Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates
Issue No. 1 - Evidence - May 5, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 5, 2016
The Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), met this day at 12:49 p.m. for the consideration of administrative and financial matters.
Senator David M. Wells (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome everyone to the fourth meeting of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates. I'd like to welcome our witness, Senator McCoy, to the subcommittee and also Senator Omidvar and Senator Pratte. This is your first visit to this subcommittee. Welcome. We are not going to wait for Senator Jaffer, the deputy chair of the subcommittee, but I'm sure she will show when she's available.
Senator McCoy, as you know, the subcommittee has been tasked with looking at the budget structure of the office of the government leader as well as the overall budget allotments for political officers. So far, we've heard from senators Cowan, Carignan and Harder, as well as from Charles Robert, who was with us last night and gave us an excellent historical overview of our parliamentary system of government and opposition where a legislative balance is struck. I'd encourage all of you to seek the transcripts of that meeting. It was an excellent overview, and I think we all learned something.
We're interested to hear your views on the matter at hand as the facilitator of the independent, non-partisan working group. We'll all have questions, I'm certain, but I'd like to give the floor to you if you have any opening remarks.
Hon. Elaine McCoy: Thank you for inviting us to be with you today. I have read all the transcripts of all the meetings that have occurred so far, including last night's. One thing occurred to me: It was so confusing with everybody's description of what exactly we were discussing, so I drew up the facts for myself. I have these to pass around.
The Chair: Are you tabling these?
Senator McCoy: Yes.
The Chair: Are they bilingual?
Senator McCoy: No.
Senator Downe: They can't be tabled. Everything has to be in both official languages.
Senator Tannas: We can agree to table them.
Senator Downe: I'm not agreeing. If I were a unilingual francophone and documents were tabled and I could read some English, I would be uncomfortable. It's inappropriate. We have a policy.
Senator McCoy: In that case, I will make the motion to table them in French and English, and I will provide the French later.
Senator Campbell: That would be great.
Senator McCoy: It does make it much easier to see what we're talking about when you have the facts in front of everyone. That was my first comment.
My second comment is, having read some of the transcripts and the descriptions of the cross-benchers in the House of Lords generally, I want to make the observation that all peers come and go, if I can put it that way. Many of you have watched, for example, "Downton Abbey,'' through the six years, and you also know Lord Grantham. Not once in all the six years of that mini-series did you ever see him go to the House of Lords. That's very typical of peers in England, and that's why they don't get paid a salary. They get paid on a daily attendance basis, and even that's quite recent.
As I am very fond of saying, the House of Lords is an excellent place to look for inspiration, but it isn't an exact precedent, and it never has been an exact precedent. When we created the Senate of Canada in 1867, we wrote it up ourselves. Canadians then took it across the pond and wrote up the statute and submitted it through Lord Carnarvon, who, as I said in the chamber the other day, was the sponsor of the first British North America Act, 1867. His seat was Highclere Castle, which is another "Downton Abbey'' connection.
The Chair: I wish I had seen any of these so I would know what your reference is.
Senator McCoy: The other fun piece about Lord Carnarvon was that his nickname was Twitters; so he was quite a modern fellow, all in all.
We are a unique institution. I have been in the Senate since March 24, 2005. That is obviously the one hundredth anniversary of Alberta's joining confederation, so it was always a very significant date to me. I was told I could take whatever designation I wanted. I was literally recruited into political life by Peter Lougheed. He was my mentor. I learned whatever I knew from Peter Lougheed. He was a Progressive Conservative. I joined the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta, and so I considered myself a Progressive Conservative. Of course, by the time I arrived in Ottawa, there was no Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, so I have been technically independent since I arrived. I have that perspective to bring to this subcommittee, as well as recently having been joined by several other independent senators.
The distinction that has not been drawn consistently in the conversations I've seen in your meetings so far is that we are also non-partisan. None of us is affiliated with a political party. That is the distinction being made in the groups that we are forming. You did make reference to our independent, non-partisan working group. If we could have, I think we might have called it work-in-progress because we knew that this was an evolution. We also knew that the Rules of the Senate are such that they do not accommodate anything but a political caucus at the moment or a registered party, which is a political party.
Not fitting into any of the boxes that were created in 1990 for the Senate of Canada, we felt it best to steer clear of taking on any particular designation, especially thinking ahead as of March 10 and the months to follow knowing that we would be joined by other senators. We felt that it should be a collective decision as we go forward what exact organizational form we might take.
I mention that the rules of procedure that we are operating under were first promulgated in 1990. They were brought in by Senator Lowell Murray, who at the time was the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Progressive Conservative government, and Mulroney was the Prime Minister. The Senate had just gone through some very lively debates, including the one on GST and the extraordinary historical manoeuvre of adding eight additional senators to break the impasse. After that, it was deemed desirable to have rules that allowed the government to get its business through the Senate. So rules were brought in that ensured that the government would get its legislation through the Senate in a timely fashion. Up to that point, there had been no such provisions.
At the time people knew that the fight had been between Lowell Murray the Conservative senator and Alex McEachern the Liberal senator; and so that's how the rules were framed. So began this bipartisanship. There's nothing in any precedent for a Westminster system to prevent having more than two caucuses. Indeed, not all caucuses have to be affiliated with a political party.
As I said in my speech in the Senate, I have no difficulty with political caucuses here or in any other upper house. I do have a problem when one group can dominate all other groups; and that's an abuse of power. That, in my view, is to be reached for. One of the ways of achieving that is by having a third caucus, in particular having a third caucus that has no affiliation with a political party. Over time, that will serve a good function in providing a balance of power, if you like. It will also promote conversations between senators.
All senators, whether they are in a political caucus or not, are encouraged to be independent-minded. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has said we are an essential part of the architecture of our Constitution, and we are appointed in order to be independent. Independence doesn't rely on political affiliation or not political affiliation.
However, partisanship, if I can put it this way, is, as one of our senators once described it, is being loyal to the party before the principle, and that is to be discouraged, in my view.
Now, we have been meeting collectively. We independent, non-partisan senators have been meeting collectively since our newest members joined us three weeks ago, roughly once a week, either in person, or in the break week we had a conference call.
We were invited, as you know, through the media and then through individual letters to select amongst ourselves committee assignments, and so we came together and we did that in a principled and orderly fashion, and in a timely fashion, and that letter is being delivered today.
We adopted the principles, as you would be familiar with, of course, the first, being fairness in the sense that we are all eager to do our fair share of the workload; second, equality, all senators are treated equally; third, of course, proportionality; and our fourth principle is very much reinforcing and hanging on to our independence and particularly to bring that dimension and non-partisanship to the institution.
We look forward to working in the institution together on two subjects. The first one is logistics, administration. It's simply a way to make it more orderly, if you like. If we can make the conduct of business in the Senate, in committees, and in all the other four roles that senators undertake, which are representing regions, protecting minorities, parliamentary diplomacy, and the fourth one, of course, is taking up good public causes. In all of those roles — your parliamentary functions — it is important that we do those in an orderly, effective and efficient manner. Much of that takes administration, and administratively we can support one other and make that more effective.
So that's one. And the second commitment we have made, of course, is we're all very committed to modernizing the Senate and moving this forward with a Senate for the 21st century.
In terms of issues, legislation, investigative studies, all of that, we would not speak with one voice. We would be very much independent-minded on that. We would be what Lord Hope said the other day. He's the Convenor of the House of Lords Crossbench Peers. He said that, "Oh, no, we're all fiercely free thinkers,'' and so we would certainly be that amongst ourselves as well.
I think there have been references from time to time to having 105 independent senators, or non-partisan senators and that that would be an impossibility. We have to recall that that's not going to happen for at least 10 years. If you look at the facts of when people will likely retire through age, and frankly I'm not sure that there wouldn't be, in the foreseeable future, people who will want to join the political caucuses, one or the other, or a third one, perhaps. After all, we have five parties represented in the House of Commons, so why wouldn't there be more over here?
At the moment, I don't foresee having 105 loose fish. It just isn't realistic on the basis of any kind of design. I will say, though, and I point to the part of the Senate Administrative Rules, Divisions 5 and 6 with which you're dealing, that it does seem to me more thought needs to be given to how that's structured, and I will say that this is on the table in the Modernization Committee, and I'm pleased that it's there because I think it needs to be dealt with in context.
I'm on the steering committee of the Modernization Committee, and Senator Tannas of course is also a member of that committee. We're looking at it in a broader context, I think, and looking forward in a thoughtful, deliberate way as well, and I think that's a very good place to look at this issue.
So I would encourage Internal Economy to listen to your good advice, but also then to wait for the advice from the Modernization Committee before it revamps the whole section, but I do think these sections will need to be addressed.
In terms of the research dollars, at the moment, as you know, the so-called "other caucus'' gets $1 million if there are over 20 people in that other caucus. And there's no designation as to what it's used for. It's just research dollars. So that's $50,000 per senator, per head, at the minimum. Even if that other caucus only has 5 to 10 people, that's $60,000 per head, and these funds are pooled.
I read that you've been having this conversation, "Well, an independent senator gets $7,000 extra for research dollars.'' Let me tell you, as an independent senator all these years, I have had to do all my own research, pretty much. A very limited budget is available to hire others to help. I write all my own speeches. One of the ways that I have managed to augment the resources in my office is to recruit young people as volunteers. We have been creative in how we have managed our resources.
As for that $7,000, if you put an individual on a full-time salary that is more like $70,000, so it is not a healthy comparison when you are looking at equality of research funds.
The Chair: Senator, I'm going to ask you to pause for a moment, mindful of the time that we have remaining and the investigative aspect of our subcommittee's work. We do have some questions, if you'd be prepared to answer them. I would like to go to Senator Tannas first.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, chair. Thank you for being here.
Senator McCoy: You're welcome.
Senator Tannas: Senator McCoy, you mentioned a couple of things that I wanted to get clarity on. You mentioned early on in your comment "groups'' you were forming, so more than one group. And I just wondered if in your thinking around groups, multiple groups, that you could see senators belonging to more than one group. That's my first question.
And then you mentioned a third caucus, and I think there's certainly been a lot of discussion in the Modernization Committee about the trouble that we've got with caucus and the definition of caucus within the Senate Administrative Rules, and the political party and so on. And I think the Modernization Committee has discussed this quite a bit. We need to probably expand that definition to groups.
But I would also say that certainly I, and I think others, in that Modernization Committee would be of the paradigm that you would join a group but you wouldn't join two groups or three groups, but maybe you would. So I would be interested to hear what your thoughts are on that, or even better, if there has been discussion in the wider group about it.
Senator McCoy: We have had three weeks so far, so we haven't managed to canvass all of these issues with the degree of depth that I am anticipating we will. I do not pretend to speak for the other independent, non-partisan senators on this point. I think, however, you are not to wear more than one hat at any time. It's not feasible. I think there are some common-sense parameters one might put on these groups.
By the way, "group'' is the word that is used for the French Senate. They call them — I don't do French very well — groupe politique — am I close? — if it's a political caucus and groupe non affilié, I believe, if it's not affiliated with a political stripe. Then, of course, the European Parliament uses that terminology as well. So there's a precedent for that terminology.
I'm thinking that given in particular our case, where you would be in that group for collective administrative support, one ought not to then be able to go over to the Conservative caucus and say, "I want my share of your political administrative support as well.'' I just wouldn't think of that as being fair.
Senator Tannas: So when you were talking about groups, you think there may be more than one that has a view and should be entitled to form up to cover administrative things and all of the things that we have talked about, rather than just one, like the convenor role has happened? It's evolved into one convenor for everybody. He said there are a few people that are just resolutely independent; they're not getting organized or talking to anybody. But for the most part, it's one convenor for all the independents —
Senator McCoy: Are you speaking in the House of Lords?
Senator Tannas: Cross-benchers. So out of the 800, there are a handful of people —
Senator McCoy: There are 178 cross-benchers.
Senator Tannas: Right, but there are a handful of people who are not in the cross-benchers or in the political caucuses. So essentially there's one convenor for virtually all the independents.
Your view, if I'm hearing you — I just want to understand — is that there may in fact be and we should allow there to be more than one group that isn't a caucus but would be coming together for administrative purposes and to study things together and communicate and coordinate in some way. Is that fair?
Senator McCoy: I'm saying that there should be at least three caucuses/groups in the Senate of Canada and that that would help provide a balance of power. It would help to prevent an abuse of power, the tyranny of the majority, in my view.
I also think there should be some common-sense constraints around how these caucuses/groups are put together.
Senator Tannas: And funded, obviously.
Senator McCoy: Well, obviously funded, too. But there I would go back to the principles that we uphold and have agreed upon ourselves and I think have long been agreed to in the Senate of Canada, and one is equality of all senators. Another is proportionality. Another is sharing the workload fairly.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator Downe: Thank you. I just want to follow up Senator Tannas' questions, Senator McCoy.
So you had three weeks of meetings of independents. The new senators that were recently appointed, did they attend those meetings as well?
Senator McCoy: Yes.
Senator Downe: Senator Harder is here looking for money to run his operation, and I was of the understanding he would be working with those new senators and you would be working with the independents who are not new.
He has a claim in for money. I assume you would have a similar claim because your group is bigger. He's the government leader in the Senate and he has three, and I thought he had plus more, but they're with your group. So you would have a claim in for some funding, too.
Just while I have the floor, if I could just finish for a moment, because we're in a public meeting, I want to correct the record. Senator McCoy has never sat in caucus, so her understanding is not as clear as the assumption she made that the Senate Liberals have this pot of money and somehow it's distributed.
The way it actually works is it's a Liberal research fund and people have to apply for funding for specific projects that are an extension of the work they're doing in the Senate. For example, I've been in the Senate for 10 years, and I have never received funding from that group, so I am short the $7,500 or $7,800 independents have every year. Over 10 years, I'm short the $75,000 that an independent would have because I've never taken advantage of that fund.
And that fund is not often spent, either, if you look at the amount. It's an additional research tool, but I'm particularly interested in my first question, Senator McCoy.
Senator McCoy: I did know about what you just said because I read the transcript, and I believe that was how Senator Cowan described how your caucus works. My comment was that, as I understand it, yours are pooled, and the fact is that it's $7,000 per senator.
I have done projects that I have funded without anything in addition to that, so I've had no recourse to a communal project fund. You were asking — I forget now your question.
Senator Downe: The question was — it's a follow-up to Senator Tannas' — are these groups overlapping? In other words, if we advance Senator Harder's request for, I believe it's $850,000, will we then quite legitimately get a request from your group and some of the people who are in both groups?
Senator McCoy: No.
Senator Pratte: No.
Senator McCoy: No, no. Nobody is in both groups.
Senator Downe: Senator Bellemare doesn't attend.
Senator McCoy: Senators Bellemare, Mitchell and Harder are not known partisans.
Senator Downe: Senator Bellemare is not on your conference calls?
Senator McCoy: Not since she has taken on her new role this week.
Senator Downe: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator, do you foresee any of those three being on your conference calls or in your meetings?
Senator McCoy: No, I don't.
The Chair: So they would be specifically excluded, for instance like I would be specifically excluded?
Senator McCoy: Yes, because you're not non-partisan.
The Chair: Okay, so it's non-partisan.
Senator Jaffer: I just want a clarification. I'm just trying to think my question through.
From what I understood, one of the roles of Senators Harder, Mitchell and Bellemare was to manage the independent caucus and to — please don't get hung up on the words — liaise the independent caucus. That was my understanding. I could be all wrong, which I am obviously now. They're certainly not going to manage us, so what you're saying is the three of them are different. Are all of the rest of you together?
Senator McCoy: Yes, and I think my observation is — Senator Cools is fond of talking about a lexicon, a vocabulary, and this is history in the making. The Senate of Canada has never had an occasion to evolve in quite the direction we're taking it now, so the vocabulary is developing as well.
But I think it would be fair to say that none of us would agree that anyone who has a political affiliation or who is not non-partisan would be managing us.
The Chair: Senator, I have a question. How many in your working group now?
Senator McCoy: We have not given ourselves any collective terminology, but there are roughly 17, 18.
The Chair: Do you foresee pooling your resource of $7,000 to some greater good or need of research or administrative or organization?
Senator McCoy: I can't predict that at this moment.
We are evolving, and we are taking the time to talk our way through. We are looking at what outcomes we hope to see. We really are looking at what principles we want to operate with. We are looking at what kind of management style, non-hierarchal. We are looking at all of these issues, and so I cannot predict where the collective decisions will settle.
I do want to add one thing. We are not here today asking for money, and that's because the rules don't support it, and we would not wish to break any rules.
The Chair: I understand, Senator McCoy.
Senator Tkachuk: I have a couple questions. If Senators Mitchell, Bellemare and Harder aren't non-partisan, what are they? Are you as confused as me?
Senator McCoy: Senator, you've been here longer than I have. I leave it to you.
Senator Tkachuk: I do want to ask you a question about research. If we have a pot of money for research, I don't know about it. I have a budget of $180,000, like every senator does. Out of that, I have one administrative assistant, and I have a policy person who I hire full-time to do research. He's here today, actually, at the meeting. Everybody has the same budget.
Also, I access the Library of Parliament. They're a wonderful resource, if you've never used them. They'll do just about any kind of research for you free of charge, and they're actually very good at it.
Senator McCoy, I don't know what your experience has been. I'm only telling you what my experience has been. So I'm just saying that we do have a pile of money out of that $180,000 for research because that's what the money is supposed to be used for. It's supposed to be used for research and administration, nothing else, really.
Senator McCoy: Senator Tkachuk, looking at section 5:04(6) and 6:01(1) of the Senate Administrative Rules as they were passed in January, and $500,000 was granted to the leader of your caucus.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Senator McCoy: If you haven't seen it, then I suggest you take it up with Senator Carignan.
Senator Tkachuk: But he has staff there and he has media people there. We're a political party. We are the opposition party. We're Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. We have a role to play by law and by Senate rules to oppose the government. That's our job. So we're given money for that job, and we have a leader and a bureaucracy to support that role.
That's the way we justify the budget that we have. If they so wished, the governing party could have the same, but they don't seem to want it. They want somebody else's money.
Senator McCoy: I have never understood it to be my role to be for or against the government or any piece of legislation. I've understood my role to be to have an open mind, to take the evidence in and to make up my mind as to what I think of that legislation and to advise the government of same. I don't think our roles differ.
Senator Tkachuk: No, I think your role is the same as mine.
Senator McCoy: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tkachuk, and thank you, Senator McCoy, for those responses.
You mentioned a couple of times the abuse of power that majority might bring. Of course at one time the Conservatives in the Senate were the majority, when I arrived here. I don't recall abusing power, and I don't recall acting dependent fully on my partisan stripe. Do you foresee a time where the chamber might have a majority of independents working together in a working group, where an abuse of power might be exercised?
Senator McCoy: Well, of course.
The Chair: I suspected.
Senator McCoy: Of course, and anyone who has an absolute majority. I truly hope that the Prime Minister, whoever he is at whatever date what you're suggesting becomes reality — and it's several years out actually before there would be more than 53 senators who are so-called independent, the term you're using — I would certainly hope the Prime Minister of the day keeps that in mind in his recommendations to the Governor General for appointments.
The Chair: I do want to invite Pascale to give a quick explanation of some of the budget numbers that we discussed.
Pascale Legault, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: Yes. I think the numbers were quoted a couple of times, but the allocation for independent senators is $7,000 per year. Before January 2016, it was $5,100 per year. This amount is distinct from the $185,400 that each senator is entitled to.
The Chair: Pascale, would that be pro-rated based on the portion of the year?
Ms. Legault: Yes, it is pro-rated based on the date the person becomes independent. If the person is appointed in the middle of the year or changes affiliation, it would be half of that $7,000.
Senator Omidvar: I do have a question. Is that $7,000 part of the $185,000?
Ms. Legault: It's a top-up.
Senator Omidvar: I just want to know.
The Chair: If there are no more questions or no more comments, I thank you all for attending.
I thank you, Senator McCoy, for your presentation and responses.
Senator McCoy: You're welcome. It isn't easy, so I really do hope that you allow the Modernization Committee to come in with its advice before we put anything in stone.
The Chair: Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)