Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 5 - Evidence - December 11, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 11, 2014
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:30 a.m., in public, for the consideration of administrative matters; and in camera for the consideration of administrative and other matters.
Senator Pierre Claude Nolin (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. We're in public. We'll go through the items that we have in front of us. Let's go straight to number 1, the adoption of the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting of December 4. You have them in front of you. Senator Cordy?
Senator Cordy: So moved.
The Chair: Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 2, the eleventh report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets.
Senator L. Smith: I trust everyone has a copy of the report.
Honourable senators, I am pleased to present the eleventh report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, which deals with three committee budget applications.
Before speaking to the report, I'd like to bring senators up to date on the budget situation regarding committees — $2,382,100 was allocated for committees in 2014-15, of which $500,000 was set aside for witnesses, expenses, video conferences and working meals and beverages at committee meetings in Ottawa. Therefore, $1,882,000 was available for distribution to committees.
As you are undoubtedly aware, committees have been active this year, and the subcommittee has already considered many budget applications amounting to some $2.4 million. A figure of $2,060,864 has been released to committees. Some activities have been completed and the surplus funds clawed back so that they can be allocated for further committee activities.
[Translation]
Concerning the activities for which the books have not yet been closed, we have obtained the total estimated expenditures. As the senators know, budgets traditionally allocate enough money to enable all members to travel, generally with a reduced delegation, so that there is almost always a substantial surplus.
[English]
Based on these estimates, we are confident that there are sufficient funds in the budget envelope for committees to cover the releases recommended today. Even with these releases, we expect that there will be a significant surplus in the budget for committees come the end of the fiscal year, based on currently identified activities.
Your subcommittee met with the committee chairs and deputy chairs to review the budget applications and to ensure that each committee had clearly identified the purpose of each proposed activity.
The request from the Fisheries and Oceans Committee is for a supplementary budget of $90,325 for a fact-finding trip to St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, to visit four research facilities as part of the committee's aquaculture study.
The budget for Transport and Communications is for a trip to London, United Kingdom, to learn more about the BBC through meetings with the BBC officials, the BBC Trust, departmental officials, parliamentarians and others. Senators may recall that the subcommittee had deferred making a recommendation on the budget for this activity until the Transportation and Communications Committee had completed its domestic travel. The budget request is for $89,100, for up to five senators and two committee staff to travel.
Finally, the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee has requested $78,834 for a trip to New York City as part of its study of digital currency.
Your subcommittee is convinced that each of these activities will make a significant contribution to the studies in question. Therefore, I request the adoption of the eleventh report.
The Chair: Are there any comments or questions for Senator Smith? So we have a motion. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item number 3, subcommittee on Senate estimates. We have it on the agenda to formalize the creation of that subcommittee that will be composed of Senator Wells, Senator Cordy, Senator Furey and Senator Tannas. Even though he's not a member, he will be invited to sit on the committee.
Is it agreed, senators, that we create that subcommittee?
Senator Wells: Will Senator Tannas be a voting member?
The Chair: He will not be a voting member. He will participate, but he cannot vote.
Senator Wells: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: I forget Senator Smith (Saurel). Senator Smith (Saurel) will also be a member, but he will be a voting member. Are there any questions or comments on that?
Senator Marshall: That section that says — there must be something that's standard — pursuant to rule 12-17, they can receive and authorize publication of the evidence when a quorum is not present. What does that mean? It's the fourth paragraph down, pursuant to rule 12-17.
Heather Lank, Principal Clerk, Committees, Senate of Canada: Yes. Actually, this is a standard motion, and what it means is that by the Rules of the Senate; quorum is three. However, if, for example, the subcommittee decided that, a member of the government and a member of the opposition are present, they could meet and discuss, perhaps ask questions of a member of the administration, so not make any decisions but hear evidence on behalf of the subcommittee, that gives them the authority to do that. It is standard wording, but it doesn't change the fact that decisions require quorum.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Any there other questions or comments? Is it adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Number 4, Canada's participation in the IPU.
Mr. Janse and Mr. Lafrenière.
[Translation]
Eric Janse, Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a pleasure to be back —
The Chair: You have a third colleague with you.
Mr. Janse: Yes, my colleague Patrice Martin, who is responsible for parliamentary associations.
The Chair: Welcome, Mr. Martin.
Mr. Janse: It is a pleasure to be back before the committee this morning. During last week's meeting, some information was requested. You will find that supplementary information in the documentation that you have been provided. The first is a picture of the evolution of IPU membership over the last 15 years. You will see that the number of IPU members has increased in the past 20 years from 135 members in 1995 to 166 members today.
Second, you will find the list of countries that have left the IPU.
[English]
Besides the U.S.A., no other country has left the IPU, although some have been suspended for certain periods.
In terms of the list of contributors in terms of annual fees, the document lists how much each of the member parliaments will pay next year in terms of fees.
Finally, there was a request for a copy of the report of the JIC subcommittee on restructuring parliamentary associations known as the Merrifield report. This report, as indicated on page 1, had as part of its objective to, "ensure that the work of parliamentary associations provides good value for the amount spent."
I can also report on the decision taken by the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy on this issue at its meeting on Tuesday. The board was of the view that Canada has much to offer to the IPU and, at the same time, much to gain from being a member. At the same time, the board was sympathetic to the pressures the reduced JIC budgetary envelope is placing on all associations, especially when membership fees continue to represent a substantial portion of association expenditures. Faced with different ways to respect the JIC's desire to remain in the IPU only if additional funds are provided, the board decided to adopt option 2. This would see the JIC authorized to over allocate funds for the specific purpose of enabling the IPU to adequately fulfill its mandate.
More specifically, this would be done in the following manner: As the JIC, the IPU and in fact all parliamentary associations continue to work on decreasing membership fees, the JIC would be authorized to temporarily over allocate its budget to fund IPU activities. In doing so if, during the fiscal year, it is determined the JIC will end in a deficit situation, the cost of such a shortfall would be offset from surpluses elsewhere. For example, from the parliamentary exchanges budget, from the activities budget of committees or from other areas as would be recommended by staff.
This would be done using the usual cost-sharing formula, seeing the Senate pay 30 per cent and the House of Commons 70 per cent. This would also allow expenses to be covered without permanently increasing the JIC envelope. The maximum the JIC would be allowed to over allocate would be $550,000, which represents some $400,000 for membership fees for the IPU and about $150,000 for its activities.
As an example, if the JIC were to over allocate the full $550,000 and then at the end of the year a surplus, like last year of $150,000, were to be realized then the deficit, the difference of $400,000, would be found within existing Senate and House of Commons budgets.
As we're heading towards an election year and the international activities will slow down as parliamentarians focus more on domestic issues, it is possible the surplus next year would be greater. For instance, if $300,000 were to be lapsed by the JIC, then only $250,000 would have to be found elsewhere to make up for the shortfall. This does not preclude the adoption of a permanent increase in the JIC budgetary envelope at a future date, but the Board of Internal Economy felt it important to see over a few years whether this method of proceeding is sufficient and how much additional money, if any, would be required.
The BOI was also of the view that a letter should be written to the international IPU secretariat urging it to continue to work on reducing its budget and membership fees.
[Translation]
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions for Mr. Janse?
Senator Cordy: Is this option for one year or is this forever?
Mr. Janse: Until there's a decision to either make the increase permanent or go back to the existing amount, but it's open-ended.
Senator Cordy: So will it affect other associations?
Mr. Janse: No.
Senator L. Smith: Eric, a lot of us just want to make sure we totally understand. If I understand correctly, the budget presently is $3.7 million; is that correct?
Mr. Janse: The figure is 3.6.
Senator L. Smith: Sorry, 3.6. So is the IPU being taken out of that 3.6 envelope? There has to be $550,000 found of new money, of which we would owe 30 per cent. Is that correct to assume? Therefore, it would be $3.7 million. Of that, there's $3.6 million for moving forward. The IPU would not be in that $3.6 million. The money would have to be found outside that envelope; is that correct?
Mr. Janse: That's one way of seeing it. The way we interpret it is, you're right, it's 3.6 right now for all associations, including the IPU. To date that's been sufficient. Again, last year $150,000 was lapsed. But other associations have complained that the pressure from that big amount sent to the IPU means their activities and delegations are smaller and reduced. So it allows the JIC to, in fact, increase its budget for all associations but including the IPU, have to fund the IPU as well, to 3.6 plus 550,000, so up to $4.1 million.
All associations, including the IPU, would have to be covered within that new fund.
Senator L. Smith: Is that not just a one-year move? Is that formally putting the total budget up to 4.1 on a go- forward basis or is it a one-year plan which would be reviewed next year to see what to do with the IPU?
Mr. Janse: No, on the house side it wasn't a decision to limit it necessarily to one year because, again, next year is an election year. That is maybe not the best year to determine how much perhaps permanent funding increase is required.
I think the idea was to perhaps go with this new formula for a number of years and do an analysis and then perhaps come back, if the JIC sees fit, with a recommendation to perhaps permanently increase the envelope. At the same time, again, depending on activities and the like, it could well be that this is sufficient.
Senator Doyle: I was wondering what the implications of option 4 might be, if we were to decide to withdraw from the IPU. What are the implications of that? Can we at some point get back into the IPU if we felt so inclined, if we decided to go with option 4?
The Chair: Maybe you can answer that, Mr. Janse. I know Senator Dawson is here, so he may provide an answer.
Senator Dawson: If you leave and you want to reintegrate, you have to pay back what you did not pay while you were away.
Senator Tkachuk: It's like "Hotel California" — once you're in, you can't get out.
Senator Dawson: You want to sing that?
Senator Doyle: I'm wondering also, are there any examples of people actually withdrawing from the IPU? Have people withdrawn on occasion?
The Chair: That's in the report of Mr. Janse.
Mr. Janse: The supplementary information in the package before you indicates that the only country that has ever withdrawn is the U.S.
Certain countries have been suspended because there's been a military coup or something and they don't have a parliament, so they're not allowed in a parliamentary association. But, no, besides the U.S. no one else has withdrawn.
Senator Doyle: In the entire history of the organization?
Mr. Janse: That's right.
Senator Manning: Has there been any correspondence lately, say in the past year, since discussions have come up, about our participation in the IPU in relation to the fee structure, their efforts to lower, or at least to have a look at where the structure is, not just for Canada but overall?
It seems that the pressure that's coming on is coming from other associations. I feel they're being — "penalized" may not be the right word to use — left to the wayside because of the fact that there's such a cost to us being associated with this. Have we put forward any correspondence? When I say "we," I mean the House of Commons and the Senate. Has either house put forward any correspondence in relation to the fee structure? I know there are plans to do that in the future, and I'm wondering if we've done it in the past. If so, has there been any correspondence from the IPU?
Mr. Janse: The JIC has had a very close look at the membership fees of all the parliamentary associations to which we belong where we're required to pay fees, how much those amounts are and how they could be reduced.
During last year's budgetary exercise, all those groups that paid membership fees had to appear twice before the JIC — once with all the associations to present their budgets and the second time specifically to speak to the issue of membership fees.
The JIC then sent those associations letters strongly urging them to follow up with their international secretariats and the other member countries to see what could be done in terms of reducing those costs.
On the IPU specifically, as was mentioned in the note, Senator Ataullahjan was appointed chair of an international subcommittee of the IPU to look at the budget of the IPU and to look at reducing membership fees. For next year, they managed to get a reduction of 3.5 per cent.
Senator Ataullahjan is no longer the chair, but there is a French parliamentarian who's now the chair and he has indicated that he will be as anxious as Senator Ataullahjan was to continue working on getting those fees down.
Senator Marshall: I just want to make sure I understand this. What we're saying is we're going to take IPU out of the JIC funding of $3.6 million? Is that the intent? And provide it with a separate budget?
Mr. Janse: Well, I don't know if it's necessarily a separate budget. If option 2 was agreed to by both boards, the board would be allowed to over allocate its existing budget for all associations by $550,000, specifically to cover the cost of the IPU. At the same time, that would alleviate some of the pressures on the other associations so they could perhaps send larger delegations to meetings and more people to conferences, et cetera.
Senator Marshall: Let me reword it, then. Based on what you're supporting or recommending, it's possible that $3.6 million will be spent by all of the other groups except IPU; is that right?
Mr. Janse: In theory, that's right. The JIC would be authorized to over allocate not more than $550,000. If that were put aside for the IPU and used in its entirety, then, yes, you're right, the existing $3.6 million could be used by the 11 other associations.
Senator Marshall: Last year when this issue was raised, I asked the question: Why is IPU being singled out to be taken out of the mix? If they are, and there is a savings of half a million dollars, who will get the half million dollars? Are we just going to leave it sitting there and then the remaining members would divvy it up? I never did get an answer to my question. From what's being proposed, it looks like the Senate will have to come up with an extra 30 per cent of half a million dollars.
Mr. Janse: The maximum. Again, even last year there was a surplus. Last year the surplus in the JIC envelope was $150,000. If that were to happen next year, the shortfall would be $400,000, and the Senate would pay 30 per cent of $400,000 and the house would pay 70 per cent.
Senator Marshall: My question then wouldn't be to you but to the Senate. We are seeing pressure on our budget. As we all know, we're voting for sups this year, so we're going to be looking for an extra $166,000. My question is: Is that in our budget for next year or are we looking around to see where we can take it from?
The Chair: We can ask Ms. Proulx.
Nicole Proulx, Director, Finance and Procurement, Senate of Canada: Senators, the presentation for the Main Estimates will be later today. As it stands, no amounts have been included for this additional request; but as presented by Mr. Janse, it does not impact the Main Estimates. The option proposed does not impact.
Senator Marshall: Even though there's no funding provided. Do we know where we would get $166,000 from?
Ms. Proulx: The option presented is that it would be cash managed.
Senator Marshall: I expressed concerns about this last year. Nobody has come back and indicated clearly why JIC is the one being isolated to be terminated. How will we allocate the half million dollars in savings if we did get rid of JIC? Now we're saying that instead of making any cuts or reductions, as we've been considering all along, we'll just expand our budgetary envelope. So I can't support it.
Senator Lang: I share the difficulty that Senator Marshall just expressed. I don't quite understand. We're hoping and praying that there will be cash at the end of the year to pay our share of the IPU. Predicated the way I understand is that we won't expend money on the other side of the ledger within the envelope. I don't think that's the way you should budget, quite frankly. You're either going to be involved or not be involved.
I have a general question, but I don't know if the witnesses can answer it. I looked at this overall budget. If I'm reading this properly, and I just got it yesterday, the actual cost of running this organization is $18.5 million; is that correct?
Mr. Janse: I'm sorry, I don't know.
Senator Lang: That's the figure I see here. I know these have been questions for a number of years here. First, how many other countries, the large contributors such as Australia, Brazil, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, the Russian Federation, are registering concerns about the amount of money this is costing? Second, are some of them considering perhaps either revising what they do or indicating they may withdraw? Those are questions that I think we should have some knowledge of.
The other thing is the mandate of this organization. If the budget is as large as it is, it's a government. Perhaps you can comment.
Mr. Janse: Would you like to start, senator?
Senator Dawson: There used to be strong growth at the IPU for years. We challenged it under Senator Oliver, Senator Fraser, and then Senator Ataullahjan, who became a member of the IPU Executive Committee Special Committee on Finance. Since then, the budget has gone down every year. The growth has been controlled but, obviously, it is a big organization.
I've explained that 160 countries don't have the same budget as 45 countries that don't have a secretariat. As I've repeated before, it is the only organization that has people going around the world to see parliamentarians in prison to have them liberated. It takes a strong secretariat to be able to support that type of activity. It's the only organization that does parliamentary training at an international level. The UN does government training and some parliamentary associations in the Commonwealth help Commonwealth associations, but they do that on a worldwide scale. I have to admit, it is a big organization.
To come back to your initial question, all major countries support Canada's quest to reduce the cost of operating the IPU. A strong subcommittee report asks them to get out of some sectors of activity; and that will play out over the next year. As I mentioned last week, there's a new Secretary-General and a new President of the IPU who came into their functions a few months ago. Both of those people are fiscally committed to taking control of the IPU.
You saw the support the Canadian IPU got from the house side. We believe that this is not the time to put in question the future of the IPU. As far as the total budget goes, madam, I agree. However, I don't understand why it wasn't mentioned this morning that we also asked them last week to look at the global share of costs of associations. Why are we in some associations? Why are we funding some? Why are we not in Israel? Why do we not have Canada in India? That has to be done. Some associations are saying, "If we get rid of IPU, there will be $450,000 left on the table; let's grab it." If you think you're going to be saving money by doing that, you won't save money because somebody else will grab it. Let's be clear here. They are not in the same ball game as the IPU, which is the only organization that has a partnership with the UN. It was renegotiated this year.
To compare them to some of the other associations is unjust because some of them don't even have a secretariat. They travel from one country to the other and don't have an international body such as the IPU. Anyway, I don't know if that answers most of your questions.
Senator Lang: It didn't answer the question about whether other countries were thinking of withdrawing.
Senator Dawson: If Canada were to withdraw, it could be a bad message to send and might have a ripple effect. They wrote a letter last week on behalf of the Twelve Plus Group — European countries mostly plus Australia — to say, "We want Canada to stay. We're taking control of the cost of the IPU, and we want to give you the opportunity to be heard over the next year."
Senator Lang: I'm not clear on the house side. Has the house made a decision on this? Maybe reiterate it.
Mr. Janse: Sure. The house has adopted option number 2.
Senator Munson: That was my question. The other side that's paying 70 per cent has authorized it. That's all I wanted to clarify.
Senator Fraser: Further to Senator Lang's comments, the Twelve Plus Group, that geopolitical group to which Canada belongs that Senator Dawson just mentioned, has been at the forefront for years of pressing the IPU to control and reduce its budgets. I don't have the documentation with me, but my recollection is that the actual total number of Swiss francs charged for member countries' fees has not changed materially for 10 years. That indicates some significant cost control, but I want to stress the importance of something Senator Dawson mentioned last week and again this week, and that is that there has been a change in the leadership of the IPU. They have a brand new Secretary-General. The previous Secretary-General is a brilliant man, but stubborn would be perhaps one way to look at it.
I truly believe that the new regime is going to make an enormous difference to the way this organization is run, but I have to say that even under the previous regime they have come a significant way toward cost control.
I think it would be very sad for Canada to be seen as isolationist, pulling out of the only organization in the world that represents the overwhelming majority of the world's parliaments. I have seen with my own eyes the importance of the IPU to many countries and the respect and trust that Canada has acquired in those countries as a result of its work in the IPU. The committee for the human rights of parliamentarians does extraordinary work and was chaired for a long time by a Canadian parliamentarian, until quite recently. It seems to me short-sighted.
Option 2 would not have been my first choice, but if that's the way the House of Commons, which pays 70 per cent of the tab, has decided it would like to go, okay, let's do it. Let's see how it works and let's keep the pressure on for the new administration in the IPU to do very serious re-examination of everything that it does and every penny that it spends, sure, but not pull out.
Senator Lang: It seems to me that if we're going to go for our 30 per cent, $150,000, that should be in addition to the overall budget of the Senate. We shouldn't be trying to look to see if we can cut somewhere else to replace it. We either support it or we don't.
The Chair: We'll have that discussion later.
Colleagues, are there any further comments or questions?
Thank you, Mr. Janse, Mr. Lafrenière and Mr. Martin.
We have in front of us, to be fair, for the Internal Economy one question: Shall option 2 be agreed to?
Senator Tkachuk: The same one as the house, right? Why don't we just go with that, just what we asked for?
The Chair: So I will go to a vote.
Those who are in favour of option 2, please say "yea."
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: Those who are against option 2, please say "nay."
An Hon. Senator: Nay.
The Chair: The "yeas" have it. It carries on division.
(The committee continued in camera.)