Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 10 - Evidence - March 9, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 9, 2017
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:35 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 would like to start off by reminding everybody that, going forward and as of today, our Internal Economy meetings are going to be televised. I'm glad to see everyone has worn their best suits and ties, except for Senator Dawson, of course. He's always rebelling.
Colleagues, let's go right to issue one, which is the adoption of minutes of the proceedings of March 2, 2017, the public portion.
Any questions or anybody move the minutes?
Senator Campbell: Moved.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Campbell. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Second issue is the tenth report of the subcommittee on budgets. Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes, chair, thank you very much.
We have a small request for the committee's approval that we are recommending $10,500. This is an additional amount to the Foreign Affairs and International Trade meetings that their steering committee is attending in Mexico with respect to a study that they did and a presentation and discussion with Mexican parliamentarians, and, with the expansion of the steering committee, they are looking to have their additional member attend. So that brings us to an additional amount.
Senator Marshall: Senator Tannas, can you just give us a brief status report. I know that we're well within budget, but, just very briefly, if you could refresh our memories.
Senator Tannas: I don't, but I know that we have many hundreds of thousands of dollars that will go unspent by the end of the year. But I will, at the next meeting, bring an update for all members.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Maybe we can ask our CFO when she does her quarterly statements. She could probably give us an update.
Senator Tannas: Sure.
Senator Marshall: Perfect. Thank you.
Senator Tannas: I so move.
The Chair: Colleagues, it is moved by Senator Tannas. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
Colleagues, item three. We, of course, heard last week the appeal of our decision regarding legal fees from Senator Carstairs. We had decided to take a week in order to reflect on the issue and take a decision this week. Is there a willingness around the table to open this discussion, or are we comfortable with the decision that has been taken?
Senator Lankin: I don't have a direct answer to that. When we met last week, I said that there was so much that was opaque to those of us who are new and that I would really benefit from hearing people who were here talk about this and answer a number of questions.
I have had some conversations, and I think that that's uncomfortable for people. I'm sort of understanding that there are a lot of layers of things here. But I have a fundamental challenge, and I don't know whether it can be answered easily. As I went back and looked at the testimony, I see, at least as it's been presented — and I couldn't find, in reading materials, much to refute it — that there was, like for others, an incorrect assertion with respect to primary residence.
There was a challenge for the senator in taking up the offer that was made for the mediation arbitration process with Justice Binnie because of the criteria that, if you go in, you abide by the outcome. I understand that from a binding arbitration process to a certain degree, but, depending on the structure, in some places, there are provisions for appealing decisions. In other cases, there aren't.
So the senator had to make a decision. I don't know where that criteria came from, if it came from the Senate, if it came from Internal Economy, if it came from Justice Binnie. I don't know how that was imposed, so that's something that I've been reflecting on.
I also heard that, once that process was no longer available, there was hanging over the senator the potential action of a lawsuit on the part of the Senate. I have been here just long enough to have participated in the decision to listen to the advice that we got not to pursue, from a cost-benefit analysis, any further action.
That seems to have been a very long time after, and it seems that a large part of the accumulation of legal fees could be attributed to that. I'm trying to understand if there were decisions that were taken, for whatever reason, through that period of time — we only have one case in front of us — left this senator in this situation, I don't know — and legal counsel might have advice — I don't know what happens in the courts. I know in other forms of arbitration and administrative law, there are times where costs are provided for. That lack of specific knowledge is troublesome.
The other piece that's troublesome for me is I've heard a number of people, and I've asked questions, who say we did not want to be in the position of trying to decide on facts again. The auditor did his thing, Justice Binnie did his thing, and we didn't feel it was appropriate to step into that. I'm very sympathetic to how that decision could have been arrived at.
Many of us had to make our choices, and we went with Justice Binnie or we paid back just to get it over with. I'm not saying this with any kind of assessment or criticism. I think there were different pressures on different people. As I look back and read the court decisions, and from the public knowledge, there's no doubt at the time there were deep political connections and consequences for all of these decisions. I understand it. It's very real.
That might have put different pressure on different colleagues. When I look at that, I come to the point where I don't have all of the knowledge. The little bit of knowledge I do have, and the sense of principles of fairness and everything, it seems to me that there's been an injustice done, and there's a principle we need to look at to redress this.
Mr. Chair, like I said last week, the answers to those questions elude me at this point in time. I don't know how best you want to handle this discussion around the table. I think it's very important from the perspective of principle, and yet I understand how difficult it is for all of you who have been through this for a long time. Therein rests my dilemma as a new member.
The Chair: I'll try to address as many of the questions as possible. It's very important to say from the outset — and I think we all have to be cognizant of this — that Internal Economy should try not to get into the habit of adjudicating decisions that previous Internal Economy Committees have made in past years, because I think when those decisions are made they are made in the context of that time, and that's always helpful.
The most important thing that has to be kept in mind is one of the biggest criticisms we received as an administrative body, and of course constitutionally we all know we're a self-governing body, as all Parliaments are in a democracy, so conflicts on administrative issues traditionally come before Internal Economy, steering, on behalf of Internal Economy, and then they can be appealed to Internal Economy. Ultimately those decisions of Internal Economy could be appealed to the Senate as a whole.
We decided, because of the pressures at that time, and I think all of us don't regret that decision, that it's imperative that senators do not sit in judgment of senators' administrative challenges or conflicts with the administration.
In large part, that decision was taken because of the situation with the Auditor General's report. I think it was a sage decision when it was taken at the time. It's one that, of course, has led to the development now of going a step further with an oversight body, which a proposal will be coming before Internal Economy in the next few weeks. We decided as a result of that to create the arm's length arbitration process with Justice Binnie, which we put into place in large part to respond to that issue, and to serve as pillars going forward that this institution is more accountable, more transparent than any other, and our level of transparency is at the highest possible level.
We all made that decision at the time that in this body, senators will not be sitting in judgment of other senators' administrative conflicts over finances. That was a decision we made. It was a right decision two and a half years after the process.
In terms of the injustices, there were a lot of injustices carried out because, unfortunately, we brought the Auditor General in without any parameters. He had a wide surface to skate on. We accepted that at the time. It would be unfair now in hindsight to go back and revisit that debate. There were tons of injustices because this whole process had intertwined legal, civil and administrative issues into one ball because we hadn't set up those parameters.
As a result, some senators were concerned about the legal ramifications and criminal ramifications. Others were preoccupied with the civil, others with the administrative, but it all became one soup. You're right. There were a number of senators who chose to go before Justice Binnie. Others chose to pay. All went before the RCMP, as it turns out, because even though we referred nine cases to the RCMP on the recommendation of the Auditor General, the RCMP took it upon themselves to review all 30.
We tried at the time to be transparent and accountable with the Canadian public. We felt we had an obligation to do that. We tried to put into place a system to be as fair as possible with all senators. Some senators decided to avail themselves of the Binnie process, some did not. Some decided to go different directions. It was a decision various senators made at the time. Like I said, there were a lot of injustices.
I was Speaker at the time and chair of this committee, and I was not allowed, because of public pressure, to go before an arbitrator and plead my case. I just paid back the $8,300 without a fair hearing. That was unjust, if I may put that on the table. But it was a decision I made at the time, which I thought was in the best interest of the institution as chair of Internal Economy. Was it fair? We can debate it all day long, but it won't change very much now.
Michel, if you want to add more to this, but it might not satisfactorily answer all the questions because it was a period of time where, like I said, there were a lot of pressures coming from a lot of directions, and we dealt with it in what we thought was the best possible way at the time, fully in the interests of the institution and the public, not in the interest of senators. Fundamentally, the decisions we made at the time were based on that principle.
Senator Lankin: I appreciate your answer very much, Mr. Chair. In my ramblings, there were three specific questions that, if I may re-put them more succinctly to the Law Clerk, if you could attempt to answer them, I would appreciate it.
The first was the general principle of awarding of costs. I may not be using the right language; we're not in a court of law here. Is there any wisdom you have to offer on that point?
Second, the restrictions placed on senators if they chose to participate in the Binnie process, where was the decision taken, where was the direction given from?
Third, the length of time that potential action of recouping and threat of a lawsuit hanging over this senator's head, and maybe other senators' heads, I don't know, what's the story behind how long that went on for, which might have prejudiced this senator with respect to additional costs?
Michel Patrice, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and Chief, Parliamentary Precinct Services, Senate of Canada: Thank you, senator. In terms of the award of costs, basically a cost award that you see often in the court proceedings, in relation to the arbitration process, the steering committee, in accordance with the Senate legal and identification policy established a principle in terms of providing legal assistance to former senators who availed themselves of the arbitration process.
The formula used was essentially the cost award, or the reimbursement of legal fees would be made after Justice Binnie's decision on their case would be a prorated cost award. For example, if a senator was going with a $10,000 amount identified by the OAG and Justice Binnie reduced it to $5,000, it would be the percentage, up to a maximum of $25,000. So that's the way, in terms of the arbitration process and the process that the committee set up, that was decided and determined by Internal Economy's steering committee in accordance with the policy.
Obviously, if it had been a civil case, for example, the legal civil proceeding had happened against the former senators, then the court would have all of its powers that it has and would award costs in relation to the outcome of the case.
In terms of costs, I think that addresses the question.
In terms of the restrictions or the limitations in terms of the appeal in the decision of Binnie, the dispute resolution process was adopted by the full committee. The dispute resolution process was actually adopted and discussed before the tabling of the report.
Obviously, it was in anticipation of the report of the Auditor General and was seen to be a model to be applied in relation to the Auditor General but could be applied to other circumstances of that same nature, so it's more generic in the sense that, for any scenarios that would happen in terms of a disagreement, in terms of financial matters and so on, it could be applied in the future. So that was adopted by Internal Economy. A final decision was taken to the point that he has to report to the committee, but, in terms of the Auditor General's report, the committee had discussed, and there was a general consensus, that they would see his decision as final because we would be going back and the committee sitting in judgment.
In terms of the length of time with our legal counsel, you can understand that the Auditor General was not reporting, if you look at what is in the public domain in the report, in terms of the information, when there was an amount identified in relation to a senator.
The analysis or the reason that the Auditor General arrived at that amount was not, let's say, clearly laid out. It was an aggregate amount. It was not specific. It was difficult to determine whether a legal case could be established in terms of, "Can we recoup that money; is the analysis of the Auditor General sustainable before a court?''
So what took time is basically that we started by reviewing the files that we had in our possession, the Senate files and the administration files, but could not kind of figure out what the Auditor General's thinking was behind arriving at those amounts. So there was a request to the Auditor General so that they could share their documents. That took time in terms of obtaining the documents from the Auditor General in relation to the senators that remain, I will say, in terms of the amount unpaid.
Once we received the documents, there was an extensive amount of boxes, as outside counsel testified. To review all of those documents and do the assessment would explain the length of time.
Senator Lankin: Thank you very much.
Mr. Patrice: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, are there any other questions?
So do I have a motion to overturn the decision, or is the committee comfortable with the decision that we have taken in the past and will continue to be respectful of those decisions?
Senator Tkachuk: I think we are comfortable with the decision we took.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Item 4, fourth report of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates. Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: Thank you, chair, and thank you, colleagues.
As I begin, I would like to thank Senator Jaffer for bringing this issue to CIBA and having it directed towards our subcommittee. I also want to recognize Senator Jaffer as Deputy Chair. The other members of the subcommittee are Senator Campbell, Senator Tannas and Senator Tkachuk. I chaired the committee, and Dan Charbonneau was our clerk. So I appreciate all the work that was done by all committee members and Mr. Charbonneau.
The Subcommittee on Senate Estimates of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its fourth report.
On February 2, 2017, your subcommittee was given the mandate by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to study the issue of living expenses while in Ottawa, including the current practices and possible replacement models that consider fairness, equity and responsible use of resources.
During its deliberations, the subcommittee noted that senators are required to maintain a residence in their home province or territory. In contrast, members of the House of Commons are not subject to this constitutional requirement. Senators incur living expenses to perform their duties while in Ottawa.
The current model is for the reimbursement of expenses up to $24,000 per year with the appropriate supporting documentation.
Your subcommittee has determined that senators either stay in commercial hotels, rental or privately owned accommodation in the National Capital Region, NCR. The cost of accommodations in hotels and rentals is reimbursed by the Senate with appropriate receipts. Senators who use privately owned accommodation in the NCR may claim $30.92 per day to assist with the general expenses for each day such accommodation is available for the senator's occupancy. All senators, those who are in the NCR on travel status, may claim daily per diem rates for meals and incidentals in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines.
Three possible models were examined by the subcommittee.
First, reimbursement of expenses maintaining the ceiling of 24,000, which is the current model.
Colleagues, second, a living allowance per diem model, which is essentially: For each day you're in the National Capital Region working in your job as a senator, you would be paid an amount to cover your costs.
Third, colleagues, was the quarterly allowance model.
Each model was reviewed, and the subcommittee recommends that the current model of reimbursement of expenses remain in place.
In its review, the subcommittee discussed the inequality between senators who own property and those who rent or stay in commercial hotels. It was determined that the current model is insufficient for general expenses compared to individuals who rent. The committee concluded that the inequities for those who own should be addressed.
The daily amount for senators who own a privately owned accommodation was first introduced with the non- taxable expense allowance and combined into the salary of senators in 2001. The subcommittee examined the origin of the initial amount, which was $20 per day, and, in fact, colleagues, back then, the cap for the yearly amount was $12,000. It was $20 per day, and we found that there was no analysis as to the costing of privately owned accommodation. Therefore, colleagues, we couldn't find the genesis of that $20 a day. We didn't know where it came from. We didn't know the formula that was used. We had some general discussion about it, but we didn't have anything in our search of documents.
Your subcommittee examined the daily allowance for private accommodation used by the Treasury Board. The board reimburses $50 per day for federal employees who use private non-commercial accommodation in lieu of a hotel room while travelling. This amount per day is for the length of the time while on travel status.
Senators return to their provincial or territorial residence when not in Ottawa, and the use of the Treasury Board rate is not applicable since the stay in the NCR is not continuous. However, it does serve as a useful guide, and certainly it served as a useful guide in our deliberations.
To ensure a fair application of the policy across the three types of accommodation expenses, the committee recommends the following:
That the per-day rate for senators who use privately owned accommodation in the National Capital Region be increased to $40 and increased annually on April 1 by the annual rate of inflation. Colleagues, the change here is that there was never a provision to increase it by the annual rate of inflation. What would happen is that it would be set at an amount, and that amount would run for a few years until we realized that it should be increased. Then an increase would be proposed and accepted, and then it would run for another couple of years. So, significantly, in the subcommittee's report, we're recommending that increases be tied to the annual inflation rate.
Second, the subcommittee further recommends, as I said, that the $24,000 increase on April 1 by the annual rate of inflation.
It's respectfully submitted, colleagues.
There are a couple of other notes I want to make before I take any questions. In 2001, as I said, the total amount for living in the National Capital Region was $12,000. The total cap per night was $20. If this recommendation is accepted, the lowest rental amount we currently have among senators who do rent will still be higher than those who own in the NCR. Because of the increased costs in hotels that happen generally each year, you'll recall that last year the hotel limit was increased, for those who stay in hotels, from $200 to $250. This recommendation keeps current with the market.
That's it, colleagues. I'm happy to take questions. One other thing, just for background, the breakdown among the senators who currently sit: 25 rent, 20 own, 48 stay in hotels, and 7 live in the NCR. I'm happy to take any questions.
Senator Marshall: I want to make sure I understand. This will have implications for those who own; is that correct?
Senator Wells: That is correct.
Senator Marshall: Right now, the rate they claim is 365 days of the year times the $30; is that right?
Senator Wells: That's right.
Senator Marshall: It will go up to $40. For the rentals and those in hotels, it won't have any impact.
Senator Wells: No. Significantly on that, colleagues, those who rent, there is no cap on their monthly rent, other than the cap on the yearly amount. If someone wants to stay in a place that is $5,000 a month, there is no restriction on that, but you'll cap out fairly quickly on the $24,000.
Senator Marshall: When was the last time we changed? You say we're at $30.92 now, and that's been in effect for how many years?
Senator Wells: I believe it's six years ago.
Pascale Legault, Chief Financial Officer, Finances and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: You asked about when we changed to $24,000? Which number are we looking for?
Senator Marshall: When was the last time that was increased?
Ms. Legault: The $24,000 was increased in 2015. It went from $22,000 to $24,000.
Senator Marshall: What about the $30.92?
Ms. Legault: The daily amount? This is increased based on inflation. We follow the house. It's a very small increase every year.
Senator Marshall: In assessing the financial implications, we look at the number of people who own and look at the increase?
Ms. Legault: Yes.
Senator Wells: Another point, colleagues, is that since 2001, when this model went into force, so in the last 16 years, there have been five increases in the yearly amount. Now we're suggesting that be attached to the annual rate of inflation.
Senator Marshall: We just went through an exercise — I think I have the right terminology — the senators' office management policy, there is a new one. I think we have to review it over the next couple of weeks. Would that be an issue that could be addressed during that policy? I don't have a problem with the proposal, but it wouldn't be that sort of thing? Okay. Thank you.
Senator Munson: I am curious about the $250 a night.
Senator Wells: If you're staying in a hotel, yes, senator.
Senator Munson: $250 a night here staying in a hotel.
Senator Wells: In the National Capital Region.
Senator Munson: Why is it $200 when you travel?
Senator Wells: There is no restriction when you're outside the National Capital Region.
Senator Munson: Yes, there is. There is a cap of $200 plus tax.
The Chair: Senator Munson, it's a guideline, but it varies from city to city. If you are in Toronto, for example, I don't think Finance expects you to find a hotel in Toronto at $199, for example. It varies depending on the trip and where.
Senator Munson: That's a guideline. I don't have to stay at Super 8s all the time.
The Chair: Apparently, you have become a gold member there.
Senator Munson: That's what you want to do is save taxpayers' dollars.
Senator Batters: Just a couple of brief things: First of all, Senator Marshall's question about how rent would be impacted. They would be impacted in that the $24,000 yearly increase is going up by the annual rate of inflation. The amount that they can claim per year goes up.
Senator Marshall: I always thought it was your rental, the cost of your lease; for example, if you lease an apartment for $1,800 a month, the Senate would reimburse you up to the $24,000.
Senator Tannas: That is correct.
Senator Batters: I'm saying that because it was previously set at a maximum of $24,000 that you could a claim, even as Senator Wells was giving the example, of someone who has an expensive rent, you could only claim up to that maximum, but now you will be able to claim $24,000 plus the rate of inflation in that year.
Ms. Legault: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Regarding Senator Munson's question about the hotel amounts outside the NCR, I'm not sure if it was a matter of guideline, but they were increased at the same time as the $250 maximum for the NCR was increased quite recently.
Senator Lankin: I appreciate the work that the subcommittee did. I have no problems with the recommendations here. There is a separate issue I raised once with respect to the living allowance. I wonder if the committee addressed that. If not, maybe it's for another time.
The $24,000 a year maximum, which I see will increase by inflation, includes hotel or rental and your per diem costs. I noted very early on, because another senator and I who both arrived here at the same time were looking to make decisions about accommodations, where we would dwell, and we had different situations. This is true for all senators. Those who find themselves having to travel in on a Monday, because of travel time, and are having to leave on a Friday instead of a Thursday for travel time, or because of committee, for example, Monday's Defence Committee, find themselves in a situation where the per diems, and if you're in a hotel, the night's stay are increased by virtue of that different circumstance, not necessarily by virtue of choice.
Have you looked at whether decoupling the per diem from whatever the maximum, it could be a lower maximum, but whatever the maximum is on rental or hotel costs would help bring some equity to that situation? I haven't examined this and come to a conclusion myself, but I recognize that for senators who either have long travel or have a committee on Mondays, that it is an inequitable situation.
Senator Wells: It's a good question. Obviously, it wasn't part of our order of reference, so we didn't look at it. In general, the amount of $24,000 split between per diem amounts, as you must eat and have a place to sleep, let's say a one-bedroom in downtown Ottawa, I think you would be hard-pressed to find something, $1,400 a month, times 12 months, that would bring it up to $16,800 minus the $24,000. You would have a $7,200 per diem. If there are 100 days we might use, so it's difficult to say because people have different eating styles and places they want to live, and they may not want to live downtown Ottawa, but we should consider our amount based on a one-bedroom near your place of work, not a three-bedroom near your place of work. We didn't look specifically about decoupling those.
Interestingly, as I said earlier, and we had Pascale search to find out where they came up with the initial amount of $20 that went up to $22 and $25, our greatest source of information came from Senator Tkachuk, who was here back in the day.
Senator Tkachuk: Still is.
Senator Wells: So I express my appreciation to Senator Tkachuk for putting that all on the record during our subcommittee. It was an interesting discussion that we had, so thank you for that.
Senator Tkachuk: Also, people from outside of Toronto, Quebec and Ontario, we are all in here on Monday. We all come in Monday, so somehow we survive.
Senator Marshall: I would like to add too, just for clarification, if you do have to come on a Sunday, there are senators — you run out of money, so then you just pick up those costs yourself. I wanted to make that point. So there are some senators that does happen to.
Senator Tkachuk: It's happened to all of us.
Senator Wells: Indeed. Yes. One final point. Just because we're trying to address now the yearly increase based on the annual rate of inflation, that shouldn't preclude us from sometime in the future, when there might be a market adjustment in housing or hotel rates or anything like that, looking at the whole numbers as well, not just the percentage based on the annual rate of inflation.
The Chair: Colleagues, if there are no more questions on this, I have a motion from Senator Wells?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All in favour? Carried.
Item 5, fourth report of the audit subcommittee quarterly financial report. Senator Smith?
Senator Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to table the quarterly financial report for the third quarter of 2016-17. Following a detailed review on March 7, your audit subcommittee is now ready to recommend its approval.
[Translation]
I remind you that the report is prepared quarterly. It is prepared by management and is not subject to an audit. Its objective is to provide timely, relevant information on the use of authorizations obtained through the Main Estimates.
[English]
The authorities for 2016-17 amount to $90.1 million. The actual expenses for the third quarter represent $20.9 million. Overall, based on the actuals year to date and the best available information, we expect to spend $85.2 million in 2016-17. We therefore anticipate an overall surplus of $4.9 million.
The main components of this surplus are, point number one, surplus from senators' remuneration, travel and telecommunications, $1.9 million; surplus from committee budgets, $0.08 million; surplus from administration budget, $2.1 million. The surplus is mainly due to the late appointment of new senators, unanticipated departures and delays in staffing. The actual expenditures for the third quarter amount to $20.9 million, which is an increase of $3 million from the same quarter in the prior year.
This increase is mainly attributable to a larger average number of senators, from 83 to 95 in respective quarters, and the fact that the Senate was not sitting until December 2015 because of dissolution.
[Translation]
On page 8 of the report, there is an analysis of full time equivalents, FTEs. The Senate administration applies an FTE-based model in its management of human resources, and in the production of reports on the staff needed to support senators.
[English]
The overall approved FTEs for 2016-17 represent approximately 360 FTEs, and the Senate forecasts a usage of approximately 348 FTEs. The surplus in FTEs is mainly due to unanticipated departures and delays in staffing.
[Translation]
Consistent with past practice, the report lists the key risk and uncertainties that could have a financial impact. Among others, we follow the following files: Senate modernization, oversight body, policy implementation, security and continuity of operations, and the institutional information system.
[English]
Finally, the report discloses the 20 appointments made between November 10 and December 6, 2016, as they all occurred during the third quarter.
I would be pleased to respond to your questions, and if I'm not able to answer them, we have our financial folks with us.
The Chair: Any questions, colleagues?
Senator Marshall: I have two questions. On page 12 of 26 where we're talking about the Senate committees and about the $2.7 million allocated for international and inter-parliamentary affairs, that's separate from the $2.4 million, isn't it? That's a separate item?
Senator Smith: Yes.
Senator Marshall: My second question is about the oversight body. You referenced it earlier this morning, Mr. Chair. Could you give us an idea as to when we would be looking at that?
The Chair: Senator Smith can address that.
Senator Smith: Maybe I could fill in. We're at the point now where we started deliberations with the various groups. There is really one strategic question that needs to be addressed, and we need to get that response from each of the various groups. The challenge is sometimes mobilizing to get people to actually sit down and review it, but we would anticipate probably within the next 30 days we will have a final report with recommendations.
Part of the issue, of course, will be the costing. We have reviewed that with the finance people, and we have some certain base parameters that we're looking at to make this the most efficient type of committee group. When it's all done, it's going to boil down to how the committee is constructed with interior-exterior people on the committee.
The Chair: If I may add to that as well, colleagues — and I think Senator Smith will agree — the next step is to take these proposals to the respective caucuses for more consultation. Given the sensitivity of this and the unprecedented move that this is, which is to have an independent oversight body on a parliamentary legislature, it is a sensitive issue, an important issue, and it hits at the core of what fundamental democratic values we have in terms of the role of our legislature.
So I think there has been great work done by the subcommittee. These proposals will go to caucuses of the whole. When the time comes, unless we find complete unanimity and consensus at this committee — I suspect this might also be a debate for the Senate as a whole because it is so fundamental to the Constitution and to the functioning of this body.
Senator Smith: I would ask if I could, chair, your support for when we call the meetings, we need to have the discipline to be able to get these meetings put in place. That takes work in terms of the group leaders to be able to get the people in your particular group to attend, but this really is an important issue. I'm not trying to lecture anybody, but we just don't want to be in a position where people start to complain after the fact and say they weren't included in the decision-making process. Because we have most of the leadership group in this room, I ask for your concurrence and support in that matter.
Senator Tkachuk: Are the protective services basically cleaned off the books in this last quarter? Were they included in any part of 2016-17?
Senator Smith: That's an excellent question. Pascale, were they?
Senator Tkachuk: So they are all done with?
Ms. Legault: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: They're all on the other budget. So this budget we have here that will take us to March 2017 has no protective service costs in it?
Ms. Legault: That's right.
Senator Smith: We just have that supportive consultative group that exists within our budget. How many people are in that consultative group?
Senator Tkachuk: What is the consultative group?
Ms. Legault: The group under Mike McDonald is the corporate security group. How many people are on your team?
Mike McDonald, Director, Corporate Security Directorate, Senate of Canada: About 20.
Ms. Legault: Twenty people are still working for the Senate under the Corporate Security Directorate.
Senator Smith: When the change was made, Senator Tkachuk, it was clear that the protective services were completely moving out, but there was a small group that was staying as — I'm not going to say a conscious group, but a group on the policy side to be there to provide other expertise for —
The Chair: Michel can weigh in.
Senator Tkachuk: That's fine. I didn't think it was that large. I didn't think there were 20, since we only had 100 before.
Mr. Patrice: All the protective physical security side of the business was removed from the Senate, also the funding attributed to that. The group that remains is basically in terms of the parking, in terms of the access and identification cards, security of information and business continued to be planned. We're no longer in the business of physical security.
Senator Tannas: I wondered, if we're going to finish 2016-17 year-end under budget, my understanding is that we have some ability — never used or rarely used — to carry over a portion of the surplus into the next year. As chair of the subcommittee on committee budgets, I think we're going to have a very active year in 2017-18. If there is ever going to be a time that we would use this mechanism, we might want to think about using it this year. I put that out to those above my pay grade that make these decisions to think about before we let it pass. Or it may be that it's too late. I don't know. It's too late. Okay.
Senator Marshall: Perhaps the audit subcommittee might want to take a look at it.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I'd like to ask for clarification concerning the oversight body. Senator Smith explained that the subcommittee is preparing a proposal that will be submitted to the leaders of the various caucuses before the committee. Is that correct?
Senator Smith: Yes.
Senator Dupuis: Perfect, thank you.
Senator Smith: I am sorry about the delay.
[English]
The Chair: Any other questions, colleagues?
Ms. Legault: There was a question about the committee budget. Do we want to address it now?
The Chair: Sure.
Ms. Legault: I was asked to provide the information. As of February 6 — this was a question asked by Senator Marshall — the budget for the current year for committees is $2,382,000. All of these funds were released so far. We have clawed back $394,000 of these funds that were not used, and the actual spent year-to-date, as of February 6, including witnesses, is $1.1 million.
The Chair: Thank you. Colleagues, are we all in favour —
Senator Smith: Can I add something? Before Senator Tannas had that committee, I was involved in it. I think the point that he is making, which is a point we should seriously consider, is that, with the influx of new senators and with the focus of the importance of committee work, we, historically, have always spent 48 to 53 per cent of the budget on travel in terms of actual expenditures. The question is, is it going to change? So we have two options. One is to be proactive and do something, or to be reactive. I think we need to sort of have a little discussion as to what steps we would take as opposed to an afterthought, where, suddenly, we get halfway through the fiscal year, and we say, "Oh, my goodness, we are travelling more than we thought we would.'' Remember, we cut that back in our spending patterns, starting around 2012, because, at that time, the government was trying to consolidate and make sure that we managed money as tightly as possible. But there has been a shift. So part of that shift is to manage it appropriately but to be consciously aware that there could be some change. That's all.
The Chair: Well, Senator Smith, keep in mind that the government have their directive on government spending, but it's the Senate that directs spending in the Senate. It's up to this committee to determine how fiscally responsible or irresponsible we want to be.
Senator Smith: Absolutely, I was waiting for that response.
The Chair: So colleagues, are you all favour of the motion put forward by Senator Smith?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you, colleagues.
Senator Munson: Chair?
The Chair: On this issue?
Senator Munson: No.
The Chair: On another issue?
Senator Munson: You have Other Matters there.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Munson: Just for the public record this morning, if the senators could indulge me just to go back briefly just to make a statement on former Senator Sharon Carstairs.
The Chair: Colleagues are —
Senator Munson: I'd like to say a few words because it went by so fast.
The Chair: Senator Munson, please.
Senator Munson: It went by so fast; I'd just like to say a few words.
The Chair: Senator —
Senator Munson: Not on the decisions; I'd like to say a few words about Sharon Carstairs.
Some Hon. Senators: That was last week.
Senator Munson: I wasn't here last week.
The Chair: I think, Senator Munson, that there is no desire to revisit that issue on the part of the committee.
Senator Munson: That's a shame.
The Chair: Colleagues, if we can go in camera for the remaining issues, we have issues on security and HR issues, I believe, as well. Senator Tannas, we want to discuss that. So both of those issues, security and HR, we will do in camera.
(The committee continued in camera).