Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 7 - Evidence - November 17, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 17, 2016
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9 a.m., in public, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning colleagues. I'm glad to see everybody is up and very energetic this morning. That means we're going to have a very productive meeting, as usual.
Item 1 colleagues, we have with us this morning our friend and colleague from the House of Commons, Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton is here with our friend and colleague, Fabian Manning, who is co-chairing JIC on our behalf. And, of course, we all know Colette Labrecque-Riel, who has been a regular visitor to this committee over last few weeks.
We all know this is an item leftover on the agenda from the last meeting, and we have asked for clarification on a number of these conferences and issues, so Mr. Stanton and Mr. Manning, the floor belongs to you.
Hon. Fabian Manning, Co-Chair, Joint Interparliamentary Council: Thank you Mr. Chair. First we will start with the IPU Global Conference of Young Parliamentarians and a recommendation from JIC concerning a request from the Canadian group of IPU to host the IPU Global Conference of Young Parliamentarians.
At our meeting on October the 5, 2016, JIC met to consider the proposal, and the presentation for the President of Canadian group of IPU provided the following highlights. The IPU's commitment to supporting new participation in politics began in 2010 with the adoption of a resolution on youth participation in the democratic process. In 2013, IPU established a forum for young parliamentarians, a formal and permanent body dedicated to enhancing the quantitative and qualitative participation of young people in Parliament.
Thus far, there have been three global conferences of young parliamentarians, which gather parliamentarians and youth leaders from throughout the world to tackle topics of common interest. The budget, which is most important here this morning, prepared by staff reflect the following: The conference will be held in Ottawa, and efforts will be made to leverage meeting venues in the parliamentary precinct, such as the Sir John A. Macdonald Building. This would have the effect of lowering costs. The total number of participants is not to exceed 300, and the conference will be held over two days. The conference delegates from national delegations and observers will be responsible for their own travel arrangements and costs, as well as their own accommodations and expenses. Based on this information the JIC recommends that approval be granted to host the Global Conference of Young Parliamentarians in Ottawa, Ontario, in November 2017, and the temporary funding of $469,130 be approved for fiscal year 2017-18, which will be shared using the usual 30:70 formula between the Senate, whose share will be $140,739 to the House of Commons' $328,931. We're now prepared to answer any questions.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Manning, Mr. Stanton and Ms. Labrecque-Riel. So the conference is already happening, and this is additional funding? Could you explain if the conference is already booked?
Colette Labrecque-Riel, Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate: No, actually, the conference is not booked. The executive committee of that association decided to request from the JIC that the conference be held, so it's still waiting for the answer here. No plans and no bookings have been done, thus far, until we have a decision from this committee.
Senator Wells: I'm trying to understand: The current operating costs are at $276,000; is that for the conference? There is additional funding required. What is the initial funding required, and is it for this conference that may not go ahead or isn't confirmed?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Sorry, the conference funding is separate from the JIC envelope. The term "additional funding'' means funding required for this conference, as opposed to funding for associations.
Senator Wells: Okay, I got it. Thank you.
Senator Manning: It's over and above the 13 associations.
Senator Tkachuk: That was my question. We're not talking about extra money for JIC for all the committees? We're just talking about money for the conference itself?
Senator Manning: It's $469,000 for this conference.
Senator Tkachuk: Okay, got it.
Senator Batters: Can someone give us a breakdown? Just the protocol ceremonial hospitality is listed as $95,000. Can someone give us a bit of a breakdown on that? That's obviously a very significant expense without further detail.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Yes, I can. Again the budget is prepared by my team and Gerry's team. When a country hosts a conference, particularly for the IPU, there is a protocol in place. The hosting country has its roles and responsibilities versus the international secretariat, so the budget prepared for this conference does follow this protocol.
In terms of the accommodations and protocol, the protocol requires for certain events to be planned for this conference. It simply reflects accommodation costs for staff coming in or meals to be provided, but it does follow past practices in terms of costing out what these conferences require when we host them.
Senator Batters: Okay. But there is a separate category — logistics — which says, in brackets, "transportation/ accommodation,'' and that's $154,000. Is this is a different expense from when you were referring just now to accommodations? For "protocol/ceremonial/hospitality,'' it says $95,000. Can you give us any detail about a breakdown of those costs and what sort of things that would be spent on, other than what you have just relayed?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: I do have a breakdown. For instance, under logistics we have the rental of the space, which is $25,000. We need to actually rent flags, and that's $2,000. There are office supplies, stationary, audio/visual and interpretation for instance. We need to bring in interpreters and it's in more than one language when we speak about the IPU, and that's costed out at $75,000.
We may need to bring in additional furniture for the setup of reception areas, even if it's in the parliamentary precinct. We have costed that out at about $5,000. We need to prepare badges and we have to purchase lanyards and just that part of the logistics is $123,000.
Senator Batters: So you have explained that first category, but you still didn't give me a breakdown on the "protocol/ceremonial/hospitality.''
Bruce Stanton, M.P., Co-Chair, Joint Interparliamentary Council: I'll go through that actually, Senator Batters. Thank you for your question. Here is how that $95,156 breaks down: there is $30,000 for $51 lunches times the number of participants, which is 300, for the two days. Dinner reception one is for 300 people at roughly $118, and the total for dinner is $35,000, and costs for refreshment breaks over the two days are $15,000. Site enhancement and entertainment is costed at $10,000 and there is a contingency of $4,000, for a total of $95,000.
Senator Batters: Thanks a lot. I appreciate that.
Senator Marshall: All of my questions have been answered except one: Did you say where it will be held?
Senator Manning: Here in Ottawa.
Senator Marshall: At the convention centre?
Senator Manning: We're using Sir John A. Macdonald Building where we can to reduce costs.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
The Chair: No other questions, colleagues? Do I have a motion to approve this, colleagues? Moved by Senator Downe, seconded by Senator Manning. All in favour? Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Senator Manning, you're doing an excellent job on our behalf. Ms. Labrecque-Riel, we hope to see you soon. There is more?
Senator Manning: We have only just begun.
The Chair: I appreciate it. I see there are three more items on the agenda.
Senator Manning: Only just begun.
Senator Tkachuk: It's a waterfall, not a drip.
The Chair: I knew it couldn't be this easy. Carry on.
Mr. Stanton: I'll take the next one. This is the second conference of the three that we are requesting for today. It is the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association fifty-sixth annual — this is the regional conference, so the regional delegations. As you may know, CPA has regional representation across all of our provinces and territories. I, in fact, attended the regional conference in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, just this past July on behalf of Speaker Regan. It's a collection quite often of chair occupants, clerks and others who work in house office type positions in our legislatures across Canada. Also, there are partnerships through the CPA of other countries, for example, Jamaica and others, that join us for these regional conferences, so the proposal is to host the CPA regional in Ottawa in 2018.
Like the other conference proposals, as was mentioned, any time there is a request for an international conference to be hosted in Canada, JIC actually provides an approval, but only for the scheduling of it. What we watch for is not to have too many conferences occurring in one calendar year, because that stresses and strains resources on the administration of Parliament generally.
But the funding of those has to come to the two Internal Committees, so consequently we're here for a request by the CPA to host the regional conference in 2018. As you'll see in the documents provided, it lays out essentially the programs and details pertaining to this. The funding will be split over two fiscal years, 2017-18 for a small amount being $28,000. And the rest, the bulk of it, in the fiscal year following in 2018-19 for a total of $311,503 for the entire conference and that would be scheduled for 2018. I would be happy to take any questions.
Senator Marshall: I would like more detail on the logistics and the protocol, which somebody provided for the previous conference. I wanted some detail on that. The other question I had was on the registration fees. It says it's $150 per delegate, and there are 300 delegates. So we say $35,000, but shouldn't it be $45,000? Then there is nothing in there for the accompanying person.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: In terms of the membership fee, we have a breakdown between the actual delegates and the accompanying persons. The delegate fee and accompanying person's fee are slightly different. The estimated $35,000 is not a straight mathematical formula. Whereas the maximum of participants is what we expect, these conferences happen every year, so we based it on several past conferences and so the $35,000 is not a result of a mathematical operation. It's an estimate of what we expect in terms of numbers to actually attend and the fees that would come along with that.
Senator Marshall: How many do we expect to attend? Because in the material we were provided with, it says "we estimate there will 300 participants and 200 accompanying people.'' But the budget for the registration fees, the numbers don't multiply.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: It's because we have a breakdown. The delegate fee is set at $300 per delegate, and the accompanying person's fee is actually at $200. It's a mix of what we estimate these will be that takes us up to $35,000. It's based on past conferences because the attendance tends to be the same year after year.
Senator Marshall: Somebody should check the numbers because they don't multiply. I don't want to belabour the point. I would like a breakdown for the logistics and the protocol like we did before.
But the other question I have is if the registration fees come in higher — I'm just wondering if that — if you collect more in registration fees than what you have there in the budget, you can spend that, can you? How does the budget work? If you collect actually $50,000 rather than the $35,000, does that mean that you have $15,000 extra to spend? Or is your spending capped at the amount that we approve?
Mr. Stanton: The assumption would be that if we had higher registration fees, the net cost of the conference would come down. Because registration fees are applied in their entirety to the net cost, if you will, of the conference.
Senator Marshall: Just give us a run-down then of the logistics and protocol.
Mr. Stanton: On logistics, total cost is $64,500. Total cost for facilities and operations which is the big chunk of that is around $45,000. This includes things like rental of some office space, flags; audio visual is a big chunk of that at $20,000; other items, IT and communications are $2,000. Transportation, this is essentially for shuttles, ground transportation to and from the airport and so on, $15,000, and accommodation at $2,000 for a total of $64,500.
Senator Batters: Thank you. Just going back to that ceremonial protocol and hospitality thing because you know, we're all about transparency on those sorts of things here in the Senate of Canada now. I want to know the same thing about this. Being as there were conference fees here, I see a notation that the registration fees are not expected to cover all of those types of things, including meals. If you could let us know which additional costs there would be included in that particular category.
Mr. Stanton: Sure, I'll run through it as a brief example. The total on the hospitality is, as you'll see in your notes, $139,903. Pardon me. I'm missing one line. It's $151,903. So the biggest piece of that is for meals, services and the like. It's consistent with the way that the CPA regional does its program when it's in other locations. So, for example, during the opening, the CPA women's parliamentary group starts the conference in the first day or two. That's a smaller number, around 30 people, so meals, dinner, lunch, are included in those first opening days for the women's section of the CPA. And then all the delegates join in at day two, and the numbers bump up to 150. That's consistent throughout then, so it's essentially for refreshment breaks, dinner reception, a second dinner, farewell dinner, so three in total. In addition, there are refreshments for all days of the principal conference, and lunches for 150 across all of those days. The contingency fund is $7,000. So total cost of all of that, essentially meals, coffee breaks and the like run to a total of $139,903. Then there are additional fees for excursions. This would typically be — during that CPA conference they do one out trip, some of it for guests of the conference as well. Typically, it could be spouses or others who join the conference. That's budgeted for $12,000 to bring the total to $151,000.
Senator Batters: Thank you. One further question: the last time when we briefly had a discussion about these items at this committee, I think it was Senator Tannas, but I'm not certain, who had a question about the timing of this particular conference because it's at the same time potentially that the entire Centre Block is being moved, so he thought that may not be ideal.
Mr. Stanton: That's an excellent point, actually. One of the presentations, albeit it was in St. John's in Newfoundland and Labrador, but one of the presentations that caught a lot of interest was the project that the National Assembly is going through in Quebec with their renovation of their principal buildings, so because the attendance tends to be clerks and chair occupants and others who quite often have those kinds of issues within their jurisdiction and authority, issues around the logistics of building projects and renovations are of particular interest. So in a way there might be an opportunity for some of these participants to see some of the practical side of the kind of changes that are happening on Parliament Hill. So I think it would actually be beneficial in some ways. There may be some logistical issues. Frankly, I think it might, in the end, be beneficial for this particular kind of audience that would attend this kind of conference.
Senator Batters: Thanks very much. Interesting answer. I'm sure he will appreciate that answer to his question.
The Chair: If there are no other questions, colleagues, the motion is:
That approval be granted to host the fifty-sixth Regional CPA Conference in Ottawa, Ontario, in July 2018; and
That temporary funding of $28,163 be approved for fiscal year 2017-18 and $283,340 for fiscal year 2018-19, for a total of $311,503, which would be shared using the usual formula, 30 per cent Senate, 70 per cent House of Commons, between the Senate and the House of Commons.
Moved by Senator Munson. All in agreement? Carried. Thank you. So far so good?
Senator Manning: So far so good. It's our third one now. As Meat Loaf said, two out of three ain't bad, so we'll see what happens.
NATO: The recommendation from JIC concerns requests from the Canadian group of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly to hold the sixty-fourth annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Halifax, from November 16 to 19, 2018. I'll explain that in a minute.
At its meetings on June 15 and October 5 this year, the JIC considered this proposal. The presentation from the chair of the association provided the following highlights: The NATO Parliamentary Assembly meets twice a year, in spring and fall annual sessions. Canada has hosted previous sessions in 1987 in Quebec City, 1992 in Banff, 2001 in Ottawa and 2006 again in Quebec City. Canada was invited to host an annual session in 2018. The budget prepared by IIA staff reflects the following: The conference will be held in Halifax. The total number of participants is significant as 850 people are expected to attend; 28 member countries will be invited to attend. The conference will be held over a three-day period. Participants will be responsible for their own travel arrangements and costs, as well as their own accommodation and expenses. Funding is required over two fiscal years. Based on this information, the JIC recommends that approval be granted to host the sixty-fourth annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in November 2018, and that temporary funding of $103,163 be approved for fiscal year 2017-18 and $1,377,069 for fiscal year 2018-19, for a total of $1,480,232, which will be shared, using the usual 30-70 formula, between the Senate, which will be $444,068, and the House of Commons, which will be, $1,036,164. The reason it's spread over two years is because, as you will understand, it's a very large conference — planning and preparation and making bookings, making sure accommodations are there, meeting rooms are available, transportation — when you're talking a conference of this size, including the 850 participants from 28 countries, so JIC would like to ask for approval of this.
Senator Batters: Again, I recognize that it's a very large number of participants on this particular one, so, obviously, that's the reason that, on this one, the protocol/ceremonial/hospitality is over $550,000. Being as that's the amount, please provide us with a breakdown, as you have for the other conferences. Thanks.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: So, again, the breakdown, as Mr. Stanton noted, from the previous conferences really amounts to, in terms of the protocol element, meals and receptions and farewell dinners. Based on the number of participants, which is estimated to be 850, the amounts are really for the various receptions and meals. In terms of the four days, luncheons, for example, for the four days, is set at $173,000 just for the lunches. The dinner receptions of the standing committee itself — there are 120 participants on the standing committee expected — is set at 14,000. We have receptions. The protocol requires that the delegation secretaries also meet to plan out future activities. That's another reception set at $14,000. A farewell dinner reception set at $100,000. Again, that's for the 850 participants. The cost of refreshments for the different health breaks throughout the four days is $85,000. Site enhancement and entertainment is set at $40,000, and we set a contingency at $5,000, which amounts to $533,000.
Senator Batters: Thank you. The other thing I was wondering: I notice these dates are in mid-November 2018. Maybe this has been set already, maybe not, but I know that, right away, coming up, is the Halifax Security Summit. That's getting to be quite a big conference. I am wondering if these dates for this NATO conference are designed to coincide with that, if you are aware of that.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: No, I wasn't, but it doesn't mean that the executive committee of that association didn't discuss this. I know that Senator Cordy is a strong participant in that conference. Actually, she did participate in the discussions on the selection of Halifax itself, so I'm not aware if they are aware of other activities in the same city, which is why we want to get in there as soon as possible to be able to locate the meeting venues and hotels, et cetera. I don't know if those discussions were held either at the executive or in any other forum with the association itself. I don't know.
Senator Batters: It just seems kind of ideal if they could be designed to work hand in hand. Maybe that's something that Halifax people that designed that conference will need to work with, but I wanted to raise it. Thank you.
Senator Downe: I'm particularly pleased that this conference is outside of Ottawa. Too many of these conferences, in my view, are in the national capital. I realize there is a cost, but it's important to spread it across the country for a host of reasons. I'm particularly pleased this one is in Halifax.
The Chair: So, colleagues, the motion reads:
That approval be grand to host the sixty-fourth annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Halifax Nova Scotia in November 2018; and
That temporary funding of $103,163 be approved for fiscal year 2017-18 and $1,377,069 for fiscal year 2018-19, for a total of $1,480,232 which would be shared using the usually formula, 30 per cent Senate, 70 per cent of the House of Commons, between the Senate and the House.
Anybody move the motion? Senator Marshall, seconded by Senator Ngo. Everyone agree? Carried.
I think there is one more issue, the issue of a permanent funding increase. Anyone of you want to tackle that?
Mr. Stanton: I'll start if you'd like.
[Translation]
Thank you once again for this opportunity to present the issues related to the additional $1 million in funding that we are requesting for the Joint Interparliamentary Council. This increase in the Joint Interparliamentary Council budget will go towards all associations; there are 13 associations that receive funding for their activities and contributions.
[English]
I appreciate the chance to come back. I know Colette brought this matter before your board recently, in the last two weeks. So I'll just step through a couple of high points. Then, I think, in the interests of time, we'll go straight to questions because I know senators may have some questions on this.
The background is this: In 2013, the budget for all of the 13 associations was pegged at about $4.4 million. Up to 2012, it had been at $4.4 million for five years. Starting in 2013, it was reduced by $500,000 to 3.92, and then a further $360,000 in 2014. That's where we have been since 2014, at a global budget of $3.5 million.
What happens with the global budget for JIC, and none of this money is for JIC's operations, all of it gets disbursed to the 13 associations.
About $1.4 million of that $3.5 million goes to what we call "contributions,'' that is, for lack of a better word, membership fees, particularly for the multilateral associations of which our associations are a part: CPA, IPU and so on.
That $1.4 million comes out of the $3.5 million. It leaves about $2.1 million in total for all of the activities of the associations. And again let's simplify that and say the activities are the trips that senators and members take, and also for receiving some of the bilaterals and other trips where our association receives a delegation, for example, from a neighbouring country.
That's the total, $2.1 million. That's the background. The request for an increase of $1 million is essentially to restore what had been the previous case up until 2012. It would take the global budget up to $4.5 million, and that represents, by the way, a 3.2 per cent increase in the total budget since 2008. If we go back to 2008, when we were at 4.4, we come ahead to 2017; we're at 4.5, about a 3.2 per cent increase.
It's notable that the entire $1 million budget would accrue to the activity side of the association's activities. Agreeably, the contributions, membership fees, have been growing over the last several years. It's grown from about $1.1 million in 2012, and it's up to now about $1.4 million. So if you don't grow the global budget, the membership fees gradually take a chunk out of what's available for the activity side.
That's part of the picture. This arose, essentially, from hearing from the associations in their budget proposals earlier this year. Between February and May, we hear from all the associations, they pitch their plans, if you will, on what they would like to do, their design plan for their activities for the fiscal year. It became apparent that we could meet less than 50 per cent of the demands or requests that they had for their design plan.
We increasingly heard from associations, especially this year — and I have to say that this was the first year for me to be on JIC, so I don't have the benefit, like Senator Tkachuk has, for example, in being there several years before. With the many changes in the association executives of these associations, there was a heightened interest in international travel and participation on these forums.
We also recognize that there's been a 10 per cent increase in the number of members. Of course, a big change is the makeup of the Senate, which is ongoing; and a sense there is a greater appreciation for Canada's connectedness to other nations across the world, our partners in other parts of the world on issues of national security, environment, economy and trade. As these issues take root, it found its way into the presentations by the association chairs on their arguments for supporting the plans that they pitch to us.
That's where we ended up, and that's the basis of the request by the Joint Interparliamentary Council to seek additional funding. I should point out here my co-chair, Senator Fabian Manning, joined us in June, I think it was. Of course, JIC operates by consensus, so that's why when we were presented this, two weeks ago, we didn't necessarily go into any divisions that occurred within these kinds of discussions at JIC. On October 5, JIC made a decision to bring this to the boards for your consideration. But we didn't get into matters around what divisions took place within that process to arrive at a consensus decision.
Essentially, that's the background. It takes us back up to 4.5. It would allow, to put it right, I would say, and understand that the monies that we allocate to the associations is their maximum. Historically, they never spend their maximum, but it's the maximum authority that they have to spend. Once we allocate those dollars that gives them their authority to make their plans in accordance with that for the year ahead.
The final thought on that would be that if we were to receive this additional $1 million, all things remaining equal, it would require us, when we consider the asks and demands from the various associations in their total, we would still only be able to allocate or authorize approximately 70 to 75 per cent of what their design plan would be.
We're still going to be in a position to say, "Well, no, you're not going to be able to do all that. You're going to have to make some decisions about what conferences you choose not to go to, reducing the number of participants, finding other efficiencies within your own associations to make sure that you can meet your design plan, even with the dollars that are available to you.''
So again, the additional $1 million allows us to essentially reject only 25 per cent of their plans instead of 50 per cent, if you will. I've taken enough time on that, and we'd be happy to take questions.
Senator Manning: I'm also new at JIC, after being appointed in June, and I take any position that I have within the Senate seriously, and sitting on JIC, representing the members of the Senate, is my role.
When this came up for discussion, not so much talking about a division as much as a difference of opinion, but I want to make sure my opinions are out there for consideration, and I'll tell you why I don't necessarily agree with this request.
At the present time, there is a five-year ongoing review on JIC funding for associations to make a request for more funding, whatever the case may be. That review is ongoing by a subcommittee of JIC, chaired by MP Scott Simms.
Senator Plett was involved in the beginning, but he removed himself from that. It is my understanding that Senator Tannas is part of that now. I'm not sure what discussions have been had. Senator Plett tells me he didn't have any in relation to this. I haven't heard Senator Tannas on what input he has had, from a Senate point of view.
That report is due in March of next year, so here we are in November. I was concerned that we will be providing additional funding with a report that's due in March to tell us that we may be looking at $2 million, $3million, $4 million; we may be looking at adding on new associations. There are requests in relation to some associations. We may be looking at a whole gamut of things.
That was one of my main concerns. The 30 per cent part of this, as we know here, we have a changing Senate. Right now, we have four different groups in the Senate. We may end up with more groups, according to the acceptance of the modernization report as we go forward. I'm concerned about participation, especially from new senators, non- affiliated senators. Where do they fit in? How do we ensure that everybody in the Senate has an equal opportunity to participate in these parliamentary functions? We have 30 per cent and there are 10 going. Are there three from the Senate? Who decides who the three are? How are they decided on? None of those questions has been answered for me, and that's why I have a concern given the way things are changing in the Senate.
I also have a concern, because my understanding is that there have been discussions — Senator Jaffer is not here this morning — that have been put forward in relation to co-chairs of these committees of the associations. Some have co- chairs, some do not. Is the Senate guaranteed a co-chair on each of these 13 associations? At the present time we're not. I realize we're 30 per cent, but at the same time if we're going to be at this on an equal basis, that's another concern I have.
Right now, as my co-chair Mr. Stanton put forward with regard to requests, we've all been around the tables of government a long time. If you think for one minute that someone is going to come in looking for a thousand dollars and ask for a thousand dollars, you have your head in the sand. They're hoping to get two thousand. When they ask to add 50 per cent to the budget, and we increase this by $2 million next year, they will be looking for twice that much again. That's the way things work. I'm not naive to that. Are we going to have new associations? As I say, there's some talk about the possibility of adding on a couple of new ones due to the changing dynamics of the global economy.
These are just concerns I have. Therefore, especially with the ongoing review that's in place, I felt that it's up to everybody here. Until I have a clear view of where the Senate stands in relation to say this funding, and of the clear path to exactly where each and every one of the 105 senators has equal opportunity to participate in these associations, with regard to travel and so forth, I can't support this.
Senator Wells: I have a couple of questions with regard to the possible contraction of the United States from some of the activities abroad. We've heard those things in the media over the last year from the president-elect. This is a two- part question: Is there an opportunity for Canada to have a greater role with that opportunity? And, in general, can you talk a little bit, Mr. Stanton or Senator Manning, about the growing importance — if it is a growing importance — of parliamentary diplomacy?
Mr. Stanton: Thanks, Senator Wells. It's a good point, actually. One of the things that we took a look at is how other countries actually manage, fund and resource their inter-parliamentary affairs activities. Unfortunately, there's no real common ground. Each country approaches it in a different way and has a different scenario in terms of their likely partners and allies on a number of different fronts. I think it's fair to say, if I could, that, anecdotally, Canada is a much sought-after participant in these international forums. Canada enjoys a very high reputation for its governance and its institutions and there's great interest on the part of the world to have Canada at the table in a number of these forums.
It's one of the reasons why, for example, a couple of years ago, when there was discussion about withdrawing from the Inter-Parliamentary Union — it's actually the first inter-parliamentary association that Canada took membership in — that we continue, because we're such a valued part of that, although it's a higher contribution membership fee, if you will, to stay in the IPU. But both Speakers at the time, in 2014, decided it was the right thing to do, and so we continue to stay in. I think that's indicative of where we stand, and that was certainly seen in the kinds of proposals that we saw come forward to JIC earlier this year.
In terms of parliamentary diplomacy, I think it's fair to say, on your second point — and we heard this, again, from the association chairs — that when senators and members go to some of these countries and meet with their counterparts, that's a completely different dynamic than what even our own diplomatic corps can often provide in the field. It's because you're meeting with counterparts that do the same kind of thing. They're representing constituencies; they're raising money for elections; they're talking to constituents and they're knocking on doors. There's a meeting of the minds, if you will, when an inter-parliamentary delegation meets with their counterparts in other countries, by comparison with our own paid diplomatic corps that might be present in the same country.
In some cases, our inter-parliamentary delegations have been able to open doors for our diplomatic corps, from time to time, that might not otherwise be open to them. There's considerable value to the country, for us, in having that kind of relationship built over time. Association chairs also stress the importance of continuity for that purpose.
The Chair: Colleagues, can we have some order?
Mr. Stanton: That's all I was going to say on that. Thank you, Senator Wells.
Senator Wells: To the point Senator Manning makes, it's a good point. Senator Jaffer, who is not here today, made that point regarding Senate co-chairs at the previous discussion that we had on this. We do have them on a number of the associations, and I want to put my support behind that.
The Senate and senators' participation in parliamentary diplomacy is the long wave of Canada's Parliament, the House of Commons being the short wave, if I can say it that way. It's a lot easier and perhaps a lot more effective for senators to build up the long-term relationships with parliamentarians from other countries, because we're here for a while, and there are fewer of us. There's more of a directed concentration of senators than there might be from the revolving door of the hundreds of parliamentarians on the house side.
I wanted to make the point that I think it's a good idea. I don't think it detracts at all from a member of the House of Commons being a chair. I think it adds to it, and to have two chairs of an association — having an equal chair from the Senate — would be helpful, I think, because if I understand, chairs from the House of Commons can't always attend all of the meetings.
To Senator Jaffer's initial point and Senator Manning's emphasis on that, I agree. I think it would add, not detract, and I don't think there's any additional cost to it, as well.
Mr. Stanton: You're exactly right, Senator Wells. The participation by senators in these delegations is absolutely important. It's critical, in fact, because senators are seen as having higher stature among parliamentary associates and friends that we make in other parts of the world. Senators are seen as having and bringing credibility to that outgoing delegation. Again, it's part and parcel of that same element. It is opening doors and finding ways to make those stronger connections on a number of different fronts, as we talked about earlier.
Senator Wells: Finally, chair, what's the machinery of creating a co-chair? Does that happen at the association level?
Mr. Stanton: Yes. There are four associations right now that have co-chairs. The other nine have a single chair. But in the past, there had been a convention where if there was a single chair for an association, every two years it would flip from a House of Commons chair to a Senate chair. It is my understanding, generally speaking, that that convention has not necessarily been kept up in recent years. It ultimately rests with the associations to make their necessary changes and how they do their makeup, but we, as the Joint Inter-parliamentary Council, can certainly nudge them in that direction. I can't speak to it before we've gone back to speak with our council, obviously, but certainly there's great merit in moving in that direction.
The Chair: If I can comment quickly and follow up on some of the comments by Senator Wells and Mr. Stanton, having had the privilege of serving a Speaker for a brief time in this chamber, we underestimate, sometimes, colleagues, the importance of parliamentary diplomacy. We forget, sometimes, that there's a lot more to diplomacy than just government to government.
I've seen first-hand in the few months I served as Speaker that, while not having participated in many but a few conferences with the IPU and having received delegations, there's no stronger connection between people to people than the connections between Parliament to Parliament. They override every day of the week and twice on Sunday the connections between government to government.
When parliamentarians from the House of Commons or the Senate engage with other parliamentarians, either in multinational forays or in direct diplomacy, it is huge. Canada might be a soft power in the world but we're respected at every forum and at every particular event I've participated in.
The world changes in millimetres, colleagues. As senators, we have the ultimate independence and powers to articulate on behalf of our region and on behalf of the places we represent. There's no greater flexibility where we have the opportunity to do that than in diplomatic sessions.
Parliamentary diplomacy, as far as I'm concerned, is completely underutilized by our Senate. In addition to having capable people, we have people with a lot of experience. Forget about the longevity of being here, the broad experience of what we represent in the country is better showcased when we go on parliamentary missions than, quite frankly, on the house side, which is quite a snapshot of an election campaign.
Those are the comments I wanted to share.
Senator Tkachuk: We must be respected, because I just got an email saying there was $3.5 million deposited in my account by Dr. Uber. I feel really important now.
I have a couple of questions on IPU. What is the membership fee now?
Mr. Stanton: It's around $500,000.
Senator Tkachuk: What is your total membership? One third is taken up by IPU.
Mr. Stanton: Correct.
Senator Tkachuk: What is your membership on Canada-U.S.? We don't have one, right; there's no membership fee for Canada-U.S.?
Mr. Stanton: No, there's no contribution.
Senator Tkachuk: What would be the second biggest one?
Mr. Stanton: NATO; OSCE, which is mostly the bilaterals; and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has — Colette will get you the details.
Senator Tkachuk: What would be the travel budget for IPU?
Mr. Stanton: On contributions, NATO is at $347,000 and IPU is at $447,000. So I was a little high at $500,000.
On the travel and activities side, Colette, do you have that?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Yes.
Mr. Stanton: She's going to get that for you.
Senator Tkachuk: I'm trying to compare what Canada-U.S. would be to IPU.
Mr. Stanton: I've got it here. With activities, this is for the 2015-16 fiscal year: IPU was $182,000, so it was considerably less than its contribution. That was what was actually spent.
Senator Tkachuk: Right. And what are they budgeting for this year?
Mr. Stanton: Do we have this year's? The budget in 2015-16 for IPU was $647,000, of which $450,000 were contributions and activities were $182,000.
Senator Tkachuk: And with Canada-U.S. for this coming year? You've given me last year's numbers, but aren't we dealing with next year's budget? What is the budget amount for travel for IPU and Canada-U.S.?
Mr. Stanton: In this current fiscal year?
Senator Tkachuk: For the budget year you're asking the money for, which I think is 2016-17, right?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: We have it. We just need to find the page.
Mr. Stanton: We just need to find it for you.
Senator Tkachuk: 2017-18, sorry.
Mr. Stanton: For example, for this coming year, the contributions for IPU were $461,000. That's in the current fiscal year.
Senator Tkachuk: And next year?
Mr. Stanton: Their ask for activities was $292,000. That was what they asked for. Then, in the budget deliberations, we would have reduced that down to approximately half of what they actually asked for.
Senator Tkachuk: Is their membership fee the same for next year as this year?
Mr. Stanton: Over time, as I mentioned, it tends to go up, but it went up from $450,000 to $461,000 in the space of that one year. As I say, there's been some creep . . . .
Senator Tkachuk: It could be the dollar, too.
Mr. Stanton: That's a fair point.
Senator Tkachuk: But on the Canada-U.S.?
Mr. Stanton: For Canada-U.S., there's no contribution fee.
Senator Tkachuk: I know that, but how much for activities?
Mr. Stanton: As for activities, we'll get that momentarily.
Senator Tkachuk: If we're going to do parliamentary diplomacy, I think this might be the year that Canada-U.S. might be a really important place to put money.
Mr. Stanton: Yes, agreed.
Senator Marshall: When Colette appeared the last time, she spoke about the five-year review. I know that it's due in March; I think in four months' time are the results of the review. What's the objective of the review? What's the purpose of the review?
Mr. Stanton: I'm on that subcommittee as well. JIC is mandated to do a review of its programs, administrative and otherwise, and invite comment and feedback from each of the associations every five years. It's part of our mandate. We're at the five-year mark now.
The previous review was done by Rob Merrifield in his time at JIC. We've heard from all 13 associations and from the four inter-parliamentary groups, which we don't fund for activities but to which we do give administrative support, and we've heard from friendship groups. We bring all that information in and we pose questions to them around how JIC is serving them, what their overall comments are and how, for example, outbound trips are administered.
I will say it doesn't have a heavy accent on the budget, necessarily. It's more on administrative matters. We as a subcommittee will report to JIC by the end of March, and then JIC will take that report into consideration and, presumably, go forward.
Senator Marshall: But it could recommend increased funding. That's not been excluded from the review?
Mr. Stanton: It's not excluded, as is true for the issue around new associations. That has come up in the course of the deliberations by the subcommittee. Again, I can't speak for what may come in the future. There have been some requests from friendship groups to form an association, but at the moment there's a moratorium on any new associations. We have notified the community that there will be no decision on additional associations until after the subcommittee reports.
Senator Marshall: If there's a systematic review taking place with regard to the organization, why can't we just wait the four months and see what comes out of that review? It seems that we're putting the cart before the horse. We're coming in and saying, "Give us another million.'' But the review is going to be something that's systematic, and will rationalize and provide information, et cetera.
Why are we looking for extra money if the review is coming in March?
Mr. Stanton: Senator Marshall, it's a good observation, although I would say the $1 million request really was not part and parcel of the administrative review. It really flowed more from the fact that the associations' proposals for their activities in the coming fiscal year, and their comments received in the course of those three or four months when we heard from the associations, made it clear to us that there was a heightened interest in these kinds of inter- parliamentary delegations and activities abroad. Therefore, JIC came back to the fact that they really need to go back to and restore the level of funding that was available to these associations in the five years from 2008 to 2012.
That really was the conclusion — without saying anything about new associations or anything.
Senator Manning: If I could add, Senator Marshall, one of the concerns I raised earlier, in relation to the review and the participation of the Senate's concerns at that review, such as the fact that Senator Plett did not get the opportunity to — he removed himself from it. Senator Tannas, as I said, I'm not sure of his role at this point, except that he is a member of the committee, but the changing dynamics of the Senate concern me in relation to who gets to participate at what level and how we decide that. I was hoping in the next couple of months to be able to have input into that as a member of the JIC now to make sure that the concerns of the new senators and all senators — that they have an equal opportunity to participate.
Senator Marshall: I would like to see the review before I vote to approve additional funding. Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, I have a long list of senators who want to ask questions.
Mr. Stanton: If I could, just before you carry on, those two bits of information pertaining to Senator Tkachuk's question, the activities budget for Canada-U.S. is $267,000 and the activities — this is what was actually approved and allocated to them — for IPU is $153,000. Those are the two numbers that we were waiting on. Thank you and sorry, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: I remind colleagues that we only have another 10 or 15 minutes to deal with this issue. There are a couple of other items that don't appear on the agenda but are on the other items section that are critical and need to be dealt with today, so if we can be concise in our questioning. Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Thank you, chair. I'll be brief. Are we voting today on this in the next 15 minutes? Well, obviously, I'm a proponent.
The Chair: Unless the committee has a different view.
Senator Munson: I know we can't — we didn't have replacements for Senator Jaffer and Senator Cordy. I thought they should participate in this, but be that as it may, the — I'm a proponent of parliamentary diplomacy. I know how it works, particularly in Canada-Africa and Canada-U.S. We open doors for diplomats. We open doors when we see federal or government funding in other parts of the world, and we do take a close look at a lot of the programs that Canada is involved in in that part of the world. It is a vote MP to MP, senator to senator, conversations, and it has served its purpose at least on the associations that I have been part of.
I know this report is coming in March. I know that we're in the middle of Senate modernization. As a whip for seven years, it's very difficult when you're picking people who want to go on these trips because I always felt the Senate was short-changed. We're living in a new time when we now have 30 new MPs, so 338. We will soon have 105 senators, and at the glacial speed that things work around here, after we see a report in March, which will be followed up by maybe a sub-report dealing with that report, which will deal with another report on how this whole thing works, it will be sometime.
I really believe that, of course, the new senators, the independent senators, once this fairness is organized, which I think is a good thing in terms of representations on associations and/or committees, will have full participation in this. But when we look at the House of Commons, the breakdown sometimes is larger in the House of Commons, so, as Mr. Stanton has said, it would improve our representation on these committees, travelling, up to 75 per cent of a request as opposed to always cutting in half the 50 per cent. I think that all the million dollars is doing is restoring us back to previous levels to participate in the global environment that we live in. In that global environment, I think that if we move forward incrementally on this, we'll get to the other place after the report next March. I'm fully in favour of the request for a million dollars. Thank you.
Senator Batters: Thanks very much. I think it was the spring, but JIC was frequently coming before this committee with funding requests of smaller amounts. I'm wondering if that is designed to curtail these kinds of requests.
Then I'll say my second question so I can move quickly. As to what you were indicating before, that this is mainly a request to restore what had been budgeted previously a number of years ago, I'm wondering if there was any thought of taking into account efficiencies and that sort of thing that have been found since the time that this budget was at that higher level.
Mr. Stanton: Two good questions, and on the first ones, yes. There had been several representations here by JIC in the past several months, two for additional dollars under what had been provided in the wake of the IPU decision in 2014 where JIC essentially only had the ability to request additional funds. That was a mechanism that was a legacy that we inherited this year in 2016. That was the only mechanism available to us. The permanent funding increase would essentially get rid of that, what was called and referred to as an "over-allocation mechanism'' put in place.
On the second point, picking up from the Merrifield report, a number of measures have been put in place on efficiencies pertaining to the purchase of air tickets, staff travel, trips and also with respect to spousal travel on trips. The establishment of thresholds, for example, to make sure that unless a delegation is a certain size it has to scope its costs in association with that.
That's part of the five-year review, too, that all of those costs and efficiencies and accountability questions are part and parcel of that report, and that will continue forward.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you, chair. I want to say several things. One is that I agree with all of those who emphasized the importance of diplomatic work, both by members of Parliament elected and by senators. I'd like to, therefore, in doing that, reinforce your point and the point of Senator Wells about the particularly important role played by senators.
And I would also like to emphasize and express my agreement with Senator Manning's point that there is a serious gap in the representation on parliamentary delegations now. And the argument is made in the supporting document that the high number of new parliamentarians and parliamentarians in new roles, in both chambers, many with strong and focussed interests on the international scene, has resulted in association memberships and executives wanting to re-engage with international counterparts and deepen their understanding of global issues. Absolutely, except that it isn't in both chambers that the new members get to engage. In fact, fully 44 of 105 senators are not eligible to go on any of these delegations.
As to the chair's point about the importance of regional representation, I'll use one example. There is a province with six senators, five of whom are independents, one of whom isn't. Those five independents won't be able to represent their region on these international delegations. I would argue we shouldn't be increasing the funding of JIC until that specific issue is resolved.
There are models that we could use. Right now, the selection goes to the two whips, the Conservative and Liberal whips. I think the selection could go to an all-corner representative council that could be convened under the speaker or convened under this committee that could emphasize a broader look at people's backgrounds, their specific interests and their expertise. It could also look at people who are wanting to develop a background and expertise for the future, so we can keep the expertise growing with more and more people coming on to fulfil these roles in an effective way.
I could see us passing this resolution on the basis of the importance of — and particularly heightened importance now with what has happened in the States — of diplomatic work, but I would say it needs to be contingent upon the provision of independent senators being allowed to participate proportionately, fairly and fully within those parameters on these international delegations.
Senator Tkachuk: Could I ask a question on that? If an unaffiliated senator goes to the United States, and he is independent or she is independent, how do you know that they are going to represent the views of the government?
Senator Mitchell: What is interesting is Scott Simms made the point.
Senator Tkachuk: Why would they go there, to argue against it?
Senator Mitchell: Scott Simms made a point to me. He is the head of the —
The Chair: Senator Mitchell, if I could remind all our colleagues, Senator Tkachuk, when parliamentary diplomacy is done, we are not representing the view of the government.
Senator Mitchell: Exactly.
The Chair: Just to be clear, when I go on parliamentary missions to this day, and in the past, I represent my view as a parliamentarian, not the view of the government. We have to understand there is a distinction here between parliamentary diplomacy and government-to-government diplomacy.
Senator Tkachuk: I never saw it that way.
The Chair: It is that way.
Senator Tkachuk: It's not true.
Senator Mitchell: It's also true that the moment that we enter into the diplomatic realm, we are not representing partisan or party interests either. Independents fully qualify on that parameter, and it's simply not acceptable.
The Chair: We're not going to resolve the mechanics of that. Everyone has a view. I think that could be resolved by having all non-affiliated senators assign themselves to one of the two whips. Some people might not agree with that point of view either.
Senator Downe: Has the House of Commons considered this submission?
Mr. Stanton: Thank you, Senator Downe. My understanding is that the BOIE has received the request as well. They have not made a decision on the permanent funding. They have their meetings in camera, so I don't know how much I'm allowed to say here, but I do understand that the approval on the conferences taken earlier was agreed to. The final decision on the permanent funding has not been made as of yet, but there are indications that the BOIE will be onside with that direction.
Senator Downe: Thank you. Further to the concerns raised by Senator Mitchell and others here today, has the JIC done an analysis of how delegates were selected for parliamentary association travel in the past? I've been advised by a long-serving member that this system currently in place where whips select members is reasonably new, 10 or 15 years. In the past, associations would know which of their members would actually participate at a high level, bring quality to the discussion, show up, for example, at all the meetings. Fortunately it has been a very rare occurrence, but it does occasionally happen where the participation is not what it should be.
Rather than this default position now where the whips I'm sure consider all that, but also consider other factors pertaining to participation in individual chambers and committee work and so on, has JIC done any analysis of what has happened in the past? I think that would be useful on a go-forward basis for some of the concerns raised today as to what system we should consider.
Mr. Stanton: That issue has come forward in the subcommittees' presentations on this five-year review. To answer your first question, there has been no study of this, per se. Each of the associations has in their Constitution the framework for decision-making about the composition of various outbound trips, and so they go in accordance with that.
Just as you point out Senator Downe, the ultimate decision rests with the whips. So a number of association chairs have identified that as a problem, especially with that continuity issue of making sure that the right members are able to travel as part of this, and that travel on these inter-parliamentary delegations is not seen as a junket or a perk, that it in fact is a legitimate part of inter-parliamentary and parliamentary diplomacy.
So that is a tension that exists, and we are taking that up in the course of our five-year review. I'm sure that it will be part of the report.
Senator Downe: Thank you for that answer. I would like to have confirmed whether or not what I've been told is correct. My point is that in the past the whips were advised of who the association selected for a trip by the executive based upon their understanding of the participation of that person and so on, all the other factors I mentioned, and the only role for the whip at that time was to say, "No, Senator Mitchell is presenting a bill. He can't go because the bill might come up,'' as opposed to saying, "No, I'm not sending Senator Mitchell. I'm sending Senator McCoy,'' for example. Could somebody check that out?
Mr. Stanton: I'm not sure exactly what the intricacies are.
Senator Downe: If that's true — and I believe it to be; the person who told me is a long-serving member — it is an evolution that we may want to consider as appropriate for the Senate and the House of Commons now or should we look at going back, back to the future?
Lastly, I do disagree with my colleague Senator Mitchell. I'm not sure how we would change the rules with independents without changing them for the House of Commons at the same time. An independent is an independent is an independent. We have two chambers, so we have to consider all independents in both chambers participating because they are all members of Parliament, so they should not be excluded any more than any of our people should be excluded on a go-forward basis.
Senator Wallace: On the ability of independent senators to have rights of equality to participate, I was taken with Senator Manning's comments. Just so I understand this, this is dealt with by the Liberal and Conservative whips. Are they only able to deal with the members that are members of their caucuses? Is it possible for the Liberal and Conservative whips to make opportunities available to independents if they chose, or are they prevented? So for example, Senator Plett can only make decisions regarding Conservative senators. Does it go beyond that? In theory is there the ability of the whips to be able to place independent senators on these associations and to have rights of travel?
Mr. Stanton: On that point, each association has their own Constitution. From my look at it, none of them exclude the possibility of independents participating either on executives or on trips. There have been occasions where independents have done so.
Insofar as the question as to how the whips interact with that, I could not offer any comment. I don't know if Senator Manning —
Senator Manning: I would think that the whips can only whip their own people, not deal with the independents. I'm not sure there is a mechanism in place for that. Now, again, my understanding would be from conversations I have had that it would be the choice of the whip if you want to ask an independent to participate if there was nobody in their caucus that was available at the time. But whether there is a protocol for that, I'm not sure.
Senator Wallace: It is your understanding that this gap, this issue, would be dealt with as part of the review that will occur between now and —
Senator Manning: It's not my understanding.
Mr. Stanton: Not necessarily.
Senator Manning: No, it's not part of the discussions. That's why I raised it.
Senator Wallace: There is no ability for independents to move forward on this issue?
Senator Manning: It's not under present discussion.
Mr. Stanton: I have done a number of these association annual general meetings. The path for people to participate on an executive, for example, is to have a membership and talk to their colleagues about who they put forward for some of these various chairs. There is a kind of political process that unravels, as I'm sure you have seen at these associations. It's kind of a collaborative process amongst members and senators to figure out who will run for what. That does not exclude independent parties. Some Constitutions refer to having seats for recognized parties, but not to the exclusion of independents.
Senator Wallace: As Senator Tkachuk points out, if we wrote a cheque for $25 and have a membership in the association —
Mr. Stanton: That's it.
Senator Tkachuk: You are in.
Senator Wallace: This is all over $25?
Senator Mitchell: But you can't go on the trip.
The Chair: Colleagues, colleagues.
Senator Wallace: But at least you are in the house.
The Chair: Colleagues — order, please. We are limited in time, so I will allow comments from Senators Plett, Campbell and McCoy, and then we need to wrap this up.
Senator Plett: I have a few comments, basically because Senator Manning has referred a few times to me having been part of JIC, and indeed I was. However, because of their scheduling and me being the whip, it didn't work anymore, so Senator Tannas has replaced me. I was certainly at the meeting where this particular item was discussed. At that particular meeting, I along with Senator Manning did not support it.
I have reflected on that for quite some time. Clearly we are restoring what was taken away. We are not increasing. We are restoring what was taken away. Senator Munson mentioned that. And everything is increased over a period of time, and yet the funding for JIC was decreased. Things will continue to increase.
I believe that because, as MP Stanton pointed out, everything on JIC is done on consensus, and I was on the losing side of that vote. I believe it's my obligation to accept what the committee decided, and come in here and support what it decided.
There will be a review done. I don't have any great hope that that review will be done in four months. When that review is done, there will not be a recommendation for a decrease in funding. There will probably be a recommendation for an increase in funding.
I do not see the downside of us increasing this. In a year from now, if the review shows that there needs to be another increase, it can be dealt with.
The changing environment, Senator Mitchell wants to hold us ransom and say let's not increase funding until we have met other obligations that he believes we should make. That is not the way to conduct business, to say let's not do this until you have done what I want.
Things will change down the road, no question about it. As things change, whether some of us want it or not, the non-affiliated senators do have the numbers, as Senator Wallace pointed out, and things will change down the road. The question was asked whether a Conservative or Liberal whip can appoint an independent. Yes, they can. I approved Senator Rivard to go on a trip. Sure, maybe once in a blue moon. It was the only time I ever had a non- affiliated senator ask me. Senator Rivard went on a trip in place of a Conservative. So it can be done. It was done. He was not sent home.
He did not put himself under my jurisdiction for the rest of the time, although that would certainly solve the problem. But for some reason, the non-affiliated senators believe that it is demeaning for them, in some way or another, to put themselves under the control of the whip in certain areas. It does not mean that we whip you to vote the way we want. We don't even do that with our own colleagues.
The U.S. dollar has gone up tremendously. Senator Tkachuk asked a number of questions in regard to Canada-U.S. There was a 30 per cent increase in everything we do across the line or maybe more. There is nothing, if we vote in favour of this today, which precludes us from increasing down the road. Trust me. The review will not come and say to decrease the funding.
I certainly support that we move this forward and that we vote in favour of this, and move it along.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett, for your compromise. Just in the benefit of time, Senator Campbell and Senator McCoy will help me out, I get a sense that we have a consensus here, and correct me if I'm wrong. We don't have a consensus?
Senator Campbell: No, we don't.
Senator McCoy: Could I put one thing on the record? I will be very brief.
Senator Campbell: How much less did we participate when we didn't have this extra $1 million in there? What effect did it have by not having this $1 million in here? I understand it's going back to levels, and it's not just the funding for JIC. We have cut all over the board. All of a sudden, every time I turn around, JIC is back here, "More please.'' It's like something out of Oliver. What happens if we don't put this $1 million in?
Mr. Stanton: In terms of the actual spending relative to the budget, the last year, where we had that roughly $4.2 million envelope, if I can call it that, the actual expenditures on trips in that year were down at around $2.3 million. Even when the envelope was higher, admittedly the actual expenditures weren't appreciably higher than what is allocated even now.
In the last five years, the number of participants on trips has gone down by 8 per cent, and that takes into account, Senator Campbell, the last year we had the full funding in place was an election year, in 2011-12. In an election year, as we saw last year, even though there is an envelope in place and an allocation for spending, they don't use all the money that is available to them.
It would allow an increase in activities, certainly, but as I said earlier, what is allocated to them is the limit and the maximum. It would take away the necessity for JIC having to approach the boards for incremental funding on an ongoing basis or on a per-request basis in the future.
Senator Campbell: It's my understanding that the ultimate decision now for who travels on trips rests with the whips for the independent Liberal Caucus and for the Conservative caucus; is that correct?
Senator Manning: Yes.
Mr. Stanton: That is correct.
Senator Campbell: With regard to Senator Downe, he was concerned about the house and independents there. I could care less about the house. They have got their own problems. I don't think we should be worried about what they are going to do. It's not our problem.
I share the concerns of Senator Manning. In my little perfect world, this would go away for a week or two, and somebody would come back here and say, "Here is how we're going to go about this process with regard to having people go on trips.''
There is no question in my mind that if I went to Senator Plett or Senator Munson and said I would like to go on this trip, that they would consider it in a fair manner and that I may or may not go.
There are about 30-some odd people who have come in here that do not know Senator Plett or Senator Downe. They may find that slightly uncomfortable. I have an amendment to make on the motion. I don't necessarily have to make it, if we could adjourn this and come back with an answer to figure out how everybody is going to go. I don't think it's as big a deal as everyone is making it out to be. I agree with you that there is a way for independents to become involved. The reason I'm saying this is the only way it could happen now is if the whip approves it. I don't have a whip.
Senator Tkachuk: Well, that's your problem.
Senator Campbell: No, no, that's the trouble with this place. It's not my problem; it's this place's problem, until we start thinking about it.
I move we adjourn this issue until the next meeting. If not, I have an amendment.
The Chair: Colleagues, we have a potential amendment and a motion on the floor. You should move your amendment, Senator Campbell, because I think there is a desire to have a vote on this issue today.
Senator Campbell: I move an amendment that authorizing the amount of this be contingent on rule changes to allow independent senators to participate as association delegates.
Senator Manning: Do I have a vote?
The Chair: Of course.
Senator Manning: I just wanted to make sure.
The Chair: You're still a member of this committee, in addition to being a representative.
Senator McCoy: I just want to speak to the record here. First of all, I 100 per cent endorse your comments regarding the value of parliamentary diplomacy, particularly in this day and age where trade agreements are —
The Chair: Colleagues, order please. Senator McCoy has the floor. Thank you.
Senator McCoy: That valid point has been made several times in the chamber by senators all around the room. I think Canada is in a good position to broker some agreements around the world at the moment, as well.
Senator Plett, I'm always pleased to note on the record when I agree with your comments, and so I certainly do endorse your comments today as well.
I also want to say that to put any item here to suggest — I'm speaking now in my capacity as facilitator of the independent senators' group, and I would not hold this item up or hold it hostage on a political basis of any sort. I believe that we must, as senators, act on behalf of Canada and do what we can in terms of international and national parliamentary diplomacy. I think that this is a matter in which the participation of independent senators is a red herring. I think we should proceed and I think that's a constitutional duty that we should adopt, so I put those comments on the table.
The Chair: The question on amendment is: But that the amount be contingent upon the rule changes to allow independent senators to participate as association delegates. This will be a recorded vote.
Senator Batters: Which senators get to vote on this motion at this meeting?
The Chair: There is Senator McCoy, who is here as a representative of Senator Cordy; and Senator Campbell, who is a member of the committee and Senator Wallace.
Senator Batters: From Senator Cordy?
The Chair: Senator McCoy is replacing Senator Cordy at this meeting.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Nicole Proulx, Clerk of the Committee: I will call members' names beginning with the chair, and then going in alphabetical order. Senators should verbally indicate whether they vote for, against or abstain.
The Honourable Senator Housakos.
The Chair: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell: For.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Downe.
Senator Downe: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: For.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator McCoy.
Senator McCoy: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Munson.
Senator Munson: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Ngo.
Senator Ngo: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Wallace.
Senator Wallace: For.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Wells.
Senator Wells: Against.
I want to associate myself with Senator McCoy's comment. We shouldn't be held hostage, and the operation of the association shouldn't be held hostage.
The Chair: We have three votes for, and 10 opposed, thus the amendment is defeated.
An Hon. Senator: Question.
The Chair: I move the motion that approval be granted for additional permanent funding of $1 million for fiscal year 2017-18 and subsequent years, which would be shared using the usual formula of 30 per cent Senate and 70 per cent House of Commons; between the Senate and the House of Commons, the amounts would be $300,000 and $700,000. Colleagues, would anyone like to move the motion?
Senator Marshall: I would like a recorded vote on this one, also.
The Chair: Do I have someone moving the motion?
Senator Tkachuk: I move the motion.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Tkachuk. We'll have a recorded vote on this.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Housakos.
The Chair: In favour.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: In favour.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Downe.
Senator Downe: In favour.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator McCoy.
Senator McCoy: For.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Munson.
Senator Munson: In favour.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Ngo.
Senator Ngo: In favour.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: In favour.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: In favour.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Wallace.
Senator Wallace: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Wells.
Senator Wells: In favour.
The Chair: Colleagues, nine are in favour of the motion and four are against, thus the motion is carried. Thank you colleagues.
(The committee adjourned.)