THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 3, 2017
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 5 p.m. to pursuant to rule 12-7(1), consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: I’d like to thank everybody for accommodating us by being here today for the special Internal Economy Committee meeting. Item 1 on the agenda is the adoption of minutes of proceedings of the September 28, 2017, public portion of the meeting. If there are no questions, do I have anyone to move the adoption of the minutes?
Not all at once, everybody.
Senator Plett, thank you. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Item 2, consideration of fourteenth report from the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets.
Senator Tannas: Forgive me, senators. We just finished a meeting with the National Finance Committee where they presented their request relative to the recent order of reference that they got from the Senate for travel, and we went through a number of questions with them.
First of all, let me start at the beginning. The committee travel budget for 2017-18 is $2.382 million minus $500,000 which is a reserve for expenses of witnesses coming to see committees here in Ottawa. That leaves us with $1.882 million to release to individual committees.
So far we have recommended that $849,796 of the $1.882 million be released to committee activities. Of that, just under $300,000 has been expended, and we expect that there will be a significant portion of the remaining amount that will be clawed back.
As you can see from those numbers, we have significant room in our travel budget still. I know there are a number of committees that are contemplating travel, planning travel and will be making submissions, but for the purposes here today I want to assure senators that we have the room.
We met with the chair and deputy chair of National Finance earlier today, as I mentioned. They presented a budget application for a total of $303,200 in three basic categories. I’ll save one until the end as it’s minor.
One is an activity of public hearings in Eastern Canada. A second activity of public hearings in Western Canada relative to the changes to the Income Tax Act proposed by the Minister of Finance.
The budget application has funds in it for all 15 senators of the committee to travel.
We questioned the chair and the deputy chair on whether or not they had canvassed senators to see if all 15 were going to travel, and they had not been able to do so. It’s a practice we’ve discouraged but in this case we think we need to accept that there may in fact be 15 senators travelling. That’s not been the regular routine. It has typically been that we budgeted for all members to travel and then we have these big clawbacks because less than all — in fact, sometimes even less than 50 per cent of the senators travel.
For this particular set of hearings, we’re not certain. We may have a very high attendance of committee members and substitutes for committee members who are put on the trip, so we think it wouldn’t make sense for us to recommend a cut from the full budget for all senators.
There was one thing in the proposal that we questioned, and that was a small amount that was set aside for a consultant, an on-the-ground, outside consultant to help execute on the communications plan. It was an amount of $5,000. We questioned that and also questioned it in the fact that the communications plan is still in draft form and has not been finalized. But we’ve received confirmation here today from Ms. Galipeau of Communications that that $5,000 they had budgeted in case they needed an outside consultant is not necessary.
My suggestion would be that we actually approve an amount of $303,200 minus $5,000 because it’s not necessary. It would be a bit of a precedent for us, in light of the Communications Department that we have, to be approving outside consultants to help with communications, so we think it makes sense not to set that precedent, especially now that we know it won’t be necessary.
So $298,200 would be the amount that we would propose and move be approved for the travel of the committee.
There was one other issue that we thought warranted a condition, and that was around air travel. The committee has proposed air travel between the various cities, but they have asked that they have the latitude that if it is within the envelope of funds and if it in fact is cheaper, they’d like to charter an aircraft. What we’re suggesting is that it not be — because we’re approving a 15-person budget along with all the staff, if only half the people go, they can’t use the same budget to do the comparison. It should be on a per-head basis. That would be the other condition we’d like to recommend be attached to the approval, is that when they’re making the judgment on whether or not to use charter aircraft versus commercial aircraft, they make that determination as to the economy based on the number of people actually travelling.
This is the report. We’re satisfied that the budget has been done according to other budgets. We expect that there will be significant savings beyond this amount, but given the time frame that this travel will take place, which is proposed to be by the end of November — in fact, the Senate asked for the report to be back by the end of November, so this travel must be complete — we are okay with the fact that it may be in fact significantly overbudgeted because the clawback will happen sooner rather than later.
If I may, chair, I know it’s not in the agenda, but we had one other very small request that came in from the Scrutiny of Regulations Joint Committee asking for approval for the Senate’s portion of just a flat general budget for Scrutiny of Regulations in the amount of $2,250. And that is our one third of the cost of the annual budget for the Scrutiny of Regulations.
The Chair: Colleagues, for those of you who don’t know, that is a joint committee between the House of Commons and the Senate.
Colleagues, do we want to address — let’s deal first with the issue of the first item and then we’ll get back to the other one later.
Senator McCoy: A very clear presentation and you did answer some of my questions, which was the overall budget. I appreciate what you’ve given us. We’re halfway through the fiscal year at the end of September. You’re anticipating some clawbacks, but we have actually committed half of our annual budget.
Can you give us a number on what you think will be clawed back, or is that an impossible question to ask? I have other questions. Hopefully they’re not all that impossible, but you sort of gave —
Senator Tannas: If you don’t mind, I will defer to the clerk.
Blair Armitage, Principal Clerk, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: May I clarify, Senator McCoy? Are you asking in regard to the Finance trip or of the money that’s been allocated so far?
Senator McCoy: You said that you have committed 850 to date and usually that has been clawed back. Mind you, that was clawed back in previous years. Anyway, I want to know what your usual experience, quote-unquote, has been.
Mr. Armitage: Our usual experience is that the committees spend, at maximum, 60 per cent on average of what they budget to spend when we budget for a full committee travelling.
In the last couple of instances of trips being taken this fall, because of the conflicts that the senators have with all of their other committee assignments, we’re finding that the uptake on travel is a little bit lower than that. I would suggest that we’re probably going to claw back more than 50 per cent of what has been allocated.
Senator McCoy: That’s because of the number of committee assignments everyone is carrying, which is going to change.
Mr. Armitage: Correct.
Senator McCoy: So $1.3 million for sure and we’re being asked, then, to give 25 per cent of our remaining budget to this one-week committee tour across Canada on a matter that has received three months of consultations by the Government of Canada. Is that correct?
Senator Tannas: Yes, it is. We could all be tempted to rehash that, but the Senate gave instructions, so our view was that we were to look at the activities. Were they consistent with the order of reference? Are the expenses budgeted reasonable and plausible given the parameters of 100 per cent participation?
If we get 100 per cent participation, then this will be the number or close to it. Probably even then a little bit less because they’ve patched in a number of contingencies, as they always do when they travel, for taxis and buses and things that don’t get used in the numbers that they project. Then, of course, we’ve got the question of participation of senators.
You’re quite right; if we said that 60 per cent of the remaining $800,000 comes back to us, we’re going to be sitting at $1.5 million and we’re asking for $300,000 here. So 20 per cent of the entire budget for the remainder of the year, if this is fully spent, would be deployed in this particular study.
Senator McCoy: Yes, and if we don’t get that clawback because the committee sizes might change, it will be even a higher percentage. And the order of reference from the Senate makes no reference to travel whatsoever. It does say that there will be study — be authorized to examine and report on the proposed changes and take particular note of the impact and submit its final report no later than the end of November this year — but it makes no mention in the copy I have in these materials of any kind of travel. So we’re not obligated to support an order of the Senate. This is something different.
Senator Tannas: No. Actually, you’re quite right. I just think it was not lost on senators during the debate, the decision that this was the likely outcome.
Senator McCoy: No, it wasn’t lost on some of us, and some of us are waiting to hear the presentation. You’ve done very well today at Internal Economy to see whether there was any further justification. Thank you very much, senator. You’ve done your best; I appreciate it.
The Chair: I want to remind colleagues it is highly unusual that a decision of the chamber would be overturned by Internal Economy. That’s important to keep in mind.
Senator Munson: Thank you, senator, for your presentation.
I support this, but I’m concerned about other committees. The Human Rights Committee plans on travelling, for example, at the end of November, and has other travels envisaged. Is there enough money for the rest of us to do our work, clawbacks or no clawbacks? I know we have talked about clawbacks, but there’s other important work going on besides this.
Senator Tannas: I agree, Senator Munson. I wasn’t aware that the Human Rights Committee was planning a trip, but we know that there are others that are planning work, including the Aboriginal Peoples Committee. We have to be mindful of that.
At this stage, requests in front of us, this is it. As Senator McCoy said, we are halfway through the year, and we have not spent half our money.
Senator Plett: My first question was in regard to the clawback, and I think it’s been answered. I want to reiterate something that Senator Tannas said when he said a lot of members don’t travel. Fisheries tried two or three times to do a trip to Europe, and they had to cancel because they didn’t have participation. Finally, when we did go, there was Senator Munson, Senator Manning and myself on the trip.
Certainly my experience as a whip is that I don’t need to approve a lot of people on a trip. Agriculture is travelling right now, and I think two of our senators are on that trip. It’s a small delegation again.
I fully expect that the entire committee won’t travel. But two questions, Senator Tannas: First, you’ve talked about 15 senators a few times, but you’ve never mentioned the staff that is going with them. Are they not part of this? I’m sure the staff will all be there.
Senator Tannas: I think you’re right. The staff that goes with a trip with public hearings is substantial. There are 10 staff members attending, including one from Communications, interpreters, transcription, a clerk and a travel coordinator, kind of an executive assistant-type person who will be going as well.
If we only have a few senators, the staff will vastly outnumber the people there to do the work.
Senator Plett: Second, are they expecting that they will have substitutions for the entire trip, whether it be to Eastern or Western Canada, or are we at least setting restrictions? If they do charter a plane, for one, and they go to Vancouver, from Vancouver they go to Calgary, and one senator or two senators can’t make the trip to Calgary, and so a couple of senators will fly in on a commercial airline to take part.
The chair of the committee asked me today whether, if they needed to, would I be able to substitute in Winnipeg. That, of course, wouldn’t cost any money, and I’d be happy to do that.
I trust that we will try to impress that upon the committee, that on a trip like this, especially if they’re chartering an airplane, that there isn’t, all of a sudden, two or three senators who decide they can’t make those dates and they fly in on different dates, which we do do on other committee trips. We are a little more flexible on that.
I’m not sure that you are the person in charge of that.
Senator Tannas: As part of our recommendation, we specifically asked that when they are weighing — we give them the flexibility to make the assessment on which is more economical, but that they don’t use the whole budget, that they use it on a per-head basis. If there are five senators going, that’s the lens by which you decide whether or not — that plus the 10 employees — and that aggregate budget for those per-head people would be the determiner for whether or not it’s cheaper to charter, not the full-blown budget that they would start with.
Senator Plett: Is there a way of reducing the staff if there are only five senators travelling?
Senator Tannas: The issue is around public hearings, and the number of people that that attracts in support of public hearings. If it were fact-finding where there was not that level of transcription and translation needing to be done, there could potentially be some savings there, but that’s not what the committee is envisioning.
Senator Plett: I agree that this was clearly debated in the chamber, and I don’t think anybody who voted for this in the chamber did not anticipate there would be costs involved in the decision they were making. I would certainly support it, chair.
Senator Marshall: I want to address the issue of the canvassing because Senator Tannas mentioned that he asked the chair and the deputy chair. I can say that they must have struck a chord at your meeting because there was canvassing going on after your meeting; so members have been canvassed. I would expect there will be some substitutions, just to update you.
The $5,000 for the consultant that you said was removed, where is that?
Senator Cordy: The first page, hearings in St. John’s, Halifax and Saint John, do you see “Hospitality Consultants” was the next item? On the very top it talked about consultants, another $500.
Senator Tannas: It is actually $2,500. And they did not do it in Calgary. They did it in the West.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Senator Munson: Just on substitutions, I’m curious about that, because on other committee travel where there was Foreign Affairs to Asia, if you had just joined a committee two weeks before, that was frowned upon. That’s not looked upon in a very positive light. I’m curious about where substitutions come from in this particular committee.
Senator Tannas: I think it may be just simply that if there are senators who cannot make the Atlantic hearings, that more local senators could be substituted in. I’ve certainly participated in those kinds of things.
Senator Munson: But as Senator Plett said, if you fly somebody in to do these things I don’t think is a very good thing to do. If somebody lives in that community and can assist and be part of it, that’s acceptable.
Senator Marshall: Some of the substitutions aren’t senators who have no knowledge of the Finance Committee. Some of these members have already served on Finance Committee, no longer serve, but are very knowledgeable about the committee and the finance issues and the proposals. I would expect that those who would participate or would substitute would be very familiar with the topic being discussed.
Senator Batters: First of all, I wanted to say that I strongly support travel in Canada for this critical topic to Canadian taxpayers. Perhaps if the Finance Canada bureaucrats had travelled outside the Ottawa bubble to hear from Canadians about some of these tax changes, maybe Minister Morneau wouldn’t be learning about so many unintended consequences right now. I’m happy to see this committee doing this.
I have a couple of questions about the particulars in the proposal.
I may have missed this because I was stuck on the shuttle bus in 5 o'clock traffic, and you may have mentioned this in your report, Senator Tannas. There are a couple of occasions, both for the Eastern Canada part and the Western Canada part, where it says that as one the staff people, you’re taking along you’re taking a stenographer, but then it has additional costs and transcript editing services. I don’t think I’ve seen that on these types of reports before. I’m wondering if that is budgeting extra just in case or is that something that maybe shouldn’t be on there?
Senator Tannas: In our committee, we see many sets of belts and suspenders put into these budgets, and in fact it is just that. Yes.
Senator Batters: Okay. I’ve had very little experience travelling with committees, but the one time I did was with our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on the court delay study that we did. I know the level of staff we took, and those were public hearings that we did at different locations in Canada. I notice that this one is being budgeted for two clerks, two analysts. On our committee earlier, we took one clerk and one analyst. Again, is that budgeting extra just in case or is that not the case?
Senator Tannas: I think it is. Maybe Senator Marshall can add to this from her knowledge, but I think there is an anticipation that this will be very busy, based on what we’ve heard about Canadians wanting to participate in these hearings already, and it’s hardly got out at all. So I think it’s going to be a very active time.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I have two questions. Senator Tannas, you said earlier that usual practice dictates that not all members of the committee take part in a tour like this one. Nevertheless, in this case, you are recommending that all 15 members of the committee be allowed to participate. Could you explain what makes this situation different?
[English]
Senator Tannas: In previous practices, we have asked that the committee — before they come before us — has a realistic expectation of what senators are going to be travelling. That allows us not to circle so much of our annual budget when we know it’s not going to get used.
In this case, we’re saying we think we do have to circle for the full 15, because there may indeed be significant participation by different senators coming in and out, et cetera. So that, coupled with the fact that we’re only circling the money for a short period of time -- no later than the end of November, the work will be complete -- we felt it wouldn’t interfere with future decisions that we might need to make and would have made had we known that there was a savings.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Could you describe how you work out the budget for committees for a full year? In other words, does the first committee get all the money or a chunk of the money, or is it divided up among the committees? What criteria do you use?
[English]
Senator Tannas: I think the global budget was arrived at based on what happened in the prior year. Frankly, it hasn’t changed that much since I’ve been involved in the committee. Senator Cordy may have a comment on this.
Further, we have never spent our budget. In fact, we’ve been significantly under most years than what we’ve budgeted. So there really has been no impetus to increase, and we’ve never had to make that difficult choice of whether these guys should travel or if these guys should travel.
Senator Cordy: You’ve done an excellent job in answering the questions. Interestingly enough, the questions are the questions that we discussed. We had a thorough discussion about this. Part of the reason is because this is unusual. Normally, a committee is planning their year’s subject matter well in advance, and it has been approved by the Senate as soon as Parliament goes back or when they finish one report and they get another study approved by the Senate. They have hearings in Ottawa, and then in that time period they’re planning travel across the country to talk to Canadians.
This is an unusual circumstance. This was passed in the chamber last week. So whether you voted for it or you didn’t vote for it, it passed the chamber. That’s democracy. I didn’t vote for it, but it’s democracy.
The steering committee has been trying to get through this rapidly. We asked that question: Why do you have 15 people when you know they likely won’t? Well, we can’t ask them if they’re going to travel when we don’t have the dates set yet, and we can’t get the date set until we get approval for it because we can’t go booking hotels and flights and everything else. So that was a fair answer to it, I thought.
Do the first committees that come get the money? We try to balance that. We don’t want to be left in February with $750,000 that no committee is using when there were two committees back in September that wanted to travel and we said, “Well, we’re trying to hold on to some.”
It really is a balancing act, and we’re trying to do the best job that we can do keeping all of those balls in the air at the same time.
Senator Tannas: One of the things we’ve done, Senator Dupuis, is that sometimes if there are multiple trips, we will recommend approval for the first half of the trip and then we’ll say “when you’re done that trip, you come back to us, and if we have the money, great.”
Senator Lankin: I appreciate the report, and I think the committee has done a good job.
I have two questions. One is to understand the math. You indicated that the total would be reduced by $5,000.
Senator Tannas: We need to correct it. Yes, you’re right.
Senator Lankin: I don’t know why there wasn’t communications for the western tour, but it seems only for the eastern tour and one overall, so $2,500 will be the reduction.
I was going to ask this on Senator Plett’s behalf, but he indicated that he might be subbing in Winnipeg, except Winnipeg isn’t on the list. It says public hearings in Calgary, Saskatoon and Vancouver. I asked Senator Marshall and she said that Ontario and Quebec will be engaged from Ottawa, and I understand. I think that's fair enough, although one could argue that like the other major cities, Montreal and Toronto should have an opportunity to engage, but it’s not that far and it saves money.
However, Winnipeg and Manitoba are not Ontario and Quebec, although Winnipeg is the centre of the country. I understand that.
Senator Plett: Hear, hear.
Senator Lankin: Anyway, is there an explanation as to why Manitoba is not involved or was it just left out of the report?
Senator Tannas: It was not a question that we thought to ask about.
Senator Lankin: It’s not. So there won’t be any substitution in Winnipeg then.
Senator Plett: The chair assured me that Winnipeg was on the list, so obviously I’ve got to go and talk to the chair about this, because I asked him today whether it was on the list before I would agree to vote for this, and he said yes, it was on the list. Clearly, I was given bad information.
I will certainly make a strong case for the fact that -- no, I’m not abstaining. I would absolutely change my vote on this, because I think it would be shameful if Winnipeg was not on the list. It is the centre of Canada and, quite frankly, not only did he ask me to sub, he also asked me whether the Premier of Manitoba would be interested in coming. So clearly either he is freelancing here or somebody from Saskatchewan got to him. But to leave what was for years and years the third largest city in the country off of the list would be shameful.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett, for those comments.
Senator Jaffer: I happen to be on the committee, and I have the schedule here of travel that the committee approved.
At the committee stage, Manitoba witnesses were going to come to Saskatoon, and P.E.I. witnesses were going to come to Saint John. I’m just telling you.
I’ve said this before at Internal. When I first became a senator, one of the best things was the leadership of the different committees. Whenever they came to Vancouver, they made sure that they told all of the Vancouver or B.C. senators that they were going to be there. I know it was really good because, if we were able to attend — sometimes the Senate is sitting and you can’t, but, on an off week, — it makes a huge difference.
I think that I would ask Senator Tannas, again, if I may, please — I know you have a big list of things — that you absolutely make sure that the leadership invites the local people. They may not be able to attend because the Senate is sitting, but, if it is a week off or something, they might be able to.
Senator Tannas: Yes. Right. Good point.
Senator Jaffer: My second thing is: I never understood that there could be substitution on committees. I know, in the past, I’ve been a member for a short time of Foreign Affairs, and I was not allowed to travel. That was not even a substitution. I do understand — I am not naïve — that whips can do anything they want. They can change the committee named. But I always thought the committee only took members who were part of that committee, and there was no substitution.
The Chair: That has always been my experience as well, Senator Jaffer, but I do recall, on a couple of occasions, with Transport and Communications, when we were holding public hearings on CBC/Radio-Canada, that we would customarily let local senators know that the public hearing would be in town. They, of course, would participate as non-voting members, non-substitutes.
Senator Tannas, I think this is what you were referring to in this case, certainly not substitution like we do here in Ottawa, right?
Senator Tannas: No, but I think Senator Marshall did mention that there may be people who have a particular expertise in this area and that it might make sense to have that person there in place of somebody else.
As far as I know, that is a prerogative that exists. It’s used rarely. Senator Marshall was a whip for a number of years and would know that that’s been used. It may make sense in this case. We’re investing a lot of time and money into something that is on the minds of Canadians, and so to have our most expert people at the table might make sense.
The Chair: I think, just to address that issue, what I will do is ask the clerk to give us a ruling in terms of the rules of what has been the customary practice and inform the Budget Committee and inform the Finance Committee. I certainly won’t question a former whip’s expertise and experience on it, but we will just get some opinion as well and inform the committee, just to be on the safe side.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: This is a public meeting. I want to point out that this situation and the budget application that requires our approval must be rare occurrences. Normally, proper procedure requires that we approve a budget that reflects the reality as closely as possible. We have a duty to provide Canadians with the clearest and most accurate information possible. What is certain is that the subcommittee I sit on asked representatives of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to tighten this budget in the least costly way possible in order to save taxpayer money.
I think that, going forward, in normal situations — which this is not — we should have more time to make decisions and ensure that the application estimates we receive from committees reflect as accurately as possible the actual number of participating senators.
I’d like to say something else. In fairness, we should give the clerk an opportunity to explain what may have caused the misunderstanding around the Winnipeg portion, which was not in the plan.
[English]
The Chair: I will ask Blair Armitage to respond to that.
Mr. Armitage: In general, in the past, until this most recent Parliament, the practice of this committee was to understand that the historic spending practice of the committees was to spend to a certain average amount. Roughly 40 per cent was the rule of thumb, that, of the amount allocated, about 40 per cent would be spent, and this committee was comfortable over-allocating to account for that so that committees wouldn’t be held back.
In this Parliament, a different approach has been taken. In the first fiscal year, we found that committees put in their budgets for the entire year and took up a fairly sizeable portion of the total allocation, and the funds were, in a sense, tied up. We didn’t know until they were clawed back how much was left, and that left a lot of pent-up demand for the following year. So, in the subsequent session, Senator Tannas,Senator Campbell and Senator Cordy asked the committee clerks to be more precise in the budgeting so that we wouldn’t be using such a gross amount and wouldn’t make assumptions about how much would be clawed back. It does lead to a little bit of back and forth where committees realize that they didn’t properly estimate for the total number of people who were coming or find that they have conflicts with other committees who were also intending to travel at the same time that they didn’t know about. The whips ask them to sort it out, and they decide to go different weeks. When they go to a different week, it costs a different amount of money for the airplane.
You see where the initial system of using a rule of thumb that was proven, over time, to hold relatively consistent worked in terms of efficiency, but it was not a very good and precise estimating tool. Senators grew less and less comfortable using it as a way of budgeting. By going to the more precise amount, you have a closer idea. You’re holding the committees to a particular plan, but it also means that, if a committee has to change its plans, it may also have to change how many people are going to be able to go. It could increase; it could decrease. The costs of hotels and air fares may change as well, perhaps necessitating another visit to the subcommittee and then to your committee.
That is a more general answer to the question, but I hope it gives the context to how we’re doing things right now.
Senator Saint-Germain: My question is on the Winnipeg portion of this.
The Chair: She was more concerned about the Winnipeg portion and why the decision to couple with Saskatchewan.
Mr. Armitage: I have no idea; I’m sorry. We heard the word Winnipeg in the presentation in the subcommittee, but it’s not in the budget itself. That’s all we had before us.
The Chair: Clearly, steering of that committee thought Saskatchewan was more important than Manitoba.
Senator Woo: Just a comment that if the hypothetical situation of substitution refers to me, I won’t be able to travel with the committee, and Senator Black has offered to substitute for me. As you all know, he was the individual in the Banking Committee who kind of kicked this off. I think it’s very appropriate and I would certainly support his substitution.
The Chair: Colleagues, we’ll go to the question then. Senator Tannas, will you move the motion?
Senator Tannas: I move that the committee approve the amount of $300,700, which would exclude any budget for the hiring of outside communications consultants and that proportional analysis be undertaken before any charter aircraft be hired versus commercial travel.
The Chair: Colleagues, all in favour of the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Those against?
Senator McCoy: I disagree.
The Chair: So it passes, on division.
Senator McCoy, would you like a recorded vote? Senator McCoy, on division?
Senator McCoy: On division.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Do you want to address the second item, Senator Tannas, regarding Scrutiny of Regulations?
Senator Tannas: We have this small request from Scrutiny of Regulations for their normal anticipated expenses from hearings.It’s not a travel budget. It is simply just a request. The total amount is $7,500, which is split, $2,250 from the Senate and $5,250 from the House of Commons. It’s $2,000 for professional services, $2,500 for transportation and communications and $3,000 for miscellaneous. It is just to do with expenses that they may incur in the course of their duties as a committee.
Senator McCoy: Is page 13 of the package we got also page 2 of the submission regarding Scrutiny of Regulations? It says “For information only.”
The Chair: It’s for information purposes. It’s the budget for those respective years.
Senator McCoy: What it says is we are indeed doubling their budget from last year? They had a total approved budget last year of $3,540, which is the highest they’ve ever had in the past four fiscal years and now they’re asking for $7,500? Is there a reason for this?
Senator Tannas: What you’re looking at is what we approved as the Senate. They’ve actually reduced their budget. We’re asking for $2,250 and the budgets we approved here in Internal last year was $3,540.
Senator McCoy: So we’re decreasing it by a third.
Senator Tannas: We are decreasing it. These guys are headed in the right direction.
Senator McCoy: I’m still asking the question. Why are we reducing it by one third?
Senator Tannas: Because they only used $118 of it in the last fiscal year.
The Chair: Do we have agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Lankin: An email has been circulated to some senators, I think primarily women senators, about a women in a political leadership global forum that’s coming up. There are a number of organizations. It’s being held in Iceland. It is not something that is normally covered by any of the JIC committees. There was some indication that it was under the purview of the Speaker; it’s not. If it was to be considered it would have to be considered by this committee.
I’m not putting forward a request right now. I’m just asking about the process because a couple of senators have come to me who are interested in attending and they have asked how. I had a conversation with the Speaker just today. I don’t know if this is something that should be discussed with Senator Tannas’s committee or not.
The Chair: When it comes to other travel, international travel, conferences of that sort, those requests go to steering of Internal Economy. We have already addressed a number of requests in regard to this particular conference and others. We came to a conclusion that each of us would be briefing our own caucus. Senator Saint-Germain was going to provide a brief to the ISG of how we go about it.
Senator Lankin: Thank you. That answers my question.
The Chair: The last item under “Other” on the agenda is I received a request from Senator Campbell. Given the circumstances of his health situation, I assume, he would like to extract himself from the HR advisory working group. I think there won’t be any argument in giving him that privilege.
Colleagues, would someone move the motion. Senator Batters moves the motion.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Is there anything else under “Other Items,” colleagues? I also want to give some good news. This Thursday there will not be an Internal Economy Committee meeting. It will be postponed to the week following the break.
(The committee adjourned.)