Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence - May 1, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 1, 2014
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9 a.m. for the consideration of administrative matters and other matters.
Senator Noël A. Kinsella (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Being nine o'clock, I see a quorum and the meeting is called to order.
Honourable senators, the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the minutes of proceedings of our March 27, April 3 and April 10 meetings. Could I have a motion? Senator Doyle moves the adoption of the minutes of all three meetings. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Any critical issues arising from those minutes? If not, we will proceed with the sixth report of the subcommittee on committee budgets.
Senator L. Smith: Good morning, everyone.
Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the subcommittee on committee budgets, which deals with budget application from the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade for travel, associated with the committee's study of security conditions and economic developments in the Asia-Pacific region.
[Translation]
Your subcommittee had requested additional information regarding the areas of focus of the study and its specific objectives.
[English]
We appreciated receiving a letter from the chair, Senator Andreychuk, detailing the objectives and clearly explaining the rationale for the proposed travel to Vancouver, Indonesia and Singapore.
Having received this submission, your subcommittee believes that the travel is justified and recommends approval of the budget as submitted in the amount of $297,566.
[Translation]
We trust, however, that efforts will be made to find savings wherever possible.
[English]
We also note that any surplus funds remaining at the conclusion of the activity will be clawed back so as to be available for allocation to other committees.
I move the adoption of the sixth report. If there are any questions, I'm pleased to handle them.
Senator Doyle: Is the entire committee travelling?
Senator L. Smith: As you know, when the budgets are submitted it is always set up with 12 potential senators travelling. Usually the number is less, so economies can be earned, if you like, or clawed back into the actual committee budget.
Senator Marshall: Could you refresh my memory, which study is this?
Senator L. Smith: This is for studying security and economic opportunities in the Asia-Pacific region. What we did is, after the meeting we held, with all of the committees that submitted the reports, we asked Senator Andreychuk to give a more detailed letter outlining their objectives for the study. It was submitted to our subcommittee. We decided to review it during the break after we had the meeting. We got together upon our return from the two-week break, and we felt that the letter was complete in giving us the overview, the order of reference, the objectives of the study and the outcomes, and so we suggested it should be approved.
Senator Marshall: Could we have a breakdown? It's $300,000, so could we have a breakdown as to what the different categories are? How much is for airfare? Do you have a breakdown?
Heather Lank, Principal Clerk, Committees, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, the airfare for the interpreters and the stenographers for the public hearing portion of this trip is budgeted at $8,000. The transportation and airfare for senators and staff in business class is budgeted at $14,000 per ticket, which amounts to $196,000 total. That is the large majority of the budget.
Senator Marshall: How much in total?
Ms. Lank: $196,000 for the clerk, analysts and senators.
Senator Marshall: How much for the hotels?
Ms. Lank: It depends on the location. Vancouver is $9,000; Jakarta is $14,000; and Singapore is $12,600 in the budget.
Senator Marshall: We started out with a budget of $1.8 million for the year. Could you give us an idea of how much we've committed and how much remains?
Ms. Lank: The amount released so far is $1,101,363. If you were to recommend release and the Senate agreed to the $297,566, the total released to date would be $1,398,900.
Senator Munson: Could you give information on the trip, and do you have any idea of the timing?
Senator L. Smith: This would take place before the summer break, in terms of the execution of the trip. The actual total time of the trip, Heather would know.
Ms. Lank: I know there are scheduling issues, so their hope is to do it before the summer break, but no guarantees yet.
In terms of the number of days, they've budgeted for two nights in Vancouver; four nights in Jakarta; three nights in Singapore; and I expect there may be a couple of nights on airplanes.
Senator L. Smith: There is a question as to the travel costs, which Senator Marshall asked. Because of the length of travel, it's 16 hours to Jakarta, for the staff that would be going, which is minimal from Vancouver onward, it was suggested that those people should be able to travel in the same category as the senators because it is an extremely long trip.
Senator Marshall: Have flights been booked already?
Ms. Lank: No, absolutely not. But they do the research in order to put the budget together.
Senator Seth: Do you think that people will understand that this amount is for travel?
Senator L. Smith: Senators can.
Senator Seth: Do you think that expenses can be brought down by showing the number of those who will travel?
Senator L. Smith: The history of committee travel shows it's not necessarily 100 per cent of the time that you get all 12 senators travelling. The historical average is between six and nine, six and eight.
Senator Seth: Since everyone has not agreed to go at this point, everything looks like quite a bit. You can cut it down to look nicer on paper. In the future we should not have 12 senators travelling at the same time.
Senator L. Smith: It's an excellent point that you bring up, and we discussed this in the subcommittee. We discussed this among the committee chairs when they made the presentations. The question was whether we should be making budgets up at eight or nine versus twelve. It was suggested, for consistency purposes, to make sure we set it up with 12 but also to make sure that any savings that occur during a committee trip will be clawed back and put into the funding for travel. It would not be for that committee but for the travel fund.
Is that correct, Heather?
Ms. Lank: That's correct. It goes back to the central budget for all committees.
Senator Cordy: I believe very strongly that if you are a member of a committee that you have as much right as the person sitting beside you to attend any travel related to your committee. Therefore, committees are bringing in budgets based on the entire committee.
Having said that, it's highly unlikely — and history has shown that all members of a committee do not travel. In fact, history has shown that 40 per cent to 60 per cent of the budget is actually spent. I know that, since I've been on the subcommittee, committees have been extremely prudent in how they spend their money. The difficulty is that you can't come back and say, "Well, airfares are slightly higher than we thought they were; can we have more?" No.
Committees tend to look at the highest price, and if you look closely at the budgets after a committee has come back, you will find that airfares are usually much lower than what had been budgeted. Keep in mind that Senator Smith, who did an excellent job of describing his trip — any money left over from the budget is clawed back to return into the funds for committee work and travel.
Senator Johnson: Thank you. I will comment, as Senator Cordy did, about the numbers that usually end up travelling. We have been doing a study — as a member of Foreign Affairs — for months now about the Asian region. The amount of money being asked for is in the same category as that of Aboriginal Peoples, Fisheries and Energy, and we have not had breakdowns of where they are going. Aboriginal Peoples is spending $360,000 and going to two different countries plus all over Canada.
I think we either have to have some rules established about sums people can spend or whatever, or I think Foreign Affairs has given a very fair budget for this particular travel. Thank you.
Senator Lang: I just want to pursue this a bit further because we spoke about this, I believe, two committee meetings ago. If you recall, I was one of the people who raised the question of why we are doing this and the process of how we are doing this and relating it to a provincial or territorial budgetary process or even the federal budgetary process in that we have this debate and talk about this substantial amount of money that we know is not all going to be spent. This becomes the news story, and then at the end of day, six months later, we find out that half of that has actually been expended.
If you recall, I thought there was a commitment to perhaps look at another process to ensure it is being scrutinized. At the same time, at the end of day, the actual figure for a particular visitation would be debated at the time the actual bill comes in and is presented to the steering committee and then Internal Economy, to reaffirm that the commitments were made. That would seem to me to be in the context of how we do our process. It would make more sense to the public, which is most important, and to us.
I don't quite know how to do it, but I know that in my years in territorial politics when we dealt with the budget, we would discuss a visitation somewhere but not in the context of dollars. We discussed it in the context of the purpose and the reason for going, and there was an overall sum of money, say $1 million, that was allocated for this particular aspect of the budget. It was reaffirmed once that visitation had taken place with the debate at that stage: What did you do? How did you do? What did it cost you? Why did it cost this amount?
I'm trying to put forward another positive way of doing it. I know we have been doing it like this forever. I know it's difficult to change, but I think it is something that should be looked at seriously. Perhaps somebody else has other ideas.
Senator Tkachuk: The budget process being open has helped a lot. I think the press, over the last number of years, has begun to understand how the budget process works. We are talking about this, but really, there haven't been negative reports in the papers on these issues for quite some time because I think they know the process is what it is. There might be articles when the final numbers are in.
I agree with Senator Lang. If there is another way we could put it together that would be helpful, that would be good, but I don't think it is as big a problem as we're making it out to be.
Senator L. Smith: Two things. Senator Comeau did a great job. It was my first experience dealing with the subcommittee. In three years, through his initiative and leadership — and hopefully we are keeping the spirit going forward — I think there has been tremendous recognition on behalf of committee chairs in being much more focused on costs and results and making sure they have a much stricter adherence to trying to make sure that we maximize the return for the expenditure. When I say "maximize," I am talking about the efficiencies.
With the report that we will be submitting to the public on an annual basis, we've asked for your permission to allow us to start, and we will find ways to hone it and make it more efficient. If it's beneficial to set up a process whereby we have fewer numbers that are submitted in the budget for travel, then we'll just have to make sure that we set that same norm for each committee and implement it.
I don't think that's a long way off. I think it's a question of making sure that we continue to execute, continue to get results and then continue to look at how we can make it better. That's our objective. I don't think it's something that will be put in the closet; I think it's something that's evolving, and hopefully you will support us to let us get to that point.
The Chair: Colleagues, the chair appreciates Senator Lang raising this. In steering, we will reflect on it as well. There is nothing obviating us at any time under "Other Business" to say we would like to see how much a report from whatever committee, which has been tabled in the Senate, really cost. We budget for it, which is a guesstimate as to what it will cost, and then have a debate.
It is a valuable contribution for the strategy and the route we're on for as much transparency and openness that we could possibly make in this important institution and to continue in that direction.
We have a motion from Senator Smith. Are you ready for the question on that motion?
Hon. Senators: Question.
The Chair: Is it agreed that we adopt this report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. So adopted.
With the next item on the agenda, we will invite some of our staff to come to the table, Mr. Duguay and Ms. Desjardins.
This is the continuing oversight that we are providing on the long-term vision plan. This is really important as we get closer and closer to 2018 and the planned closure of the Centre Block, with the House of Commons moving into its new facility in the West Block and the Senate moving to the Government Conference Centre.
Brigitte Desjardins, Director, Real Property Planning, Senate of Canada: Good morning, honourable senators. I appear before you to provide you with an update on the West Block construction efforts that you are currently witnessing as you approach Parliament Hill. It has been since January 2011 that the West Block was completely emptied. Since then, we have all observed an impressive evolution of scaffolding which now almost entirely cocoons this beautiful heritage building.
To date, Public Works informs us that the masonry restoration of the southeast tower, the north towers and the interior demolition and abatement is essentially complete. The interior and exterior masonry repair of the building is well under way.
The excavation work in the courtyard has begun. The courtyard infill, once complete, will serve as the interim home of the House of Commons chamber and for other parliamentary functions while the Centre Block is rehabilitated. You can now have a good sense of site preparation under way for the future West Block Visitor Welcome Centre.
The area being excavated, located north of the West Block, began in March 2014. It will serve as the main point of entry for business guests and visitors to the West Block. Both the West Block and its visitor welcome centre are expected to be completed in 2017.
It is important to note that controlled blasting will occur during the coming months to excavate the West Block courtyard, as well as the north court. You will likely hear or feel it. We are being assured by Public Works that blasting procedures will respect the provincial and federal laws and regulations, such as the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Explosives Act.
The department also assured us that it will work closely with both institutions, the Senate and the House of Commons, to ensure that the ongoing civil work does not obstruct the operations of Parliament.
It is expected that the increased volume of construction work on the West Block and the visitor welcome centre sites may alter the visitor experience on Parliament Hill. For example, the Sir George-Étienne Cartier and Alexander Mackenzie monuments will be moved to temporary locations east of the Centre Block until project completion in 2017. The Victoria lookout, the Queen Victoria and Lester B. Pearson monuments will not be accessible from June 2014 until late 2016.
Washrooms located on the west side and currently available to tourists and visitors will close. Temporary washrooms will be installed on the east side of Centre Block during the construction period. A rendering of those projects is shared with you for ease of reference. You should have that with you right now, the colourful images.
I would like to thank you, honourable senators, for your time and I would be more than pleased to answer any questions that you would have.
Senator Furey: Thank you, Brigitte, for this lovely picture.
Ms. Desjardins: I did my best.
Senator Furey: It's east of Centre Block. It doesn't tell us how far east it is. How close is it to the Speaker's entrance?
Ms. Desjardins: It is very close to where the info tent was, so let's say it's in the vicinity of the info tent, a little more southeast of it.
Senator Furey: Of course, you will include all these mature trees.
Ms. Desjardins: That is what is communicated to us.
Senator Fraser: It's a pretty picture. I've been trying to figure out the placement. It seems to me the washrooms are being placed between the statue of the Queen and the Famous Five, which is sort of prime real estate. Was there any thought of putting them around the back of the building?
Ms. Desjardins: Public Works did an extensive revision of the potential sites. There will be a lot of construction-related transportation in the back of the building. Therefore, the back of the building was discounted.
The east side, because of the fact that there was enough space available and the fact that they obviously had removed the info tent some time ago, they felt it was an appropriate site to install the washrooms.
Senator Fraser: They did, did they? Well, thank you very much.
Senator Seth: You said this will be closed to visitors for quite a while. Will it affect just that area or other areas too, like the Senate and the House of Commons?
Ms. Desjardins: The tourist impact right now will be mostly on the west side because of the magnitude of the construction going on west of the Peace Tower. This is why I bring it up intentionally this morning: You will see the monuments being relocated on the east side, as well those two washrooms, plus construction transportation coming in back of the building. That's what you will see this summer.
Senator Seth: It will not affect the tourism of Parliament?
Ms. Desjardins: Well, it will not be, let's say, as attractive as it would have been without construction. Being on a construction site, it will perhaps be less appealing.
Senator Seth: So it is not going to affect tourism? That relates to the finances.
Ms. Desjardins: Tourists have access to the site, yes, absolutely.
Senator Marshall: Brigitte, did you say monuments were going to be moved?
Ms. Desjardins: Yes, two monuments. Actually, parts of them are already located on the east side, but they are in crates. They are dismantled, but they will be put together on the east side.
Senator Tkachuk: They're like Lego monuments.
Ms. Desjardins: The base, it's the Mackenzie and George-Étienne Cartier. Those are the two that were on the west side.
The Chair: Brigitte, is there a written policy on the placement of monuments on Parliament Hill?
Ms. Desjardins: That's a very good question, Mr. Chair. I was able to obtain at least some information on a draft policy that currently exists within Public Works. There is a process to install monuments on the hill. If it is a long-term or permanent monument, such as a Prime Minister, for example, a vote has to take place at the House of Commons.
The Chair: Not in the Senate?
Ms. Desjardins: It would come to the Senate, I would gather, after that, but it starts at the House of Commons.
The Chair: Because if honourable senators notice, one very distinguished former Prime Minister, his monument is in front of the Supreme Court of Canada and not on Parliament Hill, and that's the monument to Louis St-Laurent. I don't know why it's down there and not on the Hill. You said there's a draft policy.
Ms. Desjardins: Yes.
The Chair: The senators might have an interest in terms of this is where our home is. Maybe we should have a look at that policy.
Ms. Desjardins: Sure. It's a Public Works draft policy, but certainly I could obtain a copy.
The Chair: They might consider us one of the communities of interest.
Senator Downe: The assumption would be that Parliament Hill would be from Wellington Street, but would it be outside the gate as well? For example, the Terry Fox monument, was that the National Capital Commission? Right in front of Parliament gate there is a statue for Sir Galahad, for the guy who drowned. That would be considered Parliament Hill, too, I would assume.
Ms. Desjardins: Terry Fox is located south of Wellington. That was an NCC initiative at the time.
Senator Downe: Not Parliament.
The Chair: Originally it was placed on the north side of Wellington, the Terry Fox. It's another one of these activities that go on that the Senate, and maybe even the House of Commons, are the last to hear about it. We have to find a process whereby there is upfront Senate input.
I want to use this opportunity, senators, to point out that with the closure and all the work to be done on the Centre Block as of 2018, I think it's important that we set up some kind of mechanism to secure the tremendous artifacts and the history of the things that are in these precincts. I don't think there is a mechanism in place right now.
Ms. Desjardins: Perhaps I can add a little bit to that. We have approximately 3,000 pieces of art and artifacts. Since 2013, I have mobilized some individuals that have a conservation background. So far, I am about 95 per cent completed in terms of vetting our inventory.
As a next step, this year we need to determine exactly what we wish to take to the Government Conference Centre as well as what items will require conservation during the time that the Centre Block is empty. What is it that we need to store? My staff is currently working on a strategy demonstrating what exactly we will be doing in order to meet the end state of the Government Conference Centre as well as the end state of the Centre Block while not losing any pieces. That is important.
Gilles Duguay, Director General, Parliamentary Precinct Services: The broad implication of managing the arts and artifacts program is that, in the long term, these artifacts will be turned over to us, and it is for us to manage them. Obviously that will cost resources, and we will have to develop a program to manage the assets. That is forthcoming.
The Chair: What is the process of managing the renovation of the Senate Chamber in terms of the future modus operandi of the Senate in the chamber in terms of electronics and modern mechanisms? When do we have a say, and through what vehicle, as to what we envision in the long-term for a highly effective Senate Chamber?
Second, part of our chamber is the throne room, as it were, of Canada, and the security of the two thrones is important. What is the machinery?
Ms. Desjardins: We do have a process. There is a committee composed of Public Works specialists. The House of Commons, Senate, and Library of Parliament representatives are involved. Right now, the vision is being discussed for the end state of the Centre Block. The same process will occur as we did with the Government Conference Centre. We will be coming before you. There will be consultation with regard to how we wish to have the chamber for its end state when we return to it in 2028.
The process of putting a functional program in place and determining exactly what is needed in the chamber, as an example, will be done in the same fashion as it was done for the Government Conference Centre. This time, however, we have not only Library and the House of Commons.
The Chair: I am consulting with the former distinguished Chair of this committee.
Senator Tkachuk: We did have a consultation process, and we had a number of senators who worked with the administration regarding the new facility that we are looking at. I don't know whether we have re-established that or named new people. I don't think we have named new people in this session, so that has to be done.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Tkachuk: We will have a proper process.
The Chair: Can I ask the committee? Should we set up a working group so that we as senators would have input into what is going to go on inside the Senate Chamber? Senator Downe was part of the other one.
Senator Downe: I was part of it, but we haven't done anything for a year plus. Senator Stewart Olsen and I were on it. We seemed to be making some headway, and then I am not sure whether it is because we adjourned or whatever, but for the last year nothing has happened. We have had a gap of 12 months where we have had no input, unless another committee is working on it.
Senator Tkachuk: It was Percy and Carolyn. After Carolyn left, we never named anyone else, so it sort of fell off the table.
Senator Downe: I thought because we were recommending vending machines for food options because there were so many restaurants around us, we got dumped, though I'm not sure about that.
Senator Tkachuk: Other issues came to the fore.
The Chair: If there is agreement, we will reconstitute the extra mandate of participating in the renovation and design objectives of the Senate Chamber, in particular.
Senator Downe: Who is on it?
The Chair: Well, we will canvass senators.
Senator Downe: Yes.
The Chair: And we will report back.
Senator Downe: I do not think Carolyn wants on it.
Mr. Duguay: I would like to take this opportunity as well to brief you on the 1812 monument project.
As you know, this initiative is led by the Department of Canadian Heritage. They have been working with Public Works, Public Works being the custodians of the Parliamentary Precinct, as well as with the National Capital Commission. The capital commission is the federal authority responsible for approving commemorative works on federal lands in the National Capital Region.
Previously, Internal had approved that we turn over five parking spots on the east side at the lower drive. These parking spots did not have an impact on staff or senators. Those parking spots were used by contractors. They are using those five parking spots to install the 1812 monument.
They came back to us and now they want one more space. We don't feel that it will have any drastic impact on our parking availability.
They are starting the work in July. They will stage the installation of the monument, and that will last until mid-October, but it is commencing this year.
In the long-term — and we have not had any discussion with them yet — they would like to see the whole lower drive turned into a pathway, which would eliminate all parking on the lower drive. However, as I said, we haven't had any official discussions. Those are rumours that I hear in the rumour mill. Obviously, that would have an impact on our parking availability. It is a discussion that we would have with Public Works, as the person that manages our parking, on what Public Works would have to offer to compensate for the loss of parking spots for senators and staff. We are not there, yet.
The Chair: That is the parking spot on the south side of the East Block where mainly employees of the Langevin Block park.
Mr. Duguay: That is right.
Senator Munson: The statue that is there at the corner is the statue of — the East Block? You are talking about that area?
Mr. Duguay: Yes.
Senator Munson: That is a statue of whom? The one in the front that looks over the Château Laurier; Sir Wilfrid Laurier?
Ms. Desjardins: Which location are you talking about? It is Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the southeast.
Senator Munson: I wanted to make sure it was on the record, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. With the War of 1812 work that's being done, is that statue going to be moved?
Ms. Desjardins: The Sir Wilfrid Laurier statue is not being moved. We have not heard anything about that.
Senator Munson: You are sure?
Ms. Desjardins: We have nothing on that.
Senator Munson: Okay.
Senator Marshall: I wanted to know where the lower side parking lot was, and you asked the question.
The Chair: It is usually packed on a Wednesday morning, early. That is when the deputy ministers across the system have a meeting in the Langevin Block for breakfast.
Senator Fraser: Going back to this pretty picture, if I may, the picture looks really pretty with all those mature trees and the sun shining and the leaves out and everything.
Quite a lot of time, the sun won't be shining. The leaves won't be out. The trees won't be mature, and we will have these semi-temporary —
Senator White: Outhouses.
Senator Fraser: Outhouses; okay. I didn't say that. Somebody else said that. I am concerned. I was not kidding when I said that this is prime real estate. It is visible from the main gate onto the Hill; the one we're not allowed to use anymore. It is an important part of what you see on Parliament Hill.
I am wondering if any thought is being given to the visual impact of these things. If the site is settled and a done deal, can we at least ensure that they will look as inoffensive as possible? For example, the bottom of the two pretty pictures shows pretty clearly that they look like the kind of stuff you see on a construction site, but they will be there for several years. They will be a major feature of what you see when you come onto Parliament Hill. Is there any way, for example, to have them be of a colour that matches the stonework on our main buildings? Maybe not the ribbed metal effect. I am a little concerned because, in the ongoing, apparently endless, work at the other end of the hill, down at the security gates where we come in, I have been a little distressed by the sort of temporary look of the installations there. It is now a construction site, but it has looked like a construction site even when there wasn't any construction there. I am not sure that that is what we want to present to the people of Canada as an entry point.
I am not talking about spending vast sums of money. I am just talking about having some aesthetic design input into the way this is done. I don't know if I am alone in this.
Senator LeBreton: This is all a very interesting discussion, but is this really the responsibility of this committee? Parliament Hill has been under construction and renovation. The East Block has been shrouded for quite some time. They have half of Wellington Street shrouded. Yes, esthetically, for tourists, but the buildings have to be renovated and fixed. I just don't think that having discussions about the colour of an outhouse or entrances onto the Hill is something this committee should be doing. We can't stand in the way of progress.
I remember the whole discussion about building the tunnel between the East Block and the Centre Block and how they portrayed that as a cushy way for senators not to have to walk outside. Why are we wasting our time discussing things that we actually shouldn't have any input into, in my view? Shouldn't this be handled by people who actually know what they are doing when they are renovating the Hill?
I want to be on the agenda for other matters.
Senator Tkachuk: I know that sometimes these discussions sort of bog down. That is why there was that committee. It was something that I thought, when I was chair, was really important, that we insert ourselves into this discussion. We had discussion on security on the Hill. We had discussion on guns. We had discussion on the privacy of the Speaker coming into the chamber because of the information tent. We inserted ourselves into the discussion as to where we would be in 2018, and I think we made the right decision by going to the conference centre rather than having a building built here, a separate building or an underground piece.
That is why I think the committee is important because these kinds of issues were usually handled by the two members, along with the people from administration.
Senator Downe: I want to follow up on that. The overarching concern and the reason we are moving to the conference centre is that we're saving taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
Senator Tkachuk: Hundreds.
Senator Downe: That is why we are doing it. Everything else is protecting what we have when we come back, preserving what we have and keeping in mind that where we are moving is a temporary facility. We don't want to upgrade that to a Cadillac for somebody else to move in and for us to get all of the criticism. The intention is to save this massive amount of money, and we should keep that front and centre in all of our discussions.
Senator Tkachuk: I think it was important for us and also for the committees — how we set up the committee rooms. It came from the senators as to where the committee rooms should go and how we could facilitate committee rooms along with the conference centre. But it does bog down; I agree. We should be on to other matters.
Senator Campbell: I don't want to belabour this, but I really disagree with Senator LeBreton because I believe that, if we don't keep our eye on what happens in this place, things will happen that we don't like and that we have no part of. I will not abrogate my other responsibilities to the other place and let those yahoos try to run this Hill. I think it is important that we stay involved in this, and that we actually care about what happens here, where things go and what happens.
I will be very upset if I find out that that 1812 monument to our glorious war is replacing a Prime Minister. You say it is not happening, but that is not what we hear. If they move that for the 1812 monument, then people are doing things without any input from us, to the very place that we respect and work at. Thank you.
Senator White: Again, not to belabour it, I am going back to the discussion you had earlier about having a couple of people who work with administration. We have spent 40 minutes now discussing an outhouse. I have to say that I don't know that that is what we are meant to do here. I do think we could have a couple of people working with the administration, and, if there is a serious concern around the War of 1812 monument, as an example, we could bring it in as opposed to having these types of discussions. I certainly wouldn't mind helping out if you need some help sitting on such a working group.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators, for the discussion on the long-term vision plan. I think it is important that we have these discussions, from time to time, but I agree with Senator LeBreton, that we don't have to get down into the detail of everything; we have to provide oversight.
Let's move on to Item No. 4, an update on the Senate Administrative Rules.
Maybe we might begin our discussion by having the law clerk provide a short executive overview of what we're dealing with here.
Gary W. O'Brien, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments: I would like to remind senators of the importance of the SARs, the Senate Administrative Rules, which were adopted on May 6, 2004. These bylaws deal with a number of financial and administrative policy regulations and are considered fundamental to proper public administration and essential to the good administration of the Senate. It establishes the principles of the Senate Administration, which are the following: integrity, accountability, honesty and transparency. It also makes clear that Senate resources shall be used for the service of Canada, in particular, for one or more of the following purposes: (a) The parliamentary functions of senators; and (b) the service of the Senate.
As you know, as I just said, they were adopted by the Senate in 2004. It is a public document. They were tabled in the Senate. They have been available to Canadians, but it has been 10 years since there's been a thorough review. We have amended the SARs from time to time.
As you know, based on the twenty-fifth report, the honour principle was deleted from the SARs about a year ago, and we have changed issues such as the travel policy and made amendments to the SARS in putting the travel policy in a different instrument of governance for the Senate. We have started at this committee, and I know, before Christmas, the Speaker did ask all senators — and we reistributed the draft SARs at that time — to take a look at it and perhaps think about other areas that need to be explored.
Michel, could you perhaps walk us through what the SARs is and what it covers?
Michel Patrice, Acting Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: I think you have provided a good description of the intent and use of the SARs. They are basically laws in terms of Senate resources and their allocation. It has been since 2004, as the Clerk said, that they have been codified in that document.
Some time ago, we started and prepared a review of proposed amendments that are basically modernizations of the language and also address evolution in terms of expectations and new requirements. You have had that document for quite some time.
We started from time to time on the review of the process. Other events occurred that pushed aside the comprehensive review for this committee. Also, other changes have been made in the meantime. As the clerk said, by the twenty-fifth report, the definition of "provincial residence" and "national capital accommodation," as examples, were made to the SARs. Still other changes are forthcoming and so on, and it would be important to proceed as soon as possible to modernize and update that document.
As you saw, it is structured in various divisions and chapters, which are basically the key chapters — interpretation, which talks about the principle and the definitions. I expect we will have a good debate on the definition, modernizing and adapting to new realities.
There is also another chapter on governance, which is basically how the Senate functions. We are always talking about Senate resources; we are not talking about legislative process. That is dealt with in the other key document of the Senate, which is the Rules of the Senate of Canada.
For example, governance talks about the role of the Senate in terms of resources, Internal Economy, the Senate Administration, the role of the Clerk and also enforcement in terms of the rules and its processes.
Then there are obviously key chapters in terms of allocation of Senate resources: How they are to be allocated, documented and so on. It is often under these laws that the various policies reviewed and adopted by this committee, sometimes by the Senate, are advanced — because of a stewardship of public funds and basically having a documented process and rules so people better understand what is permitted and the purpose, basically, of resources and their uses.
I look forward to moving forward on this file, because what would be useful is that, right now, while it is a public document, it is available. It would be a good thing for the Senate that it be online; that it be available on the Internet and available to everyone to see.
The Chair: Senators, I would like to propose a timeline to get this job done not in some distant millennium but in a close era. I will propose that this be totally completed within six weeks — I would say by the middle of June. What I envisage has to happen is that we can get a working group to help us. Remember that when we had a couple of meetings totally devoted to this, a lot of questions came up. If we had a working group from this committee that could help guide us through that discussion — I think it is important that the respective caucuses have a discussion and maybe the working group could, on an ongoing basis, encourage the caucuses so that senators come to this meeting knowing what the collective views of the caucuses are as well. As an overview of a work plan, we would like to get this completed by mid-June. Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Lang: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to hear this, because this is an important document, and we have to analyze how each change or even how other proposed changes should take effect so that it clearly reflects what the Senate wants.
The other area I believe has to be looked at is the accountability of the administration and what accountability goes there as well, because it is a two-way street for all of us to be successful.
I would strongly volunteer myself, since I am from the West. I am three time zones away, and I have experienced some difficulties at times trying to get some answers and trying to resolve some issues. Not that I am putting the onus on any particular facet of the Senate, but it is a very real document that, at the end of the day, we all bear the results of.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to volunteer and, if you wish, I would even chair the working group.
Senator Tkachuk: I was going to suggest that you set a date of the first week of June where that would be the agenda of the meeting. I have been through this for a year-plus now, and there are always events, as Churchill said. It would be important for us to do that the first week of June; we should just set a date. That gives a month for all of these other matters to be discussed. Then we as a committee can deal with it and have another week in case there are small amendments to make. Then in the middle of June, we should be out of here.
The Chair: Would you agree to encourage the caucuses?
Senator Tkachuk: I think if the caucuses are not involved, we will have problems. Especially for the major changes, they should be talked about in caucus.
The Chair: Is there further discussion on this? No?
Honourable senators, there is time for any other matter. Senator LeBreton indicated she wanted to speak.
Senator LeBreton: The last discussion relates to this. Over the last month or so, I have been approached by many senators, probably as a result of the Auditor General working with the senators and in the Senate at the moment over the Senators' Travel Policy, which came into force on June 5, 2012. I have had quite a few people approach me, perhaps because I moved the motion to call in the Auditor General, which was broadly supported, I am happy to say.
Regarding the whole document of the Senators' Travel Policy that did come into force two years ago, I have a question and a comment. The question is: Has the Senate Administration uniformly, in each case, applied this policy to all senators?
The second thing is an area that people speak to me about a lot; namely, the claim for meals. There seems to be a lot of confusion now. It doesn't affect me; I live in Ottawa. However, I must say that if I were a senator claiming a per diem — and quite a few senators have expressed this to me — I would not like the idea that I am force-fed; that simply because there is a meal at a committee, I am forced to eat something that might make me feel sick.
That whole policy really needs to be looked at. According to people who have talked to me, it is not being applied properly. Some people fly in from various parts of the country and then come to a committee meeting. They are on a different time zone. They don't feel like eating dinner at three or four o'clock — body clock time — in the afternoon, they go to dinner and then can't claim the per diem. If they want to claim the per diem, according to the rules, they have to provide a written explanation as to why they didn't eat this force-fed meal at the committee.
We should look again at this whole issue of meals served at committees. From my observation, when you leave the committee meeting, they are still sitting there, uneaten.
Has the administration, over the last two years, uniformly and fairly applied these rules, or has there been a lot of discrepancy between senators as to what they've applied? Much like the last item, in view of the Auditor General being here, and in view of us being super careful about our expenses, I think some of these rules should be clarified, in fairness and in the interests of the senators.
The Chair: Senator LeBreton, thank you very much for raising this subject. Indeed, it's also on the agenda of the steering committee meeting later this day. Perhaps Nicole might give an overview.
Nicole Proulx, Director of Finance and Procurement, Senate of Canada: The travel policy approved in June 2012 states that when meals are provided, where there is a provision from another source, that they not be claimed.
In terms of how the Senate administration or Senate finance has been applying this, for meals provided in Ottawa during committees there is no process in place to establish whether a meal was provided systematically. There is no link that will send a signal to Senate finance to say that there was one or which senator was there.
In terms of the practice, I must say that the onus was on senators when they were providing their travel claim whether or not they partook in the meal.
That has raised a number of questions, a number of issues. As the Clerk said, it will be discussed because it has significant implications and we are aware of that.
Senator LeBreton: I take what you say, but I've had senators tell me specifically that when they put in their per diems they were challenged by administration because the administration happened to know there was a meal served at a committee. I think we should rethink all these meals that are provided at committees. I'm sure that's a great expense. I don't know where the food goes, there's all kinds of food left. Even at the committees I go to, I tend to eat what I like to eat and not what someone else wants me to eat.
Again, it doesn't affect me all that much. I've had enough senators — and actually a couple of senators from the other side as well — mention that some of these rules are really over complicated, and they don't need to be.
Senator Marshall: I wasn't going to talk about the committee meals, but I wanted to put you on notice that we're looking at the rules, or we're going to have a meeting and discuss them before the middle of June.
There are some amendments there relating to meals provided on flights. I know for some senators who travel great distances meals are provided, but at odd hours. For example, last year the flight to Newfoundland left at 9:50, at night so you were given a meal, but you usually didn't get your meal until 11 or 11:30 at night. We have a similar situation this year. The same thing with breakfast, you get your breakfast so early in the morning that when you arrive in Ottawa you want a second breakfast. The rules are revised in such a way that it doesn't take into consideration that the meals provided are provided at very unusual hours.
I just want to let you know that when we get to those rules I will be raising that issue.
Senator Campbell: I'm one who comes from the west, and while I understand the concerns of senators, the fact of the matter is that in the real world this is how things happen. This is how, in business, for instance, you go somewhere, somebody gives you a meal and you don't claim a per diem on it. I understand that the meals are at weird hours. I would support getting rid of the meals at committee meetings, except when you get two committees, one after another, and if you don't have time to have anything to eat it leads to interesting conversations.
I simply think that the senator has to take a look and say that if a meal is supplied, a meal is supplied. That's end of story. That's what happens in the real world, and that's what should be happening here. That's one of the disadvantages of being a senator; you don't get especially great meals at committee and they come at weird hours.
We have to recognize that outside of here this is how business is conducted. This is how you are responsible to your corporation, and I simply think it's minutia. The amount of money involved is peanuts for claiming meals that were once supplied. If a meal was supplied, it's up the senator to say a meal was supplied and we're not claiming.
Senator Seth: The same question is puzzling in my mind, and I know many of you feel the same way. The last months we have been discussing this all the time, and large portions have been consumed by the review and carefully monitoring our finances and expenses.
We are doing this in preparation of audits and to ensure we don't commit gross negligence. Some senators are retiring and probably they have to come for interviews for the same reason.
My recommendation is — just an idea — that every approved claim by the finance department should be audit proof. The finance department has the power to validate every claim to be audit proof. The result would be that when a senator has claimed and it goes to the finance department and it is completely audit proof, there would be no future problem, such as what we are facing at this stage.
Senator Downe: I think this committee has made great progress — Dr. Lank worked on this file as well — in eliminating a lot of these unnecessary meals.
For example, Foreign Affairs meets at 4:15, on Wednesday. Because we're usually on CPAC, nobody eats until after the session is over at 6 or 6:30, and you walk out and nobody was eating. Senator Andreychuk and I cut out the meals, expecting some push back. Not one senator mentioned it to us, because we found out not one senator was eating. We've saved tens of thousands of dollars. Dr. Lank gave us a report a few months ago, but I think much more can be done.
It seems to me where people have to have the meals, as Senator Campbell says, is when there are two committees. We seem to be ordering too much food. I leave the Victoria Building and I see everybody but street people wandering in to eat. It's great, you don't want the food to go to waste, but it's a cost that we're incurring. We've made great progress, but there's more to be made.
Senator White: Just briefly, in some organizations and parts of the federal government you just put on your claim "meal not taken" and you can claim an expense. It you're on a flight from Newfoundland and it happens to be an early dinner and you don't eat the early dinner and you arrive here and go for dinner, you put the claim in. You say, "Meal not taken on flight." Realistically, my understanding of the rules, if you put that comment, "meal not taken," you can claim it anyway; is that correct? To me, that would satisfy the requirements. We have to have some level of trust.
The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)