Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 1 - Evidence - January 30, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, January 30, 2014
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9 a.m. to consider administrative matters and other matters.
Senator Noël A. Kinsella (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: The first item of business is the adoption of the minutes of proceedings of the November 21, November 28, December 9 and December 12 meetings. Is there a mover that we adopt these motions?
Senator Marshall: I so move.
The Chair: Moved by the Honourable Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: I also picked up what looked like a typo — or rather, Senator Smith's name should be on page 2.
The Chair: Yes. On page 2, you'll note that it says ``(Saurel)'' but they appear to have ``Smith'' in front of it. Are there other errors, omissions or deletions? Ready for the question?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Back to the agenda, we have under Item No. 2 the appointment of an Advisory Working Group on Communications. Honourable senators, the steering committee ratified the appointments of the Honourable Senators Wells, Batters, Dawson, Eggleton and Housakos as an Advisory Working Group on Communications. Is there a motion to confirm that working group?
Senator Tkachuk: I'll move that.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. Moved by Senator Tkachuk. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. We thank the honourable senators for agreeing to work on that advisory group.
Number 3 is the reappointment of the Advisory Working Group on the Review of the Compensation Study for Senators' Staff — the Honourable Senators White, Cordy and Demers. Do we have a motion?
Senator Lang: I so move.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Lang.
Senator Lang: Perhaps you or whoever may speak to this can answer. As a new member, I'd like to have an overview of exactly what the mandate for this advisory committee is, and just what exactly they are examining in respect to Senate staff.
Senator White: If I may, Mr. Chair. We're looking at the job evaluations and job classifications that were probably out of sync with what was expected — and probably too many classifications. So we used a group called the Hay Group. We don't have the final report yet from Hay, but they'll come back with the classifications, the salary structure and things like that.
For us to complete our work, we have to be reappointed to the subcommittee so we can get to a finished product.
Senator Lang: To follow that up further: A number of offices have realized that, with the pay scale that we're paying some of the positions, we're in a situation where we can't necessarily attract the people we would like to have. Is that part of the review? Is that the purpose of the review?
Senator White: If I may, Mr. Chair. It's not the purpose of the review. The purpose of the review is clarification. We had this discussion at the meeting before last. Senator Fraser raised the same concern.
Until we see the results, we won't know whether this deals with some of the concerns raised by a number of senators around, in particular, policy analysts and whether the salary structure meets their requirements.
We don't have the final results, so to be fair, I'm not sure it will deal with the issue that Senator Fraser raised. I know you and I have had a discussion about it as well.
Reappointing the subcommittee, allowing us to see the results, and bringing something back here are probably the best steps. At that point in time, we may have a dialogue around whether it meets the expectations of the individual senators and the concerns they've raised.
Senator Lang: Could I ask one thing perhaps for the committee to take into consideration? Perhaps they should ask this consulting group to deal with that for the purposes of providing the report to you. Otherwise, a number of months will go by before this particular issue is addressed. It would seem to me that our review of this particular area is of importance to the Senate. I'd ask if the advisory committee could take that into consideration when directing the consultants.
Senator White: To finish this: That would presuppose I know what they're going to report. I don't know yet what they're going to report and what they will bring back. They certainly have looked at the scope of work provided.
This isn't about individuals. Classifications are never about people; they're about positions. Their job was to come back and state that the positions we have, ``here's the classification level; here's the salary structure.'' I think they probably use some comparison with the Parliament staff as well.
But I don't know exactly what they've said. I think we will have a better idea once we have our next meeting. I think Hay is about to present to us. We will have our next meeting and then we'll be able to come back here.
If Internal Economy then asks us to go forward and do other work, then I think we can do that. But I don't know what it says yet to be able to respond.
The Chair: Any further comment on that?
Is the reappointment of those colleagues agreed to?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Number 4, audit of financial statements. Notes on it are on pages 10 and 11 of the documentation.
Two options were considered, as contained in the report, by the steering committee itself. Basically, it's a question of whether we continue with the pattern that we've had for the last number of years with the outside auditor doing the work, or consider the new idea of inviting the Auditor General to take on that responsibility.
There was a good discussion, the steering committee being assisted by the Chair of our Subcommittee on Audit, Senator Marshall. The conclusion of the meeting of the steering committee, with the assistance of Senator Marshall, was that we thought that under all the circumstances we are in right now, it may be best to extend for another year or so the work being done on the audit statement by doing it the way we've always had it, and then come back and visit this with whether we want to go in that direction.
As you know, the House of Commons uses for this purpose outside audit; and we might want to have consultation with them before we make a change from that. Also, we're mindful of the fact that most of the legislative assemblies across Canada use the Auditor General. The recommendation of the steering committee is to extend for a year or so the present model, but let's open that for discussion.
Senator Marshall: I'd like to speak to it, because I did meet with the steering committee, as you indicated. I'd like to go on record to say that I support having the Auditor General come in and carry out our financial statement audit. That's not to take away from the work that the external auditor did. KPMG was excellent and was always available to meet. We had a good relationship with them. We did have unqualified opinions every year that they audited our statements. It was a good working relationship.
Given what we've been through in the past year and a half, I see that there would be benefits to having the Auditor General come in and conduct the financial statement audit. I would expect that while he's auditing us now, he will be back sometime in the future to do additional work. If he were to do the financial statement audit, he could do some additional compliance work while he was in. Instead of him coming in every seven or eight years and playing catch-up and coming up with significant findings, I think that if he audited every year, he would probably find minor things every year. We would stay up-to-date with regard to some of the issues that are coming forward now.
The last point I'd like to make is: My understanding is that while we're paying KPMG, the Auditor General would not be a cost for this work. I see that as a benefit. We would be in $100,000 over a three-year period.
Senator Furey: I have no problem with inviting the Auditor General to do our annual financial statements for a host of reasons. We should push it out for a year, because the Auditor General is in now doing extensive work, using an incredible amount of staff. I think it would be too onerous to discuss how we're going to do a financial statement now. With the idea of pushing it out a year until the present audits are finished, we could invite the Auditor General in to discuss how we can move forward with an annual review of our financial statements.
Senator Tkachuk: Is this a three-year or one-year option, when we're talking about a private auditor?
The Chair: My understanding is that we do it on a yearly basis. We'll see where we're at this time next year and whether we want to stay with the external or whether we want at that point to see whether we could have the Auditor General.
Senator Tkachuk: I'm good with that.
Senator LeBreton: I fully support what Senator Marshall said about the Auditor General; and I do realize the Auditor General is doing an extensive bit of work right now. I don't know whether it's necessary to defer bringing in the Auditor General. I think we could signal now that it's our intention to have the Auditor General audit our records. We could say that now. It would be up to the Auditor General, in view of the work he and his office are doing right now, to work that into his work pattern. I don't think we should defer anything for a year. We should indicate immediately.
I have a question about the process of Senate Administration and the so-called ``internal audits.'' Of course, as you know, I'm new to this committee, but I have gone back and looked through all of the records of the past few years. I have before me two documents: Policy on Internal Audit, which was approved by this committee on May 28, 2009; and a charter. In view of all of the things that have gone on and the situation we find ourselves in, what exactly is done now internally when it comes to audits? Does this document mean anything anymore? Are there internal audits? How do they interface with the outside auditors and with the Auditor General?
Senator Marshall: I can speak to that, Senator LeBreton, or I can start the discussion. There's no internal audit work being done. We are fully engaged with the Auditor General and the work that he's doing. There had been some internal audits done. Senator Tkachuk was chair of the subcommittee before I was. The results were put on the website. Over the past year, even until last January, most of the work of the internal audit group, which is very small and headed up by Jill Anne Joseph, revolves around the audit being carried out by the Auditor General. It is a concern, but the problem is that they're overloaded now with everybody and everything being audited. To do additional internal audits at this time would not be a good idea.
Senator LeBreton: I guess it's fair to say that it's preferred to not have an internal audit committee or an audit function in the Senate and to rely on outside auditors and the Auditor General instead.
Senator Marshall: No.
Senator LeBreton: Obviously, there's been a lesson taught to all of us. When we finally, in early 2011, started to publicly release senators' expenses — and this is the first time in the history of the Senate that this had been done — it exposed serious problems not only with the way senators claimed expenses but also with the Senate Administration. I believe that groups like this, in view of what's happened, perhaps didn't have the tools or the expertise, or maybe it was the way things were always done in the past. Obviously, organizations like this internally also have to be looked at extremely carefully, because there were serious problems with Senate administrative oversight.
Senator Marshall: I would not disband or do anything with the internal audit group now because the Auditor General is in doing the work.
Senator LeBreton: I was wondering about the status.
Senator Marshall: There's no internal audit work being done right now, but I would expect, Senator LeBreton, that the Auditor General will be making recommendations with regard to the role of internal audit. One of the issues I've raised with them is the composition of the audit subcommittee. We should have outside members on the subcommittee. I would expect that there will be recommendations coming. My preference would be to maintain the status quo, because I'm finding that the audit work carried out by the Auditor General is quite onerous. I didn't want to change anything because it's difficult. To change anything right now would make it more difficult. I do hear what you're saying, and I do anticipate changes as a result of the audit.
Senator Furey: I want to point out that under the chairmanship of Senator Tkachuk, we had every intention of doing rolling audits of all senators. We were looking at 10 at a time. When you introduced your motion, Senator LeBreton, to bring in the Auditor General to do a comprehensive audit, that intention became moot because now all senators are being audited. I'm sure that when the Auditor General is finished, there will be recommendations, no doubt for more periodic audits like we were going to do because we were in fact following other recommendations by instituting that. For now, it's a moot point.
Senator Tkachuk: Just a question. The audit committee was established to maintain and organize the audits. You mentioned this is a recommendation of the steering committee. Who is in charge of the auditing now? I thought the audit committee, not the steering committee, would be the one to recommend who would conduct the audit.
The Chair: That remains. This is why we had a meeting with Senator Marshall.
Senator Tkachuk: Is this a recommendation of steering or is this a recommendation of the audit committee?
The Chair: This is a recommendation of the steering committee, pointing out to the full committee that it's the fruit of a discussion with Senator Marshall. Ultimately, we're having this healthy discussion right now.
Senator Downe: Since Senator Marshall is taking questions on other issues pertaining to the audit, I saw in the media that the Auditor General is close to tabling a report. My understanding is they're nowhere close to tabling a report. Contrary to what they said — that they would have a report before Christmas — we're looking at many months. Is that correct?
Senator Marshall: I have no knowledge of a report or an interim report. They had initially indicated that they were hoping they would have an interim report by December past, even though there has been no decision that there would be interim reporting. But based on the progress of their work, there was nothing coming forward.
I have not seen any audit report. I haven't seen any draft audit report. So I have nothing to report. Anything that's in the media regarding that, I think people are just fishing.
Senator Downe: While I have the floor, Senator LeBreton spoke about senators' expenses being published for the first time. They've been published in the public accounts, along with MPs, for many years. The same information has been disclosed, up until that time, by MPs.
Senator Cordy: When this interim report does come out, it would be helpful if it wasn't during a break week because if your name is in the report or on the front page, it would be nice to be able to comment on it. Do we have any say? I'm not saying we would announce the day on which the report would come out, but those kinds of things.
Senator Marshall: That would be an issue we would raise with the Auditor General, but we're really at the beginning of the process. There's no report right now.
Senator Tkachuk: I think the Auditor General issued a statement after that story came out. Their statement was that there is no report in the foreseeable future. I think I'm quoting them exactly. I don't think they've made up their minds as to what they will do. I think that's just speculation in the media. That's what they said, that there are no reports in the foreseeable future. Who knows? Christmas, maybe.
Senator Cordy: Next year, you mean?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
The Chair: Senators, to return to the main question: Is there concurrence that we follow the recommendation of the steering committee based, as we have indicated, on discussions with the audit subcommittee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Number 5, role of the whips and proposals for increase in office allowances, documentation pages 12 and 13.
Gary O'Brien, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, there has been discussion at the steering committee of having the two party whips resume a more traditional role in being more involved with their caucuses in terms of problems in their offices, attendance in the chamber, travel.
When steering committee looked at the resources given to the office of the whip from Internal Economy, it has found it's very inadequate. It's something like $45,000. It's hard to track the kind of assistance that a whip would require to assume these duties. This is a proposal to increase that amount to each party whip from Internal Economy, effective immediately, raising it to a level that the equivalent in the Senate Administration would be a SEN 08, which is nearly the equivalent of a committee clerk, that type of individual, who would be able to understand the way the rules and policies of the Senate are, to be able to provide advice to the whip, to help with the operations of the office. Each party whip, government and opposition, would have that same resource. The total amount increase would be about $50,000. This money would be taken from the envelope of the committees, which is quite substantial, and there is a surplus within that amount every year. I don't think it would affect the operation of committees whatsoever.
That is the proposal before you.
Senator Marshall: I'd like to make a couple of comments for the information of my colleagues on the committee. As whip, I want people to be aware that for our senators' offices, we get a budget of approximately $168,000. In the whip's office, over the past two or three years since I've been appointed, I've topped up the salary of an employee in the whip's office to the tune of $27,000 a year, and also a student for $14,000. So $40,000 of my $160,000 senator's budget has been used to subsidize the whip's office. If this is approved, that would be a help to me in running my office.
Senator Seth: When will this fund be available to the whips?
Senator Marshall: Immediately.
Senator Seth: Immediately? Okay. Office of the opposition, you will be given $27,000, I understand, to hire someone. Would there be any change, having yesterday's news, from the opposition side? Will the work be the same or will there be any changes, since they are independent? Will it change anything in the finances? Will $27,000 be enough for you to carry on a staff?
Senator LeBreton: I appreciate Senator Seth raising this, because this is a discussion that will require considerable thought. When you look at the institution of Parliament, we have the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament and the National Press Gallery, and they're all functions of Parliament. The Westminster parliamentary system is based on a political structure. As a matter of fact, political parties in the free world, and in the Westminster system, are the backbone of the Westminster bicameral parliamentary system.
In view of what happened yesterday, I do believe we'll have to have a serious discussion because it's troubling to me that a member of one of the houses does not understand the role of Parliament vis-à-vis the operation of the Senate, and indeed in the House of Commons and that another parliamentary body, the Parliamentary Press Gallery, do not seem to understand the political role of political parties in their feeding frenzy.
I know the discussions about the budgets and the increased amounts that have been requested by various operations, including the Leader of the Opposition, but in effect what happened yesterday has thrown this whole question about the role of the opposition, in the context of a bicameral parliamentary system, into question. I think it's a little premature because this is uncharted territory we're in. I don't know how this will all work out. I know that —
Senator Downe: Point of order, chair. Political science 101 is interesting, but it sounds like she's challenging your ruling yesterday. The Speaker made a ruling on this. Why are we talking about this? If Senator LeBreton wants to make a point in the chamber, go ahead; we will all listen to it. But we're dealing with this issue here. If she doesn't have anything pertaining to the issue, we should carry on with the meeting.
Senator LeBreton: I disagree, Mr. Chair. May I continue? I actually think —
Senator Downe: No, you can't continue because there is a point of order on the floor. You're challenging the Speaker.
Senator LeBreton: No, I'm not.
Senator Downe: The Speaker ruled on this yesterday.
Senator LeBreton: The Speaker ruled within the rules of Parliament. I know I went through all of this when Lowell Murray and a few people wanted to have official party status. But official party status is a different matter than allocation of budget money.
It's a different matter, and I would suggest that in view of what happened yesterday, the role of the official opposition in the Senate has been severely diminished.
Senator Downe: She's challenging your ruling. If she wants to do that, do it on the floor. The Speaker has already ruled on this yesterday.
Senator LeBreton: I'm not challenging the Speaker's ruling. I'm acknowledging the Rules of the Senate.
Some Hon. Senators: Question.
Senator LeBreton: What I am suggesting —
Senator Tkachuk: Question on what? The point of order or on the motion?
Senator LeBreton: What I am suggesting —
Senator Tkachuk: We can't have a question on the point of order.
The Chair: We have a legitimate point of order raised at this meeting that shall be decided by the chair of this meeting, and so, Senator LeBreton, I take it, is speaking to the point of order raised by Senator Downe.
So Senator LeBreton.
Senator LeBreton: What I'm suggesting, and I'm not challenging your ruling. I totally agree with it because I've lived through it before.
What I'm suggesting is that the role of the official opposition, in view of the events of yesterday, has been reduced significantly, because senators in the opposition can no longer participate in meetings of their national caucus, so therefore that has budget implications. The senators opposite all attended a national caucus of their own party in Charlottetown in September. They cannot participate in the policy development of their political party, because as the leader of the Liberal Party said yesterday, ``There are no Liberal senators.''
So all I'm suggesting, chair, is that any discussion about allocation of resources for the official opposition should be looked at very carefully in view of the reduced role. I absolutely agree that the role of the opposition in the chamber is to hold the government to account. That's their role in the chamber and that's a good thing. But in view of what happened yesterday, all of the other responsibilities — in the Senate rules, it's very clear that senators are partisans. They belong to a political party and part of their job as a senator is to participate in their own political party. So all I'm suggesting, Mr. Chair, is that any discussion about increasing budgets for the opposition in the Senate should be looked at seriously. We're still in the early days of how this is all going to transpire, and I'm even prepared to move a motion in that regard, that any extra allocation of monies to the official opposition should be deferred until we've had an opportunity to study it further.
The Chair: So on the point of order —
Senator Downe: On this, chair, Senator LeBreton simply made the argument against her own leader in the Senate receiving any additional funds. The very same argument she made against the opposition is made against the current leader of the Conservatives in the Senate, who has reduced responsibility. The previous government leader in the Senate was a member of cabinet, a chair of a committee of cabinet and was a member of a second committee of cabinet. All of those functions required additional staff and funding, so the very same argument she made against us can be made against the current leader in the Senate.
I'm not sure why she's advancing the argument — political science 101 was rather interesting, but I think we all studied it in school. We didn't need a lesson in that. But I can't understand why she wouldn't be making this point yesterday considering your ruling.
Senator LeBreton: Could I respond to that?
The Chair: I'm going to invite senators to focus for a moment on the point of order raised in this committee and strictly that. So Senator Fraser on the point of order raised by Senator Downe.
Senator Fraser: Thank you, chair. It has already, less than 24 hours later, become very apparent to us who are in leadership positions in the opposition in the Senate that our workload — that our requirements will not diminish. They will increase as a result of being cut off from the resources of the political leadership in the House of Commons of the party to which we belong.
It has been possible in the past to share various research and other activities with our colleagues at the other end of the hall. That is no longer the case. We have to carry the whole burden ourselves.
The parliamentary system, as has been pointed out, depends upon an effective government side and an effective opposition side and we now carry that entire burden ourselves.
If I were making an argument, I would suggest that, in fact, we should get more money than is proposed here, but I shall not make that argument, chair. I will, however, point out that, in the real world, we're going to need every resource that we can possibly have to do our job as senators.
Senator Furey: I want to speak to item 5, but I also want to speak to the point of order.
I want to thank Senator LeBreton for her obvious concern about our welfare on this side. It's very decent of her, but I think she's off the mark.
You ruled yesterday, and rightly so, Mr. Speaker, that while I have a great respect for Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Trudeau has no authorization or authority to dictate what my status in the chamber is. I will determine that. And until I write to the Clerk and inform him I'm something other than a Liberal senator, I'm a Liberal senator.
We heard our leader speak on behalf of all of us yesterday, and as far as I'm concerned, irrespective of Mr. Trudeau's overreaching in his letter, it's status quo.
Senator Lang: I would submit to the committee that we should focus on the issue that's before us. The Senate is an institution. Each political party has a whip. They have certain responsibilities. We've also witnessed over the past number of years the responsibility, I understand, that the steering committee of Internal Economy has had to deal with a lot of issues on a personnel matter that should have been dealt, perhaps, in another form primarily with the whip's responsibility. So that's my understanding and in part what's driving this. This will not change because of the political changes that took place yesterday on the national level.
It would seem to me to be a reasonable request in respect to looking at these positions and seeing whether or not there is a requirement for these offices to take on added responsibility. I think that that's the focus that has to be put on this. When I speak to this, if I could, Mr. Chair, I want to say that in conjunction with that, as I indicated earlier in the agenda, I think there is a question mark across the Senate in respect to our offices and the personnel and the responsibilities that we're asking them to undertake. I think that in view of the changes that have been taking place, I think there's a silver lining in everything we do. I look at our responsibilities as senators as having to take a much more focused position and that, therefore, goes back to the responsibility of our staff and being able to attract the staff that we need and pay them accordingly. I don't understand for the life of me why we hire political staff and they're paid substantially less than those in the civil service.
So I would say, Mr. Chair, that I think the point of order is in order. I think we should deal with the issue. Quite frankly, I'm in favour.
Senator Campbell: I'll pass.
Senator Tkachuk: I'm not really sure. Well, for one thing, I don't think there is a point of order. I think this is a legitimate debate to have.
This was, by the Liberal leader's own admission some great, wonderful thing that has happened here, and it was a wonderful change. Meanwhile, the senators here on the other side are saying there is really no change at all.
I think asking to defer the question that we have before us for a week or so for us to see how all of this will take place in the Senate is a very valid point. I think Senator LeBreton should be allowed to continue to make this point and move a motion to defer this question for a week or so until we have this sorted out.
She wasn't arguing against the motion. She was saying that we should defer it for a week or so, and I don't see anything wrong with that until this is sorted out.
One, I don't think there is a point of order. Two, I think it's a legitimate debate. Three, I support the deferment.
Senator Campbell: Clearly, it is a point of order; we're arguing —
Senator Tkachuk: I know we're arguing a point of order, so I'm giving you my point of view that I don't think that that point of order was legitimate. The chair will decide whether it's a legitimate point of order or not, Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell: No, we will decide. He did; he decided.
The Chair: To bring this to a conclusion, I will hear finally from Senator LeBreton who raised this.
Senator LeBreton: Just to clarify, thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe Senator Seth asked a legitimate question.
In view of the events of yesterday, depending on whose version you listen to, the role of the opposition in the Senate has changed significantly from the role of the opposition in the Senate in the past. With regard to Senator Downe, Senator Carignan is the Leader of the Government in the Senate. He is a member of the Privy Council. He has membership on cabinet committees. He has responsibility for, as government leader in the Senate, moving the government's legislative agenda through the Senate and for all concurrent issues involved in terms of staffing of Senate committees. So the role of the Leader of the Government in the Senate has not changed, but the role of the official opposition has significantly changed in terms of the responsibilities and roles of the senators who make up the official opposition.
While I understand the ruling yesterday — I absolutely support it — that is a separate issue from the issue of budgeting. You'll notice last night, on the national news, that some of the news media were reporting that nothing has changed and that this is all going to cost the taxpayer money.
I think we should, in view of the changes of yesterday and the obvious diminished role outside the chamber, for which the Senate is responsible, by the way — we have a budget that covers more than just the role in the Senate chamber — take that into consideration when we're allocating budget. That's simply what I was saying.
The Chair: As Chair of this committee, I thank the Honourable Senator Downe for raising the point of order and for participation in the exchange of all honourable senators.
My ruling is that item number 5 is properly before the committee, and the recommendation of the steering committee is in support of this. However, we don't have a manual to follow under these circumstances. I think it was important that we had this exchange this morning.
From a purely procedural point of view, the item is properly before the committee. We are dealing with the officially recognized position. There are only a few positions that are identified explicitly in the Rules of the Senate, and the offices of the chief Government Whip and the chief Opposition Whip are explicitly recognized in the Rules of the Senate. So the question before us does relate to the business of the committee because the committee is seized with how we are going to improve the machinery of the operation of the Senate in light of the challenges that we've been forced to face in the past number of months. I think the committee is of the view that the role of the whips in being part of that machinery of supervising the expenses and the presence and the work of senators, is properly and traditionally the role of whips in Westminster systems. We had the appeal from the whips' offices that, if we're going to expect them to do that traditional work, they need more resources. That's what the committee has become seized with.
Senator LeBreton is well within her rights to move an amendment to the matter that we have before us, and her motion, as I've understood it, is to defer this to a subsequent meeting.
As to the effectiveness, my understanding is that this would not come into effect until April 1, so I think, honourable senators, that dealing with this at our next meeting does not impede our objective.
That's my ruling. The motion from the steering committee is properly before us. Senator LeBreton is moving a motion in amendment to defer, and the question is that question.
Senator Furey: Can I speak to that? I want to speak to item 5, chair.
Since you became Chair of Internal Economy, you have consistently said that you wanted the whips' positions to move more towards the traditional Westminster system. I fully support that, but it entails adding considerable responsibilities on top of the responsibilities that our whips already have. We've seen this in a number of cases already; it has already started.
We call upon our whips to interface with our senators from both sides when there are issues arising over a host of matters. We have even embedded in one of our policies a role for the whips in resolving disputes, which is an additional responsibility, and I don't see why we need to postpone approving that this morning.
Senator LeBreton: Again, for clarification on this particular motion about the whips, I was a whip myself, and I'm fully cognizant of the responsibilities of a whip in the bicameral system, the Westminster system. I was a whip under your leadership, Mr. Chair.
As a result of Senator Seth's intervention, I actually, in terms of the whips specifically, generally support this, but we're going to get to other budgets as well. My point was, in view of the complete change in the responsibilities and the roles of the official opposition — unfortunately the whips' position and this particular motion have been caught up in this — in view of the changed role, though there's a debate as to whether it has increased or decreased, it's prudent to think about this in terms of the overall budgeting of the various offices. In terms of the whips' offices specifically, I'm actually fully supportive of that, but, in terms of the overall context of what happened yesterday, I think we should step back.
The Chair: Colleagues, do we have a compromise here?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
An Hon. Senator: We want to vote.
The Chair: We want to vote on the motion of Senator LeBreton to defer this item to the next meeting?
Those in favour of that motion will signify by saying ``yea.''
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: Contrary minded, ``nay.''
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
Senator Cordy: Hold it; could you repeat that please?
The Chair: The question was —
Senator Cordy: Are we in agreement with deferring the vote?
The Chair: The motion of Senator LeBreton is to defer further consideration of item number 5.
Senator Downe: We want a recorded vote.
The Chair: We want a name vote.
I'm asking: All those in favour of supporting a motion of Senator LeBreton to defer further consideration of item number 5 on our agenda.
Those in favour of that motion will be polled by name.
Heather Lank, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: In alphabetical order, starting with you, Mr. Speaker.
The Chair: I abstain.
Ms. Lank: Honourable Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell: No.
Ms. Lank: Honourable Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: No.
Ms. Lank: Honourable Senator Downe.
Senator Downe: No.
Ms. Lank: Honourable Senator Doyle.
Senator Doyle: No.
Ms. Lank: Honourable Senator Fraser.
Senator Fraser: No.
Ms. Lank: Honourable Senator Furey.
Senator Furey: No.
Ms. Lank: Honourable Senator Jaffer.
Senator Jaffer: No.
Ms. Lank: Honourable Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson: No.
Ms. Lank: Honourable Senator Lang.
Senator Lang: No.
Ms. Lank: Honourable Senator LeBreton, P.C.
Senator LeBreton: Yes.
Ms. Lank: Honourable Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Lank: Honourable Senator Seth.
Senator Seth: Yes.
Ms. Lank: Honourable Senator L. Smith.
Senator L. Smith: No.
Ms. Lank: Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Ms. Lank: Honourable Senator White.
Senator White: No.
Ms. Lank: Yeas, 4; nays, 11; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: The question is that the additional office allowance of $27,700 be allotted to the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip. There is a question as to starting immediately or starting at the beginning of the fiscal year. Could we get clarification as to the sense of the committee?
Senator Marshall: Mr. Chair, for the main question, even if we're looking at the start date I would like to abstain because it directly affects my budget.
Senator Fraser: I support Item 5 with one exception. I do not believe it is appropriate for the Internal Economy Committee to prepare job descriptions for the political leadership of either side, so I am a little concerned. Even though this is just a briefing note, it's nonetheless part of the record. I'm a little concerned about the detailed description of the whips' functions.
I think each side organizes its affairs in slightly different ways. The description I see here, for example, does not entirely match the way our side allocates work in the leadership, and the allocation of work will change further over time depending on the particular skills of the persons.
What I'm trying to say is I want to get on the record firmly that what we have here is an illustrative passage of prose, not a job description. This is not policy being set out by the Internal Economy Committee.
While I'm at it, I would observe that the whips deserve every penny they get. My budget as Deputy Leader of the Opposition is only $59,500. That might go on the agenda for future consideration.
The Chair: I thank Senator Fraser for that specification. Indeed, the briefing notes are always ad referendum.
Senator Tkachuk: I think that's important, though, how each caucus organizes their affairs, who gives authorization for trips and who disciplines. Those are all party affairs and those are all affairs of each political party and how they want to divide it up.
I think that Senator Fraser's point is extremely well taken. This should not be seen as sort of an obligation of a whip but, rather, just as she said, an illustrative point of view.
The Chair: Can I exercise the chair's prerogative — trying to be helpful — that this proposal is before us to commence immediately as a start-up date because we actually have two.
Senator Tkachuk: It starts now, March 1, or right now, not April 1.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Munson: In my role as whip I'm going to abstain, obviously, because it is about Elizabeth and me, but I would like to put on the agenda that I hope everybody understands that this is only a partial list.
The Chair: Are you ready for the question? Is there consensus that we adopt the proposal for the increase to the offices of the whips? Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: So ordered.
No. 6 is the status of recommendations in the twenty-fifth report of the Internal Economy Committee, at pages 14 to 19 of our documentation.
Nicole, do you want to walk us through, perhaps starting by identifying which are the recommendations that are yet to be adopted by the committee which we'll begin to focus on?
Nicole Proulx, Director of Finance and Procurement, Senate of Canada: This is in relation to the twenty-fifth report that was adopted last year in the Senate. There were a number of recommendations. Some were implemented at that time; some were implemented in July 2013, but there are four recommendations that are yet to be implemented. I'll start with Recommendation No. 6 and I'll read it out loud:
That, with respect to reimbursement of per diems under the Living Allowances in the NCR budget when on travel status within the National Capital Region, eligible travellers be entitled to claim such per diems for days when the Senate sits, when attending Senate Committee meetings, or Senate and National Caucus meetings and up to 20 additional days when working on Senate-related business.
This recommendation was not implemented and the recommendation is to start as of April 1, 2014.
The Chair: So, colleagues, we have yet to adopt Recommendation No. 6. Is there discussion on the content of Recommendation No. 6? It was approved in the report by the full committee, so this is actually a business kind of implementation question. Are there any comments on it?
Senator Marshall: I voted for that recommendation and I won't be changing my vote. Well, I guess I can't, but I want to make the point that some senators have indicated that they have to leave on Sunday in order to get here by Monday. If we sit 26 weeks of the year this might be a problem. I wanted to raise that, namely that we might have to look at it later on.
The Chair: Are there any questions on the specificity of the wording?
Senator Lang: If I could follow up on Senator Marshall's comments, there are a number of us here, for example, who serve on committees on Monday and we have no choice but to travel on Sunday.
I'm not quite clear how that affects us because my understanding is we are on travel status on that day in any event. Therefore, it would not have the effect in respect to our general living allowances when we're in the capital itself.
Am I misunderstanding this or am I correct?
Ms. Proulx: To back up a bit, when you're on travel status, the days of travel are charged to the 64-point travel system. So it would not influence or have an impact on that. However, as Senator Marshall indicated, if the Senate sits Tuesday to Thursday and the senator stays on Friday and leaves on Saturday, Saturday would be a day of travel and would not count, but Friday would count against the 20. So it would erode those 20 days.
Senator Lang: I think I understand it. I'm not quite clear what the implications are to individuals in respect to having various responsibilities. Obviously, some of us live much further away than others.
To put it into perspective, in my case it takes 12 hours door to door to get home and 12 hours to get back. That's 24 hours. That is two days, basically, of travel. I'm not asking for more or less. I want to clarify that and clearly understand what we're doing.
Senator Cordy: I think we have to be cognizant of situations like Senator Lang's, where to travel home every weekend is not necessarily the easiest. I agree with you. Maybe we can keep that open.
I'm looking at the 20 additional days when working on Senate-related business. I am assuming that would be up to the senator, that I could say that I'm coming to Ottawa to work on a speech or to have meetings. That would be my decision as to what Senate-related business would be, and that it wouldn't be questioned.
Senator Doyle: I was wondering if the recommendation could be revised right now to reflect that concern. Can it be revised now?
The Chair: It has been adopted by the full senate, but, yes, it could be; it would have to go back to the Senate.
Senator Marshall: I wouldn't change it. As I said, I think we should be aware that it might be an issue. I think we should go ahead and implement it. After we put in a year, we'll find out. It's quite possible we won't sit 26 weeks. I think we should monitor it. No, I wouldn't support changing it.
The Chair: Is it agreed, honourable senators, we understand this, in a sense, and be alert, and therefore the whips will pay special attention to this?
We are in agreement for the ratification and putting into effect Recommendation No. 6 of the twenty-fifth report.
Ms. Proulx: The next one, Recommendation No. 7:
That the 64-point travel system be amended to provide a maximum of 52 points for regular Senate business travel (between a senator's province/territory of appointment and the National Capital Region), Senate business travel within a senator's province/territory, and, up to a maximum of four points for travel to New York for United Nations business only, and Washington D.C.; and that a limit of 12 points be established for regional and national travel on Senate business.
Senator Jaffer: May I bring up an issue about the United Nations business? I travel a lot to New York to work on United Nations business, but I am very nervous, because I'm defining what United Nations business is. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm going into the building of the UN. I'm working on issues that are around resolutions of the UN.
For a person like me, I would appreciate it if there was a definition of what you mean by ``United Nations business,'' because I have this nightmare that one day somebody will say, ``That wasn't United Nations business.'' I think it's too general to say ``United Nations business.'' I may be mistaken, but also for Washington, D.C. — I may be wrong — it also says on UN business. Next week I am going to Washington, D.C. on UN business, but I'm defining it. I wouldn't mind sharing that with somebody, and somebody telling me, ``No, that's wrong.'' It would be helpful to have examples of what you mean by ``UN business'' so all of our colleagues know.
The Chair: Is there comment, honourable senators, around the question that Senator Jaffer has raised to Senator Smith?
Senator L. Smith: One of the things in expanding the responsibilities of the whips is tied to the whole issue of how we define ``Senators' duties and responsibilities.'' To be honest with you, I love being on the steering committee with George and with the chair, but the problem is when you have 20 items on a list, by 20 individuals who are looking for prior approval from the finance group, it puts undue pressure on these people to have to make judgment calls.
What we're trying to do is set up the system so the senators use judgment and try to work within the bounds of what the rules are. The history of the Senate is that in certain cases some senators have manipulated the boundaries, and that's what gets us in trouble. That's why it's so important for us to approve the money for the whips so that business keeps going on. We're asking you to make sure that you, as a senator, are taking the total responsibility.
When you define what you're doing there, make sure it's defined properly, because if it isn't, then there's a problem. We don't want to take away your responsibility, because people will say it's too narrow and others will say we want it wide open. We have to come somewhere in the middle where it's manageable, but we show people that we're managing ourselves more appropriately.
Senator Furey: In response to your question, Senator Jaffer, Senator Smith is making a good point. If we start listing items that we consider in this committee as Senate business, then we're excluding a host of other things that could legitimately be Senate business.
What it requires, more than anything else, is a judgment call on the part of the senator. First of all, if you want clarification on the rule, no problem, steering committee can give you clarification on the rule. You're allowed four points to travel to New York on United Nations business. What is United Nations business is a judgment call for the senator, and the best way to make that judgment call is to ask yourself whether you would be prepared to defend that on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen. If you find yourself in the awkward position that one of our colleagues on the other side found himself in running a marathon and then wandering around the halls of the UN, then that will be very difficult to defend, as he found. If you're there on legitimate business, and you can stand up and say, ``Here's why I was there, here's what I was doing,'' then go ahead, use your points.
Senator Downe: Just for clarification, my understanding is that we've approved all these. We're just talking about the effective dates. It seems we're heading into a debate on each issue. They've already been approved by the committee. The question —
Senator Cordy: And the Senate.
Senator Downe: And the Senate. Very good, Senator Cordy. The question is: Are the dates accessible?
The Chair: Honourable senators, do we agree for the implementation of No. 7?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Proulx: That would be April 1, 2014.
Recommendation No. 9:
That the Senate Administration be required to provide monthly reports on travel patterns to the steering committee.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Marshall: When the Auditor General is auditing up to March 31, 2013, and we're not going to start doing this until September 30, 2014, we should be doing that now. We should start doing that right away.
Senator Tkachuk: I'm going to ask the Senate Administration why did they recommend September 30?
Ms. Proulx: As you know, senators, as part of the Main Estimates process there was a proposal to set up a quality assurance and monitoring function within the finance directorate. It is just that over the last few years, but most specifically the last year, our resources have been pretty well solicited for a number of other activities: OAG, RCMP, media.
What we want to do is set up a sound section for that. We appreciated having received the funding for that, so we're going to set it up. The idea is that the position or the section will report to me. We'll be reviewing the entire finance and procurement, so not just finance. We want to make sure we cover all areas. We're looking as well at automated tools to produce trends, to produce readily available information.
Although we can produce ad hoc reports, as we have been doing over the past few years, we have been going to steering frequently with cases, sometimes more than on a monthly basis. The idea would be to have a proper model and a proper structure. We're saying at the latest September 30, just to make sure it's well laid out. But in the meantime, yes, if there are issues, we will bring them to your attention. It's just a resource issue.
Senator Tkachuk: What's the earliest you could do it?
Ms. Proulx: Systematically, what we can commit to right now, reasonably, is September 30. We are looking at getting automated software. We're just working out the details right now. It's just a matter not to commit to something that we cannot absolutely deliver.
The Chair: If it can be done sooner, it will be done sooner.
Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Proulx: Recommendation No. 10, that —
Senator Seth: What about 8? Can I ask a question?
The Chair: It's not on the agenda, and we're tight for time.
Senator Seth: Just a simple question.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Seth: It says that designated travel should be restricted to only spouse and partners. How about children of senators under 19? Would it be allowed?
Ms. Proulx: Senator Seth, dependent children are another category that's already provided for.
Senator Seth: Thank you.
Ms. Proulx: Recommendation No. 10:
That, for reporting and point calculation purposes, the categories of travel be amended as follows: ``Regular Senate Business Travel,'' (travel between the senator's province/territory of appointment, and the National Capital Region) and ``Other Senate Business Travel'' (all other categories of travel: Provincial/territorial; regional; national and international.)
Being Washington and New York City.
We are proposing March 1, 2014. That might seem like an odd date, but basically it is to match with the senators' quarterly expenditure report. The next one, which will cover the period December, January, February, will be published in March, so then we could adjust the way it's being set up.
The Chair: Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Just before we rise, I'm going to ask the Clerk to give us a briefing on Item 7, parliamentary precinct security, the shuttle bus.
Mr. O'Brien: Honourable senators, when Parliament resumed in January, the House of Commons implemented a policy with respect to the buses on the Hill, their buses, that those taking the bus show their ID pass. Members of Parliament, of course, are recognized by their pins. We are, to maintain comity with this, recommending that on our own Senate buses, anybody taking the bus must show their ID. That includes Parliamentary Press Gallery, whatever. They're all accredited. Senators would be recognized by their pins. We would like to send a memo to all the Senate community with respect to this right away, if that's agreed.
Senator Tkachuk: Is that an issue? Have people been getting on the bus that aren't?
Mr. O'Brien: I think it was just to heighten security.
Senator Jaffer: I do know that if you get on the green bus, you're having to show ID. I have no issue with that. I just bring this to your attention. When we have Human Rights Committee meetings and when we have people with issues of disability or who are not able to walk, I've always said, ``Use the bus,'' because sometimes in the past, people obviously can't bring their car. Access on the Hill is very difficult. Especially if they are witnesses to our committee, how do we handle that? In the past, I've always spoken to the bus driver and said ``Please make sure X is on the bus.''
Marysa Oueriemmi, Director, Building Services, Senate of Canada: I can add to that. Thank you, Senator Jaffer. With guests on the Hill, as long as they're accompanied by an authorized employee or senator, there's no problem. For any accessibility, as you know, the Senate has one that has handicap accessibility. Arrangements can be made, and it's readily available.
The Chair: Colleagues, thank you very much.
Senator Downe: Chair, before we go, I want to thank you and other members of the steering committee for having this meeting open to the public and open to the media. It's a credit to the Senate, unlike the House of Commons, and we should do more of these meetings. I know you're striving to go in that direction, and I thank you and the committee members.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Have a good day.
(The committee adjourned.)