Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 5 - Evidence - December 4, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 4, 2014
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:30 a.m., in public, for the election of the chair; and in camera for the consideration of administrative and other matters.
[English]
Gary W. O'Brien, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair.
[Translation]
Are there any nominations?
Senator Furey: May I have the privilege of speaking? I would like to nominate Senator Pierre Claude Nolin as chair.
[English]
Mr. O'Brien: Are there other nominations?
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Furey that the Honourable Senator Nolin be elected chair.
[Translation]
Mr. O'Brien: Honourable senators, is it your pleasure to adopt this motion?
[English]
Mr. O'Brien: Motion carried. I invite Senator Nolin to take the chair.
Senator Pierre Claude Nolin (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: It is early so I will not subject you to a long acceptance speech as chair. It will be challenging but it is with great anticipation and happiness that I accept this important role. I was a member of the committee for many years; but after a hiatus, I am back. With George and Larry, I'm sure we will have a good esprit de corps as we attempt to fill the shoes of Senator Kinsella.
Mr. O'Brien: Honourable senators, I'd like to welcome on your behalf the new Director of the Senate protective staff, Mr. Mike McDonald. Mr. McDonald has had a long and distinguished career of 26 years with the RCMP. Most recently he served as the Canadian Contingent Commander of the UN Mission in Haiti and Director of the RCMP International Peace Operations Branch.
I'm confident that Mr. McDonald will draw upon and utilize the wealth of experience to lead the protective staff and guide their work to provide the most efficient and effective security possible for all parliamentarians, parliamentary staff and visitors to the Parliamentary Precinct. Welcome, Mr. McDonald.
The Chair: Before we move to Item 3, we have to adopt the minutes of proceedings of the meeting on October 2. Are there comments?
Senator Tkachuk: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved. Adopted?
Carried.
Item 3 is the 2013-2014 Annual Report on Parliamentary Associations' Activities and Expenditures. We have at the witness table, Mr. Janse, Mr. Martin and Mr. Lafrenière. Welcome.
[Translation]
Eric Janse, Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs: You have before you the fifth annual report on parliamentary associations' activities and expenditures, which has been prepared by our Joint Interparliamentary Council directorate. Once again, this report provides high-level information on the various activities of the associations, their costs, the support provided to the associations and other related information.
[English]
It provides comparisons to activity and expenditure levels from previous years. The report was adopted by the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons at its last meeting. Once this committee approves it, it will be posted on the website.
I have a very few quick points to note. The fiscal year covered in this report was the second year in the reductions to the JIC envelope for associations, bringing the available monies for associations down to $3.56 million — a 20 per cent reduction from two years previous. Despite this cut, the expenditures were almost identical to the year previous. Activities were down slightly, as were membership fees, but overall a very comparable year to the one previous.
[Translation]
I look forward to your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Are there questions or comments? The procedure will be to table that report for future information. We don't have to adopt that report unless we are expected to adopt it.
Mr. Janse: It could be noted as approved and adopted so we can post it on the website for public information.
The Chair: Are there comments? Does everybody agree that we adopt the report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Item 4 is our participation in the IPU. Mr. Janse, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Janse: I would like to provide a brief overview. This is the third time that the issue of the IPU has come before both internal economy committees. The last time was in December 2013, when, once again, the Joint Interparliamentary Council recommended that Canada withdraw from the IPU.
[English]
Given that a Canadian parliamentarian had been appointed Chair of the IPU Subcommittee on Finance to look at the IPU's budget and membership fees, both committees on internal economy decided to insist that the JIC continue to fund the IPU for one more year to allow that work to continue.
On November 5, the JIC had a presentation from the chair and certain executive committee members of the Canadian group of the IPU. They explained that the subcommittee working with the IPU Secretariat had managed to reduce membership fees for 2015 by 3.4 per cent from the 2014 level. It was also noted that Canada's contribution has been reduced since 2010 by some 13.5 per cent. As well, while Canada's chairmanship of the IPU Subcommittee on Finance has ended, it was noted that a French senator has been elected to this position and that this person is equally committed to seeing further reductions in contributions.
At its meeting on November 19, the JIC debated the question.
[Translation]
They adopted the following motion: That the Council recommend to the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and to the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy that the Parliament of Canada withdraw from the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) unless the internal economy committees provide additional funding (to cover membership fees and activities) to enable the IPU to adequately fulfill its mandate.
[English]
The hefty membership fees that Canada pays to the IPU were the reasons cited by the JIC that we withdraw, but we indicated in the briefing note that while the $400,000 we pay is the highest, there are other associations with smaller memberships that also have hefty membership fees. It's true that $400,000 is a lot of money, but the amount we're charged in Swiss francs has gone down by 13 per cent over the last five years. The problem for Canada is the fluctuation in exchange rates, which means that even though we were charged 13 per cent less, we ended up paying 1.5 per cent more over the five years because of the exchange rate.
As well, as noted in my earlier statement, despite the cuts to the JIC parliamentary budgetary envelope, the JIC still had a lapsed budgetary surplus of $150,000 last year, so we provided four options for your consideration.
Option 1 would see both internal economy committees recommend that the JIC parliamentary envelope for all associations be increased by $550,000. This is the amount that would be required for membership fees and activities for the IPU.
The second option is to authorize the JIC to over-allocate funds, so go beyond what they have currently as their envelope. We're calling this the credit line option. It would allow the JIC to over-allocate up to $550,000 to fund the IPU and fully fund the activities of the other associations, and then towards the end of the fiscal year, once an analysis is done, we will see what kind of surplus is projected, and then the difference would be made up by surpluses within other budgets in both the Senate and the House of Commons.
The third option would be simply to maintain the status quo and that both internal economy committees would insist that the JIC continue to fund the IPU and all associations within its existing budget.
The fourth option presented to you would be to see Canada withdraw from the IPU.
The Chair: Before I open the floor to questions or comments, I received last night at around six o'clock a letter co- signed by the President of the IPU, Mr. Chowdhury, and the Secretary-General, but I only have it in English. If it's agreeable, I can have it circulated, but I need your permission in order to do that. Do I have your permission?
Senator Dawson: Will we get a French copy eventually?
The Chair: Later, yes. The translation is under way, but we don't have it now. This is definitely not to create a precedent. A copy will be circulated.
Senator Dawson: First, I would like to excuse Senator Ataullahjan, who is the Chair of the IPU in Canada. She has a Human Rights Committee meeting, and the minister is present, so she had to be there. I'm speaking on her behalf and on behalf of the Canadian IPU.
As you know, I have been active. I helped host the event that was held in Quebec with the strong cooperation of the bureau. As you know, our reputation was increased to the point that next year we will be hosting a conference in B.C. of the same nature. Why? Because we have a good reputation.
That reputation was repeated last week when close to 80 African and francophone countries decided to support a Canadian to chair that organization because the Prime Minister, the cabinet and the whole of the Canadian membership, both in Quebec and Ontario, decided to stand behind her, and our reputation again helped us win that position. We have that reputation because we have been partners internationally with many groups.
Let's explain the question of the cost of the IPU. It is the biggest organization. It consists of 160 countries compared to other organizations that have 30 or 40 countries. When you do a pro rata analysis of the number of members versus the other associations, the IPU is probably the least costly of these organizations. Obviously, if you have more countries, you have a bigger secretariat and more conferences, and there is a cost related to that.
The IPU is also the only organization that has a secretariat that helps free parliamentarians all over the world. Every year, our former colleague Senator Carstairs, who chairs the Human Rights Committee of the IPU, would visit jails all around the world to liberate parliamentarians who were unjustifiably put away. For all the respect I have for the other organizations that get budgets from the JIC, no other organization has that kind of mandate. No other organization has as strong a mandate of educating parliamentarians around the world on parliamentarianism. That is a major responsibility that the IPU has had over the years.
I'm just saying that we have been through the option of maintaining the status quo a few times. When I was with Senator Oliver, we were asked to cap the increases that were going to the IPU. We capped that years ago. We have been decreasing our participation practically every year since then.
The only real cost that we have of the IPU is the membership. We don't travel business class to Geneva even though we're allowed. We travel economy class because we are very frugal in the way we spend money at the IPU.
We implore you, at a time when major steps are being taken — you will see this in the letter. Of the two people who wrote this letter, one of them worked in Canada. The Secretary-General worked in Canada years ago, and the other, the newly elected President — I know some people around the table did not like the previous people. Well, we have new people there, and these people are committed to controlling the costs of the IPU. They are committed to being fiscally responsible.
Finally, on the eve of negotiation on the European trade agreement, we need the votes of the European parliaments. The European parliaments would find it difficult if Canada abandons them at the international table of the IPU on the eve of ratifying an agreement on trade with Canada and Europe.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Janse, in your testimony you said that the new comptroller or treasurer of the international association was adopting the same accounting measures and the same very restrictive commitments in terms of accounting for limiting expenditures that Canada proposed and implemented last year. Could you briefly explain to my colleagues what those commitments are? Perhaps Senator Dawson could add to your answer.
Mr. Janse: Thank you. Yes, IPU's former secretary-general was in office for 20 years, if not more. The new secretary-general may be more open to reviewing IPU's mandate, comparing essential activities against non-essential activities in IPU's mandate, and what is more useful or less useful. By doing this exercise with the finance subcommittee and with countries like Canada, it is possible to continue reviewing the expenditures and membership fees in order to ultimately determine what each member parliament is required to pay.
[English]
Senator Dawson: If I may, we used to have to overturn the decisions taken by the secretariat in the past because he had very strong ambitions for the IPU, so it would be a battle. Under the new administration, they are working in cooperation with the budget committee to try to decide what is core and what is not.
When you're secretary-general of an organization for 15 or 20 years, you sort of consider it your little empire. That was the case previously. We support the secretary-general. We support the new president. And we have their support in taking the organization under control and trying not only to stop the growth of activity, but to reduce it to the core activities that are essential to the IPU.
Senator Tkachuk: I have a couple of questions, Mr. Janse.
What was the recommendation of the Joint Interparliamentary Committee to the two organizations, Internal Economy and the board?
Mr. Janse: This latest round?
Senator Tkachuk: At the last meeting, what were the recommendations?
Mr. Janse: The recommendation that we put in the note was that the council recommend to both internal economy committees that the Parliament of Canada withdraw from the IPU, unless the internal economy committees provide additional funding to cover membership fees and activities to enable the IPU to adequately fulfill its mandate.
Senator Tkachuk: Correct. So that would be Option 4.
Senator Dawson: I thought Option 4 was status quo.
Senator Tkachuk: Whether we are on one side of this issue or the other, there were parliamentarians in the room who made a decision. They didn't make four decisions. They didn't provide four options. You either have a democratic committee or you don't. You have a vote. We did have a vote, and there was a recommendation of that vote. If someone wants to make another recommendation here, that's fine with me. I just find it interesting that we're given a presentation with a number of options that JIC did not approve.
Mr. Janse: I'm sorry if that's the case, senator.
Senator Tkachuk: It is the case.
Mr. Janse: The way we saw it is the JIC took a decision; the JIC is de facto a subcommittee of both internal economy committees and it is up to those two committees to accept the JIC's recommendation, reject it or find some middle ground. To assist the two committees, we provided four options that we thought related directly to the —
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you, Mr. Janse, but this committee appoints the members to JIC and the board appoints their members to JIC and they're subcommittees of this committee. They passed the resolution, of which option 1 is half of it and option 4 is the other half. Option 2 and option 3 were not the decisions of JIC.
Mr. Janse: No, but I guess we still saw them as options for this committee just like the other two times the issue has come before this committee, the internal economy committees have told the JIC we accept your recommendations, we would like you to do X or Y. We decided to give a range of options.
Our understanding of what was adopted by the JIC was that we withdraw unless additional funding is provided.
Senator Tkachuk: That's correct. That's exactly right.
Mr. Janse: That's directly what option 1 and 2 would do. Option 3 or 4 are additional options, if you will, that would —
Senator Tkachuk: They weren't discussed nor were they decided. Anyway, chair, I just want to go through this as we did the last time. There is an envelope of around $3.5 million, of which about a third of it is used up in a simple way; a third of it is used up by parliamentary association memberships, of which the largest one is IPU. The other two thirds are for programming — in other words, conventions or travel or bilateral meetings. This envelope has been held steady or decreased over the last number of years, and JIC has found itself in a bit of a straitjacket in that we only have this much money but out there are India, Israel — there are opportunities for us to expand the number of joint interparliamentary committees that we have.
If we don't have change somewhere, then we're caught in this straitjacket where we're going to be cutting down the number of trips for people so we can pay membership fees. That's really what we're faced with.
Asia is covered by Canada-China and Canada-Japan, which probably eats up about $300,000, or thereabouts. In that amount of money there is no money paid in membership fees for Asia. South America, one organization, there is no money paid to membership fees. We have the United States, our biggest trading partner, so Canada, United States and Mexico, part of our North American Free Trade Agreement, we pay no membership fees. None.
Then we have Europe. We have Canada-Europe. We participate fully in Canada-Europe. We go to council meetings three or four times a year. It's a very active organization in Europe. With Canada-Europe we also supply a membership fee to NATO, a substantial one, as our chair would be well aware, because we think it's important.
Within Canada-Europe we also have Canada-France and Canada-Britain, and the reason we have those is because they are our two founding countries. They're both less than $100,000, no membership fees, strictly all monies spent on programming, bilateral meetings between Canada and Britain and Canada and France.
Our decision was a very difficult one. We had no argument with IPU, and we made it very clear at that meeting. IPU does a tremendous amount of work, but we're spending $400,000 for a membership fee and $100-some thousand for bilateral meetings. Does that make any sense to anybody? It doesn't make any sense to me as a programmer.
Our decision, we had to do something, either stay the way we are, which is one possibility; we don't do anything. There is no change possible. How can that be in this changing world? That's an impossible thing for us to do when there are groups and countries out there that we think are important to us.
We decided that we would say, well, you know what? We've been after them for a number of years, and you say they have the largest participation. With 100-some countries, why would we have the largest membership fees? It seems to me the more countries you have, the less membership fees you should pay, because there would be less money being spent. If all the countries are contributing, that must be a significant amount of money, but it is the largest one of all.
Anyway, the decision wasn't made on the fact that people didn't run around and say, "We don't like the IPU." We made it very clear that we thought the IPU was a good or great organization, but at the same time, if the envelope continues the way it was, there was no way we could effect any change. That means all the parliamentary groups out there, all the other committees, we would have to say there is no chance because we can't cut anybody. We can't do this. We can't change. So if we want a Canada-India, which we do, I think, we're looking at a free trade agreement, a billion people, no, we can't do that.
Our decision was we're going to cut IPU and their membership and that will give us some flexibility, hopefully within the same envelope. That was the decision, but, Mr. Chair, as we did the last time, I think what we should do — that's sort of my view, that it all depends on the house side. If the house decides to go for it, they're the dog, they wag our tail, right? They put in 70 per cent, we'll go in for the 30 per cent. I talked to the chair and they're going to decide on Tuesday. I believe they're having their meeting on Tuesday. If they decide to cut IPU, there's nothing we can do, even if we decide to go in it. We're not going to be able to fund it, so it's out of the question; it's a done deal. My view is, we let them decide, and then we can consider it next Thursday.
The Chair: I'm having lunch with Speaker Scheer today and we will definitely talk about that.
On the question of budget, the steering committee will come back, because we will have a program review under way in the next fiscal year. Definitely, we will have a lot of questions and seek answers on the proper funding of the global question of parliamentary diplomacy. The committee will decide, but if it's only a question of dollars and cents, there are options on the table that can take care of that. But I'm having lunch with Speaker Scheer and we will talk about that.
Senator Marshall: I have a couple of questions. The first one is, in the briefing note it talks about the fees, but it's in terms of Swiss francs. Can you convert that for me? What was it in 2010 in Canadian dollars and what is it in 2015?
Mr. Janse: I hope it was included in your package. We included a table, senator, that indicates the amounts for all of the Parliamentary associations that charge membership fees. There are two tables there. One, how much we're charged in the foreign currency and the other side is how much we're charged in Canadian dollars. If you take the IPU example, 2009-10, we were charged 393,000 Swiss francs. For 2014-15, it's down to 340,000 Swiss francs.
Flip it over and see the conversion, what we actually ended up paying in Canadian dollars in 2009-10, $395,000; last year $401,000. Even though what we were charged went down by 13.5 per cent, what we actually paid went up by 1.5.
Senator Marshall: Can you also talk about the membership in each of the organizations and the participants? According to the report which we looked at earlier, the membership is decreasing, and it seems like the participants are either decreasing or about the same. When you read the report, it seems like it's not really a very active organization. There are a lot of parliamentarians who are not members, and even those who are members don't seem to participate. Can you talk about why we're spending all this money and it seems like memberships and participants are on the low side?
Mr. Janse: In terms of country membership, the IPU has a 166-member Parliament.
Senator Marshall: No, I mean parliamentarians.
Mr. Janse: In terms of the Canadian parliamentarians — so senators and members of the house that belong — yes, that number has gone down a little bit compared to last year. That's a trend we often see as we head towards an election. The focus for especially the members of the House of Commons tends to focus less on international activity and more on domestic and riding activities. So the numbers are down a little compared to the previous year, but we tend to see after an election that the numbers tend to increase.
Senator Marshall: Based on the information that has been provided to us, I think what we should be doing is a review of all the associations and rationalizing where we're putting our money. It seems that in some of the organizations there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest, so why are we spending money on those organizations, when maybe Canada-India is an opportunity? Why are we not rationalizing or are we just continuing on from year to year?
Mr. Janse: It's a very valid question and something the JIC has been dealing with for a good number of years. There was a subcommittee struck a couple of years ago under the leadership of then-MP Merrifield to look at the restructuring of associations and also to look at how costs could be diminished, and they came forward to the JIC with a list of recommendations that were discussed and adopted.
One of those recommendations was that for the duration of the current Parliament, no new associations be recognized, given the fiscal situation that the Parliament of Canada finds itself in. As Senator Tkachuk referenced, there certainly are some unrecognized, unfunded groups that are seriously considering going forward to the JIC with a request to be fully recognized and funded parliamentary associations. Some have already been named, and there might be others as well. That would put increased pressure on the JIC envelope, but that hasn't come to the JIC yet. None of these groups have made a formal request to be recognized and seek funding.
Senator Marshall: If we are spending $3.5 million, why are we isolating the IPU and saying to stop funding them and not look at all the other remaining ones? I think we should be doing a review of all the organizations and rationalizing where our money goes.
Mr. Janse: Again, as I mentioned in my opening statement, this is the third time the IPU is coming forward to both boards. The first time it came forward, the JIC recommendation was that we withdraw, that was the recommendation of both boards, that the JIC should look not just at the IPU, but all associations to which we pay membership fees, and in some cases significant membership fees. The JIC did that. It again recommended that we withdraw, and that was the second occasion when it was sent back to the JIC with the suggestion to wait and let the subcommittee do its work. That exercise has been done.
Senator Marshall: My last question is why are we singling out the IPU? Why are we looking at terminating funding to that organization and not talking about terminating funding or decreasing funding to anybody else?
Mr. Janse: The reason given at the JIC is that the IPU fees are the highest. They're $400,000, but as we've indicated in the note, there are other associations. NATO, we pay $319,000, and there are 28 member parliaments; to OSCE, $237,000 per year, 57 member parliaments. It's a valid question.
Senator Marshall: I realize that the House of Commons is a big player, and they're funding 70 per cent, but I do think we should push forward and look for a review of all the associations and look at where we're spending the $3.5 million.
Senator Tkachuk: There are not that many options. We did review them. There is Commonwealth, Canada-Europe, OSCE and NATO — did I miss anybody else — that we pay large membership fees to. And in our view IPU fell to the bottom of the list and we decided to withdraw.
But any other ideas for withdrawing from a couple other organizations I would probably take back to the joint interparliamentary committee, and perhaps we could withdraw from the Commonwealth or from NATO, but we have made drastic cuts in travel. We have reviewed the travel budget. People are travelling in economy class. The travel budget is fairly bare bones. The review that we did on travel was adopted. People have taken it seriously. The whips have taken it seriously to allow for early booking of tickets.
We did a real strong review of that and when they come before us — it's a pretty major undertaking for them to get money out of us, that's for sure, because we try to stick right within the envelope. We don't want to spend more than we have, so for programming purposes, travel is cut probably to the point where if we cut it any further, why belong?
Senator Marshall: My last comment is I did find the annual report very informative. And if there was a review carried out with regard to the funding and where the funding is being allocated, I would be interested in seeing that document.
Senator Tkachuk: The Merrifield report would be a good starting point.
The Chair: Definitely the steering committee will look at it. The global program review will definitely include parliamentary diplomacy. It's a question of dollars. What is in it for Canada? We need to look into the deliverables. That's why we need a thorough look at all that. We cannot avoid the question of India.
Senator Fraser: Thank you, chair.
Before I make my own points, just in response to a couple of things that have been raised, in terms of the number of parliamentarians who belong to associations, according to this report, IPU membership dropped 2.5 per cent this year, but the total membership of parliamentary associations dropped 13 per cent in the same period.
It seems to me that the IPU is actually holding its own better than most. In terms of membership contributions, I'm a little confused. On page 18 of the annual report on associations, it says that the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, the APF, paid $122,000 in international contributions, so maybe I misunderstood Senator Tkachuk.
If we're going to be involved in parliamentary diplomacy at all, the IPU, even though it's expensive, is the most cost- effective way. It has 166 member countries. Of course it costs more. It costs more simply to rent a hall for 150 countries to meet than it does for 20 or 30, not to mention printing the documents.
If you look at the contacts we make and the role that Canada has played for years in the IPU, I think this is really a very cost-effective use of our budget. If you compare our role in the IPU to, for example, our role in Canada-Europe, and I have participated in Canada-Europe and have found it a very valuable exercise, but in Canada- Europe, what do we do? We go not to the European Parliament, we go to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and we don't even have a vote. We're observers.
Believe me, in the eyes of many member countries of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, we are a bit of an irritation. We're not considered real players. We have to elbow our way in wherever we can, whereas in the IPU we're considered very major players and occupy, year after year, positions of significant influence and importance.
In terms of the actual budget of the IPU, should the United States rejoin that organization, the financial situation would change because the United States would, of course, be a very significant contributor. The IPU has been hoping for a long time to get the United States back but now it's looking more likely than it has in all my years of experience here. The fact that there is now a bill in Congress doesn't mean it's going to pass tomorrow, but it means that there is some support. The fact that John Kerry is meeting with the secretary-general, believe me, this has not happened in twenty years. There has been zero interest. Now there is real interest.
So if the United States comes in, everyone else's contribution, including ours, will be reduced significantly. I don't think we should be talking about leaving the IPU at all, but I certainly don't think we should be talking about leaving it now when we have a new administration in the organization, when there is a possibility of bringing in the United States. I think it would be very short-sighted of us to do that. My preference would be the status quo.
Senator Munson: Just briefly, I'm in full support of Canada's involvement in the IPU. As Senator Fraser talked about the 166 countries, 43,500 MPs from all over the world and senators, I look at our role and I can only think of one of our own colleagues, Senator Salma Ataullahjan, who is the Canada chair. When you listen to her speak before the JIC, of which I am a member, and you hear her passion when talking about Canada's role on maternal, newborn and child health, it is a tour de force in terms of her presentation. So I'm certainly going to support Senator Ataullahjan as the IPU's goodwill ambassador and continuing to do that great work. It's an issue that is close to the Prime Minister's heart.
In the IPU, we make a difference when it comes to those issues. It was seen as recently as the Prime Minister's visit to Senegal when he announced more money dealing with children and babies, and it's a very significant role where Canada plays its role. The IPU is another mechanism to enhance the efforts of this country and to enhance the work of the Prime Minister. It's extremely important.
Just briefly, the word used is "we," and I don't know who "we" are. Without giving anything away, I know there is a movement that has been present briefly in the JIC for a Canada-Israel group. I have no objection to that, but if you're going to have Canada-Israel, why not Canada-Egypt? Why not Canada-Lebanon? If you're going to have Canada- Israel, why not have other Middle Eastern countries that are extremely important? In Tunisia, they've just had elections and the Arab Spring has actually worked.
I don't know where this is coming from or who is driving this issue of our jumping out of IPU, then we're part of Canada-Israel so we use the money from IPU for Canada-Israel or Canada-India. We're in a situation where we are a country that is playing a role in the world where I think it's extremely important, particularly in the field of maternal health. Just to emphasize, Salma Ataullahjan and her work as our Conservative friend, who is a goodwill ambassador, we're going to be sitting back and saying "thanks for the memories." That's all. I just feel it would be vanishing from the world map when it comes to our participation in parliamentary democracies and other countries around the world to show how a middle power like Canada can work and be a player.
The Chair: Ms. Proulx, if we were to go to Option 1, that $165,000, could we afford it in next year's budget? Can we fund that?
Nicole Proulx, Director, Finance and Procurement, Senate of Canada: I guess that's part of the discussion that would be presented after.
The Chair: I'm asking you because it could help in the discussion now.
Ms. Proulx: If Internal Economy approves the budget that is presented, yes, it could be. It automatically would mean that the proposed budget would increase by $165,000.
Senator Lang: I have a question for the witness to start. My understanding is the United States was a member and they withdrew. Perhaps you can give us a history of that so we have that on the record. Are there other countries that have withdrawn from the IPU other than the United States?
Mr. Janse: I don't know the history of the U.S. situation. Maybe Senator Dawson could reply to that.
In terms of other countries, as short as a year ago, when this last came before the internal economy committees of both houses, I think the IPU membership was at about 162. It has increased to 166. I think the issue with some of the smaller countries may be some years they can't pay. They're in arrears, so they're kicked out, if you will, and they come back and pay their membership fee. So 166 is the current number, and perhaps Senator Dawson could speak to the U.S. issue.
Senator Dawson: In terms of the history, the U.S. was in it for 60-odd years, and about 20-odd years ago they withdrew from most multilateral organizations at the same time. It wasn't a movement to abandon the IPU. This was not an executive decision, it was a decision of Congress. It has been nearly overturned twice in the last five years.
As Senator Fraser said, John Kerry, who was a member when they withdrew, has been leading the battle through the executive but with the support of Congress to reintegrate the IPU. Compared to all the other ones, it is by far the one that has the strongest secretariat and has penetration in the world, in countries that are developing democracies, like Tunisia, and developing parliaments. The IPU is there as a Parliament.
They are more expensive, but they have a full-time secretariat. Some of the organizations we're members of, it's true that there's no cost to be a member because there's nothing to pay. It's a travel-driven organization. I believe that the reality of splitting the membership fees from the operational fees of those organizations would probably be the right way to treat them. Then you would probably notice that the IPU was the most modest of the organizations, not the most expensive.
We have gone down from a $600,000 budget many years ago where half of it was travel and half was membership. The membership went up, the budget went down, and we basically are bare bones as far as our participation. But even if we are bare bones, two years ago we held the biggest conference of the IPU in the last 25 years in Canada. We are perceived as a host country because we are hosting Asia-Pacific in B.C. next year. We are perceived as being a player, and there is a cost to being a player. Part of it could be the cost of being a member of the IPU.
Senator Lang: I want to pursue it further on the question of our contribution to the administration. Do you have a list of the contributions by all the other 166 countries and how we compare?
Mr. Janse: We have that and can provide it to the committee.
Senator Lang: I think that's a valid question of why we're paying the amount we are compared to others if we're going to continue. I'd like you to provide us with that.
Mr. Janse: The formula used is very similar to the formula used at the UN in terms of how they determine what —
Senator Lang: I don't know if I like that formula.
Mr. Janse: We'll provide the numbers, senator.
Senator Lang: Just an observation.
I would like to ask another question: When is the Board of Internal Economy from the House of Commons going to deal with this issue?
Mr. Janse: Tuesday of next week.
Senator Lang: Just a couple of points if I could conclude. I'd like to see how we compare with others for this contribution that we're doing now. Second, can you double check to make sure it's not just the United States, whether other countries have withdrawn over the course of the last 10, 20 years. It would be interesting to know that.
Third, I do feel that, for countries like Mexico and India, we should be seriously looking at what involvement we can have, interparliamentarian-wise, with those particular countries. I think we're foolish if we don't.
I do recognize that 70 per cent of the contribution of this particular commitment comes from the house side. We went through this last year. We made a decision. It went to the house side, and then it came back to us. I would say that it would be logical to wait for the house side to make a decision, and then we can make a decision based on what that particular commitment is from their side, one way or the other. I'd say it should be deferred.
Senator Doyle: Just a comment that might be of interest: My office is currently doing research for the leader's office. It's interesting that we're looking at approximately 60 trips between March 2013 and July 2014, and it's interesting to note that we have had minimal participation in these trips over that period. We've had 32 out of 60 trips in which we didn't have anyone or just one person participate. We have had six trips in which we have had no senators participating, and we've had 26 trips that only one senator participated in.
I guess, when you're looking at the value of our participation image, you have to look at the number of people who actually get involved in it. It seems to be quite minimal over that time period, which is about a 15-month period. Thirty-two out of 60, that's the IPU, 32 out of 60 trips with one or zero participants in the trips at all. We've got a lot of work to do before we pass it over to the leader, but it seems to me that what we're coming up with so far is that he's trying to calculate, I believe, the return on investment, which is quite difficult to do. You would have to interview the people involved and what have you, but the number of people that we see getting involved in it, for the amount of money we're putting into it, seems to be not worth the cash, really, when you get right down to it.
Senator Cordy: I was a little bit confused, which isn't always unusual. Is this just IPU? Is this all associations? Is this ministerial trips or Prime Minister trips or just IPU?
Senator Doyle: Just IPU.
Senator Cordy: So you've been asked to study just IPU.
Senator Doyle: Yes. His office said, "Get some people in your office to have a look at it, and let's see if we can find out what our participation is in it and what the return on investment really is." He wanted to get some information on it.
Senator Furey: You are talking about all of the joint interparliamentary committees, Senator Doyle, not just the one, the IPU, aren't you? You're talking about all joint interparliamentary committees?
Senator Doyle: No, just the IPU.
Senator Furey: Can you just give us those numbers again?
Senator Fraser: Sixty trips in two years?
An Hon. Senator: It doesn't make any sense.
Senator Fraser: No.
Senator Furey: It must be all interparliamentary committees.
Senator Doyle: I'm putting this into a little folder, which I am going to give to everyone, but it's on the IPU. Parliamentary associations are administered by the Joint Interparliamentary Council, and the budget for the JIC is supplied by the internal economy committees of the Senate and the House of Commons. It's IPU; it's just IPU.
Senator Dawson: I'm sorry; I can assure you that is not the case.
Senator Fraser: So can I.
Senator Dawson: It's not a very difficult thing to do. We do a maximum of two IPU conferences a year. We have our relationship with the IPU at the UN that has always been more or less 50-50 between the Senate and the House of Commons, and we don't do 30 trips a year. So I don't know how we could have 60 in two years. We do probably four.
Mr. Janse: If I can draw the attention of members of the committee to the JIC report — number of outgoing visits by participant type for fiscal 2013-14 — there were a grand total of 65 outgoing visits by all associations. For IPU, there were four trips during that same time, which included six senators and eight members of Parliament.
Senator Furey: So 65, Mr. Janse, applies to all interparliamentary committees?
Mr. Janse: All of the recognized, funded associations that are supported through the JIC.
Senator Cordy: So actually, on the Senate side, on IPU, we got a bonus because we usually have one third member. So we actually got more, but don't say that.
Mr. Janse: I think it's because the current chair is a senator, and there are often meetings to which you can't send a delegation of 10. It might be a small meeting where you can only have one or two, and, usually, the person chosen is the chair, which, again, is a senator currently.
Senator Doyle: There are some trips in here that are not associated with the IPU, but, for the most part, they're IPU.
The Chair: To be sure that we all understand, Mr. Janse, you said there were four trips.
Mr. Janse: In the fiscal year 2013-14, the IPU had four outgoing visits.
Senator Wells: I'm in support of the IPU. I think that, if we count the number of trips, it's a dangerous metric to use for a value of an organization and a slippery slope if we use the number of trips and equate that to the value that Canada gets out of it. The dollar amount is so small that I think it's strange we're even talking about it. If we're to talk about the value of the IPU, let's talk about the value of the IPU, and, if we deem it of value, then we'll concern ourselves with costs later. I think there is a danger in nickel and diming Canada's place on the world stage in an organization in which we take a lead role.
Senator L. Smith: Thank you. Something that's bugging me — and I've talked to David Tkachuk and other members around the table — is that, in a discussion like this, where you're talking about spending $3.5 million, usually you'd assume that you'd talk about the reasons why you spend the money and the reasons why you are a member and the return. There would be questions like: Why are we in a certain area versus another? Is it tied to just parliamentary development, or is it tied to economic reasons? Is it tied to humanitarian reasons? I would like to have these types of discussions when we're talking about numbers. This is a numbers report. This has nothing to do with why we're doing what we are doing. And I think that, as members of a board, all of us should know the reasons why we're doing what we're doing because then you go from that to why you're spending the money.
This is the same discussion we had a year ago, and I mentioned that to Senator Tkachuk in terms of not being frustrated but trying to learn. I'm trying to learn, and he was very gracious to spend half an hour with me to explain how things work because I'm a rookie at it, but I'm not a rookie as to understanding why things are done in business. I know this is politics, but there's a business element to it. This is $3.5 million bucks. What are we doing? Why are we doing it? It goes back to Senator Marshall's point and to a point that Senator Wells just mentioned. If we're going to have these discussions, we should know the strategy. We're a board and boards deal with strategies. You don't deal just with numbers. You deal with strategy first and then you deal with the numbers. Then we can get away from all the partisan bullshit of what side likes what other side. Let's get on with why we're doing the right thing. Let's make right decisions.
Sorry to get excited there. This is two years in a row.
The Chair: That's exactly the reason why we need to come back to this body with a request for a thorough review of our participation in parliamentary diplomacy, with all the strategy that comes with it, what are the deliverables for Canada, what are the objectives we want to pursue, and then do that collectively through the JIC with the House of Commons and then decide on the numbers and properly fund that.
Senator Tkachuk: I'd like to just add, Senator Smith, that we're a subcommittee of this organization.
Senator L. Smith: I'm not criticizing the committee.
Senator Tkachuk: I just want to make a couple of points here. If you think that we don't look at why people are spending the money, that's what we do. That's our job. We look at every budget presentation, and every committee provides the reasons for why they're spending the money that they're spending. It's not a question that they're doing programming without justification.
Then there is a whole series of meetings where we ask questions, and they're open meetings, by the way, of each of these organizations as to what they're doing, why they're doing it and what the benefits are to Canada. We also work with external affairs to see what their priorities are, to make sure that we're matching those priorities with all the committees.
We don't have a regular reporting function. We act fairly independently in the sense that once the money is allocated, the two boards have decided that these members have the ability to not only look at the programming but also make decisions based on that programming.
What our decision was based on was the fact that we're now at a point where we have to make certain decisions to allow us some flexibility to make these decisions. If we can't change, which is what you're talking about, if we can't change and be flexible and make these decisions, what's the point of it? Then we're caught in the straitjacket of continuing with the same organizations that we have now, and no decisions can be made. We've gone through all the groups. That was our analysis. We made the decision that this particular group is a big chunk of change and unless there is more money, the big chunk of change doesn't exist. That's the deal.
Senator L. Smith: David, I understand exactly what you're saying, but all I'm trying to do is help understand what the role of the board is. The board's role is two functions: to understand strategy and to make economic decisions.
For two years in a row, I'm not understanding the strategy behind why we're spending the money. What you're explaining to me is people coming to you to make presentations to the JIC committee about their spending money and budgets, and it appears because of the information, and maybe you have all this information, but if we had a summary of one page, an executive summary so we could understand strategy, then it could tie in very well to why we're spending the money.
It's been two years. I just haven't seen it. Maybe I should have asked more questions and gone and done more research, but to a board you have to have the strategy before you have the numbers. I'm not disagreeing with the end result of what you're saying. I'm trying to get a handle on how we can better understand as a board so we can make informed decisions. I'm not sure we're making informed decisions when we're just talking about the feedback from you guys saying, "I've done all my work, so this is what we've got." I understand that, but give us a little shot to understand why you made the decision you did beside the numbers, because if it's a strategic decision tied to numbers, it's right. If it's a non-strategic decision tied to numbers, it may be wrong. That's all I'm saying.
The Chair: Another element to the problem is who decides the 100 per cent. The 100 per cent is decided by the Board of Internal Economy in the other chamber. We are asked to pay 30 per cent of that. That's probably not the proper way to go. That's all part of the discussion we need to have, so strategy, what are the deliverables, what do we want to achieve through parliamentary diplomacy?
I have a suggestion to make. We need to stay alive at least for a year to let all that study be done. We have an option here, Option 1. We can fund that $165,000. Of course, the house will take its decision next week. If it decides to withdraw from the IPU, then we will revisit the decision and take it from there. For the time being, if you agree, I would suggest that we go for Option 1, fund for the $165,000, but I'm in your hands. You will decide. I think we need to stay alive to achieve what Senator Marshall and many of us have heard, because definitely we need a thorough understanding because not everybody understands what international parliamentary diplomacy is, and we need to be at that level to be able to take those decisions properly.
Senator LeBreton: Isn't that what we decided to do last year? What you're proposing is something that we had decided to do last year. In view of what Senator Lang said, if the House of Commons board is not meeting until Tuesday, would it not be prudent and in line with what you just said to await what they say? That's what we did last year. We agreed to do one more year and try to reduce the membership fees. We're basically ragging the puck for another year.
The Chair: I'm making the proposal just to stay alive, because that thorough review was not done. We need to do it. It needs to be done to the JIC.
Senator Tkachuk: It was done, chair.
The Chair: Where are the results of that?
Senator Tkachuk: We asked IPU to review their expenses.
The Chair: No, it's not the IPU. We're talking about the global picture. We need answers to the global strategy in terms of public parliamentary diplomacy. We need to go through that. We don't have the answers to that, to be able to answer the question that Senator Marshall put, which is quite valid, and then we will have the number. It will take probably more than a year to achieve that. At least, let's start.
Senator Marshall: It seems to me that what the House of Commons decides is going to have a big impact on us. Next week, if they decide they're no longer going to fund IPU, isn't it automatically us not funding IPU? Where do we fit into the decision of the House of Commons?
The Chair: Nowhere, for the moment. That's why I want to raise that issue with Speaker Scheer at lunch. I want us to be part of the decision of the 100 per cent.
Senator Marshall: Should we not defer until we hear from the House of Commons?
The Chair: And revisit the question next week? I'm open.
Senator Tkachuk: Let's wait.
The Chair: As long as we're part of the decision process.
Senator Manning: I, along with Senator Smith, am part of the rookie club here, I'm just listening as much as I can, but it's a conversation in my view that has gone on a fair bit here this morning and we haven't reached a conclusion on it.
I would like to echo the comments of Senator Marshall. If the House of Commons is paying 70 per cent of the budget and we're paying 30, we're part of the tail. I think that we need to defer to see what they're going to do next Tuesday. It's not like it's light years away, it's only a few days away, to see what they come up with.
I've been reading as much as I can since joining this committee in relation to the parliamentary committees, the functions, the processes. To be honest with you, I haven't seen a lot on paper on the results of some of these committees that have spent enormous amounts of dollars over the years travelling throughout the world. I'm sure there is good work being done in some of these cases but it's certainly not something I can find on paper in a lot of places.
If we're sending delegations around the world, the least we should have is a report at the end of the day of what that trip was about or the purpose of the visit, then we learn from that.
I truly concur with the fact that we should have a review of all committees, from top to bottom. It's not the amount of money that concerns me, Mr. Chair; it's the value for the dollars that we're spending. If we're spending $100,000 and getting $100,000 worth, that's good money. If we're spending $100,000 and getting $20,000 worth, we should look at that. I think that we need to have a review of that. We should wait for the House of Commons to make a decision on this and maybe defer until we hear back from them.
Senator Fraser: Obviously if the will of the committee is to defer, that's the will of the committee, but I do think that in terms of the very important point you have made, chair, that we need to be part of the decision-making process, that if we are seen one more time saying, "We won't do anything until you guys have decided what we should do," that weakens our position. I would support your proposal, which I understand to be that we say we wish to continue this participation, but the understanding, of course, is that we can't do it alone, but we make our position clear.
I would also strongly support the idea of a very careful look at all of the associations, and indeed the friendship groups, which are proliferating like mushrooms. I think it needs to be very seriously done, but it does need to be done. It has not been done. Without that work having been done, in a sense, we're flying blind.
I would support those who have suggested that we continue for now, pending a really proper examination of the whole field.
The Chair: To help the reflection, some countries undertook many years ago to really look at the problem. The House of Lords did it. The French Senate did it. The U.S. Senate did it, for obvious reasons. That's why I think we are right there. We have to do it, but it needs to be done globally with an understanding of the parameters. We are moving into territory where, if we come to the conclusion that we want to be part of it that will prompt the question of the proper funding of it, as Senator Manning just mentioned.
Senator L. Smith: A quick point: In fairness to David, last year when we made the decision, we did not ask David and his group to do any analysis that we've talked about today in terms of strategy. That was not the request. The point I was bringing up is this is two years in a row, and I think it behooves us to do a strategic analysis. Let's make sure that's clear.
Second, for you to be able to talk to Speaker Scheer I think is an excellent idea. Then the issue becomes whether, as per Senator Fraser, we make some form of a decision saying we want to go forward before they make their decision. That's a third element. But the element of you meeting with the other Speaker to talk strategically I think shows some strength and is something that should take place, because the Senate is an important player in this game.
The Chair: I'm sure he's already listening to what we're talking about.
Senator Lang: Mr. Chairman, I disagree with my colleague going ahead with the decision today in respect to the allocation of dollars. I think we should defer our decision until next week, and then we'll know at least part of the story in respect to the options we do have. I agree with Senator Smith's point, and I think it's well taken. Just exactly throughout this whole discussion here today we've had a very good presentation by Senator Dawson, but I'm still not clear in my mind, as a member of this particular board, what exactly we have had for deliverables from this particular organization. I don't think that's in fairness to the board here, seriously considering the amount of money.
Second, I, as a board member, next week, would like to know how much. We know how much Canada is putting in towards the administration. I would like to know what the other 165 countries are putting in to help run this organization in comparison to what we are. In fairness, we should know that.
The Chair: We will have that answer from Mr. Janse.
Gérald Lafrenière, Deputy Principal Clerk, International and Interparliamentary Affairs: I want to clarify two really quick points with respect to what the associations do and how they spend our money. After every single trip, associations are required to table a report in both chambers that talks about the meetings that are held and what they achieved throughout the trip, with a financial breakdown of every single trip, just to provide that information.
Second, with respect to the overall review of parliamentary associations, I think Senator Tkachuk would agree that Mr. Merrifield led a working group just two years ago. He met with every single chair of parliamentary associations to discuss their work. He wrote a report. What we're going to do is provide that report obviously to this committee, which I think would be a very good basis to start any new review. That work has been done twice in the last 10 years. It was done by Senator Massicotte and Mr. Merrifield about eight years ago, and it was redone two years ago by Mr. Merrifield. The problem is not that that research has not been done; I think it's coming to the final decisions on where we actually go with the conclusions that are in those reports.
Senator Cordy: I think we've had an excellent discussion, and I think some of the observations that were raised about the need to look into this, not just IPU, but all organizations and associations, is an excellent one.
I would like it, chair, when meeting with the Speaker from the other side, that you actually had a decision and I felt the Senate was actual playing a role, but I'm not sure that that's to be.
The Chair: I will work exactly to achieve that.
Senator Cordy: Thank you. I think we have to go back to Senator Manning's comment that it's not just dollars but value for money. When you look at diplomacy and liaisons that are built up with whatever organization, that is the main thing. You're absolutely right that if we spend $200,000 and we get $300,000 worth of value for it, that's great. If we spend $25 and don't get value, that should be eliminated.
The Chair: Senator Lang, did you move a motion to postpone until next week?
Senator Lang: Yes.
The Chair: Is that agreeable to everybody?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. We will move up to Item No. 7 and go in camera. For me, in camera means we shut down the broadcast, but all staff remains, both administration and senators' staff. That is my meaning of in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)