of the IPU. We have said it is extremely important that we be informed as soon as possible if someone has tenuous requirements so that we can get to work on it. These things take time, so we cannot leave it to the last minute. They have been told that, and we are aware of it.
Senator Dawson: Briefly, I had the opportunity of working on this file with Senator Oliver for the last few years, and I met two weeks ago with both the president and the Secretary General of the IPU. It is clear that the event will be held in Canada. Senator Oliver is confirming they have a letter, but there was a little bit of confusion between the president and the Secretary General about the length of the event. I am quite sure that in the official documents we recognize it as an official complete conference. There is some interpretation that has to be given, because this was a long-fought battle by Senator Oliver. I can tell you his persistence was useful. On the other side, we still have the Secretary General, who is as persistent as Senator Oliver. Clearly, I think there will be some accommodation made on this issue.
The Chair: What we have, then, is a request that the board approve the holding of the IPU General Assembly in Quebec City, at an approximate cost of $5.5 million, subject to IPU returning to both boards with a detailed budget analysis.
Is that correct, Senator Oliver?
Senator Oliver: That is correct.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Oliver. Before you go, I want to express thanks on behalf of the committee for the outstanding work you have done in trying to bring this to Canada. I know it has been a number of years that you have been trying to do this. You have done great work. Keep it up.
Thank you again for your continuing support, Mr. Janse.
Colleagues, is it agreed that we approve the proposal that Canada host the IPU General Assembly in Quebec City in the fall of 2012, costs to be shared with the House of Commons on a 70/30 basis — 70 House of Commons, 30 Senate? Moved by Senator Massicotte.
Should we put in a proviso that we see a detailed budget, or is that automatic? Subject to a detailed budget being provided to Internal Economy Committee. All those in favour? Contra-minded? Carried.
Thank you, colleagues.
[Translation]
Now, we are moving on to the nineteenth report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets and International Travel.
[English]
Senator Robichaud: I am going for $6 million.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, the nineteenth report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets and International Travel includes recommended funding for four committees.
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry requested funds for a fact-finding trip to Washington, D.C., at the end of January.
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources requested supplementary funding for its fact-finding and public hearings in Vancouver in March in order to ensure adequate funding for interpretation and stenographers.
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples presented a supplementary budget to cover the costs of implementing a revised communications strategy for its upcoming report. The chair of the committee, the Honourable Senator St. Germain, requested that the $12,434 previously granted for promotion of reports be clawed back and that $72,142 be granted for a more ambitious communications program.
[English]
Finally, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights requested funding for a fact-finding mission to Sierra Leone, Ghana and Liberia for its special study on United Nations Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security.
The request is for $225,750, based on all members of the committee travelling. Because of the length of the trip, business class travel for senators and staff — one clerk and one analyst — is recommended and included in the budget.
Your subcommittee recommends that the amount budgeted for miscellaneous expenses be reduced from $4,000 to $2,000, as has been recommended for other committees. Therefore, the total recommended release to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights is $223,750.
The nineteenth report recommends the release of a total of $377,647. To date, some $3.4 million has been released to committees, but over $500,000 has been or is in the process of being clawed back due to surplus funds remaining at the conclusion of various activities. Therefore, there are sufficient funds remaining in the budget to cover today's recommended releases.
[Translation]
I move the adoption of this report.
The Chair: Does anyone have any questions?
[English]
Senator Robichaud: It does not amount to $6 million.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra-minded? Carried. Thank you, Senator Robichaud.
Senator Robichaud: This report is submitted by the three members of the committee, Senator Cordy, Senator MacDonald and myself.
The Chair: The next report is the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration with respect to international travel. Sorry; I will go back to number 4 in a second. I jumped ahead of myself. Number 5 on the agenda is the approval. As I was saying, the new international travel guidelines require a report to be tabled with Internal Economy for tabling in the Senate.
You will recall, honourable senators, that we approved recently a trip for Senator Dyck. She has now presented her report. I would like to adopt it so that we can present it in the chamber.
Are there any questions?
Senator Massicotte: I think it is well written, a very good process and interesting. If we table it in the Senate, does it become a public document?
The Chair: It is a public document now. We are in public now.
Senator Massicotte: Is it accessible to people? My objective is that it be accessible to people to know what we are doing. It is a good report.
The Chair: It is entered into our official records in the Journals.
Senator Massicotte: Do people go back to find it? Is there not a better way to have it exposed? I will leave it with the clerk.
The Chair: For now, if we have a motion to adopt it and present it in the chamber, then we can discuss another time whether we want to put it on a website or whether there is some other dissemination we want to follow up with, once it is tabled in the chamber.
Senator Comeau: I am not sure where this discussion is going. If we are presenting it as a report in the committee, it becomes a public document. It is readily accessible, as far as I know. I am not sure why we would want to give it special status any more than our other reports. If it becomes a report of this committee tabled in the Senate, I cannot see why we would go any further than what is normally done with a report.
Senator Massicotte: The objective was to ensure that if we spend public money, we should be accountable to the public for it. Your argument is that we should be satisfied with the transparency argument. I am being practical; if someone jumps out a window and survives, it does not mean it will happen a second time. Maybe there is a process to achieve our objective. I know it satisfies legally, but it is useful information. Maybe senators should put it on a website.
Senator Comeau: I do not think you understand my question. I am not saying that we satisfy the strict minimum. I am suggesting that we satisfy what is normally, I would have assumed, a report from this committee to the chamber. If anybody wants to have a look at it, just like all other reports from this committee, they can, but why should we single out one specific aspect and say this one is more important than all other reports from this committee?
Senator Massicotte: I am not saying single out this one; I am saying as a matter of practice. Do people refer to these things and search them? If after 10 years we figure the answer is no —
Senator Comeau: Then we might want to have a look and assess whether the Canadian public accesses any of our reports.
Senator Massicotte: It should not be this one.
Senator Comeau: It should not be this type of report.
Senator Massicotte: I agree.
The Chair: Thank you. The item I missed is the Joint Interparliamentary Council. Do you have a name for us to fill in?
Senator Greene: Yes. I would like to nominate Senator Tkachuk.
The Chair: All those in favour of Senator Tkachuk?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra-minded? Carried. Thank you.
Senator Harb has come to discuss a request he made some years ago. Some colleagues were here at the time, some were not. To give you some background, in 2006, Senator Harb travelled to Lebanon following the assassination of the former prime minister of Lebanon. When he returned, he approached Internal Economy to have his travel paid for. He indicated at the time that he left under exigent circumstances; nobody knew at the time, obviously, that this event was to occur.
At the first instance, the Internal Economy steering committee thought he should refer it to Foreign Affairs. I do not believe he received much support from Foreign Affairs, so he came back to Internal Economy before the full committee. The full committee turned down the request, and Senator Harb has asked for some time to come back and revisit this issue. He is with us this morning.
Senator Harb: Thank you very much. Honourable senators, as Senator Furey has indicated, I found it necessary to travel to Lebanon immediately following the assassination of Mr. Rafic Hariri, a former prime minister of Lebanon. Upon arrival in Lebanon, I was able to bring the condolences of more than 300,000 Canadians of Lebanese origin and all Canadians who shared their sorrow with the Hariri family, as well as to the Lebanese president, who was very happy to see me at the time.
I had discussions with Mr. Amine Gemayel, a former president of Lebanon, whose brother was also assassinated while president. I also had a discussion with Ms. Nayla Moawad, who was then a minister in the Lebanese government and the wife of His Excellency, President René Moawad, who was also assassinated. As well, I participated in round table discussions with members of the Lebanese civil societies. I was the only Canadian parliamentarian to take this initiative on behalf of the Canadian people.
Given the extensive economic and cultural ties between our two countries and our long partnership with Lebanon during its struggle for peace and economic prosperity, I strongly believe my visit to this region in the wake of this violent event made a positive impact. Obviously, this was not a leisure trip. I was in Lebanon for only one day. I did not sleep for 24 hours. I went through a great deal of hardship to get there and perform my duties as a parliamentarian, and I returned back home only 24 hours after arrival.
The guidelines for senators' travel were established to ensure that senators are able to perform their duties and to prevent abuse of funds. I believe that had we been able to see into the future and anticipate this tragic event, this trip on its own merit would have been approved as it met all requirements of the guidelines as set out by the Internal Economy Committee. I am therefore appealing to you to grant me the right to recover my expenses under the rules as set out in the guidelines and use my travel points to pay for this ultimately worthwhile trip.
If you look at the compliance with the guidelines, this trip was in compliance with senators' international travel points as outlined in section 2. Obviously, given the nature of this tragic event in Lebanon and as circumstances were beyond my control, advance notice of this trip was not possible.
In reference to the remaining criteria relating to the relevance of this trip as outlined in the guidelines, I submit to you the following: The purpose of the trip was to liaise with representatives of the Hariri family and the Lebanese president and government officials in the aftermath of the tragic assassination.
I will remind colleagues that thanks to the efforts of Mr. Hariri, Canada-Lebanon relationships reached a new and higher level, resulting in multi-billion dollar projects for Canada. Mr. Hariri worked hard to ensure that trade and investment opportunities grew during his years in office, mostly in favour of Canada.
Mr. Hariri was also instrumental in the withdrawal of Lebanon's bid for the last Francophone Games in favour of Canada's bid. Thanks to Mr. Hariri's assistance, Canada was able to host the games, while France at the time had been pushing for Lebanon to be the host. Our government at the time was very eager to have it take place in Canada, and Mr. Hariri played a key role in making it possible. I, along with Senator De Bané and the Honourable Don Boudria, successfully lobbied Mr. Hariri to ensure Canada's bid won his support and was ultimately successful.
Being of Lebanese decent, I have represented Canada on a number of missions to Lebanon and have had several initiatives meant to further strengthen relations between our two countries. These include, and I will name a few, that on behalf of the Government of Canada, I led the Canadian Observer Mission to Lebanon during its parliamentary elections. Canada at the time was one of a select number of countries invited to take part in this important task.
I am a founding member of the Canada-Lebanon Friendship Group. I, along with Senator Andreychuk, moved a motion that was adopted unanimously by the Senate following the assassination of the former prime minister back in February of 2005. I published a number of essays, one of which was published in Embassy magazine, on the legacy of Mr. Hariri. As well, I was honoured to be a guest speaker at the Lebanese International Business Council in November of 2005. As a member of Parliament, on behalf of the Government of Canada, I chaired the Canadian Liaison and Advisory Group on the reconstruction of Lebanon.
Honourable senators, I believe that it is only fair that when members of the Senate go on trips in good faith and try to do their job to the best of their ability, they should not be unfairly penalized. This trip in total cost $3,334.70. It was for an economy class airfare ticket as well as the hotel. I did not include all the other costs. I did not include the per diem that members of the Senate are entitled to, and I did not include the details of the other costs that took place at the time, such as when I had to take a taxi from Jordan to Beirut overnight so I would not miss my meetings.
The amount is not substantial, but I think based on the principle of it, honourable senators should reconsider allowing me to use my travel points so I will not be penalized.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Harb. Any questions? Senator Harb, we will make a decision this morning and you will be notified forthwith.
(The committee continued in camera.)