Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 2 - Evidence - February 18, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 18, 2016
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:36 a.m., in public, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters; and in camera for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Honourable senators, Item 1 on the agenda is adoption of the minutes of the proceedings of the February 4, 2016 meeting, the public portion.
It's moved by Senator Tannas, seconded by Senator Batters.
Senator Tannas, are you moving the adoption, or do you have a question?
Senator Tannas: I will move the adoption so we can get things going on discussing it, if that's okay.
A couple of things: Number one, I made a request, and I thought we had agreement around the administration over the course of the policy review of putting together a compendium that identifies everywhere in the policies — because it's not in the SARS — where the steering committee draws their delegated power, that it made sense to do that. It didn't make its way into the minutes, and I wanted that added to the minutes.
I would like to make a suggestion, and it goes to this: In the minutes, if there is an undertaking, that it be identified as an action item so that we don't lose it or forget about it. Administration can keep track of all the things that have been committed to, and also so that we can understand.
I notice there's something in here that Senator Lang has suggested or recommended, but it's not an action item. So what is it?
Just a suggestion that if he feels strongly about it, he could put it to a vote to see whether or not it should be an action item, something that we don't just talk about with no action would be great.
The Chair: That's a great point. Are there any other comments?
Senator Lang: Are we agreed that that's going to happen?
The Chair: Yes. There seems to be consensus.
Now I'll try again. Do I have a motion to adopt the minutes of the meeting of February 4, 2016?
Senator Tannas: As amended, yes.
The Chair: As amended. Those amendments have been adopted as well.
Item 2, first report of the steering committee on budgets.
I have the honour to present the first report of the steering committee, which includes recommended allocations for two committee budgets.
Your subcommittee met the chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, whose budget application contained proposed expenditures for fact-finding and public hearings in Moncton, New Brunswick, on their ongoing market access study carried over from the previous Parliament.
As always, we wanted to ensure that the committee had a clear objective for this type of expenditure and that the strategy would effectively reach its intended audience. We were impressed by the committee's plans. In the budget application for the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, the recommended allocation was $84,137.
Your subcommittee did not meet with the chair and deputy chair of Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Their budget application is in the amount of $2,300 and is solely for the purpose of consolidated copies of the Criminal Code. We came to the conclusion that it was a worthwhile expenditure for them to be able to do their work.
I recommended that maybe they can try doing that work without the legal code for a year and see what it gives us, but most of my colleagues thought it was a worthy acquisition for $2,300.
In the context, the total available for all of 2015-16 is $1.19 million, less $250,000 for witness expenses, leaving $941,000 for operational expenses.
There have been no other indications of special budget requirements expressed to date by other committees.
Based on this and the fact that committees are budgeting for full participation, which, as you know, is the standard even though full participation rarely occurs, your subcommittee feels comfortable recommending the release of these funds.
I do recommend the adoption of this report.
Are any questions?
Senator Marshall: I have several questions. Is the process different now for committee budgets? Is there a new subcommittee? The previous subcommittee was chaired by Senator Smith, and I think they would have the chair or deputy chair —
The Chair: Senator Marshall, as you realize, we haven't been able to get the subcommittees off and going. As a result, steering is the one approving this.
Senator Marshall: Did you say you met with the chair?
The Chair: We met with the chair, deputy chair and the clerk.
Senator Marshall: I thought that it was a significant amount of money. For example, $4,200 for taxis. I don't know where they're going or what they're doing. There's a budget there for nine staff. I see where it is nine in certain areas, six in others and three in others. It seems like a very expensive trip.
The Chair: We questioned all those details thoroughly. Senator Cordy brought up those specific points to them.
As you can appreciate, whenever committees have public hearings — and this is an important issue dealing with the agri-food industry in Canada, which is a multi-billion dollar industry — it touches many sectors and different regions of the country. This committee has been doing substantive work on this now for a number of months. From what I understand, this is also a follow-up from work done over a couple of years.
Whenever Senate committees go out — and we're going to be doing a lot more of that in the future, having public hearings across the country outside of the Ottawa bubble — if you're going to do it, respecting the official languages, you have to have the amount of translators that are needed available, the clerks, the analysts and the researchers.
We've also added, from the communications department, a communications component where these committees, in addition to their public hearings and the work they're doing as a committee in the various trips they take around the country, they'll be doing some substantive outreach as well. They'll take advantage of these expenses over the same period of time to do outreach in terms of media and stakeholders in those parts of the country.
The objective is to show the Senate at its best. It's also to start being accountable to the public, the people that pay for the work we do here.
I can assure you we did review every aspect of this budget request.
Senator Marshall: So we're expecting that money to be spent before the end of March.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Can one of the officials inform us how much was authorized for committee travel to date and how much is left in the account? This will be taken out of the remainder.
Heather used to do that, but I know she's not here this morning.
Charles Robert, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments and Chief Legislative Services Officer: In fact, it's a significant amount. There's been very little extra that's been spent in the overall budget for travel.
When Blair spoke to the committee this morning, he made it very clear that there are abundant resources available, so this will not in any way threaten the amount of money that is allocated for that purpose.
Senator Marshall: I'd like to see the numbers. I must say, I'm concerned.
The Chair: Concerned about us falling short, running out of funds?
Senator Marshall: No, I'm not. It's almost $100,000 that we're dealing with this morning, so it is a significant amount of money.
Nicole Proulx, Clerk of the Committee: We have funds requested so far in 2015-16 of $442,000. There was $275,000 that was approved. Funds released, $133,000. So far, expenditures and commitments, $52,000.
Senator Marshall: I must say I don't know if any other members are concerned with the $84,000, but it seemed rather high to me.
The Chair: Senator Marshall, is your concern the numbers on paper or what we're getting back for investment? I'm trying to understand your concern.
Senator Marshall: I wasn't thinking about what we're going to get for the money. I was wondering whether we really need nine staff. Why would we budget $4,200 for taxis?
The Chair: Because you need to move 12 senators and 9 staff. It becomes costly to move those people. You need three interpreters with you if you're going to have a public hearing. There is no way around it unless we want to throw out the Official Languages Act and not have three interpreters on it. We need to equip the committee with stenographers and people to be able to record the minutes so it can adequately reflect the work the senators do.
In the last little while, we have heard loudly and clearly from senators that in the process of becoming transparent and accountable, we shouldn't put ourselves in a situation where senators can't do their work.
I think we continue to work under a fiscally responsible philosophy, and that's why this morning we had the chair, deputy chair and clerk before us for more than half an hour, and we went through every single expenditure in detail and had a lengthy discussion about the process.
The Senate approved this study. They've given a mandate to a committee. Now I think it would be irresponsible on our part to take away from them the tools and the resources for them to carry out their mandate in an effective fashion.
Either we take a decision that we don't think we should be doing work across the country of this nature, and eliminate all these types of discussions. But, if we're going to have a discussion that $100,000 is too expensive, or rich relative to what, $300,000 or $30,000? That's why I asked the question. Is it the amount itself or the work the committee is doing in exchange for the amount?
Senator Marshall: Not the work, it's the amount.
The Chair: The one is related to the other. Again, the question that this committee has to decide is: Do we allow and encourage senators to do the work that we were mandated to do when we were summoned here and in our committee work and our studies? A cost comes with that.
From my point of view — my personal opinion — if the work we do is valid and we articulate it to the public and reach out and let them know we're here doing that work, then they can judge the work and judge the cost. But if it's going to be a narrow-minded view of, "let's just cut for the sake of cutting" — 10 per cent or 15 per cent or 5 per cent — it can't be arbitrary. It has to be followed up with some line of reasoning.
And I'm open to comments on that.
Senator Manning: You were looking for a motion to adopt.
Senator Cordy: The question Senator Marshall asked about the nine staff was sort of a like a red flag to me, so I did ask the question. Keep in mind these are public hearings, they're not just fact-finding missions. We do need interpreters and stenographers which we wouldn't need if it was a fact-finding trip. What the committee chair did tell me was, in fact, that in going to Moncton they will examine to see whether or not it is less expensive to hire interpreters in Moncton rather than bring them. That is something that they will do once the trip has been approved, because 12 and 9 did jump out at me. I was a member of the subcommittee with Senator Smith — and hopefully it will return within a short period of time — and I think it's important that we always budget for the full complement of a committee because I don't want to be sitting around the table being told, "Well, these four or five can go, but the rest of you who have sat through all the hearings in Ottawa, not this time, maybe next time."
Senator Marshall: I agree with that. What about the taxis?
Senator Cordy: You know what, I didn't ask about taxis, but my guess is it looks like it's back and forth to the airport for 12 senators would be $200. That would be not only back and forth in Moncton, but back and forth from their home areas. For me to get to the Halifax airport by cab is $70, and then Moncton would be an additional — probably less, but it would balance so that it would likely be about $100 each way.
I think we have to look at differences between fact-finding and public hearings. Public hearings are more expensive.
I want you to know that since three on the steering committee are also on the communications committee, we had a long discussion and they're very open. I would actually like to see, in some cases, a communications person going with the committee because I think that we really have to boost our communications. I think we can have 100 meetings in Ottawa or Toronto or Vancouver — big cities — but when we go to places like Moncton or Halifax — I remember going with Social Affairs to Halifax, the three television networks were at the meeting. Both newspapers were at the meeting. That doesn't happen in Ottawa unless it's something bad that they want to write about. When it's about good news stories in small communities, I think that's extremely important for the face of the Senate.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Thank you, Senator Cordy.
Senator Downe: We certainly need communications people there if we're sending 12 people to Moncton and spending $5,400 on transportation, because they will have some job explaining that. We could rent them all an automobile for two years and taxis to and from Ottawa airport more cheaply.
I share Senator Marshall's concern. Where is the admin assistant? I'm not aware of an admin assistant being assigned to a committee. What is the difference between their responsibility and the clerk's? We have to be very careful here with taxpayers' dollars. I have real concerns with this budget.
The taxi, the transportation — one day, apparently, they're renting a charter bus for $1,200. It begs the question: why aren't you renting it for two days? Would that be $2,400 in lieu of $5,400? Simple questions like that we have to defend in the eyes of the public.
Given the Senate, it's like shooting fish in a barrel for the media. They will have all kinds of questions. I share Senator Marshall's concern.
Senator Lang: I'm not going to belabour it. I share some of the current concerns that have been expressed, I think they're valid, and it's something we're going to have to look at in the future.
Senator Wells: I want to associate myself with your comments from the chair and Senator Cordy's as well. I think it was safe to call it a grilling when Senator Maltais and Senator Mercer appeared before us a short time ago and we asked the questions, and they stated they had already met with 96 witnesses and done a considerable amount of work.
We can make this a zero-cost study by simply not doing it, but I don't think that would serve Canada and certainly wouldn't serve the Senate.
Senator Manning: Just a couple of things. I know for any committee I've been involved in, the budgeted amount that we received pretty well showed expenses on average of 50 per cent of the budgeted amount. As an example, if you approve 12 senators, when it comes time to travel, you're lucky to get five or six or seven, and the same with everything: the hotel accommodations and taxis, the whole works.
I echo the concern about the travel expenditures here, but when you look at what Nicole mentioned earlier about what has been approved and actually released and actually committed as expended, they were treated as major different amounts from 275 down to $52,000.
It's been an eye-opener for me because I've been asked to chair the budget committee on travel expenses. Now I know I will have to come back here to this table, so I'll be watching my Ps and Qs on a going-forward basis.
Senator Batters: Just to go a little bit further on that point, I think, Senator Marshall, the reason that there is a difference in the number of staff in the different categories of transportation, accommodation and living expenses is because they've been trying to make accommodation for the fact they might be able to hire some local people and don't have to have those people travelling.
The Chair: That's a big part of it. That's exactly what they're trying to explain to us. Plus, like I said, they're not expecting more than 7 or 8 out of the 12 senators to participate. They're all travelling economy class.
They've convinced the steering committee that they're doing this in the most frugal way possible while being able to do their jobs and following the Rules of the Senate. The moment you go on a fact-finding mission, it's far different than when you're actually having public hearings. You can't have the Senate of Canada having public hearings below the standards that you would expect here in Ottawa when you're going on the road.
Senator L. Smith: Just to follow up, I think what would be helpful, and was mentioned by some of our colleagues today, that we do have communications people. Senator Manning, just as a suggestion: the balancing of the committee on budget and travel, when we ask how many groups are going to have public hearings, will probably be your biggest challenge. We were under an austerity program for a couple of years, so we were just watching costs.
Now with the plan to improve communications and be more transparent and open to the public, I think there's an opportunity for us to position what we do. For you, it's going to be important to monitor and create the balance so you don't have every committee wanting to have public hearings. That's when the people are going to look at your costs, because that's when your costs are going to go out of line.
There is an opportunity for us to position this thing and make sure people understand the benefits of what we're doing. Second, from your side, there will be the question of balance, so that you're able to track the balance, because we're spending 46 per cent of our budget when you go through it — 46 to 48 per cent if I remember correctly, according to Nicole.
That's just a suggestion.
The Chair: Good point.
Senator Manning: Just one quick question. I see two analysts here. Did the question come up as to why there are two analysts here?
The Chair: I believe that there are two on every committee, are there not? They're the two people who draft the report.
Senator Manning: I didn't realize there're two on every committee.
Senator Campbell: Sometimes one can't attend; that's the problem. You need two to back each other up.
The Chair: To my knowledge, there have always been two on every committee.
Any other questions on this issue? Do I have a motion?
Senator Cordy: We're just bringing this forward to the whole committee for approval. If you want to change it to one analyst, not two, then the change can be made at the committee. We're just bringing it forward for your approval. We'll keep that in mind for other committees that come forward with budgets.
The Chair: It's moved by Senator Smith, seconded by Senator Wells. All those in favour? Anyone against?
Senator Marshall is against the number.
For Item 3 we'll go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)