Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence - May 29, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 29, 2014
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day, at 9:02 a.m., for the consideration of administrative and other matters.
Senator Noël A. Kinsella (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the minutes of our meeting on May 8, 2014. Is there a motion for the adoption of the minutes?
Senator Doyle: Hear, hear.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Doyle, seconded by Senator Lang.
Senator Lang: In respect to the question of the taxi policy, I'm wondering if there could be a note sent to all senators on why we did what we did. I think we need to have more of a rapport with our colleagues. I recognize time is short here. There were some good reasons for why we recommended what we did. I think a note under the chairman's signature with the reason we've done it would be appropriate, otherwise senators are asking questions and getting second-hand information.
The Chair: Very good suggestion, Senator Lang. It will be done.
Honourable senators, we will be assisted in our discussion on the second topic of pay in arrears by the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Board, Mr. Bill Matthews, and the Executive Director, Marcia Santiago. We also have Nicole Proulx available to us, our Director of Finance and Procurement.
Senators, as we all know at this honourable committee, we have been working assiduously in the development of our budget and we are all fairly proud that we have been able to present a budget that was adopted, which made significant cuts in it. We are being very careful, and on an ongoing basis trying to find opportunities to save the taxpayers money where we can. We are working with a budget so close to the wire that when we became aware of this initiative of payment in arrears, it really put a lot of pressure on us as we were pretty close to the bone in the work we were doing.
I thought we could have Mr. Matthews and his colleague give us an explication of this cross-government initiative and then the honourable senators can present questions in more detail. Maybe for 10, 15 minutes, Bill, you may want to provide an overview of this initiative on the cross-government undertaking. Then we will zero in on how it impacts on Parliament.
Bill Matthews, Assistant Secretary, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to all. Thank you for having me here today with my colleague, Marcia Santiago. We have a short presentation on this topic and I hope honourable senators have received it. I will warn you in advance, this is complex. It probably involves understanding more about the details of government finance than you will ever want to know. Do bear with me when we get through the explanations of the ins and outs. There are a few accountants on the committee, so maybe they'll help us out as well.
I will speak to you a bit about the initiative itself, why we're doing this from a government-wide perspective, but I will also speak about the related fiscal impacts on departments and, in this case, the Senate. The same thing would apply to the House of Commons.
Slide 2 is where we will start, and this relates to an effort to modernize the pay system of the government. This is the pay system all federal employees receive their paycheques through. For reference, the senators themselves are on a different pay system, so this is for employees, not for senators.
Public Works runs this pay system and they're moving to a customized off-the-shelf system — a new pay system that is not designed specifically for government but more of a generic pay system. That's happening in May 2014. In effect, it already happened.
If you look at the traditional way government did payroll, it was different than the rest of the world, which may not surprise you.
I will use our May 21 paycheque as an example. Under our old system, the May 21 paycheque would have paid employees May 8 to May 21, basically real-time payment. That's not the norm. The norm, when you buy software for a pay system, is that you have a two-week delay.
Under the new system, the May 21 paycheque would pay you for April 21 up until May 7. That's the way most of the world does it. It makes perfect sense. The reason it's a good change is if you think about people moving positions, maybe getting promoted, having a two-week lag in their paycheque makes it more accurate. That's the norm. We are moving to that new system.
When we decided to do this, there were a few options in play about how to protect the employees. One option was to ask employees to skip a paycheque. It didn't make a lot of sense to have people skip a paycheque because we are changing accounting or payroll systems. In effect, what happened is employees did skip a paycheque but they were given a transition payment that looked exactly like their paycheque so they didn't notice a difference, which is just what we wanted. The new system is in place, employees were held harmless and from their perspective, nothing really happened.
What happens with the transition payment is it will be recovered from employees when they leave the public service. Their last paycheque will effectively be withheld, and that's for existing employees. New employees wouldn't notice a difference at all; they will be on the new system from the get-go.
This notion of getting a transition payment and then having it withheld when you leave the public service will explain what that does to the budgets of both departments and the Senate and House of Commons as well.
Slide 3 is where we get into probably more detail than you would like know about government finances and I will be as brief as I can on this. Some senators on this committee have suffered through this at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, and you will get a bit of it again today. The government effectively has a budget and financial statements that are on a full approval basis of accounting. That's the private sector norm. That doesn't impact the Senate one way or the other, but it's important to know.
From a cash or budget management perspective, departments and the Senate are on what we call a modified accrual or modified cash basis. That means when you get your budget for the year, it is largely a cash basis budget with a bit of a tweak. We won't talk about payroll yet; we'll talk about buying a building. The reason we say it was modified cash is if you bought a building, but for some reason you hadn't got the bill in at year end — the paperwork wasn't complete you couldn't pay it until April 5 — it doesn't make sense to defer that charge until the next fiscal year. You should charge your budget the year you bought the building. At year end we have these modifications to make it more than cash. We have this little process we go through where we take all the things that you received before year end and make sure that you charge them to the budget for the year that just ended, even if the bill hadn't come in yet. That's why we call it "modified."
I want you now to think about payroll. The way payroll or salaries are charged to the Senate's budget is based on the number of days worked. We take your employees' salaries for the year, figure out how many days they worked and that gets charged to the appropriation. There is no change with that; the change in pay system, the timing of payments doesn't impact what gets charged to your appropriation from the employee's perspective. You are going to be charged for the days your employees worked.
What is different is this transition payment, which is being charged to your budget for the current year as well. That's the payment that will cause the Senate's expenditures to go up. It's that transition payment. Is it real cash from an employee's perspective? No, they were held harmless, but the way appropriations work is a legal concept. There is a charge to your appropriation, even though it's not real cash. It's an accrual concept. All departments are absorbing this charge, and we'll get back to what that means from a government-wide perspective.
We knew that there would be a charge to departments' budgets. We also know that departments don't always spend their entire budget, and we only want departments asking for funding if they indeed need it. You won't know if you need it until toward the end of the year.
Therefore, from a government-wide perspective, late in the day as part of the Main Estimates, we put money in what is called a central vote. That is a vote that Treasury Board manages and can allocate out to departments. We put $750 million in that vote, basically as a stop-gap. That has not been allocated to departments yet. We've asked departments to absorb this charge to the extent they can. If they cannot, they have access to this central vote to basically hold them harmless, but we don't want departments asking for money if they don't need it.
The same concept would apply to the Senate. At some point late in or midway through the year, you will have a sense of where you are with your budget and the extent to which you will be able to absorb this extra charge or not. The Senate is a lot different than departments. To get money from Treasury Board, departments actually have to write a Treasury Board submission, get a minister to sign — it's quite a long process. Treasury Board Secretariat would challenge the department's request to see if they really need it.
The Senate is different. It's Parliament. The Senate basically has to write in and request the funds, and we're essentially the takers of those requests. When the Senate needs extra money, from a bureaucratic perspective, that money goes into the estimates, and Parliament then approves them or not. Regardless, they go into the estimates.
Supplementary estimates are not an unusual thing in the federal government; we have three sets of them every year. The one in the fall, which is we call Supplementary Estimates (B), is our biggest one. It's quite normal that we would have substantial dollars allocated to departments in Supplementary Estimates (B).
I've kind of moved on to slide 4, which is where we talk about asking departments to absorb this. We will get a sense from departments later on this year as to the extent to which they can absorb it or the extent to which they need access to the central votes.
In February 2014, we gave departments guidance on this in terms of how the process would work. Then, from January to March 2015, departments will tell us if they need access to the central votes.
The Senate is a bit different again. The Senate does not use central votes. They're different from departments. The Senate will have to ask for funds. Depending on which supplementary estimates you would like to be included in — and this is really a good discussion for you with your chief financial officer — if you're looking for funding in the fall, you would have to send Treasury Board Secretariat a letter by mid-October to indicate how much of the extra funding you will need. If you were waiting until later in the year for Supplementary Estimates (C), which is one of our smaller ones, we would be looking at early January.
It is really a matter of waiting to the point in the year where you have a better sense of how much of the funding you will need or how much you can absorb internally. At that point in time, you can make the request to Treasury Board Secretariat, and you would be included in the next estimates.
That's the process and the impact. I don't know if that was clear from an accounting perspective, but I'm happy to take questions, Mr. Chair.
Senator Furey: Thank you, Mr. Matthews and Ms. Santiago. You are right that it's a very complex process you've just explained to us. I have a couple of quick questions.
This year, the Senate, through diligent management of its resources, was able to return a surplus. Had we known about this earlier, we wouldn't need to go into sups. Why couldn't we have gotten this information with time enough to budget for it?
Mr. Matthews: There are two reasons. The government's approach regarding how to implement this was not nailed down until late in the year; in fact, it was just before we presented to Treasury Board. One of the options in play was asking employees to skip a paycheque. In that case, there would have been no impact whatsoever on your budget, and you wouldn't have needed anything.
Until we had the Department of Finance Canada and Treasury Board on side in terms of the approach, we weren't in a position to inform people what the approach would be. So it was too late in the process, in effect.
Senator Furey: When you talk about the modified accrual, what sort of leeway do you give for doing that? Is it five days, ten days?
Mr. Matthews: In terms of the timing?
Senator Furey: In terms of when you can capture it in that year.
Mr. Matthews: The books of the departments stay open for a couple of months after year end. March 31 is year end. I would have to confirm with my Comptroller General colleagues, but if I recall correctly, they are still finalizing books in mid to late May.
Payroll is a little complicated, but departments, if they're waiting for invoices, they wait. If, for some reason they can't get an invoice, they make an estimate, and they can charge that as well.
Senator Marshall: When I was looking at this, I actually got out my calendar to try to map it out. The staff are still going to get 26 pay periods, right? And my understanding from the note is that we pay $1.6 million in payroll every two weeks. You said they are not going to be impacted. So they're still going to get 26 pay periods, and that's been budgeted for.
Who gets the $1.6 million that we're looking for? It's not the staff; they don't get it.
Mr. Matthews: No, it's an additional charge to your appropriation.
I will try it this way: Your staff this fiscal year will get 25 normal paycheques, and they will get a transition payment. That gets you to 26, so they don't notice a difference. But forget about paycheques for a second. If you had a paycheque that took you up to March 25, there are six days of work left in the fiscal year. Those six days get charged to the appropriation as well; that's one of those accrual adjustments. From a pay perspective, we are charging, as always, the Senate's budget for however many days of work people do, multiplied by their salary. That doesn't change: It's the paycheques, plus an adjustment for whatever is not picked up at the end of the year. So that doesn't change — number of days worked and the value of your work.
What we're adding to it is this transition payment. From an employee perspective, the transition payment is not extra money, but from a charge-to-the-appropriation perspective, it is an extra charge to the appropriation. Cash is not going out the door any more than in previous years.
Senator Marshall: I still don't understand it, because the staff are still getting paid for 260 days of the year — I think that's the regular work year. They're getting pay for that. They're not getting anything extra, but we're putting through an additional $1.6 million dollars in payroll expenditures. The staff aren't getting it. You're charging it to payroll. So I don't understand why we need the extra $1.6 million.
Mr. Matthews: From a financial statement perspective — so the audited financial statements of the government — will this create an extra charge? No, it would not; from an accrual perspective, everything is the same as always.
The way resource departments and the Senate is modified basis, as I mentioned. We're still charging, as you nailed it — 200-some days of work per year — plus there is this transition payment, which is technically not a normal paycheque. It is not extra money going to the staff; it is an accrual type of charge to the appropriation.
I know you are an accountant, senator. This isn't accrual accounting. Appropriations are a legal concept, and from a legal perspective, this does represent a charge.
Senator Marshall: At the year-end on the financial statements of the government, is there an accounts receivable set up for $1.6 million for staff?
Mr. Matthews: I don't know about the receivable. The actual accrual expense charge for payroll is unchanged. That I know for sure. I don't think there is a receivable set up.
Senator Marshall: What we're saying is that we're holding them harmless, so we're going to give them their $1.6 million, even though they are not entitled to it, really, under the new payroll system. We're saying we're going to recover it from them when they leave, so why wouldn't it be set up as a receivable?
Mr. Matthews: We are setting it up as a centralized one so there will be a receivable set up centrally, not from a department-by-department perspective.
Senator Marshall: Okay. So when you set up your receivable, is that a two-sided entry?
Mr. Matthews: Yes. In the government's financial statements —
Senator Marshall: So you'd debit your receivables, you must be crediting your expenditures.
Mr. Matthews: I think we're crediting cash. There's no impact on —
Senator Marshall: It won't have any impact on your expenditures?
Mr. Matthews: No accrual impact whatsoever. We've always done the accrual the same way.
Senator Marshall: Well, you certainly don't do it like the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Tkachuk: There are probably not a lot of things like that.
Senator Marshall: Well, we're obviously doing it right at home.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Marshall: That's the only question I have. I just couldn't figure out who's getting the $1.6 million. If the staff aren't getting it, and we need to go for supplementary supply, who is getting the $1.6 million? The only thing I can think of is it must be set up as a receivable, and on the other side, it must be the credit to the cash.
Mr. Matthews: There is a centralized receivable being set up, but the reason this is different from Newfoundland and Labrador — and I haven't checked Newfoundland's financial statements in a few years — Newfoundland and Labrador, if I recall correctly, has a system where the appropriations work the same way the financial statements do. In the federal government we have different rules for appropriations than we do for financial statements, and that's really what you are seeing here. I don't like to say two sets of books, but there are, in effect, two sets of books.
Senator Marshall: You did say that we can't tap into that central vote that all the departments can tap into?
Mr. Matthews: If you look at central votes, we use them for departments and agencies. I can't recollect a case where the Senate has tapped into a central vote. There is no difference, from an overall perspective, whether you go for a central vote or whether you actually get extra funds through supplementary estimates. It all shows up in estimates.
Senator Tkachuk: It's going to show up on our books the same.
Senator Furey: What will it be designated as?
Mr. Matthews: You will see additional funding for the Senate's operating vote, I believe, through supplementary estimates. Whether it's (B) or (C) is up to you folks, assuming you need some funding to absorb this. So you will see an increase to the senators' operating votes one time only and not an ongoing amount.
Senator Fraser: Thank you very much. So even though no real money is changing hands here, public statements are going to say that the Senate has overspent by $1.6 million. I used to be a journalist. They're going to look at the sups and say, "What's this? The Senate keeps telling us they're saving money, and here they are coming back for more money." Could there not have been another way to handle this?
I have two questions. That was the first.
Mr. Matthews: In some provinces, supplementary estimates are viewed as being, "Oh, my gosh, we made a mistake. We need more money." In the federal government, supplementary estimates are quite normal. We have three of them a year. Supplementary Estimates (B) is the one in the fall. Most departments and agencies actually come in for Supplementary Estimates (B) funding because they have received Treasury Board approval to do something. The Senate is a bit different in that you just request money and you get it.
I will say that when we presented the Main Estimates, both to the Senate Finance Committee and the House of Commons Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, we spent a fair amount of time mentioning this change in pay system, the increase of $750 million in the central vote, and didn't get a single question or a single article. I was kind of surprised, to be honest, because it does seem a little odd.
Basically, when you explain that the government is moving to an off-the-shelf software system for payroll, which is a good thing, there is a transition payment to hold employees harmless. It seems to be common sense. No one thought there was much of a story there.
People do not view supplementary estimates as being a budget overrun; they view it as getting additional approval to spend money during the fiscal year.
Senator Fraser: I hope you're right on that. Having been in the Senate while we've had a great deal of coverage in the past little while, I just hope you're right on that.
The second question has to do with the impact on employees. Have employees had this system explained to them? And second, when you were explaining that the transition payment would be recovered, you said — but I hope this was just a slip of the tongue, so to speak — they'll miss their final paycheque. But probably they will be earning more at that point than they were when the transition payment was made. I hope you meant they will just miss the amount of the transition payment.
Mr. Matthews: They will miss the amount of the transition payment; you are absolutely correct.
Senator Fraser: Have they been informed?
Mr. Matthews: They have. There has been great information on the Public Works website. It has been out for quite a while. There's good engagement with the unions on this file. Can I speak to whether every employee is aware of this? I'm not certain, but there is certainly good information out there that's been out there for quite some time.
Senator Lang: I want to get further clarification, if I could. The way I understand this, and the way it's been explained, is that you are asking us to find $1.6 million; or, B, go and apply for another supplementary of $1.6 million if we can't find it.
The other side of the coin is that the federal government has put in a system where they will get $750 million from all the departments, yet any of the money that's supposed to come back to the government will go back into general revenue; it won't go back to those departments; is that correct? At the end of the day this is meant to balance.
Mr. Matthews: Not quite. At the end of the day, there is no impact on the government's financial statements. You're right; this is a transition thing.
I'm going to generalize here and speak about departments. The last couple of years, departments have come nowhere close to spending their full budgets. They've been lapsing 10 and 12 per cent in some cases. For us to say to departments, "We're going to give you money to fund this transition payment," it's premature to do that at the beginning of the year, because if a department doesn't need it, if in fact they weren't going to spend their budget anyway, we don't want to give them any money. So we put these funds into a central vote. If a department can absorb it, they won't ask for it. If they can absorb part of it, they will only ask for part of it. In effect, you're right in the fact that if they don't need anything, the money lapses and goes back to the fiscal framework, absolutely.
Senator Lang: The money that's owed by the employee when they come to the end of their tenure, that two-week pay —
Mr. Matthews: That will be paid back regardless.
Senator Lang: And it goes back to general revenue; it doesn't go back to the Senate?
Mr. Matthews: Right, because you're looking 25 years out in some cases. It really depends on the work span of the employee. The reason we are okay with that is we have a system to effectively hold departments harmless. If they need the funds, they're going to get the funds. We are comfortable with it going back to general revenue.
Senator L. Smith: Mr. Matthews, I'm one of the people who didn't ask you that question. We were so excited on the Finance Committee to be told —
Mr. Matthews: We distracted you with other things.
Senator L. Smith: I'm not sure if we discussed during that meeting how the impact would be managed, but that's not the question I want to ask.
The $750 million and your experience in managing with the various departments, what has history shown? How will the departments manage this? Will they go for sups?
Mr. Matthews: You'll see a mix. It's interesting if you look at the histories of departmental spending. In years where there are reductions in budgets, departments often put the brakes on spending so hard that they actually exceed the reductions and they lapse even more money than they would have in another year. If recent history repeats itself, you will see a mix of, I suspect, most departments being able to absorb a portion of this; some will come in for a portion; and I suspect some will not come in at all. There will be the odd organization — I suspect small ones — who will come in for the whole thing. If you're a small organization, that's understandable.
Senator L. Smith: Just a comment: It would appear that, based on your experience with these departments and the fact that you mentioned earlier that most departments spend 10 to 15 per cent less than their actual budgets, this is probably a management strategy that was used by you folks to implement the plan; correct?
Mr. Matthews: We were aware of the recent history of lapsing. I will say that the lapse for 2013-14, government wide, isn't as big as it was in 2012-13. So the lapse is smaller. We know that, historically, departments don't spend all their money. We want them to have access to something, but we don't want them asking for it if they don't need it.
Senator L. Smith: Sounds like football, tough love.
Senator LeBreton: Thank you, Mr. Matthews. I think it's a good thing that Canada is finally moving into pay modernization. In the interests of taxpayers, that's a good thing.
I understand how departments apply for and get approval, because it's usually for programs that have been approved. I understand also that the Senate and the House of Commons, if they should require these additional funds, it's not through the same process as departments. I think the situation the Senate is faced with is very clear: $1.6 million; $1.1 million for Senate Administration employees and $0.5 million for senators' staff.
Chair, when we talk about when we may have to factor this in, or whether we can absorb this within our existing budgets, I would strongly make the argument that we could absorb it in our existing budgets. I don't think we have to make a decision until January, because at the present time we have nine vacancies in the Senate; at the end of June there will be eleven; at the end of summer there will be thirteen; and by the end of the year there will be sixteen vacancies. In the overall expenditures of the Senate, that would indicate to me that the Senate will be in a position to absorb the $1.6 million. I just wanted to put on the record that Mr. Matthews very clearly explained the situation in the government, writ large, and the unique circumstances that houses of Parliament face. I don't believe it will be necessary because we still have a fairly healthy budget for the Senate, and it is, to the credit of all of us, much better managed. I would make the case, now that we have this information and the reasoning behind it, that we as a group won't have to make a decision on this until very late in this fiscal year.
Senator Marshall: I have one last question. At the end of this fiscal year, how many pay periods will be in our expenditures for salaries? Will there be 26 pay periods or 25?
Mr. Matthews: There are 26 pay periods in every fiscal year. That will be the norm.
Senator Marshall: There will be 26.
Mr. Matthews: Yes.
The Chair: Do you have any sense as to how the House of Commons will manage this?
Mr. Matthews: The House of Commons is aware of this issue. We haven't had an indication from them yet whether they will request funding, yes or no, or in which supplementary estimates. The House of Commons did come in for funding in Supplementary Estimates (A) for a different item. It may be worthwhile — and I don't want to give advice to your CFO or senators on what to do — to coordinate with the House of Commons. It might make sense, if both were to make a funding request, that both be in the same supplementary estimates. That might seem logical to some; but I will leave that for your consideration.
As well, Mr. Chair, maybe I could comment on Senator LeBreton's observation. It is early in the year. We don't want departments telling us right now whether they need the money as we think it's too early. That's why we said to them to hang off for a while telling us if they need access to the central vote. That being said, our instruction to departmental CFOs is that we don't want departments taking drastic action to implement this. If they were to lay off staff with the explanation, "We changed pay systems and there's a charge so we can't afford you at your salary anymore," it wouldn't make sense. We are not looking for extraordinary action from departments. We just want to see how their financial situation is later in the year when they have a better sense of what they're going to spend. There will not be people laid off in departments because of this or any other extraordinary measures. It is just a matter of seeing where their spending is at later in the fiscal year.
My last point to flag for you is that it doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing request. You can come in and ask for part of it. When you get to that stage later in the fiscal year, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. It can be partial.
The Chair: To build on Senator LeBreton's observations, the real end of the year would be not in October when the Supplementary Estimates (B) are in, but as late as January; am I correct in that?
Mr. Matthews: We would need a written request from the Senate by early January at the latest. That would get you into Supplementary Estimates (C), which means your appropriations would be increased in March.
The Chair: Maybe you could explicate more clearly as I wouldn't want any misunderstanding. Most of us understand the difference between how line departments are financed and the Parliament of Canada. Someone might misunderstand that whatever Parliament asks for Parliament gets. I took that as a metaphor. Would you like to explain why the executive branch and all ministries are funded a certain way and why Parliament is funded a little differently?
Mr. Matthews: The end result is that all the money ends up in an appropriation bill that Parliament approves. The difference is the challenge function applied by Treasury Board Secretariat. As bureaucrats it's our job to challenge spending plans for departments. It would be inappropriate for us to put a strong challenge function on requests from the Senate or the House of Commons. It would be a little bit like the tail wagging the dog, I think.
The Chair: That's right.
Mr. Matthews: In effect, the Senate and the House of Commons are responsible to do much more self-policing on this front and scrub their numbers before making a request, understanding that the challenge function is different.
The Chair: It's consistent with our Westminster principle of governance: The parliamentary branch supervises the executive branch, not the other way around, although sometimes people may think it is the other way around.
Mr. Matthews: Exactly.
The Chair: Honourable senators, are there other questions on this explanation?
Senator Lang: I appreciate the explanation and I think we understand the situation. My question, I guess, is to Senate administration in respect of the overall financing of our administration and where we find ourselves projected for April 1 in the coming year in respect of this kind of money. My understanding is that we had a surplus last year, in part, as Senator LeBreton pointed out, because there were a number of vacancies and other aspects of our budget were not utilized. Are we going to have a surplus, everything being equal, looking forward to April 1, 2015?
Gary O'Brien, Clerk of the Senate, Clerk of the Committee: In the next week, steering has agreed to have another discussion on other proposals. You had one a few weeks ago on a certain initiative by our security people, and there are other important issues that we did not put in the main budget because plans were still being developed. It was not clear as things were not certain. At the next meeting of the full committee, we would like to bring forward other issues for the committee to consider. At that time, we will have a better picture of how we're doing and where we're going.
Senator Lang: Are you saying to the committee that if we accept all the so-called proposals in the next week we won't have a surplus? Is that what you are telling us?
Mr. O'Brien: We're saying that it's still early in the game. Senator LeBreton made a good point about unexpected vacancies; and we were not expecting Senator Dallaire's announcement. We would like to take one step at a time as opposed to predicting where we will be in the fall. We would like to have a number of measures put on the table for the committee to consider and the make a better assessment at that time.
Senator Lang: Obviously, last year we had a surplus. This year, I look forward to seeing exactly how we will manage our administration.
The Chair: Are there other comments or interventions on this? On behalf of the members of this honourable committee, thank you, Mr. Matthews and Ms. Santiago, for helping us to better appreciate the initiative. I can assure you that senators will do their part to help facilitate, in our small way, the Treasury Board reaching its objective. Thank you very much.
Mr. Matthews: Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Honourable senators, the next item on our agenda is Item Number 3, creation of an advisory working group on the review of the Senate Administrative Rules.
Perhaps I could ask either Senator Smith or Senator Furey, who are the other members of the steering committee, to speak to that.
Senator L. Smith: I believe that was in discussion with the finance department. The clerk mentioned that, as part of the date of our travel policy, finance suggested that we would look at any modifications to the SAR so that there's consistency. There is overlap in certain areas, i.e. the definition of "parliamentary functions" in the travel rules is also outlined in the SAR. That was one of the discussions about making sure the definition of "parliamentary functions" is consistent in both sets of rules.
Maybe the clerk would like to tell us how and when we would like to go through a potential upgrade, revision or review.
Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, senator.
The issue of reviewing the SAR, which was written in 2004 — it has been 10 years — was before the committee in the last session of Parliament, and it is before us now. So I think we were moving towards creating a working group to actually review the SAR, but then we did create the working group to review the travel policy. Some of the members might be overlapping on that, so I think there was some thinking that maybe we should finish the travel policy review before we start the SAR review. But it is on the agenda to see whether we want to proceed in that manner.
The Chair: Any other views?
Senator Tkachuk: I think we should finish the job, and make sure because we noticed, in the travel policy committee, that there were some differences, and I think it should all be consistent. Then, we make reference, in our travel policy, to the SAR, so I think someone should go through it and make sure we got it right before we post it.
The Chair: You mean proceed?
Senator Tkachuk: I think we should continue, yes. We are about halfway done, aren't we? I don't know. Yes, so it shouldn't take too long.
Senator Furey: I would like to agree with the clerk. We will finish our travel policy, and then, for consistency's sake, I think you are right, David, that we should probably try to keep the same group together to then do the review of the SAR so that the things that we are familiar with and that are cross-referenced we will be aware of. Otherwise, you will put new people in there, and they are going to have to start from scratch.
The Chair: Why don't we agree on that now?
Senator Furey: Larry did such a good job; we want to keep him here.
The Chair: I take it from the smiling and nodding of his head from the honourable senator from Saurel that we will finish this job and then deal with the other matter. So recorded.
Number 4 — creation of an advisory working group on the long-term vision plan. Senator Downe, you were the member on this in the past.
Senator Downe: Oh, yes, this is the committee Senator Stewart Olsen and I were on, and we lost all our friends. The committee wants me back, but you know my opinion on most of this stuff.
Senator Tkachuk: I like Percy's opinion. So I think that we just need one from our side, and they should continue their work. But I don't know how others may feel. Maybe his side doesn't feel that way, but I think he's a great guy.
Senator Downe: To summarize where we are on a host of things, the position we took — and I will speak for Senator Stewart Olsen on this as well because we were one on this — is that it is a temporary facility that we're moving into, and we should not incur the cost for someone else to use it 10 or 12 years later and us to carry it. Look at the Senate. The purpose of going there was to save the tens of millions of dollars from not building an infill in the East Block like the House of Commons is doing in the West Block, so it was a cost-saving, functional exercise. The committee had identified that it is off the hill but would serve the needs of the Senate on a temporary basis. So we tried to avoid, for example, loading up on a series of cafeterias when you have a food court in the Rideau Centre and fine dining in the Chateau Laurier and so on if people are so inclined. We tried to keep the costs reasonable. We found a little pushback, some of the departments that wanted this and that that really didn't address our needs and were really add-ons. That was the attitude we had: What do we need to have a fully functional Senate that meets all the criteria, that is not an embarrassment to the institution but is not a Cadillac version like the House of Commons is doing on their temporary infill, which we're trying to avoid?
Having said that, one of the options we had recommended was vending machines with sandwiches in lieu of a cafeteria. That went over like a lead balloon with some people. Our view was you could go across the street. Why would we build something we don't need when we're gone in 12 years, or the institution is gone in 12 years?
The Chair: I think we should take Senator Tkachuk's suggestion that his side will find a member to join with Senator Downe to continue the work. Let me mention that what is happening between 2018-28, is the emptying of this building and major renovations. There are three tenants in this building — the House of Commons and the Senate but also the Crown — and I want to report to the committee that I did meet with the representatives of the Crown indeed as late as yesterday. In our chamber, we have the Canadian throne, and there are many artifacts in this building that speak to our Canadian Crown. We do have to have this oversight group of parliamentarians. As we know, in the Constitution, the Parliament of Canada is defined as the House of Commons, the Senate and the Crown. They were very appreciative of us bringing this to them. They're prepared to identify someone to participate, and we're in the process of talking to the leadership for representatives to the oversight committee from the Senate. I have spoken with Speaker Scheer, and they are going to look for the people there.
I think it is really important. In that period of time of renovation, we have to have a hands-on, in my opinion, of what the plans are and what they are going to renovate so that we know, at the end, what is going to come out. Also, it seems to me that we have to take a serious look at what kinds of contemporary electronic equipment we should have there when we visit other parliaments around the world. It is amazing some of the technology that they have brought in, which is all common sense stuff.
So while the long-term vision plan that Senator Downe has been involved in is not specific to this, we have to concentrate on that. Any ideas you have, in terms of this committee, you might bring them forward.
Could we turn to item number 5 — telecommunications services outside the Parliamentary precinct?
[Translation]
Hélène Bouchard, Director, Information Services Directorate: Honourable senators, at the last meeting we presented two options for telecommunications services located outside of the parliamentary precinct.
The first option consisted in allocating a maximum amount to each telecommunications service, and the second was to completely eliminate those services. Today we would like to propose a third option which was raised during discussions at the last meeting.
[English]
So the third option would be to provide a monthly amount of $100 to cover the cost of telecommunications services outside of the Parliamentary precinct. Senators will have the option of applying this amount to the services of their choice, while remaining within the entitlement set out in the telecommunication policy. So, if the expense claim is less than the maximum, the smaller amount will be reimbursed. If the amount exceeds the maximum allotment, then the reimbursement will be for $100.
I am aware that it will be difficult to reach a consensus. However, one thing is certain: The problematic issue of ownership must be addressed as we regularly face both billing and service challenges.
Consequently, if we don't have a decision, we would like you to consider the following proposal so that the Senate is no longer directly involved with these service providers. Option A will be to transfer the ownership of these services from the Senate to the senators. This is not for all senators. It is probably 50-50. Senators will be fully responsible for managing the services outside of the Parliamentary precinct, which means activation, technical support, bill payment, deactivation, and all expense claims for these services will be submitted monthly through e-claims. Also, I would suggest that it may also be an opportunity to review the number of allowed telephone lines outside the parliamentary precinct. Presently only eight senators have two telephone lines outside the parliamentary precinct.
I am still open for questions.
Senator Marshall: I had one question. On page 2 of the briefing note, and this is information that has been provided before, but where we say 42 senators have an Internet account but 29 senators have a secure ID, does that mean that we're providing Internet service for 42 senators but they're not all being used for Senate-related purposes? That's what it looks like to me.
Ms. Bouchard: I don't want to say that it is not for related purposes because they can do research, but what we wanted to explain is we only have 29 senators who have a secure ID who could access the Senate network.
Senator Marshall: Only 15 are using it?
Ms. Bouchard: What we're seeing is we can see who is using it and we can say it is probably only 15 senators who are using it, yes.
Senator Marshall: I think this is the third time we have gone through this.
Ms. Bouchard: Yes.
Senator Marshall: On two previous occasions I said that I think we should just cut this out. I wanted to say I'm still of that opinion.
The Chair: Senator Lang, yes.
Senator Lang: I don't share the view of my colleague to cut it out totally. There is an expense that we all have at our homes, or I would like to think we do. We don't stop being senators when we go back to our home region, and also at the same time, when we're here, we're in contact with our region. So there is a responsibility. The question is how much responsibility does the Senate have in respect to our region and our telecommunications that we have there?
It would seem to me that we should be looking at this from a number of objectives. One is how can we cut the administrative costs and administration responsibilities we put to the administration because of the system we have? The system, we have been told, is cumbersome, is time-consuming and it is costing money. At the end of the day, are we accomplishing what we want to accomplish?
It would seem to me that we should go with a direct amount of money per month per senator to recognize that everybody has a telephone, everybody in 99.9 per cent of the cases has a computer, and they use that computer, at least in part or in good part, for Senate business.
So knowing that, why wouldn't we just do two things? Take Recommendation B, "X" amount of dollars per month per Senate office. That is not unlike what anyone does, for example, if they have a rental of accommodation here or they happen to own their own home, that they let the administration know that they do actually have an Internet account and a phone account and you are reimbursed a minimum of $100. And then nobody has to check to see whether I had $90 or $75 or I had $125.
At the end of the day, there can be a mean established and accepted. I think our objective here — and I am new to this committee and I won't be able to say that much longer, but I'm going to say this: It seems to me we are putting rules on top of rules or changing rules and putting more rules in. At the end of the day we have the administration still counting the same chit one way or the other.
The objective is to say, look, it costs you "X" amount of dollars for a senator or a member of Parliament in Ottawa and we should try to make it as easy as we possibly can and try to keep administrative costs down instead of this situation where let's call in the auditor and see if we can catch Percy E. Downe to see if he made a telephone call.
Why don't we look at it from that perspective philosophically and then take the mean and say, look, at the end of the day it will average out? That's my sermon from the mount.
Senator Tkachuk: My view is that we do have a telephone system that provides us with access to telephones for no cost. We have our office phone and we have our cell phone, so we can call anybody for business on our cell phone. My home phone is like everybody else's home phone. I pay a standard rate, so whether I use it for the Senate phone call or I use it for myself doesn't really matter.
As far as the Internet is concerned, well, you know, I use it personally as well so I don't charge my Internet costs. I don't think we should supply any of that. I think we supply a computer for the office. I think that's a great thing for each senator, so you know, my view is why we're worrying about paying for somebody's phone in somebody's house in this day and age is beyond me, and I don't know why we would even consider the monthly fee.
Senator Fraser: I agree with Senator Lang. It is defeating the purpose to suggest that we would have a flat monthly amount but then every single $5 item on it would have to be checked by somebody. We're going to spend just as much money checking —
Senator Lang: More.
Senator Fraser: Or more. As I have said here before, I believe strongly that the method of work and uses of technology of individual senators vary widely. However, whatever a given senator decides to use as his or her bundle of technology and practices — we're all doing work. We're doing work when we're in our homes or when we're in our offices here, and we're probably out of pocket for it anyway, despite the apparently generous allowances made.
I think a flat monthly amount, just flat, and let us decide whether we are going to be more lavish in terms of spending because we're willing to dip into our pockets or not. I would think that $100 a month would be a minimum for what we end up spending.
For example, we're going to be responsible under this proposal for maintenance of all the equipment. Well, if you get somebody in for a maintenance call, there's a hundred bucks plus right there, boom. I think it would be much easier and simpler for everybody. We wouldn't have to be carving out separate credit card accounts and whatnot to send to Senate finance, and Senate finance wouldn't have to have somebody going through endless bits and pieces of paper to see if we were $5 under the allowable amount. Just simplify it and do it.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I don't think that the debate has matured sufficiently to make a decision today, but we're going to have to make a decision before we break. And so let's table this item, but it would be important for us to consult among ourselves as to what the best model would be. At the end of the day, we're all operating on the same principle. Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: Chair, it might be helpful if the two caucuses were consulted, too, because we have different views from different members. It might be time to engage caucus members — because 42, according to this note, people have Internet — on what their views are and so on. We can come back better informed.
The Chair: Maybe we can ask Senator Furey and Senator Smith to take that initiative with their respective caucuses.
Senator Dawson: Could we have an idea of what the costs are for option A, option B? We know there's no cost if we take the options away. We're not paying anything anymore. How much is it costing now? How much would the cost be? If we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars, it's not the same as if we're talking $90,000. I'm not here as a member all the time. You have spent hours debating $90,000 or $100,000 or $180,000 expense when we know we have a million odd that we're going to be transferring from one year to the other and we spent probably less time on that.
I would like to have an estimate of what we're talking about as cost.
[Translation]
Senator Charette-Poulin: I think this is an important discussion. One of the realities we have to face is that we all represent a region and our budget does not allow us to serve our region well. The economic argument is important, but we must not forget our roles and responsibilities as senators.
I will give you an example. In northern Ontario, since the seats are all occupied by members of the NDP, I no longer have access to the help of a political office to provide services to people who send me emails or who call me on matters of immigration, passports or others.
I would simply like us to take our roles and responsibilities into account in any economic argument.
The Chair: I think it is possible to discuss this at caucus. The clerk may contact independent senators so they can reflect on this and get back to us on this topic.
Honourable senators, I see our time has expired.
(The committee adjourned.)