Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 18 - Evidence - February 1, 2018
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 1, 2018
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:32 a.m., in public and in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Larry W. Campbell (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. Welcome to the weekly meeting of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. My name is Larry Campbell, and I’m a senator from British Columbia.
The first thing I’d like to do is to welcome our new clerk, Richard Denis. I wonder if he would like say a few words to the assembled masses.
Richard Denis, Interim Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments: Of course. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, I am pleased to meet you.
[English]
I must admit that I’m really honoured to have been appointed as Acting Clerk of the Senate, Clerk of the Parliaments and Chief Legislative Services Officer. I look forward to working with all of you, serving senators, their staff and, mostly, the institution.
[Translation]
I am very honoured to be here. It is with great anticipation that I hope to meet most of you and serve you to the best of my ability. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has welcomed me so far, and I hope to have the opportunity very soon, wherever possible, to meet you and serve you as best I can.
[English]
Thank you very much. I’m looking forward to working with everyone, and I thank all of those who have been welcoming me.
The Chair: Thank you.
Number one on the agenda is the adoption of the minutes of the proceedings of December 14, 2017. I assume that everyone has read them. Any changes? Could I have a motion to adopt the minutes? Senator Marshall.
All in favour? Against? Carried.
Number 2 deals with a couple of requests that we received earlier this month related to content published on Senator Beyak’s website. Both requests are included in your documents. Senator Dyck and the ISG have essentially made similar requests. They’ve asked this committee to consider whether Senator Beyak’s website posts constitute a misuse of Senate resources, and, if not, to determine what course of action should be taken.
Colleagues, I note that the ISG stated in their press release that a request was filed with the Senate Ethics Officer seeking an opinion on whether Senator Beyak breached the provisions of the code. It is my understanding that the Ethics Commissioner is considering that at this time.
As senators are aware, one of the functions of the Senate Ethics Officer includes conducting inquiries to determine whether a senator has complied with his or her obligations under the code. As an independent officer of the Senate, he would determine that an inquiry is warranted after conducting a preliminary review. For this reason, I ask the committee whether senators would consider deferring any decision on this matter, pending a possible review by the Ethics Officer.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I think we have to distinguish between the role of the Senate Ethics Officer — both his role as an advisor and his role as an investigator — and the role of the Committee on Internal Economy, which also has the responsibility to verify the relevant use of the resources that are funded by the taxpayers, therefore from public funds, and which are granted to senators. I think that relying solely on the Senate Ethics Officer, which is relevant, is one thing, but I also think that this committee should take responsibility and ensure that the measures, policies and controls are in place to ensure that Senate resources are used for the purposes for which they are allocated.
[English]
The Chair: I do not disagree with you, Senator Saint-Germain. My position is, though — and one that I espoused here — that there is an investigation, and I believe that, for us to enter into a second investigation on what is basically the same topic, would be at cross-purposes and, in fact, may hinder the work that the Ethics Officer does. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t look at it. I’m simply saying that we should allow the Ethics Officer to go through the process, and we can then make a decision at that point.
Senator Marshall: I think we should let the Ethics Officer do his job because it’s quite possible that the Ethics Officer might identify something that we hadn’t considered. So, if we take action now and come to a conclusion, it’s quite possible we may have to embark on a second investigation, depending on what the Ethics Officer says. So I think we should not get ahead of ourselves, wait until we hear back from the Ethics Officer and then decide what we’re going to do.
The Chair: That would be my preference.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Does the Senate Ethics Officer have a deadline for completing his report so that we can review it, or can it be dragged out over time?
[English]
The Chair: No, there is no deadline, but certainly we would have an opportunity, once the report is released, to take whatever actions and ask any questions we want. There is no deadline on it. I think that there’s an urgency to it, but it’s not an immediacy that it has to take place. I think that the process should go ahead, and then we’ll be in a position to decide where we go from there. Is everybody okay with that?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I wouldn’t want to stop him from doing his job properly, but can we let him know that we are waiting for his report in order to study the matter and make a decision?
[English]
The Chair: I think that we should give a little bit of time, and, if it looks like it’s going on longer, we could make inquiries as to where we are in that process. Is that all right with everybody?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 3. Honourable senators, our practice is that, following international trips by a senator, a report is tabled with the committee. On behalf of Senator Pate, I have the honour to table that report. Is it agreed that I table her report to the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Are there any questions on the report? I thought it was complete and well done. I’d like to see this type of detail on every report that comes before us.
So if everybody has read it and agrees that it’s complete, I would ask that we — Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Senator Pate is not here. Isn’t it normal that she would appear on these kinds of things?
The Chair: I’m advised no.
Senator Batters: I just remember Senator Munson doing one in the past.
The Chair: Was there a camera on? Yes.
Senator Saint-Germain: It is a very interesting and useful report, but one of the goals we were pursuing with this issue is that we want to see and to assess. If it is, it would be interesting for the Senate to officially recognize this group. For the next steps, isn’t there a decision to make today or in another meeting? Because Senator Pate explains that we — a few women senators — it’s on page 2 of her report — that in addition to continuing the international connections made at the WPL forum, we are working on plans for when we host the Girls2Leaders event in the Senate Chamber.
That’s good. After that, another event in 2019 in Vancouver.
I understood that the purpose of this trip was to assess the interest for the Senate to become engaged with this association and eventually to recognize it.
Do we only adopt or accept this report and we don’t take any decision or we wait?
The Chair: No, I think we accept this report, and we have a number of senators who are involved in this, and should they decide that we need to recognize this group or that we are going to host a conference or we’re going to play any role in that conference, that’s up to them to organize that. If they need assistance from us, they can come before us requesting that.
In this case, I think we accept the report with all the information that’s on it. I noted, as you did, that there are events coming forward, and if they decide that they need our assistance, they can come before us on that. It’s not our role to decide whether we accept the group or make any planning for the future. Is everyone agreed on that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
The next item is a report from the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets.
Senator Verner: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the sixteenth report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, which includes recommended allocations for two committee budgets.
[Translation]
The total funds available in the 2017-18 budget was $2.382 million, less $500,000 for witness expenses related to their travel to Ottawa, leaving $1.882 million for release for individual committee budgets.
Thus far this fiscal year, the subcommittee has recommended $1,433,501 for release for committee activities.
[English]
In this fiscal year to date, the subcommittee has approved 17 budget requests that included funds for committee travel. We are pleased to report that of the 17 requests, 13 of those committee trips have been completed.
The subcommittee met earlier this week to consider two budgets:
[Translation]
We met with the chair and deputy chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, who presented a supplementary budget application, which contained proposed expenditures of $159,874 for fact-finding and public hearings in western Canada.
[English]
This is in relation to their study on the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agricultural and forestry sectors and includes funds for 10 senators to travel.
[Translation]
This is the second budget this fiscal year on this study, the Senate having previously approved a budget for this study for $115,770 for travel in Eastern Canada in October 2017. Based on the information provided, the subcommittee therefore recommends the release of funds for this mission, in the amount of $159,874.
We also met with the chair and deputy chair of the Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, who presented a supplementary budget application which contained proposed expenditures of $96,450 for fact-finding and public hearings in Victoria, British Columbia.
[English]
This is in relation to their study on marine search and rescue. This budget application includes funds for eight senators to travel.
[Translation]
This is the second budget this fiscal year on this study, the Senate having previously approved a budget for $125,000 for travel in Eastern Canada, and the fourth budget related to this study, since it began two years ago.
[English]
Based on the information provided, the subcommittee therefore recommends the release of funds for this activity.
[Translation]
In total, your subcommittee is therefore recommending the release of $256,324 today, of the $1.882 million set aside for committee expenses. This would bring the total release to date to $1,698,825. I would note that, of that total release, committees have spent in the neighbourhood of $516,000 on 13 committee trips to date, the final expenditures of which have been accounted for. The subcommittee estimates that over $900,000 will be available via claw back for any remaining requests for the remainder of the fiscal year ending March 31.
[English]
Unless there are further questions, colleagues, I recommend the adoption of the report.
The Chair: Any questions?
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much, especially for the global amounts that you gave.
The $516,000 that you said was spent to date, have all the committees reported back on their actual expenditures, or are there more to come back in?
Senator Verner: Not yet.
The Chair: Any other questions on the motion? All in favour? Opposed? Passed.
Thank you very much, senator.
Other matters?
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I would like some clarification on the status of our Subcommittee on Diversity. We obtained an extension of mandate to March 31. I am a member, but I have not been called yet. Are there any useful plans or information we could know be given today?
[English]
The Chair: We always have plans. Senator, I refer you to the clerk, Daniel Charbonneau.
[Translation]
Daniel Charbonneau, Clerk of the Committee: I need to discuss it with the subcommittee chair. The report is imminent. We are on the second draft, and a third draft will be distributed to members. So, I believe a notification should come by next week. I just have to talk to the chair. You will hear from us soon.
Senator Saint-Germain: That’s the answer I was hoping for. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Any other questions? Any other matters? We’ll move in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)