THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINIST RATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 31, 2018
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8 a.m., in public and in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Jim Munson (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Welcome. Senator Campbell will be here shortly. This is the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. First on our agenda, senators, there’s a copy of the public minutes from May 24, 2018. It’s in your package. Are there any questions or changes? If not, can I have a motion to adopt the minutes.
Moved by Senator Jaffer to adopt the minutes.
The second item on our agenda, senators, is a report from the audit subcommittee, and I invite Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, the Senate of Canada; Claudie Besner, Director, Financial Systems, ERP and Business Analysis, the Senate of Canada; and Andrew Newman, Partner, Audit Leader, Public Sector Audit, KPMG, to the table.
Senator Moncion, you may present your report. Following the senator’s presentation and brief statements from our witnesses, senators may ask questions. This report is for information purposes only.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: The Audit Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to table its tenth report.
Your subcommittee has reviewed the Summary of Results: Audit of Financial Reporting Application Conversion and Related General IT Controls of the Senate of Canada in support of the audit of the financial statements of the Senate of Canada for the year ended March 31, 2018, and now tables these results for information. The audit was conducted in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards by the professional services firm of KPMG. I add “respectfully submitted”, but I would like to come back with an update after KPMG’s presentation, to add some points that came out of the committee meeting. Thank you.
[English]
Andrew Newman, Partner, Audit Leader, Public Sector Audit, KPMG: I am pleased to present the summary of results for our audited financial reporting application conversion and related IT controls of the Senate.
This work relates to the conversion of data, the implementation of the new financial system and related internal controls of that financial system after implementation. The new financial system was launched on April 1, 2017.
The reason for this project is twofold. First, it is a requirement, since it’s a financial system, that we do this work to support our financial statement audit for the year ending March 31, 2018. Also it’s important that management of the Senate and this committee and the audit subcommittee obtain independent assurance that the data was converted correctly, the system was implemented in a controlled manner, and the resulting internal controls are operating effectively.
The internal controls we looked at related to security of the system, access controls, things like that, operations and change management.
The results were good. The data was converted appropriately from the old system to the new system, and controls are operating effectively.
In the report you will notice we are recommending two performance improvement observations. This does not impact the results of our report. One relates to the update of policies, specifically security policies relating to the financial system. The last time it was done was 2010. Best practice would say you need to look at those policies at least every two years, or when a major event has occurred, such as the system implementation. So in the coming year there are two reasons to do that work.
The Senate management provided us with their response. They have agreed to begin that work in the current year.
The second performance improvement observation is that as part of security and access we did identify two individuals who are no longer with the Senate who continue to have access to the finance system. They do not — and I want to emphasize do not — have access to the Senate network, so they would not be able to get into the network to get to the system. So you’re protected that way with regard to the two individuals.
The weakness is that an employee of the Senate who has network access, if they also had those individuals' passwords, could get into the network using their own password and then use the individuals’ passwords to get into the new financial system.
I also want to report to this committee that we did not find any instances of that. There was no access through these two individuals’ codes after they left the Senate, but it is a weakness, and our recommendation was to put that on the list of things you do when people leave the Senate. This has been added to that list already, and the access of those two individuals has been removed.
That concludes my report.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Newman. I read both documents carefully. You have audited the financial reporting application conversion and related general IT controls in support of the audit of the financial statements of the Senate of Canada.
Overall, as I understand it, management was generally compliant, subject to certain security deficiencies for the conversion from the old system to Unit 4, which were very specific to two former employees and have since been corrected by the Information Services Directorate.
Am I underestimating your findings? In other words, your report is generally positive.
[English]
Mr. Newman: Yes, you are understanding my report perfectly. Our results are positive with regard to internal controls. With regard to security, we do have two recommendations: one around the security policy and, second, one around adding a step in the departure of employees to make sure that their system access is removed.
I want to re-emphasize, I’m talking about the financial system access, not Senate network access, which is the first step. But, yes, your summary is very accurate.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Newman, for being here this morning. I have three questions. The first one relates to security. Have you done a review of our security, or has somebody else conducted an audit of our security procedures?
Mr. Newman: Other than the work relating to this financial system, we have not done work on security for you in our tenure as your auditors under general network security or other types of security.
I am not aware of whether the Senate committee asked for other independent assurance around security.
Senator Marshall: Perhaps our chief financial officer could answer that question. Has there been any recent security review of our systems?
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, The Senate of Canada: I don’t think that there’s been an audit of the security in recent times, but I’m not 100 per cent sure.
Senator Marshall: Pascale, perhaps you could just briefly update us.
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration: Yes, that is correct; we haven’t had any specifically security audit performed in the last three years.
Senator Marshall: Is that something we should look at the possibility of doing?
Ms. Legault: This is definitely something an internal audit function could consider in doing an internal audit plan.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Thank you.
My second question is on the major events you talked about. In the systems implementation, you said there were two events that you would consider a major event. One was this systems implementation. What was the other one?
Mr. Newman: The other one, senators, is the passing of two years. You should be looking at your security policy every two years with regard to systems, or if there is a major event. A major event would be a system implementation, which you’ve had.
Senator Marshall: Like the implementation of a new payroll system?
Mr. Newman: Exactly. Another example would be that if there were a system failure, you would want to look again at the policies at that point.
Senator Marshall: Last question: What’s the status of the audit of the financial statements?
Mr. Newman: We presented our audit plan to the audit subcommittee at the same meeting that we presented this report. My team arrives on June 26 to begin the audit of the financial statements, and we will report back to this committee when you return in the fall.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Senators, do we have any other questions?
Senator Pratte: I want to understand this policy that has not been reviewed every two years. The last time it was reviewed was in 2010. What does that policy involve exactly? What is this policy? Why should it be reviewed regularly?
Mr. Newman: I’ll start. An IT security policy revolves around the policy of the Senate, around things such as access controls, who should have access to the system, password controls, complexity of passwords, monitoring policies, access logs. How often are they monitored and by whom? Things of that nature would be in a security policy.
Senator Pratte: What is the risk if you don’t review them regularly?
Mr. Newman: I'll give you a very simple example of the risk of not reviewing a policy regularly: the complexity of passwords. We all know that has grown over the years, and your policy might say — I’m not sure what it says, but just as an example — six characters with one number versus 10 characters with a number and a capitalized letter. That’s a very simple example, but things such as that that are updated.
The ability of those who wish to get around security policies is always increasing, so it’s important to keep that policy up to date.
Senator Pratte: Thank you.
Senator Batters: Once the open questions are answered, I would like a brief chance for us to go in camera, senators only, to be able to ask any questions that senators might have in that setting.
Senator Moncion: If I can finish the report, if questions are done, I still have some information to give to the members of CIBA.
The Deputy Chair: You can finish the report, and then we’ll probably go in camera.
Senator Moncion: For your information:
[Translation]
The committee received an update from Human Resources, in addition to the audit plan submitted, with the statistics on employee turnover in the Senate in recent years.
The subcommittee also received a submission on the Senate’s risk management procedure. The Senate’s risk management will be reviewed and updated over the summer and will come back to the subcommittee in the fall. Among other things, it was suggested that a systematic annual review of all policies and a quarterly update of risk management be included.
We looked beyond the report. For the committee’s purposes, the report on KPMG was presented. A template is being developed that will include various components that the audit committee will review on a quarterly basis. A lot of work will be done in the coming months in order to put in place a more structured process.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Just before we go in camera, Senator Saint-Germain, you had another question?
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I have a point of clarification. Madam Subcommittee Chair, could you enlighten us on the definition of the word “risk” in relation to the policy you have in mind? Is there a connection with value for money?
Senator Moncion: There is not necessarily a connection with value for money, except that when we look at the risks, we want to take into account IT risks and human resources risks. That is why we requested an initial analysis. Some findings have been made.
We are asking for a management analysis of all risks related to Senate expenditures in order to have a table that we can monitor and analyze on a quarterly basis.
Right now, the exercise is about numbers. It is a useful exercise, but it may not be comprehensive for integrated risk management purposes.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: With that, I want to thank our witnesses very much. Then I’m going to say we’re going to go into in camera, but I have to thank the witnesses for being here this morning. We appreciate it very much.
I want to know from the senators if you wanted to go in camera with the staff leaving the room.
Hon. Senators: Yes, senators only.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
Senator Larry W. Campbell (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Dealing with Item No. 3, the report from the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the twentieth report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, which recommends funding allocations for three committee budgets. Before I talk about this, I would like to remind you that we have allocated $1,882,000 to committee activities for the current fiscal year. To date, $427,594 has been authorized for committee activities. The subcommittee met earlier this week to consider four budget requests. They included detailed travel proposals in Canada and abroad for a total amount of $1,394,166.
[English]
Given that we are only a few months into the current fiscal year, the subcommittee is concerned about tying up such a significant amount of funds at this stage.
After deliberation, we decided it would be prudent to approve partial amounts for the committees who are most likely to travel between now and October.
[Translation]
We are also deferring the review of new requests until certain committee activities approved since April 1 are completed. We therefore make the following recommendation.
[English]
In keeping with the clawback process, we recommend that any funds allocated today for approved travel be returned to the central committee’s budget if they have not been used by October 31, 2018, to ensure that funds are not tied up unnecessarily until the end of this fiscal year.
These funds would be again made available for redistribution to all committees for travel planned by the end of the fiscal year.
[Translation]
Having said that, we began our meeting by welcoming the chair and vice-chair of the agriculture and forestry committee. They submitted a budget request for $305,936 to conduct a fact-finding mission in Paris, France, and in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The purpose of this mission is to study how Canada’s value-added food sector can be more competitive in global markets and to provide funding for the travel of 11 senators.
[English]
The subcommittee carefully considered this request and decided to deny it based on the fact that the information provided could not justify this trip.
[Translation]
We then met with the chair of the Human Rights Committee who submitted a budget request for $305,952 to conduct two fact-finding missions. The first is planned for Saskatchewan and Manitoba at a cost of $122,960, and the second would be in Scotland and Norway for an amount of $182,992.
[English]
Those two activities are in relation to their study on the human rights of prisons and include funds for six senators to travel. The committee also included a request to include in their budget funds for one staff from a senator’s office.
[Translation]
Having considered that request, the subcommittee believes that including an employee from the Chair’s office will serve the interests of the committee. As I mentioned earlier, other senators can now be accompanied by their staff in Canada using their parliamentary travel points and funds. Based on the information provided, the subcommittee recommends that the amount of $122,960 be authorized for the first mission to the West. To that end, I would like to remind you that the committee is still planning another trip to Alberta and British Columbia this summer in the amount of $135,000. The trip was already approved by the committee at the beginning of the current fiscal year. In light of those two trips, the subcommittee saw fit to reassess the request for travel to Europe next fall, once funds from other budgets have been recovered.
We then welcomed the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Special Committee on the Arctic, who submitted a budget request for $349,238 to conduct a mission to the Western Arctic.
[English]
This is in relation to their study on the effects of significant and rapid changes to the Arctic and includes funds for nine senators to travel. The committee also included a request to include in their budget funds for two staff from the chair and deputy chair’s offices. The budget also includes a request for approval for a sole-source chartered plane.
[Translation]
Having carefully considered that request, the subcommittee believes that including the chair’s office staff in the budget will serve the interests of the committee when it travels to this part of Canada. Based on the information provided, the subcommittee recommends that the amount of $349,238 be approved.
Finally, we met with the Chair of the Aboriginal Peoples Committee, who submitted a budget request for $433,040 to conduct two fact-finding missions. The first is planned in the Western Arctic at a cost of $237,640, and the second, in British Columbia, for an amount of $195,400. This mission is related to their study on the new relationship between Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. It includes funds for eight senators to travel.
The budget also contains a request for approval for sole source for charter flights. Based on the information provided, the subcommittee recommends that the amount of $237,640 be approved for the fact-finding mission to Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In addition, the subcommittee agreed to review the committee’s budget request for the second fact-finding mission in the fall, once funds from other budgets have been recovered.
Today, your subcommittee is therefore recommending the release of $709,838 instead of the $1,394,000 initially requested. As a result, an amount of $1,137,432 from a total of $1,882,000 will have been approved to date. Unless there are some recommendations, I recommend that the report be adopted.
[English]
The Chair: Just to start off, I want to thank Senator Verner and her committee. This is not an easy committee to be on, and it doesn’t appear to be getting any easier as I look here.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Madam Subcommittee Chair. My congratulations on your rigorous review. All the trips you mentioned will be taken by October. If I understand correctly, from the $1.88 million budget that we approved for all travel during the year, roughly $740,000 will be left halfway through the year.
Senator Verner: Roughly, yes. I have the number.
Senator Saint-Germain: Can we agree that the envelope we have allocated to this budget will not be increased during the current fiscal year? All committee chairs and deputy chairs should be advised that, until year end, the budget will have to fit in the overall envelope, and that both the travel and the costs of the travel for the various committees must be kept to a minimum.
Senator Verner: Thank you for your question. At this week’s meeting, the four committee chairs and deputy chairs were informed of the amounts allocated. It was the first thing I mentioned to them. We could discuss it with the deputy chair. It would be appropriate to monitor the status of the budgets on October 31, as we have just done today, and to remind them to be rigorous when they present their requests. It’s not that they aren’t, but it’s just to keep them informed.
This is the first time I have served on this committee and here I am as the chair. I see that a new committee has been created, the Special Committee on the Arctic. I think that’s very good. I am not questioning the committee, but we must understand that going there on a fact-finding trip is not cheap. You have to take mostly charter flights to see everyone. That means different trips, which is expensive. Perhaps, depending on the results at the end of the year, we will have to think about the envelope for committee travel. That’s my humble opinion.
[English]
Senator Saint-Germain: Chair, I have a very short supplementary question. Would you allow me to ask it?
The Chair: Sure.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Furthermore, it is possible that other Senate committees will travel to the Arctic; if so, should those trips not be merged and made to coincide?
Senator Verner: The question was asked at the meeting. The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, like the Committee on the Arctic, has to visit the region too. The two committees do not visit the same cities or communities because they have different mandates. It would be practical — and the comment was made — for everyone to take the same plane, but it is not as simple as you might think.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Munson: I think, senator, you talked about the Aboriginal Peoples Committee going to the Arctic in our conversation, but, when you gave your report, did you say Western Arctic with it? I don’t know. I thought I heard you say Saskatchewan and Manitoba again.
Senator Verner: What did you say?
Senator Munson: With the funds that have been allocated for the Western Arctic for the Aboriginal Peoples Committee, we agreed to $237,640 that they were looking for approval for, but I thought I heard you say, when you delivered your report — this is just to make it official that you said Saskatchewan and Manitoba for that. I just want to make sure, for the record, that that is there. Approval of funds for Aboriginal Peoples Committee. I thought I heard her say that.
Senator Pratte: Human Rights is going to Saskatchewan.
Senator Munson: I heard that one, too.
Senator Verner: There were requests for two trips, and when we asked them, they put priority on the one in the Western Arctic.
Senator Munson: Okay. I just want to make sure. Just for the record, I sit on this committee, another subcommittee, and we also want to have the chairs of these committees --
When you plan them, you do have the budget for full committee travel, but rarely does a full committee travel. At other committees, there have been committee chairs who put in budgets, when it’s agreed to by the committee, just for an example, of two Conservatives, two ISG, one Liberal, to put in a budget to think about it, to put a budget together to be fiscally responsible, to have representation from the committee. You don’t want to be unfair. Everybody has the right to travel and should travel, but, in terms of spending this money equitably amongst all of the committees, it would be prudent for committee chairs to keep in mind that, if you’re going to have five who travel, then budget for five who travel so that we can look at that number and can plan effectively and so that other committees aren’t put out. I just wanted to have that on the public record.
Senator Batters: Just a brief question: The fact that we have three of these different committee requests at the same time allows us to do a little bit of comparison, and one thing I noticed — a smaller item, but I was surprised to see such a difference on it — was that the Human Rights Committee, when they’re going to Saskatchewan and Manitoba, lists the charter bus expense for $2,000 a day. There’s another committee that has one listed for $2,500 a day somewhere else, and then the Aboriginal Peoples Committee has their charter bus expense for their legs of their travel for only $1,000 a day. Shouldn’t the people who do the estimating for those types of things be coordinating that type of thing? I can’t imagine there that would be that sort of a massive difference between those types of centres. I’m not sure why there is such a large difference between those particular estimated amounts.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: You compared hotel nights in the same cities for different committees and you noticed price differences. That’s an excellent observation. What we particularly looked at were trips to the Arctic, to the north of the country. Now we will have to see where the differences arise between the hotel prices for the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights and for another committee travelling to Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Senator Moncion: I would like to comment on the planning that committees do. When we establish a budget for the year, we establish an amount and we work according to that amount. But when a committee asks for $350,000 for a single trip, for example, it is a lot of money for one committee. It has an impact on the budget planning of all the other committees. If we did an annual travel plan at the beginning of the year, with the possibility of adding money to the budgets during the year, it would give us a better idea of what is coming.
Right now, we say to ourselves that, for the purposes of the current study, we will travel to such and such a place. This is the sort of planning that could be done over a slightly longer period of time so that those sitting on the budget planning committee have a better overview of what is to come. Right now, this is done on a study-by-study basis. We then need to prioritize, and determine whether one study is more valuable than another. As a result, we make value judgments. I think it’s a difficult task for this committee, because we end up saying yes to one group and no to another. All the arguments presented are very valuable, and the requests all make sense.
[English]
The Chair: Over the 13 years that I’ve been here, the cost of trips has grown astronomically. A $60,000 or maybe $100,000 trip was the norm. Over the years it has blossomed for a number of reasons. I don’t think we do a good job of trip planning or knowing how many senators will be here or setting up the scheduling. We have been in businesses. Can you imagine doing an ask for $300,000 and using only $100,000? There is something desperately wrong in the planning process when we do that. I suggest that’s one of the reasons.
The second reason is overlapping committees. I see the Aboriginal Committee, which covers all of Canada, taking a special focus on the North at the same time as we have a committee to study the North. I sometimes wonder if the mandates are wrong. What is the mandate of the Aboriginal Committee, and what is the management of the North? We know travelling to the North can kill your budget, and that’s the way it is. We okayed a budget for Senator Patterson. I’ve never seen a budget that big before, but when you read it and saw the whole thing — it is his region — it was legitimate. He had to go to all these communities and could only get in by flying. It seems like the North has taken over our interest at the present time. Everyone wants to go to the North.
That being said, I think committees could take a little more time and ask who is coming to this. Most senators can take a look and say yes or no. And at that point you start cutting costs. You cut the number of staff going, and you really start cutting costs. I think there are places we shouldn’t be staying. It shouldn’t be a route march somewhere; you’re not going because the rooms are bad or whatever.
It’s an area we have not looked at. We have never sat down and asked what the parameters are or how many people should go. I think this has brought it to our attention. I have never seen us this close to being out of money before.
I tell you, frankly, I think your committee has done an amazing job. This is a difficult committee because you’re saying no. I think that what you have done here is reasonable. There is no doubt in my mind that when it’s all over we are going to get 50 per cent of this back. That’s just what happens because people can’t go or are not able to go to a certain place. That’s a given. But it would be nice if we could tighten that up so that we're not always wondering, so that when the next committee comes along it is not, “Gee, sorry, there is no money left.” We should give our heartfelt thanks to this committee because it’s a difficult committee to be on.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, Senator Verner. That was an excellent report, and I do support it.
I’m trying to link up what you just said, Mr. Chair, with Senator Saint-Germain's comments about respecting the overall budget. We should fix it, or cap it, or whatever. Maybe if we capped it, we could do more with the same amount, based on your comments. My question is how are we going to deal with Senator Saint-Germain’s suggestion now? Should we have a motion? Should the committee make a decision with regard to capping it? The current amount?
The Chair: I agree with the idea. The difficulty with capping is that if you are going to do something, it’s going to cost X, and if we cap it, how do you actually do the work that you have to do? It might cost $300,000 to do this job no matter how we slice it. From my point of view, it should be up to the committee to explain that they’ve done everything. Capping is artificial. You’re never sure if you're high or low. I would much rather do a bigger drill down into the budget process for travel. If you need $300,000, that’s fine, you need $300,000. But you need to convince us of that.
Senator Marshall: I don’t think she was referring to individual trips. I think she was referring to a cap on the total budget.
The Chair: I would support that.
Senator Marshall: I support that, too. Is that something we can make a decision on this morning? Do we need a motion?
Senator Munson: In light of what you were saying about the cost of travel, the aberration here is the Arctic trip that has blown things out of focus in terms of our budget. We should look at more funds, at having a higher travel budget. It’s a reality check of the world we are living in.
Senator Batters: This could be a worthwhile thing to change, but I think maybe it would be helpful to have a briefing note about that so that we have all the relevant information. Perhaps we should deal with it at the next meeting when we have more information.
The Chair: We do have a cap in place right now at $1.8 million.
Senator Tannas: In my time on the committee, and learning from those who were on it before, we have to keep in mind that we have a cap. The cap is $1.882 million. It’s been the same cap for multiple years, and we have never spent it.
When I first came to the committee we were fretting about this exact same thing, and we actually overcommitted because we knew everybody would over-budget. It was like trying to run an airline, with overbooking the seats and trying to manage the number you were going to wind up with on the day.
We just have not been able to solve this problem that, frankly, comes through a budgeting process that maybe we should ask administration to really address. We can talk about it, but, if we keep getting the same budgets done in the same fashion from the clerks — senators don’t make the budgets. The clerks make the budgets. They do a good job of making sure that there is no possible way they could ever go over that number. Maybe we could encourage them to be crisper in the actual budgeting, and we could promise never to be angry if they went over budget, and then maybe we would get a more accurate budget. Until that day happens, we’ll continue to have these discussions and worry about it.
The reality is that, today, we have $1.882 million as a cap. We have committed $1.2 million. We know that when the smoke clears we will essentially have probably spent $900,000, which is exactly half. We know that by the time we meet again as a subcommittee and come back here, we will be more than halfway through our fiscal year. I think we’re in good shape, but this is a frustrating thing. Hopefully, administration, you can hear everybody’s frustration about this. There has to be a way that we can make these budgets tighter.
The Chair: Perhaps I could suggest that our administration decide who would be the most helpful in budgeting, finance, what have you. I don’t want them to be doing guidelines and that. What I want them to do is to sit down with the committees and say, “Here is how you budget, okay, and you have to have a reality on it.” You need to know, if you have eight senators and only four are going, that only four are going. You need to specifically figure out where you are going to stay, how you are going to get from point A to point B and the best way to go about that. Is that what you are suggesting?
Senator Tannas: Yes. I would say, because I should have said this before, that I think we should have post-trip accounting, and I think that post-trip accounting would actually point a lot of fingers at senators as well, who say, “Yes, I’m coming,” and then, at the last minute, don’t go. So I think that would be a good way to start.
The Chair: I’m advised we have that.
Senator Tannas: We don’t ever see it. We just hear a number came back, but an actual accounting of why they had this number —
The Chair: By the committee?
Senator Tannas: By the committee. Why they had this number and what happened that caused that number to shrink. Just so we could learn and understand.
The Chair: It would help the rest of us because we are all in the same boat on different committees. We can do something on that.
Ms. Legault: I’m being told it’s happening. Do we want to bring someone from the committee to explain?
The Chair: Let’s wait until it’s done. We’ll have that drawn up. With the new Arctic Committee, it’s a whole new ball game because your numbers are extraordinary, and people go, “Holy crow.” I think the best thing from this is that perhaps the public will understand some of the problems in the North of accommodation, travel, how you get from point A to point B. We have to understand that it’s a region unlike any other in Canada. It’s more expensive, and we have to be dealing with that. Let's go for the post.
Senator Pratte: I think the issue is not whether we have a cap. I think the issue that was raised is really whether there will be a point when we should, as a committee, remind all committees that we’re at this point and that there is just so much money left. If Senator Tannas is right, this point has not arrived because we will probably have much more money left on October 31 than we think, looking at these numbers, we will have left.
The Chair: We don’t do March madness on travel.
Senator Pratte: That’s correct.
The Chair: We don’t look at it in March and say, “Wow, we have $400,000 left,” and committees start planning on travelling. That’s not our style; we have never done that.
Senator Pratte: What could be useful is if we compared, if administration had the numbers, the comparable numbers from last year or preceding years, where we were at a similar date, which would allow us to see exactly what Senator Tannas has been saying. That would be very useful.
The Chair: We’ll have that included with the report from the staff.
Senator Pratte: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Tkachuk: I want to bring up just a couple of points. All of these budgets, through the years, have always fluctuated because we’re in politics, so things happen. There could be an election in the spring. There is prorogation. All of these things interfere with the budget. Plus, there are votes. If there are a lot of votes, whips pull out their whip and say, “You can’t go on the trip because we have a vote on the Thursday.” So you’re out of it. That’s why, a lot of times, numbers are reduced.
The Chair: It’s interesting to see that.
Senator Tkachuk: It’s very flexible, and it just happens. If there are a lot of bills in the fall, there will be a lot of people staying home.
The Chair: Right. Thank you, Senator Tkachuk.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: I would like to comment on some of the remarks that have been made and that I do not dispute.
I understand that when budgets are approved, we must not expect — and past history shows it — the entire budget to be spent. Quite frankly, I would be very uncomfortable giving a budget to a committee and telling myself that the committee will not have spent everything. If I told my husband that, he wouldn’t believe me. I understand that this is the history of committee travel budgets, but I am not very comfortable with it. For example, at our meeting on Tuesday, if we had had to approve everything, technically, for the rest of the fiscal year, only $156,000 would have remained. Honestly, we had to be very rigorous. That is the comment I wanted to make.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: I also very much appreciate what the committee does, but the two other things we have to look at are when committees travel. I felt that this last month or so some committees were really harshly dealt with. Their permission was refused because people wanted them to stay in the chamber. We have to have the discussion as to whether committees should only travel during non-sitting weeks. I’m just saying that some committees were not allowed to travel because people were wanted, the whole committee. I think, when we are looking at everything, we should look at this issue as well.
The Chair: Whatever happened to pairing? I was giving you an opening there.
It is moved by Senator Verner that the report be adopted.
Senator Munson: Agreed.
The Chair: All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Against? Carried.
Thank you, I think we are going to be dealing with this a little more often in the future.
Item number 4 is a report from the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Pursuant to section 1.6.2 of the Senators’ Office Management Policy, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure is required to report quarterly on the exemption requests it has received and the corresponding decisions. It is my honour to table the tenth report of the subcommittee, which outlines these exemption requests and corresponding decisions since November 1, 2017. This report is placed before you for information. Are there any questions?
Senator Jaffer: I have one question. Some people were approved under the international travel; some weren’t. I’m assuming they were approved because they were before a decision was made about that.
The Chair: That’s correct, yes.
Any other questions on this? Thank you very much. We are moving on to number 5. The next item is an extension request from the Subcommittee on Diversity. Could I have a mover for the following motion: That the mandate of the Subcommittee on Diversity be extended from May 31, 2018, to June 30, 2018?
Any debate? Could I have a motion?
It was moved by Senator Jaffer, seconded by Senator Munson. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Carried.
Thank you very much. We are moving on to item number 6.
The next item is for a membership change on the Joint Interparliamentary Council. We received a letter from Senator Saint-Germain indicating that an agreement had been reached for Senator Gold to replace Senator MacDonald as a member of the council. Can I have a mover for this motion? Senator Jaffer followed by Senator Dawson. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Does anyone have any other questions before we go in camera? We will move in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)