Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 15 - Evidence - November 6, 2018
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 6, 2018
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:31 a.m. to develop and propose amendments to the Rules of the Senate to establish the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome, colleagues and members of the general public. I remind colleagues that we are being broadcast. Welcome to all from the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
I would like to start by having our colleagues introduce themselves, starting from my left.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Senator Pierre Dalphond from Quebec.
Senator Joyal: Senator Serge Joyal from the Kennebec district of Quebec.
Senator Gold: Senator Marc Gold from the Stadacona district of Quebec.
[English]
Senator Wells: I am David Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Woo: Good morning. Yuen Woo, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Senator Maltais from the Chaouinigane district of Quebec.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Batters: Denise Batters, from the great province of Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
The Chair: I’m Senator Leo Housakos from the beautiful province of Quebec.
[English]
We are here as a result, colleagues, of the adoption by the Senate on Tuesday, March 27, 2018, of the twenty-first report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budget and Administration, otherwise known as CIBA. This is our third meeting on this order of reference.
Pursuant to the report, our committee is to develop and propose amendments to theRules of the Senate to establish the standing committee on audit and oversight. I want to take a moment to address once again what that means. It is not the mandate of this committee to now do another comprehensive study on the various aspects of our oversight committee. This has been studied at length for a number of months by a subcommittee of Internal Economy and further discussed at Internal Economy. A report was also presented to the Senate, and that report, with all of its recommendations and parameters for an oversight committee, has been adopted by the Senate. The decisions on composition, et cetera, have already been taken. Our role here is to make adjustments to the Rules in order to facilitate the implementation of that which has already been adopted.
To help us focus on our study, we have with us our colleague Senator Wells, a former Chair of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and a former member of Internal Economy who has also spearheaded many of the initiatives because he was also a former member of Internal Economy steering committee.
Senator Wells, without further ado, I turn the floor over to you.
Hon. David M. Wells: Thank you, chair, and good morning, colleagues. Senator Woo said to me earlier, “You can probably do this in your sleep.” Indeed, I feel comfortable enough with the subject matter that I believe you’re right. You have heard me enough times. You could probably do it in your sleep as well.
I’ll begin with why we’re here. In 2014-15, the AG was invited in by the Senate to do a comprehensive audit. He ended up doing that, looking at two years of expenses: senators’ living expenses, travel expenses and office expenses.
It’s important for me to note at this time, and I’ll note it from time to time throughout my remarks, that he only looked at about 15 to 20 per cent of the total Senate expenditure. Around those two years, the budget for the Senate was about $90 million to $100 million for each year.
The AG, in his efforts, looked at senators’ living expenses, which are less than 4 per cent of the Senate budget, and office expenses and travel expenses, which are less than 15 per cent of the senators’ office budget. I’ll note about staff salaries and office expenditures that while he may have looked at those, he had no comments in his report regarding those. I can only assume that he looked at them and had no issue with them or didn’t look at them. I assume — well, I shouldn’t assume, but I think it was the latter.
One thing that he didn’t look at was the other 75 to 80 per cent of the Senate expenditures, which I thought was a terrible oversight on his part because it was in his terms of reference from the Senate to look at the expenses of the Senate, including Senators’ expenses, and he looked at only Senators’ expenses.
So here we are. The cost of that has changed. I thought it was initially $23 million; I’ve been corrected, and it was $27 million, colleagues, that it cost.
One of the recommendations was to establish some sort of further audit and oversight, and that’s where we are today with the proposal for the audit and oversight committee.
In the fifth report of the Senate Estimates subcommittee, you may recall that the subcommittee talked about the structure of the proposed committee. One of the things that it came up with was that it would be comprised of five senators. Seven was deemed to be too large, and three would have difficulty with quorum. If you did have a quorum of two, then it would simply be a discussion and an agreement rather than a debate with some dissension, which is important for all debates in the Senate. There was to be no cross-membership with CIBA, and the reason for that is that those who give approval for funding should also not have oversight in how it’s spent, which is a governance separation that was noted by the Senate’s external auditor from KPMG, Andrew Newman; that the committee be answerable to the highest authority, which is the Senate; and that it also have intercessional authority to continue its work during prorogation and writ periods and other times.
The question has come up a number of times, colleagues, why only senators and not members from the outside. The questions around this — which Senator Joyal has mentioned a number of times — include the question of parliamentary privilege which senators carry in their chamber and in their committee work and the probity of non-parliamentarians making decisions on financial decisions for the Senate.
My proposal would have the external auditor, which is a position that is always present for the Senate, and an internal auditor, which is one of the recommendations made by the Auditor General, be full-time and permanent advisors to the committee.
The question of holding the meetings on camera and not in camera is a very important question. Our recommendation was that all meetings that take evidence would be on camera so that the question of transparency would never be an issue. The only time it would be in camera would be to respect the Rules of the Senate with regard to rule 12-16, consideration of a draft report. If evidence was gathered by the audit and oversight committee from an in camera source, for instance, CIBA steering, which is always in camera, that evidence would be respected with in camera discussion. Other than that, colleagues, it would be open to the public. We’d have not just the senators on the committee, and not just the hundred or so senators in Senate where this committee would be responsible for answering, but also whoever had an interest in the expenditures of the Senate. As Senator Tannas correctly said, 35 million eyes would be watching.
The other thing, colleagues, that came up a number of times was the U.K. model. I read the transcripts from last week’s meeting. I know Senator Moncion mentioned it a number of times, and it’s been mentioned in previous meetings. She said she hasn’t had a chance to look at the U.K. model. I’ve spoken at length to both the principal clerk, Matthew Hamlyn, of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in London, and the CEO and board member Marcial Boo. I’m going to read some of the notes from our discussion that might be instructive for our deliberations today.
First of all, their expenses, like ours, are published with a significant level of detail. Non-parliamentarians on the committee, they said, does somewhat muddy the water with respect to questions of privileges and the duties of a parliamentarian.
One of the things that I thought was interesting and might be useful for our purposes is that any dissension must be recorded. Any expenses that have been declined are on the record. I think that’s a really important self-governing item for senators.
It meets in public to take evidence, meets in private to deliberate and what we would call “consideration of a draft report.”
There is also a Lords’ committee that is only made up of members of the House of Lords.
The IPSA, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, answers to a board, but it also ultimately answers to Parliament, like the suggestion we have in front of us.
It does a deep dive on specific issues, and I’ll go into that in a moment for the proposal that I have for our audit and oversight committee.
It was interesting that both the principal clerk and the CEO said the information that’s presented has now become boring. There’s no bloodlust from the media or the public, and the question of parliamentarians’ expenses is no longer part of the public debate because of the transparency and the disinfection that openness does bring. You’ll recall, colleagues, that in the U.K., they had quite a robust discussion five or six years ago, and that has disappeared from public debate.
I think that’s a good thing. I think we have seen that in many cases in our Senate. Obviously, this was front and centre for about two years, in 2014 and 2015, and it’s really disappeared from the public debate. Everything is published. The one thing that we lack right now is further oversight and any audit practice regarding the other 75 per cent of the Senate expenditure.
That’s the U.K. model, and I’ve had quite extensive discussions. They said that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has also advised more than 30 other countries and parliaments, parliaments modelled after the Westminster system and other parliamentary models. They’ve advised over 30 other countries on how to establish, set up, operate and report such a committee that we’re proposing now.
One of the things that I’d like to focus on just a little bit is that within the Auditor General’s report, it noted that there was no random sampling of senators’ expenses. I know when I met with the particular auditor that came to my office, she said quite directly, “This is unprecedented. Normally when we do an audit, we do a blind, random sample, and we’ll get our integrity of what’s being conducted from that.”
I’m proposing that as a regular feature of the audit and oversight committee. Remember, colleagues, that it’s not senators marking their own homework. This will be the regular finance team we have and an internal audit function that would do the blind random sampling of senators’ expenses. The name would not be reported unless there was a question of fraud or malfeasance. That would let us know not only if our processes and our systems are correct, but if they’re being complied with by those expending the public funds.
Two simple questions would be answered in those random samples, and out of 100 senators or 105 senators, if it’s fully subscribed, there is statistically a correct number of senators and expense samples. If a senator does 20 to 30 expense reports per year — I don’t know what the number actually is, but I’ll say 20 to 30 — and there are 100 senators, there’s a number that would give an accurate reading of a random valid sample, so that would be done and done blind. It’s not let’s pick two Independents, Conservatives and Liberals, but it would be random, blind and continuous year after year, and reports would go back in a blind capacity to the committee and therefore to the Senate.
That would be one aspect, and I’ll call that the regular aspect of the work that the audit and oversight committee would do. The second aspect would be an audit of a directorate or a component or a process. We have 12 directorates in the Senate, and you’ll know in the last couple of years we’ve had a deep dive on a number of them. HR was one of them, and Communications was one that Senator Housakos led a couple of years ago. Both of those came out with significant structural and operational changes for the Senate, both in HR and in Communications. I would propose that the audit and oversight committee do those deep dives on a regular basis of the 12 directorates. You might do one or two a year, depending on the size of the directorate. Of course, Usher of the Black Rod is a directorate unto itself, so that would be a small component. There are other directorates that have dozens of employees and that would be larger. The way we do procurement, for instance, is a huge expense. We need to know if that’s being done correctly, if it’s utilizing best practices. That would be one that I would think would be an easy sell.
Tier three, colleagues, would be special projects either directed by the committee when things come up or directed by the Senate in times of necessity. One of the things I think about is the significant expense that the Senate of Canada has towards the pension plan. The rate of return that the Senate uses or Treasury Board uses for the Senate is 1.9 per cent. The rate of return that they use for the public service pension plan is 12.8 per cent. Why the discrepancy? That’s a huge cost to the Senate. It makes no difference to the senators, but a huge cost to the Senate. My question is why. No one is answerable to that. That’s one of the kinds of things I think the audit and oversight committee could look at on a larger scale, as well as the revolving blind random samples of expenses, which obviously engage the public.
For the regular work that we should do with the directorates, you’ll recall in 2014 and 2015 that we instituted for the first time a zero-based budgeting exercise for all the directorates. I was chair of the estimates subcommittee at that time, and we looked at every single directorate over a two-year period, starting from zero. We built that up. We know what was budgeted, but we had no mechanism in place, colleagues, for how that money was spent. We assume it was spent. We have a responsible bureaucracy, and our CIBA has approved the funds. We’re at the point where we only have to assume it was spent correctly. I think it was, but there should be some system in place where we can confirm that.
So that would be the second level of the regular business of the audit and oversight committee.
Colleagues, I don’t really have much more to say on this. Many of you have heard some of this before, but I’m happy to take any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Wells.
Senator Joyal: Thank you, senator, for your presentation. I would like to come back to the U.K. model, especially the one in the House of Commons, because as you know, our privileges are coat-tailed on those of the House of Commons at Westminster. As you know, it’s the Law of the Constitution.
Could you explain to us again the rationale for the U.K. rules in relation to participation of an outside member on the committee? And when I say “outside member,” of course, I’m thinking more about accountants, chartered accountants, or people who master the law of reading the figures and appraising the auditing rules that normally apply in such instances.
Senator Wells: It’s a good question, and as I mentioned earlier, when I spoke to Mr. Boo and Mr. Hamlyn, they said, look, theirs was established not in a hurry, but it was established rapidly. Ours is being established over years, so my hope is that we do it right.
They said that there are rough edges around having lay members or non-parliamentarians as part of the committee, on questions of privilege specifically and, as those who were involved in the Auditor General’s audit a couple of years ago would know, on questions about what a senator actually does.
I know as a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador that my — I don’t want to say “duties,” because I’m not directed to do anything specific other than sit in the Senate and deliberate and sit in committee and deliberate, but the things that I do as a senator in Newfoundland and Labrador are far different than what a senator might do in Alberta or Ontario or Quebec, where they represent specific regions. The same goes on a committee such as this. They do run into issues about the privilege contained in making financial decisions to a higher authority.
With respect to having expertise on the committee, of course, we have space for 105 senators in our Senate and we have a great deal of expertise across the board. I would propose that the external auditor, who is obviously an expert in his or her field — we have a male currently, Mr. Newman from KPMG, who is an expert in his field on external audit issues. When I spoke to him about it, he said he attends hundreds of these per year as an expert advisor.
Right now, Senator Joyal, we do not have a position of an internal auditor or an internal audit function, which was one of the recommendations of the Auditor General. I would propose that the position of internal auditor — and there might be more than one — be a permanent advisor alongside the external auditor. I say a permanent advisor and I say more than one because if we’re doing a deep dive, for instance, on the HR directorate, I would take great comfort from having an HR expert, someone who does this as their living and knows it inside out. If we were doing procurement, the same; if we were doing straight up financial audit, the same. There are various aspects for which I would want specific expertise, and I would invite those as an internal auditor to advise specifically for that as an expert advisor for the committee.
I would envision covering it that way. We would maintain the question of privilege, which is very important for a Senate committee to be housed by senators, and have the specific, requisite skills in an audit and in an audit process in a particular capacity.
Senator Joyal: I have not checked the rules, but I understand that, in the U.K., it is in the rules. Maybe, Mr. Chair, we should circulate a copy of the rules from the U.K. among the members so we could look into the status and how it is spelled out in the text — it’s always helpful to look into examples — and how they have legislated in the U.K., especially if they have been consulted, as you say, by as many as 30 different groups or parliaments.
The other thing that I have in mind is if that committee is to look into the expenses of a particular senator and that senator is found wanting. Let’s take an example that we had to live through with the Auditor General’s forensic audit. Suppose that the senator in question had received authorization to travel on Senate budget, and then the auditor comes with the conclusion that it should not have been allowed. That senator, of course, wants to appeal that decision. To which board will that senator appeal? To the Senate as a whole, to CIBA or to that committee?
Senator Wells: Senator Sinclair made an excellent point last week. Of course, in the case of Senator Duffy, he put a claim in for expenses.
Senator Joyal: I wouldn’t put a name.
Senator Wells: I know, but I get to attach it to a real-life experience that everyone is aware of. Senator Duffy put in a claim for expenses. It was accepted. It then went to another authority, was rejected and went to the judge and was further accepted. Then we had a separate process with Justice Binnie, and I don’t know what he would have found. That’s a system problem. In identifying anyone who has expenses accepted and then looked at in a different way, it’s important for our systems to have integrity. I think our systems did not have integrity prior to the revamp and the significant work that’s been done since then. It’s an excellent question, and Senator Sinclair put it far more succinctly than I just did, but there were four levels and two or three different opinions.
Senator Joyal: If we are to adopt rules in relation to audit, we should also adopt a procedure to allow a proper course of action if there is a dispute about the admissibility of an expense.
I would like to refer you to the Code of Ethics. If the SEO comes to the conclusion that a senator has been found wanting in terms of conduct, the report is sent to the Standing Committee on Conflict of Interest, and there is a procedure for that senator to appear and be accompanied by a lawyer, and there is a procedure that is inspired by the respect of the principle of fundamental justice. Upon deliberation, there is a report made to the chamber so the senator knows the course of action.
I think that if we are to establish such a committee in our Rules, the procedure to apply or the way that the committee should perform in relation to the conclusion of an audit should be well spelled out so that everybody knows what is expected in terms of protection of that senator’s reputation. As you know, once a senator is named in a paper as found wanting in terms of expenses, he or she is guilty. There is no presumption of innocence. When you are found in the first report, there you are.
I think that rules should be very well spelled out in terms of the various steps to be followed to allow a senator the capacity to put his views in terms of an appeal board so that the conclusion is sound and accepted by everybody as being a fair decision.
The Chair: Senator Wells, I would like to weigh in on your comments and those of Senator Joyal.
I think it’s also important, colleagues, to keep in mind that when Senator Wells referred to the various components in the particular well-known case that he brought up, there is a distinct difference between the criminal, civil and disciplinary aspects of that particular case. The Senate disciplined Senator Duffy in that particular instance on a disciplinary basis, which the Senate had the right to do as a chamber. There was a civil proceeding and there was a criminal proceeding. It’s imperative for the public and for colleagues to never forget that there are three distinct categories in that area.
I also felt we can question the degree of efficacy of the process we had in place, but the process we had and, to a large degree, still have in place is that a senator who’s in conflict of an expense claim with the administration has the right to appeal first to the steering committee of Internal Economy. If they’re not satisfied with the decision of steering of Internal Economy, they can bring it to Internal Economy of the whole. If they’re not satisfied with that particular decision, they can bring it to the independent arbitrator.
That is a process we put in place in 2015. It was not put into place just for that particular AG’s report, but it’s a process that still exists on a per need basis when one goes back and looks at that motion of the independent arbitrator that was set up in 2015. Thankfully, there are not many instances in which senators have had to go before him since then, but if there is a need, because they are not satisfied with the decision of Internal Economy, they can go before the arbitrator. Ultimately, and this will never change under any process because of our parliamentary privilege, they can always go before the Senate of the whole.
My understanding, and Senator Wells can correct me, is that the role right now of the independent oversight body is to take away from steering and from Internal Economy the possible perception of a conflict of interest because that body represents really the administration. If that body is actually doing its work on a day-to-day basis with the administration, steering and Internal Economy represent and could be swayed by them. I think this is just another layer of eliminating any possibility of perception of conflict of interest by taking away the view that those that sit on Internal and work so intertwined with the administration would be the oversight body taking decisions on cases where senators are challenging the decision of the administration.
I wanted to share my views on that. Senator Wells, I don’t know if you have any comment on that.
Senator Wells: Well, you took my answer.
Senator Joyal, you make an excellent point. There has to be a clear process so the accused has an outlet that’s fair. You don’t want to get into the situation, as we sometimes say back home, where you are either guilty or you got away with it. You don’t want to be in that position. There has got to be a clear process where the truth can come out.
Senator Joyal: There is a final question, Mr. Chair, that I would like to ask.
I remember that, in our Rules, there was a provision that provides for a committee to have adjunct, outside membership ad hoc. I have not checked this morning to see if that rule is still there. I remember former Senator Jack Austin was very fond of that. For instance, the Agriculture Committee might want to have a veterinarian in the study of an issue because they are reviewing infection of a flock or whatever group of animals. It was possible for a committee to have, as a guest member without the right to vote, an outside person. I would want to revisit that section of our previous Rules, because I remember that, again, Senator Austin was very fond of that.
I don’t remember which times it was used in the past, but maybe we could look into that and come back and see what kind of status those guests of committees might have. It might be helpful to address the issue that Senator Wells is proposing this morning in terms of reconciling the membership on the committee or the participation in the work of the committee and the full status of members equal to senators.
You will remember that in the case of the SEO, when that position, not to put it in any gender, was created in the Parliament of Canada Act, there is a specific section of the Parliament of Canada Act that provides that he is covered by privilege. If we are to have a decision made in terms of determining the membership of the committee, I think that the legal implication, legal being constitutional implications, should be very clear in the minds of all senators.
The Chair: I think we are open to doing that and coming back and having the clerk report to this committee on that. It seems to me, colleagues, unless someone wants to correct me, that I don’t believe I’m hearing a message that the debate right now is about whether we should open up this committee to outside members or not. My understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, Senator Wells, and I have read the transcript of Senator Moncion’s testimony before this committee last week, is if the proposal from the Senate as we have it, which is an oversight body made up of senators, fits within the parameters of our current Rules. I don’t think there has been overwhelming debate right now about whether we should open it up to outsiders. I think the debate right now is about whether we should we proceed with an oversight committee of senators alone.
Senator Joyal: I also recollect the discussion last week, of course, because I was in the chair, and that was Senator Massicotte’s point, as you will remember. But I think for the sake of understanding all the implications and especially that rule I’m referring to — if the rule is still there, I think it covers everything I have in mind — and for the sake of our own information, we should be able to have that information.
The Chair: We will proceed with getting that information.
Senator Joyal: Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Senator Gold: Thanks, Senator Wells, for being here and for all the work you have done. You still speak with passion about it, which is encouraging.
Chair, I take to heart your last point about the scope of our mandate. Canadians are watching us, and although we understand our internal processes and the progress that we have made since those years, I think many Canadians might scratch their heads a little bit and say, “You mean senators are the ones that are responsible for overseeing their own expenditures?” I know you spoke about blind sampling and the like, so I’m really not trying to open that up.
I would like to actually ask you to comment further on your discussions with the U.K. because you mentioned, and it struck me, that the presence of non-members “muddied the water.” Can you elaborate a bit more? I mean, the waters may have been muddied, but is it working? How well or poorly is it working? If they could do it all over again, what would they do?
Senator Wells: First of all, I want to say that senators are responsible for their own expenses. Every time we sign something, we are accepting responsibility for it. It’s the oversight that we currently lack. That’s not to disparage in any way the Senate administration, which does a great job of ensuring that we follow the rules of expenses, of things that are allowable and not allowable and things that need to be justified for a further look. The Senate team in Finance does a really great job. Anything I say with respect to the necessity for oversight is procedural governance, not a question of integrity for the system we have.
In my discussions with the CEO and with the principal clerk, they weren’t disparaging what they had. They said it was put together with the glare of the public, and it had, like anything put together hastily, some rough edges. People have adapted to their system. I’m suggesting we put up a great system and that it folds in with our processes. In no way am I disparaging the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. It’s bigger than what they had expected. They publish everything online, just like we do. They have anywhere between 50 and 65 employees, multi-million-pound budget, I think it was a £5 million budget. It’s bigger than what they were expecting it to be and has been tasked to do more than what I’m suggesting this audit and oversight committee be tasked to do. Their committee also looks at staff salaries, which is not done and I don’t propose that it be done by the audit and oversight committee. That’s done by CIBA and the Senate as a whole in the approval process.
It was done in 2009, and I’m looking at what I wrote when he said it. “It is too drastic, but it’s done,” is what he said to me. We can always learn from the mistakes of others, and we always should learn from the mistakes of others, as we have learned from our own mistakes.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Senator Wells, I want to thank you for your presentation. I’ll say right away that I agree with this very good report. This is the first time that efforts have been made to help the members better understand the work of a senator, a parliamentarian. When he conducted his audit, the Auditor General lacked knowledge of parliamentary work. He couldn’t tell the difference between a parliamentarian and a cafeteria worker. He knew absolutely nothing about the work of a senator. He seems to be a very intelligent man, so it would have been easy for him to read the certificate that we sign when we’re sworn in. I don’t understand why a professional body didn’t remind him to do so. He would have finally understood the work of senators. The work of a senator must be assessed by another senator who is familiar with the work.
I appreciate the fact that your proposal involves representatives of major audit offices, who are internal and external auditors appointed on a permanent basis to conduct an additional audit and to ensure that the work is done according to the rules.
However, the last person I want to see on the Internal Economy Committee is the Auditor General, especially after he asked for $27 million to audit the expenses of 105 senators over two years. The biggest scandal in Canada concerns the Auditor General.
Once the committee has been established, its first job should be to review the Auditor General’s invoice. Who reviewed the invoice? Did he allow his staff to work overtime? We don’t know. He looked over the senators’ documents for a year without giving the documents back and without making any accusations. The senators simply received a letter informing them that they were following the rules. I’ll never agree with this method. As a senator, I object to the Auditor General’s work on this odious invoice.
You raised another very good point, which is that 75 per cent of expenses aren’t subject to an audit. The senators still need to know where the Senate’s money is going. We have a total budget of $X million. We take into account the senators’ salaries and non-discretionary expenses, per diems, and so on. Where does the rest go? We were never given a report. We never received a report on paper expenses, for example. Yet we’re an integral part of this system.
Your proposal is the most constructive. You want a clear and defined process. There are probably some senators who don’t agree. I respect their position. However, I think that real transparency begins with the people who serve as senators.
When the Auditor General submitted his report, some journalists said that the report should be sent to the House of Commons. The members of the House of Commons refused. They didn’t want anything to do with it. Why? Because the House of Commons controls its expenses. The members of the House can audit its expenses at any time, unlike the Senate. This is deplorable. You’re finally making a proposal that rectifies this situation.
A few weeks ago, I attended an Internal Economy Committee meeting for the first time. My colleague can confirm this. The rules changed along the way. Another puck was added to the ice. I didn’t understand the decision. The interview lasted no more than five minutes. I won’t be going any further. I could launch an appeal with an arbitrator and a lawyer. The case doesn’t concern me. It concerns one of my employees. I strongly deplore the way that I was received. I was guilty before I went in. The explanations that I provided based on letters from former members and the chair of the Internal Economy Committee were brushed aside. I was told that this was a new rule that applied retroactively, and that it was over.
Your proposal would probably prevent these types of situations. I agree with your report. I want to congratulate you because you went further than anything submitted so far. Thank you, Senator Wells. I didn’t have any questions. I simply wanted to share my comments.
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Maltais. I want to comment briefly on the importance of knowing what a senator does. We have responsibilities that we are all aware of. We have to assess legislation and do our committee work, but there are so many other things we do, from the very weighty writing legislation and considering amendments to being in our home provinces and being simply decoration for an event, and that happens and that’s our job. That’s our job and I accept that. If a citizen — doesn’t have to be a citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador — reaches out to me and wants some help on a cause, and I’m able to help and I’m not in disagreement with the cause, then I’ll do that if I’m able. I think that’s also the job of a senator, but it could equally be said, “Sir, that’s not your job.” But the rules are such that we can correctly choose some of the things that we do that are important for Canadians.
The Chair: To reiterate Senator Maltais’ point and Senator Wells’ point, I think the rules are very clear. The founding fathers, when they put together the Senate and the bicameral system of Parliament, were clear. The Westminster model, which is the foundation upon which our parliamentary system is built here in Canada, is clear. The Senate is another chamber and another voice for the people of Canada to express themselves to their Parliament. It’s a springboard for stakeholders, regional views, minority views and linguistic views to express themselves to Parliament and through Parliament to their government. I think that is fundamental.
Senator Joyal: I want to quote John A. Macdonald. I quote him almost verbatim: “A senator is from a community, and when he is not in the chamber he has to return to his community to feel the pulse of the community.”
As Senator Wells has said, being from Newfoundland and Labrador, there are issues that pertain to Newfoundlanders that he has to reflect in the chamber, and how can he reflect those issues or feelings or aspirations of the community if he is not himself a member of the community and he doesn’t live in the community? Those provisions that we have to reside, be domiciled in the province where we are appointed from, are essentially linked to that because otherwise senators will just move to Ottawa and stay in Ottawa for as long as they stay in the chamber. The relationship between the domicile and the participation in the work of the Senate is to ensure that the senators reflect the aspirations, the values, the problems and the challenges that face their community. This is essentially part of where the mandates originate.
It seems to me there is a logic in the system that should find its way into how that is realized with the expenses of travelling and being in attendance at the community’s activities and so on. It’s a whole. The system is rational. The system is not improvised. There is a logic there. I think it is very important when the auditing is performed that that be taken into proper consideration. I don’t want to quote myself, but you will remember the letter I sent to the Auditor General that Justice Binnie took into account when he arbitrated some decisions of the Auditor General and reversed decisions of the Auditor General on the basis of the proper mandate, as said by Senator Maltais. It seems to me an important element that has to be part of the picture of the committee’s work.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: We’re all wearing a poppy today. On Sunday or Monday, many of us will be asked by civilian and military authorities to lay a wreath on behalf of the Senate of Canada. Yet the Auditor General asked me what I was going to do there. I curtly informed him that the raspberry season was over, and that now it was time for poppies, the season of hearts and love for the people who defended us. He also wasn’t aware that Quebec senators have a senatorial district.
We are four Quebec senators. Remembrance Day is sacred in each of these districts, which sent soldiers to various armed conflicts, including the First World War, Second World War, Korean War, and the conflicts in Afghanistan and Bosnia. We all have veterans in our senatorial districts. Our duty is to meet with them and, at the very least, to thank them for the sacrifices that they have made for our country. We often see veterans who have lost a limb or who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
One day, I was talking with one of our well-known colleagues, General Dallaire. He explained how important it was for military members to see a senator, member of Parliament or minister at the Remembrance Day ceremonies. It’s rewarding for them to see that their country recognizes their service. There’s nothing more meaningful for a senator than to hear these things.
That’s the work of a senator. The work involves meeting with people who have sacrificed their lives and, in many cases, lost limbs to save our country. Senator Wells, this means that it’s important to know the role of parliamentarians before assessing their expenses.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, I see there are no other questions. I think this is an important issue that we have to advance sooner rather and later. We have already been deliberating on this now for a number of months, and I think we’re compelled to respond to the chamber on this issue.
Myself and Senator Wells, particularly, being a colleague of mine on steering of Internal Economy back in 2015, 2016 and 2017, and Senator Cordy and Senator Furey at the time, we spent many hours trying to make this institution as transparent and as accountable as possible. I think we have taken giant steps forward. We have public disclosure like never before. The Senate led the way. We ratcheted up our ethics code. We are a model, I think, in the Commonwealth in regard to the rigidity of our ethics code, and we have seen the results of that in a couple of cases over the last couple of years. I think this is one final step in addressing the issues of accountability and transparency with having this oversight body.
I think it is a good idea that we have this before us, approved by the Senate as a whole. I have heard a lot of testimony and opinions on this and, if colleagues are in agreement, I would like to instruct the clerk and analysts to go back and validate what I believe is the case, that this motion fits in and is quite compatible within our current Rules, and if there is anything that the analysts, the clerk and the library find in the testimony that we’ve heard so far that is not, to bring it before our committee in a report.
I would also like to identify, as per the request of our deputy chair Senator Joyal, the rule of outside membership on committees. I, as former chair of Internal and Speaker, don’t recall that rule, but if Senator Joyal says it was in existence, I take it for granted that it was. I would like that addressed as well.
With the permission of the committee, we will have a report brought before us at the next hearing. I would like, if it’s possible — if it’s not, we’ll obviously take the extra week — to send the report to our colleagues in advance of the meeting so they can peruse it. If they have questions, they can come back to the chair.
Colleagues, are we in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Wells. It was helpful this morning, and I look forward to seeing you later.
(The committee adjourned)