Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 3 - Evidence - June 19, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 19, 2014
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9 a.m. for the consideration of administrative and other matters.
Senator Noël A. Kinsella (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we have a busy agenda this morning. We're going to begin with the adoption of the minutes of the proceedings of the June 12 meeting. Is there a motion? Senator Marshall, seconded by Senator Cordy.
Senator Lang: Did we just accept the minutes?
The Chair: The question before us is for the adoption of the minutes. On debate. Senator Lang.
Senator Lang: I'd just like to register my concern on what I believe is the projected surplus on the committee's budget to fund the $72,000 for the Asia-Pacific conference. I also want to raise a concern and have it registered on the record that when we allocated the dollars for one of the programs at the last meeting — I think it was for $320,000 for the computer program — that I was told then it was going to be brought from within existing budgets. However, it's actually predicated, I understand, on the committees not spending money that's been allocated and that, in turn, would offset those costs.
I'm not going to hold this up, but I'm going to say I'm concerned about this way of budgeting. I don't think this is the way to do business.
The Chair: Are there any other comments arising from the minutes?
Senator Marshall: I'm concerned also about the budget and the number of items that have been brought forward for which we haven't identified the funding. But up until now, my understanding is that whatever we've approved that required additional funding — that's being taken from the existing budgetary funding. But the one on the Iris system is going to be discussed this morning.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. We accept the minutes, with those comments being made on them.
I would like to move around the agenda, if you would permit me. The first item is number 8. Can we deal with it? These are quick matters; it's important that we get them done.
The joint advisory working group on security: We've had one in the past and it needs to be re-established. We're recommending that Senators Furey, Wallace and Nolin be the members on that committee. Is there agreement on that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Number 9 should read a ''joint advisory working group on the renovation of the Centre Block'' and not ''long-term vision.''
As we have spoken about this briefly at a number of meetings, the House of Commons is equally concerned about ensuring that parliamentarians will have input and oversight of the renovations that are planned. The planning would be going on now, to be commenced in the year 2018. The plan is that we would move out of this building. The Senate would be moving to the Government Conference Centre across from the Chateau Laurier, and the House of Commons would be moving into the refurbished West Block.
We're recommending that Senators Martin, Marshall, Downe and Joyal constitute a joint advisory working group on the renovation to the Centre Block, so we can at a very early stage have some inside knowledge as to what the plan is to protect the integrity of the Centre Block. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. So let's go back to number 2, the eighth report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets.
Senator L. Smith: Thank you, chair. Honourable senators, I had the honour to present the eighth report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, which deals with two budget requests from the Human Rights Committee. The first is a request for a $167,128 for the committee to travel to Beirut, Lebanon, and Amman, Jordan, for their study on the mandates and practices of the UNHCR and UNICEF regarding the needs of children in conflict situations.
Your subcommittee recognizes that the Human Rights Committee received an order of reference from the Senate to undertake this study and we have no authority to challenge that mandate. That being said, we are tasked with the prudent management of public funds, and we urge all committees to ensure that their studies are focused and that any proposed activity has clear objectives.
[Translation]
The subcommittee discussed the proposed trip with senators Jaffer and Ataullahjan at length. The Human Rights Committee is definitely determined to carry out this project, but the subcommittee is concerned about the potential risks of travelling to regions with so much instability.
[English]
Therefore, we are recommending the full release of funds for this activity. We strongly believe that no pressure should be put on the committee staff, specifically the committee clerk and the analysts, to accompany the delegation; it should be their free choice.
We also note that while the budget includes funds for all members of the committee to travel, it is very unlikely, based on the historical patterns, that they will do so. Therefore, we expect a significant clawback of surplus funds following the completion of this activity.
In terms of the second budget, it was a request for $10,000 for a graphic designer for the committee's study of The Hague Abductions Convention. We were told that these funds would be used to produce a guide for the parents of abducted children, in addition to the report to the Senate. We were reminded that the Human Rights Committee produced a parents' guide and the youth guide as part of their cyberbullying study. Those guides were essentially executive summaries of the committee's report, tailored for those particular audiences. The guide being proposed under The Hague Abduction Convention study would be to inform parents of the abducted children what resources are available to them.
We do not believe that producing such a guide falls within the mandate of the committee or that Senate funds should be used for this purpose. The Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada produced a guidebook entitled International Child Abduction: A Guidebook for Left-Behind Parents.
If the Human Rights Committee believes this document can be improved, it is certainly within their power to recommend changes to it in their report to the Senate. However, your committee does not believe it is appropriate for a Senate committee to be producing guides for the public on available government and other resources. If we start down that road, one can imagine the requirements for ongoing updates, quite apart from the fact that we would be doing what properly belongs in the purview of the government. We therefore do not recommend the release of funds for this purpose.
I move the adoption of the eighth report.
The Chair: As moved by the Honourable Senator L. Smith. Discussion?
Senator Doyle: What will be the outcome of the activity like the Beirut trip? We know it's going to be a fact-finding mission, but what will be the outcome of it on our end? What will we achieve by it?
The Chair: I have my own opinion, but I think it should be up to the members of the committee if they have questions and comments to make on it. Do you want to respond to that particular one, Senator Smith?
Senator L. Smith: I'll ask Senator Cordy if she would also like to help this explanation, as well.
When we asked the question in terms of objectives, obviously the Human Rights Committee wants to do a study and get a good handle on what's happening in the two camps they were talking about visiting, especially for children.
I think it's something to bring attention to. I know there are other groups that are participating in this type of activity, but there is a desire for Canada, which has shown a great deal of respect, involvement and money put towards people and children in these camps and to do a study, conduct it and get feedback so that they release that report as a perspective of Canadian parliamentarians going in and looking at what's going on in a troubled situation. That is pretty well what was purported as one of the objectives.
Senator Cordy, maybe you can help me with that.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. As the chair and the deputy chair said, it was a committee, because Senator Smith asks that question to every committee that comes before us; namely, what are your objectives? And they said, ''Well, it's pretty hard to predict exactly what we're going to see.''
They felt that, when studying this particular issue, actually being on the ground would have the most impact — being eye to eye, looking at the children and seeing the conditions. It's one thing to read about it; it's quite another thing to actually see it on the ground.
These are refugees. Certainly the Human Rights Committee has been looking at the rights of the child. Canada contributes significantly to this particular campaign to the camps and to refugees. Many of these refugees may, in fact, be coming to Canada at some point.
Mr. Harper is certainly tuned into this issue and has been in that area of the world.
The Human Rights Committee is looking at issues clearly related to human rights. Thankfully, they don't have to do a whole lot within the country of Canada; therefore, much of their travel would be to other parts of the world. The last time this committee travelled was, I think, in 2006 or 2008.
Senator L. Smith: They have not travelled since 2008, and it's not an issue whether they have or haven't. It's the issue of the importance of this particular study, especially when we talk about the numbers.
Senator Cordy, I think we were given maps. There were three arrows going into Turkey, into Jordan, out of Syria. They were talking about millions of people who are displaced.
Senator Cordy: They have spoken to Foreign Affairs, clearly, on a number of occasions regarding this. And Foreign Affairs officials have been before their committee. The chair and deputy chair told us that parliamentarians going to these camps open more doors than officials going into the region would. They felt that they would be able to come back and report to Foreign Affairs, and of course report to the Senate when they completed their study.
Senator L. Smith: I might add that, with Senator Cordy and Senator LeBreton, we are very thorough in our questions in terms of money and value for money, so we asked the question in terms of participation. There has been a committee, I believe Fisheries, where in one case where they had seven or eight senators who went on the first trip and suddenly for the second trip there were 12 people who wanted to go. They were deemed not going on the trip because if you're going to participate as part of the team on one trip, you should participate in all trips.
We're asking the tough questions in terms of value for money and I'm pretty confident that we're going to see a clawback because it is a very tense situation, but an important one to get a handle on. If you look at our percentages of between 17 and 45 per cent of budgets spent on travel, I think you will realize that 167 is the top line and we would probably come in somewhere around $100,000.
Senator Cordy: The point that Senator Smith raised regarding staff attending is the same provision we put in when the Defence Committee was travelling to Afghanistan. That's not something new. It's just that no staff member should be forced to go into an area that might not be considered one of the safest spots in the world.
Senator Doyle: Does the House of Commons have a human rights committee as well?
Senator Cordy: I can't answer that. I don't know.
Senator Doyle: So it's not a duplication?
Senator Cordy: I know our committees on this side are different than on the House of Commons side in terms of the human rights aspects. But I can't tell you; I don't know that.
Senator Doyle: Will anyone from the House of Commons be going on this trip as well? Will this be a joint effort?
Senator Cordy: This is a Senate committee so we would have no say on whether or not the House of Commons would go.
Senator Marshall: I can support approval for the funding for this because the study has been approved by the Senate. I have couple of concerns, one is for the money. When I look at our overall budget for committee travel, we are edging up close to the top. I know we're anticipating clawbacks, but I'm a bit concerned until we know exactly what we will be clawing back from other committees. We're estimating around $200,000 at this time, but it is an issue. Like I say, we're getting near the top of our budget.
The other issue that concerns me about the trip is that Senator Cordy was talking about the Department of Foreign Affairs, and they had spoken to officials in that department, but someone mentioned the issue of security. I have some concerns about our senators and staff going to an area where there may be an issue with security. I don't know what department would be involved in having that discussion with them; maybe it's Foreign Affairs. I would like to have discussions with some government department to make sure that our senators and staff are not at risk when they do this travel. Those are my two points.
Senator Nolin: I have one question. What about interpretation? In Beirut it's mainly French and Arabic. Did you question, or have in mind, interpretation costs in that budget?
Senator L. Smith: That's an excellent question, Senator Nolin.
Senator Nolin: I'm telling you, when I read ''fact-finding,'' I become a bit uneasy because it's a coded word for ''let's do something in English and if we have some French colleagues, well, we'll translate that.'' That's not the way to go. I don't agree with that. It's up to the committee to decide if you want to spend the appropriate money. This time, for those who don't speak French, Beirut is going to be a bit of a problem.
[Translation]
Heather Lank, Principal Clerk, Committees Directorate: Senator Nolin, I think you would be happy to know that $3,000 is set aside for interpreters in the budget, under item 0444; so, yes, some money is earmarked for interpretation.
Senator Nolin: Thank you.
Ms. Lank: You are welcome.
Senator L. Smith: Whenever we discuss international travel, the questions we ask have to do with the ability to communicate in the languages spoken in those countries — not only one language. When foreign affairs representatives travel to Asia, three or four individuals will be able to speak Mandarin and other dialects. Similarly, I think three or four different languages will be involved during this trip.
Senator Nolin: I am asking the question because this has often happened in the past, and I hope we will put an end to it. Even in Canada, when committees travel, instead of calling that an ''official trip'' of the committee, it is referred to as a ''day for consideration,'' an ''exploration operation,'' so we can eliminate transportation and interpretation. I do not think that is the right way to do things.
Senator L. Smith: When we toured the north with the transportation committee, we managed to find people who could speak Inuit languages. We know perfectly well — and this concerns Canada — that we need to have people who can interpret in other languages.
Senator Nolin: Congratulations.
[English]
Senator Munson: I have a few words. I have sat on the Human Rights Committee for a number of years, and this is an extremely important trip from my perspective. The Prime Minister has been there at those camps, and this is parliamentary involvement. Human Rights has travelled to these great capitals, like Geneva, and we've sat around and had conversations about the rights of the child and others. Sometimes you say, ''What comes out of that?'' But this is on the ground. This is real people in real conditions, many who have Canadian connections.
I'd just like to put on the record that we always talk about value for money; this is about value for people and people's lives. The money is extremely important, but when we think of what these parliamentarians can do on this trip, making connections with families here, we need to know more about the numbers of Syrian refugees coming to this country. To me, this trip is very significant and I always like to put on the record that it's our neighbourhood, too, and it matters.
Senator Lang: Well, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I want to go with Senator Marshall again with respect to our overall budget. We are continually piecemealing and improving these, thinking somebody is going to take care of us at the end of the year, and I'm not too sure who it's going to be.
I want to make a couple of points. I thought Senator Doyle made a good point on what is happening on the house side. Are any house committees actually looking at the issue? I would suggest that perhaps one of the requirements, when the subcommittee is reviewing these budgets, is that any proposal brought forward can maybe include information of what the house side is studying comparable or in respect to what we are looking at doing. I don't see the reason why the house committee on the other side would be studying an issue and we would be studying the same issue, if that were to occur. I think we should be informing ourselves to make sure we know what's happening on the other side; it's only half a block away from us.
When we have this information, I would also like to see that we get a written copy of the proposal. I haven't gotten that in my package, so I've had to depend on the verbal dissertation that just took place here and I would prefer to have a written copy. I'd like to get it the night before so I can read it. The other thing I would like to point to is, in this particular instance, it talks about a motion passed by the Senate. I think those motions should be included in the documents so that we understand the directions from the Senate, so we know full well as individual members of the decision being taken, just so that we're aware of it. Those are my comments. I'm not going to dispute the fact that it's a serious issue. I think we all agree that it's a serious issue.
Senator Seth: Thank you, chair. I'm also in the same line as Senator Marshall and Senator Lang. I understand from Senator Cordy that, in 2008, this committee travelled for the same reason. No, it was not the same reason?
Senator Cordy: No.
Senator Seth: What happens after this? When we come back and report to Foreign Affairs, what follows that? How does the process follow up on the outcome?
Senator Cordy: Keep in mind that every committee that files a report has to file it in the Senate Chamber, and there are discussions at the time. If anybody wishes to speak to a committee report in the chamber, it is your right to do so.
When Human Rights completes the trip and the study, they will bring forward a report to the chamber. They will present it. Usually the chair and the deputy chair speak. Other committee members may speak, but anybody in the chamber is welcome to contribute to that discussion on their report as to what they learned on this mission.
Senator Seth: My question is: What outcome do we get? What exactly do we get out of that? That's the most important. How do we follow up in the long term? What is our mandate?
Senator Cordy: I think we answered that question earlier about the outcomes. It's very difficult to say that they're going to come back with a list of 10 things that they will have accomplished or learned because that's why they're going; it's a fact-finding mission. They can't say, ''This is what we're going to learn; this is what we're going to find out.'' They've done background work before they go so that they have a sense of it, but, really, what they're looking at is the situation of refugees in this particular area. Because Canada contributes significantly in a financial way to these camps, they feel it's incumbent upon parliamentarians, particularly members of the Human Rights Committee, to find out how our money is being spent and what's happening to the refugees there. As Senator Munson said earlier, the Prime Minister, Mr. Harper, has already been to the camps, so Canada plays a significant role. Therefore, the Human Rights Committee feels that, because this is the mandate of their committee, they should be looking at the refugees in these camps.
Senator Seth: I understood everything, but my question is: Is there any procedure after studying all of that and learning what is happening at the camps, the situation? Do we follow up? Do we learn and make it right? That was my question.
Senator Cordy: I would assume that members of the committee feel that they can make a difference by going there. Foreign Affairs has said that, by parliamentarians going there, it should open doors that they wouldn't be able to open as bureaucrats. Then, with the report that would be tabled in the Senate, hopefully, with good communication and a lot of input by the committee, they will be able to give their findings across the country, to Canadians who are concerned about what's going on there. Other than that, I really can't say.
Senator L. Smith: Could I just add one point, chair?
The Chair: Let's not forget, this report has two elements to it.
Senator L. Smith: Right. If I could just give some feedback because there were two issues brought up by Senator Marshall and Senator Lang. As to the budgets, Heather and our group are very conscious of where we start off during the year and how much money we have left. We also recognize that there could be other projects that are coming up. We're trying to anticipate the flow of money in and out. We're always watching the clawbacks to see what type of money we have that will be coming back so that we can have a balanced approach. We also recognize that we are in a time of austerity, so we're trying to balance between the needs of the committees and the actual reality of how we manage public finances.
Second, on Senate approval, this is something we need help on from all of the senators in the room. These mandates are approved by the Senate. When a motion comes up and a head of a committee makes a motion for a study, what we need to do is have a better debate in the Senate because the truth is — and it's not a criticism — how much do we really debate the motion to say, ''Why are you going? What do you want to do?'' Basically, people make a motion, and, most of the time, there are not a lot of questions and the motions are approved.
Then it comes to our committee, and people are asking for money. Our mandate is to study the money side, but we've changed our mandate and have been supported by the people in the Senate, in Internal Economy, to be able to ask more probing questions. We have to make sure we're balanced in the type of questions we ask so that we can extract as much information as possible. Once the mandate is given to a committee by the Senate, we need to do that up front in terms of being more proactive.
I would just ask people. It's not a criticism; it's fact. Maybe it's an opportunity for us to improve the way that we find out more information, which may be helpful to people like yourself, Dan, who are asking the questions, and to Senator Marshall, so we can be better informed going into the process. Then we will maximize even more of what we're trying to achieve.
Senator Cordy: Just to follow up: Senator Smith spoke about that eloquently. Senator Comeau, who used to be on the committee and on the subcommittee with Senator Smith and I also used to hound us to death in the chamber about looking at the mandates for committees. I think the discussion this morning was excellent and the questions that you asked were excellent questions. We should probably be doing this more also at this committee — asking questions about it. I think it's also very important that those same questions be asked in the chamber. Mandates are often passed on Thursday afternoon, and there's little discussion about the outcomes or the intentions of the committee, whether or not the committee intends to travel within Canada or internationally. I think those are all excellent questions that were asked this morning.
I think that chairs and deputy chairs in the chamber can't get defensive when people are asking questions and, in fact, should use those opportunities to expand on their mandate and what they intend to do.
Senator Munson: I want to add a little reality check to this morning's discussion. I'm just looking at iPolitics, and there's a brief part at the beginning of the story. When I talk about our own neighbourhood, it says: ''Speaking from their new apartment in Laval, Quebec, the Dandachi family says the past 17 days have been like a 'honeymoon' compared to the past three years spent fleeing the chaos of the Syrian war and living as refugees in Lebanon.''
I think that tells us why this particular trip is extremely important. I just thought I'd throw that into the mix.
Senator Lang: I want to go back into the process again. I appreciate what Senator Smith and Senator Cordy just spoke of. One of the problems that you do have and that I'm finding being a new chair of a committee is that we're asking for terms of reference, as an example, for a couple of studies for this coming year. It's a double-edged sword. We've done some internal work, but, at the same time, in order to be able to put our work plan together, we need a mandate from the Senate so that we can get the bureaucracy involved and then put that work plan together so that we can bring it forward to you. As an example, I don't know, but I would think that, in one particular aspect of a study, we may want to go to Washington. But that recommendation hasn't been made.
I agree in part with what you've said, but I think the principle of the issue has to be discussed in the Senate, recognizing that the work plan has to be put together and that that's why we have the subcommittee to approve the principle of what we've agreed to. I just want to put that on the record.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. I think we've had a good discussion here. If you check the record over the years, every now and again, more emphasis is put, and, when a motion is made in the chamber for an order of reference for a given standing committee or special committee to do something, there is fulsome debate. But sometimes that slips away. It's good that we have a fulsome debate because it's recorded in our Hansard, and everyone will know exactly the mandate that the Senate gave in the order of reference.
I think, obviously, we have a great subcommittee and you are doing assiduous work. It really has helped, as has been demonstrated by our good discussion.
Is there any further comment on the second part of the report?
It's moved by Senator Smith, seconded by Senator Doyle, that we adopt this eighth report. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: So ordered. Next item. Senator Smith, the ninth report.
Senator L. Smith: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets.
At its meeting on April 3, 2014, the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration asked your committee to examine how committee budgets are presented. Does everyone have a copy of this?
Senator Cordy: It is in our folder.
Senator L. Smith: You all have copies of this report. If there are extra copies, maybe we could have one for Senator McCoy. Does anyone have an extra copy for Senator McCoy, please?
Senator Munson: Here you go.
Senator L. Smith: I apologize, senator. I asked Jim to cut down another tree so we could do this.
Senator McCoy: Thank you so much.
Senator L. Smith: I'm sorry; I didn't realize you didn't have it.
Senator McCoy: No problem.
Senator L. Smith: Does everyone have a copy?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator L. Smith: At its meeting on April 3, 2014, the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration asked your subcommittee to examine how committee budgets are presented in the Senate. Your subcommittee understands the concern expressed by some senators that the public is not necessarily aware of the relationship between committee budgets as presented in the Senate for approval and actual expenditures. Therefore, some people may be under the false impression that the amounts included in committee budgets are what actually gets spent. In reality, in the last 10 fiscal years, committees have collectively spent between 17 per cent and 54 per cent of their total approved budgets. Your subcommittee, therefore, considered how it might enhance public understanding while respecting the requirements set out in the Senate Administrative Rules, SARS.
Your committee notes that SARS chapter 3:06, paragraph 2.(1), requires that committee budgets for anything but bills, the subject matter of bills, or estimates be adopted by the committee, submitted by the committee to Internal Economy for its consideration, and presented to the Senate by report of the committee with the budget and a report of the Internal Economy Committee appended. SARS also requires that the budget include a general estimate of the total cost of special study and detailed estimate of special expenses of the committee for a study for the fiscal year.
Your committee believes that having committee budgets published in the Journals of the Senate is necessary for transparency. They include useful information regarding the committee's work plans, including whether they intend to travel to conduct public hearings and/or fact-finding missions and, if so, their destinations. The budgets also include the maximum amount that can be spent for general expenses as well as for any travel activity.
[Translation]
However, it should be noted that the budgets are normally developed on the basis of the full membership of the committee travelling, even though, in reality, the actual size of the delegation is usually considerably smaller. For instance, over the past three fiscal years, delegations have ranged from three to nine senators travelling, with seven being the most common number of senators in a group.
Since most of these committees budgeted for 12 members to travel, it is not surprising that their expenditures were considerably lower than the approved budgets. In 2012-13, for example, committees spent between 14 per cent and 65 per cent of the approved budget for their travel activities.
[English]
The actual expenditures for committee travel are reported on an annual basis in the Senate Committees Directorate's Annual Report on Activities and Expenditures as well as on a sessional basis to the Senate in rule 12-26 reports. In addition, the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration decided earlier this year that committee post-activity expenditure reports, which include a line-by-line breakdown of travel budgets and expenditures, should be made public. The first such public reports are expected to be tabled in the fall of 2014.
Since there is a significant time lag between the presentation of committee budgets for Senate approval and the reporting of actual expenditures, your subcommittee recommends that starting September 2014, Appendix B, which includes the amount recommended by the Internal Economy Committee for each travel activity, also include a statement of the budget approved by the Senate for each travel activity is the maximum amount that can be spent for that activity. Budgets normally include funds for the full membership of the committee to travel. In general, a reduced delegation actually travels and efforts are made to find additional savings.
Therefore, actual expenditures are expected to be considerably below the approved budget; and they will be reported to the Senate. Any surplus funds remaining at the conclusion of the travel activity will be clawed back and could be made available for allocation to committees for other activities. Having this statement published in the Journals of the Senate at the time of the budget application should increase the public's understanding of the committee budget process and provide a useful context for understanding the budget figures, in particular, that they are considerably higher than anticipated expenditures.
As a comment: The purpose of reading this through and doing what we're doing is tied to transparency, public information, a better understanding of what we're doing, and, of course, for all senators to have a clear understanding of how the rules work in terms of committee.
I know it was a little long, and you are probably looking at me asking, ''Why did you do it?'' I think it's important that the subcommittee and the full Committee on Internal Economy publicly show people that we have a desire to share information.
The Chair: Senator, would you move the adoption by this committee of your report?
Senator L. Smith: I move that the committee adopt this report.
The Chair: Seconded by Senator Cordy. Questions, comments?
Senator Enverga: It says that we spent about 14 per cent of 65 per cent. Why don't we just make it standard that when we do a forecast of the expenses, we make sure it is within the forecasted period? Let's say we expect about 65 per cent expenses. Why don't we just do a forecast of 80 per cent instead of 100 per cent? That would be easier for our accounting and much easier for our budgeting.
Senator L. Smith: That's an excellent question. It's one that we have discussed on an infrequent basis within this committee. There's an answer that Heather usually gives me, because I dogged her and Jane dogged her and Marjorie dogged her, in terms of just putting in a number with six senators as opposed to 12 senators. Under the rules, each committee is allowed to have up to 12 senators that travel. The next question could be: Why don't we change the rules? We want to make sure we give senators a chance, if they're on a committee of 12 members, so that each senator has an opportunity to experience what the committee is doing. That may or may not address your question, but if we're going to give the senators the right to travel or to participate, we have to be able to include the total numbers and then make sure we manage the numbers properly.
Senator Cordy, do you have something to add?
Senator Cordy: You answered that very well. If somebody is going to sit in committee for 10 months and then the committee travels to Vancouver on a fact-finding mission, it is my belief that every person on that committee should be allowed to attend the hearing in Vancouver and that a committee chair and deputy chair not be forced to choose four or five or six members of the committee who will be able to attend.
If you are going to be part of the committee and you are a contributing member of the committee then you should also do the travel to your region of the country or any region of the country, because it is all part of the study that you will do.
Senator Enverga: The reality here right now is that it has too much opposition. It should be plus one for every government committee member, right?
Senator Cordy: If you are travelling in the summertime or in September or break weeks, then it doesn't have to be matched up. It has to be that the whole committee can travel. When we're giving the funds, we ask when they're planning to travel. Most committees, I find lately, are travelling during break weeks, which means, I believe, and maybe the whips can speak, that there isn't any matching. Would that be correct, Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yes, that's correct. If the Senate is sitting, we usually have discussions. I have discussions with Senator Munson regarding who is going and the numbers going. As you say, if the Senate is not sitting, there's flexibility for all members to travel.
Senator Enverga: We can make an exception if it's break week. If it's not break week, then we should make sure that —
Senator Cordy: I don't know why we would bother making an exception. Why don't we just leave it as-is whereby every member of a committee has the right to attend hearings wherever they're taking place and then the whips can determine if there are extenuating circumstances.
Senator Munson: With our numbers, everyone can go.
The Chair: Senators, are we ready for the question?
Senator Lang: I raised the question a number of meetings ago how we actually budget, and that hasn't been addressed directly in respect to whether or not we're doing this the way it should be done.
I'm going to support this particular initiative right now, but I think we should be looking at a system where we disclose where committees are going, what they're doing and why they're doing it, why we have to disclose a proposed budget at that time. I don't quite understand. At the end of the day, we've all agreed that it's somewhat misleading. It would seem to me at the end of the day the actual numbers that are spent are the numbers that should be published so people understand what it cost.
Senator L. Smith: To give some feedback, Senator Lang, that is an excellent point you bring up. That's exactly why the subcommittee sat down with Heather and her group and decided to submit an annual report that is going to go out each year. It was brought up, why don't you do it twice a year? Let's try to do it once a year properly. What we're going to do is show the two sides of the portrait: what the Senate committees are able to do and what they actually do.
The reason for doing this for transparency is we want to show what they actually do. Because people will ask the same questions that both of you have asked, ''Why don't you have fewer people travel or preplan your budget better so if you only spend 45 per cent of your total budget we will know that at the beginning?''
However, when we submit this report that comes out annually, you're going to see a report on committee A saying what their budget was and their actual was, and it falls within the Rules of the Senate. We want everyone to know publicly how we're managing taxpayers' money.
It's an excellent initiative that Heather and her group put forward. We're not going to take the credit for it, because we were the people who were given the opportunity by Heather to make this work.
Sorry, Heather Lank.
The Chair: Senators, thank you for this. As you can all see, a lot of work has been done to get things well on track and moving in the direction that I think everybody wants to move in.
On the motion, are we agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Next item, number 4, additional funding requirements. I will ask the Clerk just to bring this forward. The steering committee has also been working very hard, and we have a couple of proposals to submit today.
Gary O'Brien, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments, Senate of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honourable senators, the proposal today is to seek your permission to fund two additional projects that were not put in the budget, because of our restrictions with our budget restraint program of having a 5 per cent reduction over three years from our base three years ago, which we achieved.
We also have additional projects that have come forward since then. And last week, we thank you very much, you approved two projects: the Asia-Pacific conference, which will be held in Vancouver, a funding requirement of $73,000 this fiscal year; as well as the Parliamentary network upgrade, which is a joint initiative of both houses a few years in the making, and you approved this for $350,000.
We are in the month of June. We had done an analysis of our budget, projected surplus of where we can be, and we feel that at this point in time we have a budget surplus from within the Senate Administration of $400,000.
In the fall, as we move forward, we're going to be relooking at that surplus. As we get closer and closer to the end of the fiscal year, our numbers will be firmer and we'll see where we're at at this time.
The only projects that were still on the table that need to be funded before we rise, if you agree, is the second phase of our Iris, which is an upgrade of our legislative sector's computer system. It is very much out of date, and you have approved phase one. Phase one is basically dealing with the ComDB, our committee's database. It has just been such a success, and we're so pleased with that.
When we commenced Iris, we made it very clear that it's up to Internal Economy to stop this at any time once these modules or phases are completed.
We're now trying to go into phase two and we seek your permission. The budget requirement for this fiscal year is $72,000. We're prepared to talk about phase two and how it will help serve senators better.
The other funding initiative which needs to be addressed is the requirement to assist with the Auditor General's audit. Again, this was something that, although it began in the last fiscal year, we had no idea of how long this was going to take. This is an awful lot of work. Our finance people have been working so hard and so well with the Auditor General in providing them the numerous documents that they are asking for. I think there are 40 auditors on the floor, and they're always asking for information and our people are turning this around within the five-day turnaround that we committed to. The Auditor General's people are very pleased with the service that has been provided.
However, we do need additional funding for this to be able to provide this service, and that's $120,000. If we look back at where these four initiatives have come from, as I said, the Senate Administration sees a surplus of $400,000, so we are able to fund, from within the Senate Administration, if you agree — well, you've already agreed with the Parliamentary network upgrade of $350,000. Iris is about $72,000, so more or less from within the Senate Administration we can fund these two initiatives.
We are also looking for an additional source from within our budget, which is our committees. Again, we have provided for this very adequately within our Senate budget, despite the three-year reduction that we have achieved.
Again, the projected surplus from within committees at this point in time is around $400,000. We're asking from the committees, which will be a total of $193,000 at this point, the Asia-Pacific conference that you've already approved, and the OAG audit of $120,000. That's more or less $200,000, which we're asking for from committees, still leaving a project surplus of $200,000 from within committees.
Senator Campbell: Thank you very much, chair. I have a couple of questions. I'm not sure whether I'm confused here, but I always worry about what was referred to in the B.C. government as ''March madness,'' where you plan for a surplus and then as you get closer and closer to the end you start pulling that money out and using it for whatever.
My question is why wasn't this just in the budget initially, all of these different steps, and then we can choose it?
I don't like this idea. From my point of view, a surplus in a budget is just as bad as being in debt. It means that the planning that you did was not tight enough, not careful enough. Why wasn't this in the original budget, these initiatives?
Mr. O'Brien: Well, Asia-Pacific came quite late.
Senator Campbell: No, I'm talking about now we've got $400,000, now we're going back to take another $200,000 out of what we expect to be a surplus.
Mr. O'Brien: Well, I can't put things in the budget if I can't afford it. It's as simple as that. If I don't have the money, and in December of last year when we did our budget we did not have the money for these projects, given the restraint that we were under.
We knew there was a great possibility that they were coming forward. Nothing is entirely certain in life, but we had two options: either we're going to try to fund this from within existing funds or ask for supplementary estimates. We are not asking for supplementary estimates at this point.
Senator Campbell: I understand that.
The Chair: Senator, would you allow me just to make a comment? Since I have become the chairman of this committee, we are operating under the principle that we will do those things that have been planned in this budget cycle. The fundamental principle underlying your concern is one that I certainly embrace. Our committee and the subcommittees have been working really hard. Some of these things have come upon us that may not have been anticipated. The Clerk has explained the pressures that we're under. This committee was going through the budget exercise last year, and this is where we're at, but I would hope, on a going-forward basis, that we have got to do much better budget preparation work so that we live within the budget cycle of the given year. Thank you for raising that.
You had another point, senator?
Senator Campbell: Thank you. I know this is probably some sort of a psychosis I get as we get near the end of June, but why don't we send a letter to the Auditor General asking him to pay us for what we're putting out for his business? The Auditor General can go hire all the staff he wants, but we can't. We're caught in this position where our staff does not only what we do on a normal basis but now, for the last year and going into the next year, we're kowtowing to the Auditor General. My suggestion is that we send him a letter saying, ''This is how much you owe us to continue on with this,'' much as we do in other businesses. Because he can do whatever he wants, but he's affecting us. I know he will be happy to receive that letter.
The Chair: Senator Campbell makes an important point about the pressures that this honourable house has been under, and we have been responding to it, in my judgment, in a serious and responsible fashion, but it costs. There is a cost on our staff to generate within limited days thousands of documents, taxi chits and all this stuff. It doesn't happen automatically. Somebody has to go through files and find that receipt and submit it. That has imposed this cost on us.
Equally, there is the larger question about these disclosures. We all saw the story on what they're doing in the other place. They're looking at hiring 40 more person years at a $4 million cost on this subject and this desire, this demand of the Canadian public, and rightful demand. Yes, we will respond, but costs are associated with it. We have to plan in such a way that we can respond to this changing environment. I'm very proud of the work that's being done by this committee in achieving that, and we're doing it as frugally as we can but yet as responsibly as we can.
Senator Campbell: I don't want to belabour the point, but we're trying to become more business-like. As we become more business-like, other departments have to recognize the impact that they have upon us.
The Chair: That's right.
Senator Campbell: If this was business, we sure would not be paying for what we're getting.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Campbell: There would be an expectation of the other business within the cycle of taking care of it.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Marshall: I have a couple of questions. I want to make sure I understand where we're at with our money. You talked about the projected admin savings of $400,000. Is that what we're using to pay for the Asia Pacific Conference and the Parliamentary network upgrade?
Bonnie Marga, Comptroller, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: The APPF is funded from committee budgets, the $73,000, and the Parliamentary precinct network of 350 is funded from the Senate Administration. These two were approved last week.
Senator Marshall: Now we're saying we have projected admin savings of 400,000. Is the 350 that you just talked about coming out of the 400,000?
Ms. Marga: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Really, we only have 50,000 left of the 400,000?
Ms. Marga: Yes.
Senator Marshall: You are saying that we're looking for 200,000, but we only have 50,000.
Ms. Marga: Iris is $72,000. We were saying if you do the math here, this would come up to $422,000. Yes, we're projecting $400,000 in the Senate Administration, but I think we can say that we are able to recover 422.
Senator Marshall: The big issue is the $120,000 that we need for the Finance people?
Ms. Marga: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Really, it was initially 220,000, because we provided 100,000 from the audit subcommittee's budget?
Ms. Marga: Correct, yes.
Senator Marshall: We're really looking for 120,000, maybe up to 150,000.
Ms. Marga: Yes.
Senator Marshall: We haven't identified the savings.
Ms. Marga: We are targeting the committee budget for this.
Senator Marshall: Again?
Ms. Marga: Yes, again. Right now, we have allocated $2.1 million to committees. This committee approved $2.1 million out of a budget of 1.9, but we know that clawbacks are expected in committees. Senator Smith explained earlier that committees are spending an average of 17 to 54 per cent every year, so we feel that approximately $400,000 could be expected as a surplus in the committees.
Senator Marshall: Remember, now, we're very early in the year.
Ms. Marga: Yes.
Senator Marshall: For committees.
Ms. Marga: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Are we aware of any other surprises about money that are out there waiting?
Ms. Marga: There are a few unknowns. I don't think we have additional requirements right now that are 100 per cent sure, but we do have uncertainty. One of them is collective bargaining. We are currently negotiating with the union. We don't know what will come out of this negotiation. We have a compensation study that is going on for senators' staff. We have the pay in arrears that was presented to this committee a few weeks ago.
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Marga: This is a big one. We know it is 1.6 million.
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Marga: We have the communications study that is going on.
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Marga: We don't yet have an estimate for this.
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Marga: The last one would be the scanners. The scanners were supposed to be purchased last fiscal year, but we had a problem in the procurement process. Right now, we are at the stage of going back to an RFP process.
Senator Marshall: For the scanners, what would the dollar amount be on that?
Ms. Marga: We don't know yet. We have to go out for an RFP on those ones.
Senator Marshall: Would we be talking about hundreds of thousands or millions or tens of thousands?
Ms. Marga: If everything that I have talked about happened, keeping out the pay in arrears.
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Marga: You would see close to a million, yes.
Senator Marshall: That would be 1 million plus the 1.6 for payment in arrears?
Ms. Marga: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Okay. So out there somewhere, there's a possibility of up to a $2.6 million problem.
For the additional money for the audit, for Finance, we're saying they already have 100 from the audit subcommittee budget, so looking for the extra 120, has that expenditure been incurred?
Ms. Marga: No, not yet. We have staff that have contracts that are good until mid-August. If we want to extend these contracts, that is where the 120 is required.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Well, my final comment would be that if we're going to approve the money for phase two and the 120 for the finance, then we would have to freeze some of the committee budget. Once we approve it, we would have to freeze the committee budget to make sure we don't spend it.
Mr. O'Brien: Yes.
Senator Downe: I just want to follow up. The 120,000 for the auditor is just for extension of existing employees' contracts?
Ms. Marga: Yes.
Senator Downe: How many people have we hired to assist with the audit?
Ms. Marga: We have a team of three employees: We have a senior financial officer, a financial officer and a financial clerk. They're working full-time on this.
Senator Downe: Three additional, new employees?
Ms. Marga: Actually, we took some of our existing staff to work on this and have replaced these three positions with term positions within the Senate.
Senator Downe: And the contracts are what — six months at a time?
Ms. Marga: We have contracts until mid-August, so it would be to extend it until the end of the fiscal year, which is almost six months, yes.
Senator Lang: Well, I don't know where to start. I'm just kind of shocked, quite frankly, by the amount of money we're talking about. Two weeks ago, $1.6 million came to us, and it has nothing to really do with the Senate, other than we have to pay the bill. Then we've gone ahead with a number of other of programs over the course of the last number of weeks.
The numbers just keep growing, and we're going to solve our problems by freezing the most important aspect to the Senate, which is the committee work. That really troubles me. I just find this really quite unacceptable, if this is the way we're going to run the Senate.
I just want to make this comment. I was not aware that we were spending an extra $100,000 from within the Senate for the audit. I don't know if that was ever brought forward to the committee as a whole. I'm talking $100,000 from the audit subcommittee. And now we have another $120,000. Now we're up to $220,000.
We were supposed to have been three quarters of the way through the audit, the way I understand it. All of a sudden now, we're asking for more money than we actually allocated. Quite frankly, as a member, I had no knowledge of that, and perhaps I was remiss. I'd like to know if that was from the minutes of Internal Economy, if we're aware of that.
I go with Senator Campbell: Perhaps the Auditor General should pay for this. I think it's a worthwhile debate. I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.
Senator L. Smith: Just a point of information for everyone. This is the Senate Administration business plan. In the business plan, you have budgets, but more importantly you have a strategic plan and all of the issues about expenditures moving forward in time. We have significant issues in terms of software that dates back to 1994 and 1998 and systems that are outdated.
It's important that, if we're going to have these types of discussion as a committee, everyone is well informed in knowing that all of this information is in the plan. The issue is: How do we establish the method for criteria in terms of the planning process?
Now, for people not on the committee all the time, it's a new thing. You come in once, it's really tough.
Senator Enverga: That's right.
Senator L. Smith: We understand that. But for people who are regular members of the committee, it's really important that, as part of making this as a business-like committee — and I think we're taking great steps to do so under the leadership of Senator Kinsella — people inform themselves, so that when the discussion comes up, it's not ''Well, geez. I didn't know it was there.'' It's all here. Gary and his group have done a fine job of outlining it. It's clear, precise and under strategic direction. He breaks it down into categories.
I encourage people to please read this, so that when we have these discussions, what we're aiming at is what Senator Campbell brought up. Maybe the method of planning how we put those $2 million of expenditures for capital requirements for 2014 — maybe we have to change the way that we plan it, as opposed to looking at what we can do during the year where we have the latest estimates and clawbacks in savings. What we're going to have to do is take more risk in the planning process, putting our noses on the line and say, ''This is what we need, this is our budget, and this is how we will do it.'' It's helpful if members of the committee who are consistently here understand it at the same time.
In fairness to the clerk and his people, it's not an attack on them — and I'm not saying it is an attack — but we're better informed to make better decisions.
Senator Furey: I just want to go back to what Senator Lang said. I agree, Senator Lang, that when your budgetary process gets thrown off kilter, it's cause for huge concern. But in this particular case, the most significant part of the additional expenditures is the $1.6 million arrears that came out of the blue, through no fault of our own; nobody could anticipate that, and we had absolutely nothing to do with it.
With respect to freezing committees, that has always been a problem. However, if you look closely at what Senator Smith said about the utilization of the committee budget, I don't think that would actually be a problem if we actually had to freeze the committee budget. I don't think, given the utilization rate, that we will interfere with the work of senators in committee.
Senator Lang: I understand what Senator Furey just said, but where I come from as a member of this committee, I came here this morning and I'm informed there's another $120,000 for the Auditor General. My question is: When did we know that we needed another $120,000, and why am I being told this just prior to recess so that we can't give that some serious consideration as a committee?
I feel that sometimes we just come in here and we're expected to rubber-stamp some of these decisions, but the decisions have already been made, so I have to wonder why we have the meeting, sometimes.
I really have a problem with that. To me, $120,000 is a lot of money, and there's also a very significant principle behind it that I think we should not be afraid to debate and to bring forward in respect to this committee. But here we are with the time at 10 past 10, we all have other commitments and we're supposed to make a decision. I have to say, as a committee member, that I don't think I've been served properly.
The Chair: Honourable senators, could we entertain a motion to accept the two recommendations we have: On the phase 2 and upgrade of the Parliamentary Precinct network, and to support to Finance for the OAG audit.
Moved by the Honourable Senator Doyle, seconded by the Honourable Senator Marshall. Are you ready for the question?
Senator Lang: I'm abstaining.
The Chair: All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hands. Those opposed, raise your hands. Those abstaining? So recorded.
Honourable senators, we know this is hard work — it's complex and with great detail — and I really appreciate the work you're doing.
Senator Furey: Colleagues, yesterday when we discussed the precinct master security plan and also the Senators' Travel Policy, there was some confusion about whether those reports would be presented in the chamber or tabled for information. I believe the intent was that we should table them for information but not present them for debate.
I'm going to ask colleagues this morning if they will support a motion to table this afternoon both reports for information purposes.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Furey, seconded by Senator Cordy. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senators, thank you very much for your work this morning. The meeting stands adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)