Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 9 - Minutes of Proceedings - June 13, 2013
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 13, 2013
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:30 a.m. in public to consider administrative matters, and in camera to consider other matters.
Senator David Tkachuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Seeing a quorum, I call the meeting to order.
There has been some discussion about an open or closed meeting. As you know, we have rules governing that and we have broken those rules a couple of times, so we will do the open portion on the budgets and everything, and then we will close the meeting and have a discussion about how we conduct ourselves with the auditors, if that is okay with you. We will make our decision as to how to proceed, whether we have an open meeting all the way through or split it in two. There will be some questions that we can ask in an open meeting and some that we would ask in a closed meeting. If that is okay with senators, that is how we will proceed.
Senator L. Smith: Agreed.
The Chair: Some of you may have heard that I am leaving after today, at adjournment, so before we begin I would like to thank colleagues for their assistance to me. I would like to thank the chairs of each committee, of course my deputy chair, under whom I served as deputy chair when he was the chair of Internal Economy. Senator Furey and I have now worked together for five years.
I want to tell you, George, how much I have appreciated your help, assistance and wisdom.
I want to thank Senator Comeau, who has been chair of the budget committee, which has not been an easy task; and Senator Marshall for chairing the audit committee for the audits of Senator Brazeau and Senator Harb. That is very much appreciated.
With that we will begin with the adoption of the minutes and proceedings of the meeting of June 6. Do I have a motion to that effect?
Senator Stewart Olsen: I have a question before the adoption. I would like this committee to be updated on the current status of the process on Senators Harb and Brazeau. Have we sent a letter? How much money have we asked to be refunded respectively? Has a date been given for us to hear back so that we know how we are proceeding?
The Chair: I have sent letters to both, and we gave them 30 days to pay. I do not have the exact numbers in front of me.
Ms. Proulx, do you have the exact numbers?
Senator Stewart Olsen: I think it is important for people on this committee to know.
The Chair: The press already knows everything anyway. We should ask them.
Senator Cordy: That is an excellent point. As I mentioned last week in relation to Senator Wallin, it was very frustrating for me to hear in the media last night how much Senator Harb is paying back. We are on the committee; we should have access to that information. It is very frustrating to read about it in the media and not get it at the committee before it is in the media. That would be a courtesy to committee members.
The Chair: The reason for that is that there has not been an Internal meeting since I sent the letter.
Senator Cordy: Perhaps the information should not have been given to the media before we had this meeting this morning.
The Chair: It was given to them because the estimates were already out there.
Let us get on with the exact numbers, please.
Nicole Proulx, Director of Finance and Procurement, Senate of Canada: I have a copy of the letter sent to Senator Brazeau. For living expenses the total is $44,805.61; and for mileage expenses, $3,939.52, for a total of $48,745.13 to be reimbursed within 30 days.
Senator Stewart Olsen: The date on that letter?
Ms. Proulx: May 28.
Senator Cordy: We have had a meeting since May 28, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Ms. Proulx: For Senator Brazeau the letter is dated June 3.
The Chair: Brazeau or Harb?
Ms. Proulx: Sorry, Harb. The letter is dated June 3. For living expenses the total to be refunded is $37,843.14; and for mileage expenses, $13,639.76, for a total of $51,482.90.
The Chair: I want the whole works.
Ms. Proulx: There were questions about how much it would be worth. The report said that a review should be done of prior years. The Deloitte scope was April 2011 to September 30, 2012, so the report adopted in the Senate said it was to go back. Calculations were provided, but the review was not done, so it is just pure numbers without the review.
Starting with fiscal year 2005-06, for a total of eight complete years, living expenses, including the amounts I have already provided to you — so it is not additional — would be $179,207.53; and for mileage, $52,441.54, for a total, like I said, provided there was no review, $231,649.07. That is inclusive of the amounts I provided before.
Senator Munson: When was that letter sent?
Ms. Proulx: The letter is dated June 3.
Senator Munson: We had a meeting June 6. We were not informed.
Senator Downe: Mr. Chair, did I understand correctly that the letters indicated they have 30 days to a make the payment or make arrangements for payment?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Downe: Have we heard from either of them to that end?
The Chair: Officially not.
Senator Downe: So the only money reimbursed so far is the money from Senator Duffy.
The Chair: Correct.
Senator Downe: Was the cheque received by the Senate or by the auditing firm for Senator Duffy?
The Chair: By the Senate.
Senator Downe: Was it a personal cheque or from a third party?
Gary O'Brien, Clerk of the Committee and Clerk of the Senate of Canada: It was a personal cheque.
Senator Downe: Was the address on the cheque his residence in Prince Edward Island or his residence in Ottawa?
Mr. O'Brien: It was an Island bank account.
Senator Downe: There is normally an address on cheques, and that was an Island address as well?
Mr. O'Brien: Yes.
The Chair: All right.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
The Chair: All in favour of the adoption of the minutes of the last meeting?
Senator Marshall: I have a comment on the minutes. The second set of minutes says that I moved my appointment to the new audit committee. I do not think I did, did I? If I did, I should not have. It is at the top of page 2 of the second set.
Mr. O'Brien: We will correct it.
Senator Marshall: It was someone else, okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Comeau is next, Item No. 2, our review of committee budgets and international travel.
Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, and I use the word ``table,'' for your information the thirty-fifth report of the Subcommittee on Review of Committee Budgets which deals with the post-expenditure reports of committees for the expenses they incurred in 2012-13.
Senator Doyle: Do we have those documents?
Senator Comeau: This is a report.
Senator Munson: Do we have a copy?
The Chair: Does everyone have a copy now?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Comeau: In 2012-13, your subcommittee considered 26 budget requests from committees containing both requests for general expenses and activity-related expenses, such as travel.
Since 2007, the Finance Directorate has prepared a post-expenditure report for each committee budget. Committee clerks review these reports and provide an explanation for any significant variances. In addition, any unused or unexpended funds within an activity are returned to the pool of funds available to all Senate committees.
Your subcommittee has examined all the 2012-13 post-expenditure reports in detail, activity by activity and line by line. We appreciate the efforts by committee clerks to explain the variances, and we are satisfied with the explanations given.
For fiscal year 2012-13, a total of $2.1 million were released to committees. Committee expenditures, however, were $758,000, amounting to some 36 per cent of the funds released. During this period, committees conducted 18 trips for fact-finding or public hearings.
Your subcommittee notes and commends the concerted efforts by committees to reduce spending. This has been achieved in part by seeking out reduced, non-refundable or economy fares for certain air travel. Your subcommittee is confident that committees will continue to manage their funds responsibly and, where possible, to cut costs.
That is my first report.
Honourable senators, I have the honour to table for your information the thirty-sixth report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets, which deals with a budget application from the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages requesting funds for a fact-finding trip to Switzerland and Finland as part of the committee's study of best practices for learning language policies and second-language learning in a context of linguistic duality or plurality.
While your subcommittee was generally supportive of the committee's proposal, it was agreed that a decision on the budget application should be delayed until the committee completes more background work.
It was not clear to the subcommittee members that the committee had done enough background work and held sufficient hearings in Ottawa on the subject to obtain maximum benefit from the proposed trip.
While your subcommittee has no interest in micromanaging the work of committees, it wishes to emphasize the importance of committees undertaking solid preparatory work prior to travel. Such preparation assists in establishing clear objectives for any proposed trip.
In the case of the Official Languages Committee, your subcommittee has requested further information regarding which organizations and levels of government the committee would hope to meet, and the types of people they believe would be able to contribute to their learning. While your subcommittee does not require the names of specific individuals, a draft program outlining the proposed trip would be helpful.
Your subcommittee looks forward to receiving this information and revisiting this budget in the fall.
Senator Doyle: Mr. Chair, $758,000 was released to committees for travel. Would that cover air travel and everything or just expenses related to the committee meetings outside of travel? Is it all included?
Senator Comeau: This would include all expenses related to that travel. If you are talking about the full $758 000, there would be expenses here in Ottawa for paperwork. Maybe Ms. Lank could help us with the details.
Heather Lank, Principal Clerk, Committees Directorate: Honourable senators, to clarify, last year $2.1 million were released, and $758,000 of the $2.1 million was spent by committees. This includes all committee activities — travel, fact-finding and public hearings outside of Ottawa — as well as general expenses. For example, we had the case of the Human Rights Committee with printing some cyberbullying reports and some communications assistance. Those were the total expenditures against the budgets approved for committees last year.
Senator Doyle: Does that compare favorably to other years? It seems high.
Ms. Lank: It is actually lower than many years in the past, senator. Of course, it depends upon whether it is an election year in terms of expenditures. Looking back, expenditures range anywhere from $687,000 in 2010-11 to $486,000 in 2011-12 to this number in 2012-13. However, in 2009-10, it was $1.3 million. There is a significant range depending on the activity levels in a given year.
Senator Doyle: It seems very high.
Senator Marshall: Senator Comeau, for our next meeting would you be able to give us a one-page schedule that would list the individual committees, the studies they have done, and indicate the dollar amounts released for each committee for each study along with the actual amount?
Senator Comeau: Yes, we will undertake to do this. Thankfully, we have the XL programs and extremely good computer programs for this; so this will be done.
Senator Marshall: I agree with the decision on the Official Languages study. Thank you for that information.
Senator Downe: Could you indicate as well the number of senators who participated in each study? As you know, it is not always possible for everyone to go and the numbers can go down if only 4 can attend as opposed to 12.
Senator Comeau: We will do this, yes.
Senator Kinsella: I would ask Senator Comeau to comment on the only 18 visits for fact-finding across Canada, given that we have 10 provinces and 3 territories. I am interested in the coverage across the country. As a matter of principle, it is a good thing that senators seek the views of Canadians in the various provinces. Are the visits evenly distributed? Obviously, depending on the subject matter of the study, certain parts of the country may be where you get the data you need. As we represent the fullness of this great nation, are we hearing from the people across Canada?
Senator Comeau: That is an excellent question. We will endeavour to come back with that information as we do not have it here. We can come back and indicate where the activities were.
Senator Kinsella: Thank you.
Ms. Lank: Honourable senators, although there were 18 trips, on many of these more than one province or territory was visited. I do not want you to be under the impression there were 18 single-destination trips because one activity of a committee may go to both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick or to both Alberta and British Columbia. The 18 trips are based on our budget system, which is by activity, but many activities have more than one destination.
The Chair: This item has been tabled. Let us go to the next item, the thirty-seventh report.
[Translation]
Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the thirty-seventh report Report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets, which deals with a supplementary budget application from the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources for their study of the safety of hydrocarbon transportation in Canada.
In 2012-13, the committee benefited from visiting key facilities and organizations in Sarnia and Hamilton, Ontario, and in May, the committee conducted a fact-finding mission on the Atlantic coast — including St. John, New Brunswick, and Halifax, Nova Scotia.
According to senators Neufeld and Mitchell, the chair and the deputy chair, the east coast trip was a great success, and it will make an enormous contribution to the quality of the study. They were also pleased to report that approximately $65,000 of the $102,000 budget for that trip was not spent. Therefore, these funds will be clawed back for use by other committees.
In addition, the committee had received funding for a trip to Washington, D.C. However, we were informed that the committee would learn a great deal more by going to Canada's west coast. Therefore, the committee will not be travelling to Washington, D.C., and the allocated funds, which amount to $39,312, can be clawed back.
The energy committee will not be spending approximately $100,000 of the $156,000 they have already been granted by the Senate this year. The supplementary budget application for the west coast trip amounts to $139,560. Senators Neufeld and Mitchell made a compelling case for this trip, which would allow the committee to meet with key stakeholders, while also visiting several sites of particular interest in British Columbia, the east coast, Washington state and Alaska. This is a region where several important energy transportation infrastructure projects are being proposed, and the trip would also emphasize the pan-Canadian nature of the study. The committee hopes to undertake the travel in mid-July. The objectives of the trip are clear, and the subcommittee believes that funding should be granted.
Senators will recall that there is a $1.7-million cap on committee travel expenditures for 2013-14.
So far, a total of $524,698 has been released to committees for travel, in addition to $119,400 for general expenses. If the thirty-seventh report is adopted, the total release for committee travel to date will amount to $664,258. I propose that the thirty-seventh report be adopted.
[English]
Senator Stewart Olsen: I have a question, Senator Comeau: How long has this particular study been going on?
Senator Comeau: Since November 28, 2012.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Is it a general practice for committees to commence their studies without having an itinerary and a clear budget and to add on to the study, or how does that work?
Senator Comeau: In this particular case, this committee was asked, during the course of its study, to look at two extensive pieces of legislation, which somewhat delayed the report that they were doing. During this time, there were requests made to the committee to expand the trip to the West Coast. They had done the East Coast. If they were to do a pan-Canadian study of the dangers of moving hydrocarbons, it would have more impact if they were to do a full Canadian study. From the experience they got on the East Coast, it was highly recommended that they do the West Coast as well, given the fact that a great deal of hydrocarbons do now move on these large tanker ships in the Strait of Juan de Fuca on the West Coast, and the very large building programs for hydrocarbons both in the Vancouver area and close by to Washington State. They wanted to have a clear picture of the types of pollution-responding mechanisms that are in place, and it would be a great opportunity for them to do this.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you, senator.
I would agree with Senator Kinsella that if the committees are planning studies, they should look at pan-Canadian at the very beginning and not add on. There should be a comprehensive application.
Senator Comeau: I must add that their planning was quite well done once they saw they had the opportunity to do it.
Senator Stewart Olsen: They were interrupted.
Senator Comeau: Yes, and they seized on the opportunity, which is something obviously we do look at closely. If there are any changes to a committee's plans, we are interested in finding out why those plans changed. We posed quite a number of questions to both the chair and deputy chair, and we were very satisfied with their responses.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you very much.
The Chair: No further discussion? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Colleagues, we are going to go in camera. We may have a discussion about how we deal with the auditing firm, whether we are going to go in camera or out of camera. I would like members of Internal to discuss that amongst themselves. We may split it as to the kind of questions we are going to ask. As we all know, Senator Wallin is not here, so I think it would be only fair that we have this discussion internally.
(The committee continued in camera.)
——————
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: For the benefit of the media, so you know what is going on, what we will do is that this part of the meeting with the auditors will be open; it will be process questions. We will then close the meeting if there are any other questions that honourable senators may have. I will try to keep that to questions of process.
In terms of timing, it should not take too long. I will try to limit this discussion to about a quarter to the hour, and hopefully no later, for both of them, and then we will go on to the rest of our agenda.
With that, welcome, Mr. Dent, Mr. Timm and Mr. Vadeboncoeur. Mr. Timm, do you want to start, or do we just want to open it up to questions? Did you want to say anything?
Gary Timm, Partner, Financial Advisory, Deloitte: There is nothing from our end. We will answer questions, if that is okay.
The Chair: I will start with Senator Downe. If I think things are going where they should not, I will ask you not to ask that question.
Senator Downe: Two meetings ago I asked you when we could anticipate receiving the audit of Senator Wallin, and I believe you indicated in the first answer that it would not take that long. I then asked whether it would be before we rise in June, and you said that would not be a problem. Is that a problem now and, if so, why?
Mr. Timm: In terms of the timing, we provided a letter, which I believe the whole committee has, that sets out the reasoning, where we are at and where we will be going to. That letter, I believe, sets out the reasons therein.
Senator Downe: I am wondering what changed since your original answer to me two meetings ago. You indicate in your letter that you are waiting for some third party who is unidentified. Would that be hotel receipts or things like that? What is the delay? You are a very large firm. The question is, why not put the resources on the file to meet the objective that you told us you would achieve at the end of June?
Mr. Timm: There are a couple of things. If we were to look at the letter itself, there are a couple of things within it. One is that just recently we have been asked to do the latter three months, if you will, complete the full period, so that itself was just a recent addition to look at.
Senator Downe: Just on that, did that come from the steering committee, chair, since the previous meetings?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Downe: Thank you.
Mr. Timm: As well, we are working as diligently as we can on this. As it notes here, there is some third party information we are awaiting. Unfortunately, we have been advised that it should be in hopefully by the end of this month. There are some things that are beyond our control, if you will, to work on. Every intention was to try to get it by the end of this month for you, as I had pointed out. Unfortunately, in these processes, things do come up that extend the time. That is really what it is.
Just on your point, we do have the same resources. Again, in these projects there are only so many resources you should put to them as well to make sure we have consistency throughout.
Senator Downe: I have a final question, chair.
What are the dates on the last three months you have been asked to review?
Mr. Timm: As it points out in the letter, January 2009 to March 2009.
Senator Downe: The last part of my question is this: Assuming the third parties that are you waiting to hear from provide the information by the end of June, what is your opinion now of when this committee would receive the audit of Senator Wallin?
Mr. Timm: Again, as indicated in the letter, the timing would be basically we should be able to finish our report by mid-July, but then it has to go to translation, which as we understand will be 7 to 10 business days, which would take it to the end of July, basically, for it to be provided to this committee, translated both into English and into French.
Senator Downe: Could we ask the auditors, if they do not receive the information by the end of June, to advise us?
The Chair: Sure, absolutely.
Senator Downe: The information I am hearing now is that as of August 1 we are likely to have the report, but if their information is delayed and it will move back to a later date, I would like to be advised of that.
The Chair: Yes; that is good. There is no problem. I am sure they will.
Senator Furey: Thank you for coming this morning, gentlemen.
Mr. Timm, when you and your colleagues appeared before the steering committee back in April, there was a third auditor present. I had the impression, perhaps erroneously, that he was the lead auditor on Senator Wallin's file; am I correct?
Mr. Timm: Actually that was Alan Stewart. He is a fellow partner of mine. The two of us are leading the files. Unfortunately, Alan is out of the country today. He is still working on this file. Peter Dent is our national leader of the practice, so I brought him with me today.
Senator Furey: No problem; I just wanted to clarify that.
Can you tell the committee whether the process you are following now for Senator Wallin is the exact same process you used for the other audits that the Senate asked you to do?
Mr. Timm: In terms of this review that we are undertaking, the overall audit process is the same; however, the lens that we are looking at is slightly different in terms of our review in this matter.
Senator Furey: Are you telling us that you have gone into more detail? What do you mean by a different lens?
Mr. Timm: In terms of the other reports we had done around living allowances when we were engaged, we are now looking at Senator Wallin's expenses. The lens was more on the nature of the expenses and whether they were Senate business expenses. That is the different lens.
Senator Furey: Thank you.
Senator Campbell: When you say that the process is much the same, I understand the differences in the expenses, but are you finished investigating Senator Harb?
Mr. Timm: We have issued our three final reports on the other three senators at this point.
Senator Campbell: There has been a figure quoted in the press. Is that a correct figure of $231,000?
Mr. Timm: In terms of that number, we have not had any involvement in that number.
Senator Campbell: What number do you have?
Mr. Timm: Again, we have not prepared any numbers. Those calculations were provided after our report was issued.
Senator Campbell: You gave a number and then you were asked by the subcommittee to go back in time on Senator Harb.
Sorry, my apologies; our recommendation to the Senate was that you go back in time.
The Chair: That was not it either.
Senator Campbell: Our report said that here is what we found and we would like you to go back and investigate further.
The Chair: Senator Marshall, do you want to answer that?
Senator Marshall: Yes, we recommended that before April of 2011 someone go back and review it, but we did not recommend that Deloitte do it. Probably the chair can indicate, but my understanding was that Senate staff was to do that work. We did not specify who we wanted to do that work. We just wanted someone to do it, and if the audit staff at the Senate were doing it, that was up to —
Senator Campbell: My question is if you go back seven years and you have those figures, how much tougher is it to go back three months, but since you did not do that, I apologize for that line. Thank you very much.
Senator Cordy: I did ask in camera if we could have a pool camera for the media. Perhaps next time we can make sure that there is a Senate camera for the media for at least having a visual.
Does the audit go back to the date of the senator's appointment to the Senate?
The Chair: Yes, I think so.
Mr. Timm: The answer is yes, and that is why the extra three months were added on, to take it back to the appointment date.
Senator Cordy: You speak in your letter and you spoke to Senator Downe earlier about the third party, without being specific as to who the third parties are. Are you receiving cooperation from the third parties where you need information?
Mr. Timm: Yes, we are.
Senator Cordy: Could you, in general terms, give us a sense of what kinds of things the third parties would provide to you?
The Chair: I think we are getting into the substance here, Senator Cordy. We are here to talk about process. If you want to get into substance, you can save your question for the private meeting, if that is okay with you. It has been agreed that I can make that decision, so that is it.
Do you have any other questions, Senator Cordy?
Senator Cordy: No.
The Chair: Any other questions from any other senators?
Thank you very much, colleagues. We will now go into the closed meeting.
(The committee continued in camera.)