THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 7, 2019
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 10 a.m., in public and in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Sabi Marwah (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning everyone. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. My name is Sabi Marwah and I have the privilege of serving as chair of this committee. I would ask each of the senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Munson: Jim Munson, Ontario.
Senator Mitchell: Grant Mitchell, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Senator Dennis Dawson from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Senator Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Gold: Senator Marc Gold from Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: Senator Pierre J. Dalphond from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Housakos: Leo Housakos, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Senator Claude Carignan from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Tkachuk: David Tkachuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters, Saskatchewan, deputy chair.
The Chair: Thank you senators.
The first item on our agenda is the public minutes. A copy of the public minutes from September 7, 2019, is in your package.
Are there any questions or changes? If not, can I have a motion to adopt the minutes?
It is moved by Senator Dawson to adopt the minutes. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the sixteenth report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. This report concerns a proposed change to SOMP pertaining to Senate expenditures associated with externally funded travel.
Just to remind everybody, the practice has been that for a senator who participates in an externally funded trip, transportation to any departure point in Canada and from the arrival point in Canada is eligible under the travel points system. The proposal to codify this practice in SOMP was initially part of a package of changes proposed by the Senate administration on May 9. On that date, CIBA directed the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates to study these changes and report back to CIBA.
On September 11, the Finance and Procurement Directorate provided steering with proposed wording in order to implement these changes to SOMP. Upon reviewing the wording, steering felt it would be pertinent for CIBA to discuss whether or not these transportation costs in the context of sponsored travel should be an eligible expense or not.
As chair of the steering committee, I would like to move the following motion that was decided at steering:
That when a senator participates in an externally funded trip in support of his/her parliamentary function, transportation to any departure point in Canada and from the arrival point is not eligible under the Travel Points System.
I’ll open the floor for comments or suggestions from anyone.
If not, do senators wish to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the seventeenth report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. This report outlines decisions that were made by steering since our last meeting on September 9. This report is for information, but are there any questions or comments?
Senator Marshall: Could someone give me an explanation on Item No. 7 regarding the contract for $120,000, why it’s soul sourced, who approved the sole sourcing and when it will be reported publicly?
Richard Denis, Interim Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments and Chief Legislative Services Officer: Good morning, senator. This question relates to, first of all, a replacement of all the locks within the Senate administration — over 5,000 locks. The amount itself was approved in the Main Estimates last year, but there is only one company that can actually produce these locks. A specific technique, if you wish, is used to make them, and only one company produces them. We’ve been using Abloy since 1980.
So the reason we’re using the sole source is that only one company can produce the locks. And there is a patent on them as well that has been renewed. The reason is this is not only about the amount but about going sole source with Abloy because it’s over $100,000.
Senator Marshall: Who would approve it? Would that be approved by yourself?
Mr. Denis: No, by the steering committee.
Senator Marshall: When will that be reported publicly?
Mr. Denis: I could ask Pascale to confirm, but it would in the next public disclosure.
Senator Marshall: The next quarter?
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration: The proactive disclosure is always 60 days after the end of the quarter. If the contract is in the current quarter, December 31 is the end of the quarter and it would be actually 60 days after. At the end of February, it will be produced on our website.
Senator Marshall: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: If there are no other questions, we will move on to Item No. 4, the membership of CIBA subcommittees. As you all are aware, there are currently several vacancies on CIBA subcommittees. These vacancies are posing a difficulty for some of the subcommittees to meet due to lack of quorum. The vacancies are outlined in the attached couple of pages.
My only point in raising this is to urge all the leaders to please ensure that we fill the vacancies as soon as possible so that at least we can move on with the business of the Senate and get on with the subcommittees because in some cases we’re having difficulty getting a quorum.
So that’s really for information. The vacancies are outlined in the various committees, and I urge all leaders to fill them as soon as possible. Thank you.
Item 5 is on the allocation of caucus/group and house officer budgets. As you all are aware, the Canadian Senators Group, under Senator Tannas now, has been recognized as an official group within the Senate and according to Senate Administrative Rules, SARs, is entitled to $460,000 in group funding. We have to decide how we handle that.
With that, I’ll open the floor for comments and questions. Senator Moncion.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: The current budget, established in 2019 for the 2019-20 fiscal year, provided a certain amount for all groups. In committee, we talked about limiting the amounts and giving the leader the privilege of sharing an amount approved within the budget.
My recommendation is that no additional funding be provided, simply because it is public money, and that rather than allocate additional funds, we ask the various groups to meet again and share the current amounts.
There are the existing groups. There is a budget of over $5 million. I think we should divide these amounts again, in order to provide funds to the new Group of Canadian Senators.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you.
First of all, the full CIBA committee actually decided I believe in the spring when this matter came to us regarding the house officers, caucus/ group budgets — the leaders had provided a letter with their breakdown. Their initial request was that that go to the end of this fiscal year, but then CIBA, as a committee, decided to have this matter reassessed within 60 days after the election.
Right now, only two weeks after the election, so at quite an early stage, the Canadian Senators Group has been formed. They have 11 members. That number would, under the Rules of the Senate, entitle them to $460,000 of additional money. It doesn’t get reallocated from any of the other budgets. That’s an extra amount. Had they only been at nine members, the amount they would have been receiving would be $160,000. I have a couple of comments on that.
First, and perhaps Senator Tannas can tell us, when the change was made to our Rules, one of the parts described was, yes, parliamentary groups can be included under that allowance, but they need to have a certain parliamentary purpose. I was wondering if he could explain the parliamentary purpose of the Canadian Senators Group as a distinct parliamentary group.
I also wanted to make the point that I think it’s important for the public to know about this particular budget amount getting allocated because of the formation of this new group. However, I don’t want this to be a reassessment at this time of the other time frames or anything like that, because it’s very early after the election and we very well could have another new senators group formed. This last one subtracted eight members from the Independent Senators Group. We could potentially have another splintering of the Independent Senators Group and a new group would need to be formed. I think in that case we would need to look at possibly reallocating money from the very large $1.5 million Independent Senators Group budget.
Thank you.
Senator Gold: Good morning everybody, and to those who are watching us. I want to make four points.
One, I support providing some base funding to the newly formed group to allow them to get organized and to do their work. I think that’s appropriate and under our Rules.
Second, as Senator Moncion said, we are spending taxpayers’ money. I think we need to be mindful of that and find ways to do so in a responsible way, which leads me to my third comment/question.
We all received budgets. We haven’t been sitting for some time, and I wonder whether there is money that, though allocated to the individual groups, has actually not been spent. If that is the case, then we could actually provide the funding at this juncture so they can get up and running, without increasing the burden on the taxpayer or setting any precedent for the overall envelope, which will have to be looked at afresh for the next fiscal year.
Lastly, I think there is some precedent for doing this, at least in my dim memory, with regard to amounts that were actually allocated to the independent Liberals group. The details escape me, but I do think that we got together as caucuses and groups to find savings in our budgets or non-utilized budget allocations to top them up in the past.
I think for all those reasons, I would support this but not additional funds.
Senator Dalphond: It’s nice to see everybody back.
For one, I certainly believe that this new group has been recognized and is entitled to be financed. I don’t think they have to express what they stand for. We are not here to investigate their reasoning as to why they gather together. If that group is made up of many previous members of the Conservative caucus or current members up until a few weeks ago — I don’t know; maybe the Conservative senators know better than everybody else why they left. But that being said, it’s not the issue. We don’t have to debate here about why they want to have a new group. They have made a new group. They are entitled to get some financing, and we are not going to discriminate and prevent them from getting financing.
I also believe that we deal here with public money. We have not sat for the last four months and will maybe resume sitting at the end of this year. I’m pretty sure there is money left in the bank accounts for the committees, so I don’t think we should add more money to finance the new group. There is enough money within the current arrangements for them to get the amount of money they are entitled to, and it’s up to the leaders to discuss that issue. If they cannot agree, we will make a decision. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: First of all, I would like to make a clarification. Senator Batters said at the beginning that all the leaders had tabled a letter that gave a breakdown of their expenses —
[English]
I can speak English if it’s easier.
It was said at the beginning by Senator Batters that all leaders have provided a breakdown of their estimates. I don’t remember that there was a breakdown coming from your leader. I just want to clarify, but I think that all groups for the next fiscal year should provide a breakdown of their estimates.
My point is that I support the request of the new Canadian Senators Group, though I do believe as well that it can be self-financed by the Senate. And I think that this support is not binding us for next year and that for the next fiscal year we should revisit the way we allocate the budget in a manner that will allow us or permit us to save public funds. It is possible — we don’t know — that other groups are recognized, but this should not add to the budget of the Senate. So there is a way to find an accommodation and a fair allocation of resources without increasing the burden on the taxpayers. So this decision today is not — I recommend that it would not be binding us for next year with any group.
Senator Housakos: Look, there has been a long-standing tradition in this chamber where the government and the opposition would have budgets to do their work. Of course, I know that this current Trudeau government believes they have invented the principle of independent senators, but they have existed in this place for 150 years. There have been other groups besides the governing party and the opposition party in the Senate of Canada. They have also functioned in this place, so the concept is not new.
The CSG is a group of colleagues that have gotten together. They have the right for funding. I think at the beginning of this next Parliament, leadership should sit down, as has been the tradition, and work out an equitable policy. Again, in support of the Trudeau-reformed Senate, we should even look at the number of nine members as a caucus that is entitled to membership, because if we believe in independence, maybe we should broaden that principle.
To the comment of Senator Dalphond, we have been launched into this new reality in the Senate in large part because of the Liberal Party of Canada and their political platform, which you were a vice-president of in the past.
Also, I want to highlight for you that out of the 11 members of the CSG, 9 were former members of the ISG who left. They were not former Conservatives. They were actually former ISG members. I wanted to just correct the record on that. Thank you.
Senator Plett: Senator Housakos’s last comments were, in fact, exactly the same comments that I wanted to make. I find it, quite frankly, a little strange that an esteemed member of the Senate would make a comment, as Senator Dalphond made, that this somehow was a Conservative group that started, when in fact only 2 of the 11 members — that’s a pretty small percentage of that membership coming from the Conservative caucus. I find strange how somebody as esteemed as Senator Dalphond would make comments like that.
The only other comment I have is that I also do not oppose this group getting funding. Whether I agree with what they have done is entirely irrelevant. We have rules in the Senate, and one of those rules is that they get funding. So I support that.
I’m not sure I understood Senator Moncion correctly, but I think she and Senator Saint-Germain were saying almost the same thing about getting funding from what we already have without additional funding. If that’s the case, I would like to know how we do that. Did we overbudget by a half a million dollars or whatever — I guess it wouldn’t be a half a million if we go until the end of the year, but I’m curious as to how we give this group the funding that they get by our Rules if we don’t ask for additional taxpayers’ money. If they have the plan, rather than just saying that we can do that, I would like to understand how we do that.
Senator Tannas: We have been in existence for three days and haven’t figured everything out. We will work over the next little while to be ready for when — sorry?
Senator Plett: It’s okay.
Senator Tannas: I like the idea of seeing if we can reallocate money out of the existing envelope rather than asking taxpayers for more. I think we should try to have discussions amongst leaders to see if there is spare change that can be provided to allow us to get going. If for some reason we can’t agree, then I guess we would come back here and make our case as to why we qualify for whatever funding there is in the SARs. But we’ll work over the next number of weeks, reach out to leaders and see if there is any spare room in their budgets that they might be able to help us out with.
Senator Gold: To underline the point, I will put it in the form of a question. Let me repeat that I believe there will be unspent money in the budgets of the different caucuses and groups and that, as we did in the past, leaders will be able to find ways to allocate additional sums. I think that would be the responsible thing to do here. It is a short-term fix and does not and should not bind us for the next fiscal year.
Senator Batters: On the point from Senator Tannas about the reallocation, it can actually occur within the process I earlier described and that the full CIBA committee agreed to, that within 60 days after the election, those amounts that the leaders’ offices had agreed to for their particular budget amount can be reassessed once we have a fuller understanding of what the Senate will look like in the Forty-third Parliament.
Senator Plett: The forty-fourth will be in a few months.
Senator Batters: That’s right, God willing.
The Chair: Stick to the agenda, please.
Senator Tkachuk: She is trying, chair.
Senator Batters: That reallocation does not need to occur with a separate process; it can occur right here at CIBA, where it should, where we can have that look.
To Senator Saint-Germain’s point, and maybe it didn’t come through clearly, but the breakdown I was talking about was each leader’s office, like the Leader of the Government, Leader of the Opposition. That was what I was talking about, the spreadsheet that was given to us. Thank you.
Senator Saint-Germain: As a clarification, in budget terms, a breakdown is the details of how you will use your budget, with all categories. So this is not a breakdown. I agree that you had another interpretation, but for clarification matters, “breakdown” has another meaning when we speak about budgets.
Senator Marshall: I support the funding request from the new caucus, but are we talking about funding to the full tune of $460,000 or are we prorating?
The Chair: It comes to 191 for the balance of the year.
Senator Marshall: We’re prorating it?
The Chair: Correct.
Senator Plett: What was the amount, chair?
The Chair: 191.
Senator Tannas: I had a question for clarification. Is it 60 days of the election or 60 days of Parliament being reconvened?
The Chair: Election.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I would like to add that perhaps we should ask the accounting department to give us information on the budget surpluses that exist within the groups’ budgets. We could work from there. I don’t think we’re going to run out of funds, because the session is much shorter this year. Therefore, we should be able to respond to the request now without requesting additional funds. When preparing the next budget, the groups should agree that the envelope will remain the same as it is now, and that the funds will be redistributed among the groups.
I think we have enough money to cover that amount and we could approve it today, if that is the case. Otherwise, we would have to talk about it again.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
I just asked for the number, and the budgets are apparently significantly below — or the actuals are significantly below. We estimate over a million in surplus for the balance of the year, so I suggest that we, as a committee, hold off making any decisions and let the leaders get together to find out what might be a good solution. I think we can rely on the leaders to come up — they did the last time, and I’m sure they will come up with it again, and they’ll bring it back to CIBA after they’ve come to agreement on what might be the best approach forward.
Senator Tkachuk: Chair, I still think Senator Tannas should — Senator Dalphond, the Rules do state that a new group has to state its purpose. We are here at a public meeting. We have a new group. It’s the Canadian Senators Group. I’m a Canadian senator too, but I’m not a member of the Canadian Senators Group. I would like to know what the purpose is and I think the public has a right to know what the purpose of the new group is.
The Chair: According to the Rules, I don’t think that’s an issue for CIBA. It’s an issue outside of CIBA. It’s out of our domain to define what the group is. It’s not really a function of CIBA. They can do that offline with you directly, but that’s entirely for them. We have to deal with the funding. I’m not sure we are to decide whether it’s right or wrong.
Senator Tkachuk: I’m not asking if it’s right or wrong. It doesn’t bother me what their purpose is. My point is that if we are giving money to a group, we should know what the purpose is, as we do with every budget that we deal with; we ask what the purpose is. That’s what I’m asking.
Senator Dalphond: I don’t know if it’s relevant, but I saw that my learned colleague did comment about the purpose in the paper, so I guess he probably knows.
Senator Tannas: Yes. In fact, in the letter we presented to the Speaker, we did elaborate on the purpose. It’s there. The Speaker has accepted it. While I am begging all the leaders for money to get going, I’ll make sure I elaborate to them and they can explain to their various caucuses.
The Chair: Let’s move on. Does everybody agree with that proposal in terms of how we move forward on this item?
Senator Batters: CIBA is how we move forward.
The Chair: We’re going to come back to CIBA once the leaders agree as to what might be an appropriate way forward on the funding.
Senator Munson: As clarification regarding the interim funding, does Senator Tannas need some money now to operate?
The Chair: He said no; he is willing to wait.
Senator Munson: All right. Thank you.
The Chair: Item 6 is Other Matters. Is there other public business before we go in camera? I think the major item is really the in camera item.
Senator Batters: There was an item that came to our steering committee in the summertime, or probably the fall, actually. I asked that it be brought forward to full CIBA, but my two other steering colleagues disagreed with that. It’s a service-level agreement with the House of Commons, a $1.5 million consolidation contract dealing with broadcasting for the Senate. It was presented as an information item only to the steering committee. I thought given the amount of the contract, the subject matter of the contract and that it’s definitely of public interest that we, as full CIBA, approve this $1.5 million contract. As a future agenda item, I would like that dealt with in public.
The Chair: I remember that item well. The point I would make for senators is that that contract is not a new contract; it is just a consolidation of seven, eight or nine other contracts that were done with the House of Commons, and all management has done is consolidate into one contract. There’s nothing new. No terms have changed. No dollars have changed. Nothing has changed. They’ve just consolidated. From the viewpoint of efficiency and effectiveness on how to manage these contracts, it’s better to do one contract. There is nothing new in it. It has been reviewed in detail by Estimates on more than one occasion. It was approved by CIBA and by the Senate.
This is with the House of Commons, so there is nothing that is going on with external funding; it is within the government. It seems redundant to bring it back to CIBA and review it all over again when really there is nothing new.
When that contract expires and it comes up for renewal, it will come here through the normal process. It will go to Estimates and then come here as a normal process item. It seems redundant and ineffective to keep reviewing contracts just because they are consolidated into one. There is nothing new. Nothing has changed. So what is the point of bringing it back again and again, revisiting and wasting everybody’s time and money to look at items that can’t be changed? You can’t change these contracts midstream anyway because they are already in place. They have been in place for some time. All they have done is consolidated into one. It seems redundant to look at this all over again just because you have consolidated them into one. That was why it was decided between Senator Munson and myself that it seemed redundant to bring it back to CIBA, and that’s where we are.
Senator Munson: I agree.
Senator Batters: Mr. Chair, having the items dealt with as part of the Main Estimates — which is a $114 million Senate budget for the year, where we probably spent about an hour or an hour and a half dealing with a $114 million budget, and that was simply a few of the very small line items on that particular budget — is not the same thing as dealing with a $1.5 million contract.
Having individual budget amounts dealt with — this is a brand new contract. A consolidation contract is a new contract. It was deemed important enough to inform us about it, so for transparency and accountability sake and for taxpayers’ dollars, $1.5 million, to ensure we get this contract right — it’s a very important issue. We spent a long time getting broadcasting in the Senate, so we want to make sure we’re doing it in the most efficient way possible.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: First, we spent more than 90 minutes working on the Senate budget, since there had been some preparation in the previous days. The committee members work independently on an individual basis and then we get together and meet with the different groups in the Senate that are asking for funding.
So, to say that we spent only an hour and a half on the budget is not entirely accurate, and it is even derogatory.
Now, when we have work done by committees, it is a rationalization exercise, so that everything is examined in detail by the committee. The committee does that work with great attention. As for broadcasting, we discussed it, we had all the documents we needed to make the decision and it was all included in the Senate’s $114-million budget.
So, everything was done in a transparent way; we had all the information and we were able to ask all the required questions. We must not forget that we started broadcasting from the Senate chamber and that these expenses had to be examined. When we studied this contract, we studied it in its entirety.
I would just like to remind you that, when we did this exercise, we did it with great care and professionalism.
You have the opportunity, senator, to participate in the budget development process as an observer. On November 20, we will do this exercise. We should receive all the material this week and we will have two weeks to prepare. I therefore invite you to participate in the next process. At that time, you will have detailed information on all topics.
I believe it is the prerogative of all senators to be able to participate in this exercise. I therefore invite you to do so, and this may clarify some of the questions you have about contracts awarded by the Senate.
[English]
Senator Plett: I’m not sure that I have any specific position on this, but I find it strange when you, chair, say this is the continuation of an existing contract when, in fact, you are consolidating three contracts into one contract. You now have a new contract; you do not have an existing contract.
Please let me finish, chair. You do not have an existing contract; you now have a new contract. I don’t think anybody is questioning it.
I find it strange that two members of CIBA would say the rest of us should not take part in this. You wanting me not to take part in it makes me want to take part a little more, to see what is there. I don’t think this will be very onerous. If, in fact, it is consolidating three contracts, it should probably take about as much time to approve it as we’ve now spent debating it.
In light of that, chair, I support Senator Batters in that we should discuss it here very briefly — but not today — and get on with it.
The Chair: Senators, what’s your view on this? It’s up to us to decide.
Senator Moncion: It’s been approved. I don’t see why we should be going back to it.
Senator Tkachuk: I think we’re neglecting our duty. I find it uncomfortable that the chair would decide that we not see a contract. Why would we not see a contract? What would be the point of that? Why wouldn’t it be tabled here? Why wouldn’t we discuss it? Why wouldn’t we deal with it? It’s $1.5 million. I think it should be here.
It is not a good precedent to set, to have the chairman decide on what is a contract and what is not a contract. I think we should bring it up here in Internal.
The Chair: May I make a correction? The chairman did not decide. Steering decided, Senator Munson and myself. It’s not as if it is a new contract. It’s just a consolidation. There’s nothing new in the contract.
Senator Plett: What are you hiding?
The Chair: We are hiding nothing. You just seem to bring it up time and time again.
Senator Tkachuk: Why don’t you bring it here?
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Since this issue has been discussed in public and may raise doubts about the integrity of our processes, I therefore recommend that we support Senator Batters’ proposal and allow time at a future meeting to explain this process, in order to confirm or infirm its integrity.
[English]
The Chair: If that’s the agreement of everybody at the committee, we will bring back the briefing note which was presented to steering. Thank you.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you very much.
See how good we are, Senator Saint-Germain?
The Chair: We’ll move on to Item No. 7, which is in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)