Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 2 - Evidence - April 14, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 14, 2016
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), met this day at 8 a.m., in public, for the consideration of financial and administrative matters; and in camera for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. We have the pleasure this morning of having with us Senator Harder, Government Representative in the Senate. Welcome to your first meeting of Internal Economy.
Honourable senators, I would like to make a little adjustment to our agenda today, which is light agenda by comparison to our normal meetings. Senator Harder has requested that he address us on an issue regarding budgets. If we all can be benevolent enough to add him to the agenda as Item 2 after the adoption of the minutes, we'll push down all the items by one. Are senators in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We'll go to Item 1, Adoption of the Minutes of Proceedings of March 24, 2016, the public portion. Colleagues, are there any questions?
Senator Wells: In the section under Contract for Corporate Card, a working group was established.
The Chair: That's the in camera portion.
Senator Wells: Excuse me.
The Chair: Are there any other questions on the public portion of the minutes?
Does anyone move adoption? Senator Batters, seconded by Senator Manning. No disagreements, I hope. We have consensus? Great.
We'll go right to Item 2. I'll ask Senator Harder to address us.
Senator Harder: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity at an early date to speak with this committee. It was my intention to hoist this until next week, but after discussions with the chair, he suggested and I welcomed the opportunity that I at least speak to this issue today. It has to do with the budget allocated to the Government Representative in the Senate. The current assigned budget, as you will well now, is $250,000. For reasons which I hope to articulate, I wish to recommend consideration of an adjustment.
In the last three fiscal years, as you will know, the position of the Leader of the Government in the Senate has been considerably higher than that presently allocated. The purpose of my submission today is to demonstrate how the role that I have assumed, while somewhat different than in the past, is very much like the role provided and budgeted for previously. In many respects, given the challenges of managing a larger number of independents within the chamber and the roles that will require me to perform, it is perhaps even more complex.
The proposal I would suggest to you is consistent with budgets of the past and reflects the salary scales for staff in offices of Ministers of State. Of course, the budget allocated to me as a senator for Ontario is not the issue. In my view, those budgets are entirely appropriate for the duties required.
With respect to the functions that I expect to perform in this role, clearly there's a legislative dimension. The management of the legislative program for the government includes ensuring the moving of the necessary motions to solicit a decision of the Senate at various stages of bills; responding to points of order in relation to the management of government bills; responding to points of order in relation to the management of government business; identifying sponsors for government bills and ensuring they are supported appropriately with briefing materials from the relevant departments well in advance of the dates of the bills being presented; coordinating with departments to ensure a timely and relevant appearance in committees in relation to government bills, including the appearance of ministers and senior officials; engaging with independent senators and party caucuses alike to solicit views on bills; and understanding better what amendments might be proposed to government bills. While it is not my role to whip any votes, it is not unusual and should not be unexpected that I would want to know, or at least have a sense of, where the votes and the pressures for amendments are being felt.
As a spokesperson for the government in the chamber, I am responding to questions and coordinating the appearance in Question Period of ministers; taking responses to written questions and written responses as notice, where appropriate; coordinating government responses to Senate committee reports; articulating government positions on Senate private and public bills; and participating as appropriate on cabinet committees. As a privy councillor, I am invited, as appropriate, to cabinet committees, where I will represent the views of the Senate. As well, I will bring perspective from the government to discussions here in the Senate, both formal and informal.
With respect to administration and accountability, I would expect to participate fully in the work of this committee and in the role of working with leaders of the chamber to ensure the good functioning of both business and administration. I have a significant number of media inquiries. I would suspect that there will be speech and communications outreach to help promote the work of the Senate, which I believe is very much part of my role because all senators have a responsibility in that regard.
The budget I am proposing would provide me with an office of nine people. It would be a budget of between $787,000 to $886,000, which complies with the salary ranges in effect. This would allow me to have an executive assistant, a director of parliamentary affairs, three legislative assistants, one director of communications, one comms assistant and one senior policy adviser in addition to a chief of staff.
I would very much appreciate it if the committee would consider this request at an early opportunity, because it's getting a bit lonely.
Senator Tkachuk: On the number that you mention, is that in addition to the $250,000 presently allocated to you, plus the $180,000, I think, that you have as a senator?
Senator Harder: No. You would subtract the $250,000 from the $850,000, essentially. It's an incremental of two, 600.
Senator Tkachuk: It will be the $180,000 plus the $787,000 or $850,000 — the two numbers you mentioned?
Senator Harder: Exactly, yes, which is the precedent of my predecessor, frankly.
Senator Tkachuk: You mentioned a number of duties that a whip or deputy leader would normally do. Are you proposing that you're going to have eight staff do the job of what a whip or deputy leader would normally do?
Senator Harder: No, not at all. These are the roles, traditionally, that the leaders had a role in. I would expect an early opportunity to have a deputy representative, as well as a whip function, named. There is a degree of coordination and responsibility that I have to ensure that the roles I've expressed are well managed within the leader's office.
Senator Wells: Senator Harder, you mentioned, in your list of things to do, managing a larger number of independents. Can you tell me how that works? Is it just the independents that came with you? Is it the existing independents? Is it the independents that will be coming, and are they in agreement with being managed as independents?
Senator Harder: If I used the word "managed," I apologize. It is a work-in-progress. I expect to have a meeting next week with all independents to discuss my role, but I do think I have an obligation to ensure that, to the extent that independents want to participate in debates — to give notice through the scroll process of how they wish to participate — some degree of coordination is required. To the extent there are discussions with respect to committee assignments and the like, I do think I have, at least in the present circumstances, an obligation to represent and somehow bring coherence to the coordination with others in the Senate — the whips and other leaders — to ensure that all of the senators are able to understand how they can fit in and participate fully in the work of the chamber, as appropriate.
I do expect that we will have 20 more new senators in the fall, and I would wish to anticipate that arrival by having at least some nascent practices for how we bring some level of coordination to a large number of loose fish.
Senator Wells: All right. There are a large number of loose fish, that's for sure.
Senator Harder: That's what Sir John called them.
Senator Wells: I'm just trying to understand it a little better. Would you be caucusing as independents?
Senator Harder: First of all, I am not the leader of the independents. That would be an oxymoron. I don't have a view. I think it's up to the independents, collectively, to determine whether they wish to have an informal arrangement of convening meetings. I do expect from time to time, on a fairly regular basis, I will convene just so that I can hear views and understand who is prepared to sponsor a bill or who wants to participate in debate, that sort of thing. How the independents organize is really for the independents to decide, collectively, as a group. It may be a period of experimentation. Who knows?
Senator Wells: As you may know, some independents have already organized as a working group and others are not part of that. Decisions have been made either to exclude or to not be included.
Senator Harder: I have offered a meeting next week of all independents with me to discuss my role and how I can bring a level of enhanced understanding of how they can participate. I offered to both the leaders of the of the caucus parties that I'm happy to meet with their caucuses to discuss this as well.
I don't have a play book. This is a process in which we're both going to have to have some degree of tolerance for experimentation and see how we can make sure that the best interests of the collective Senate are served.
Senator Wells: But there's no attempt to caucus as independents?
Senator Harder: Not that I'm aware of.
Senator Wells: Thank you very much.
Senator Munson: Thank you, Senator Harder, for being here this morning. I wonder if you could leave us a copy of your proposal. It's difficult to look at some of the financial implications as the Internal Economy Committee without having some paper in front of us, so I'd appreciate that.
Do you have a plan to have a deputy leader and a whip?
Senator Harder: As to the paper, I'm happy to leave a copy. Per my conversation with the chair last night, I said I would be happy to come. I don't have a formal document, but I do have the notes that I used to discuss this, and I'm happy to leave copies with senators, absolutely.
With respect to the questions you've posed, it would be my intention to name a deputy representative for the deputy leader functions to help manage what is a rather significant — I met with a number of you in the scroll meetings — and time consuming and important task. I hope to attend the scroll meetings for at least the next while so that I can better understand the proceedings, but I would be benefited by having an assistant with experience.
As to the whip function, I don't think I can call it that, although some who would object to that. I do think it's important for the Government Representative in the Senate to have a degree of coordination with whips and a degree of working together on a lot of the work that you, senator, would understand would benefit from having a mechanism of working with independents in a more coherent fashion.
At the end of the day, when dealing with government legislation, while I don't have expectations of any whip at all, it would be good to have a senator who can speak to senators who are either supporting the bill or not, to render a little bit more of a sense of no surprises or coherence, and perhaps even helping me identify the amendments that one could consider taking back to the government that could generate a consensus and support in the Senate.
It would be a leadership team, if I can call it that, trying to, in the circumstances that are presented, adapt and bring some discipline and management to my role.
Senator Munson: I have one other question on the committee structure. Presently there are 18 vacancies. Some committees are lacking two to three and some are lacking one. How do you envisage the independents to fit into the new play book of having committee membership?
Senator Harder: Good question. That's one of the subjects I want to talk to the independents about. I don't come with a whip. I come with, hopefully, a desire to find mechanisms within existing rules and procedures, but also anticipating how rules and procedures, both written and unwritten, will adapt to a Senate in which there are an increasing number of independents, so that it's not sort of atoms out there, but that we can try to bring some degree of "responsibilization" through this process.
Senator Munson: Presently we do have chairs and deputy chairs of committees. Do you see in the future a role for independent senators to fulfill those roles?
Senator Harder: Yes, I do, as appropriate to representation, interest and ability. Those are the kinds of conversations we ought to have amongst ourselves so that there are no surprises and that the appropriate — I don't want to say trade-offs — adjustments are made within the leadership structures and the representations that we will all have.
Senator Munson: I brought this up at the Joint Interparliamentary Council. That's a group on both sides that appropriates money for different parliamentary associations and travel. There's no structure in place right now. For the life of me, I don't know how this is going to work, but it has to work.
With the 20 new senators you talk about coming in the fall and new ones now and other independents, under the auspices of the whip, the whip approves participation and other things, such as NATO parliamentary procedures or Canada-Africa. Do you have any ideas of how you would see that kind of new scenario working in a new and improved Senate?
Senator Harder: Let me respond by first saying the best ideas will come from further conversations. But I do think that once I am able to announce a Senate liaison function like a whip, there should be conversations amongst the whips on exactly those kinds of questions so that mechanisms can be found, some degree of innovation, that can take some of the frustration out of some senators on how the procedures need to adapt to a Senate that has a larger number of independents, both here and soon to be named. I think people of goodwill can find ways to accommodate, but we have to have some mechanisms. What I'm suggesting is the mechanism, not necessarily the absolute result. That will have to happen as a result of further conversations.
Senator Munson: My caucus, the caucus I'm a part of, likes to call me a facilitator now because, as a whip, there are certain functions we do have. On our side, everybody is allowed to vote the way they want to vote, really, according to their conscience and how they feel about issues, but "facilitator" is always a good word.
The Chair: I'll take my privilege as chair to ask a question as well and make a comment.
First of all, Senator Munson, as a whip you can be a facilitator, a whip or whatever the case may be. We have, of course, whips in all caucuses, but at the end of the equation, no one can prevent any senator from voting his or her conscience. Our fundamental responsibility, when we were summoned to this place, is to serve Canadians on reviewing legislation and playing the role of sober second thought.
I, for one, have never, ever felt, in the eight years I've been here, an obligation to follow the advice of a facilitator. Of course, we take advice on legislation here from all colleagues, and we're here to participate in dialogue and discourse on legislation and what we think is best.
Leader, you've mentioned, on occasion, a number of responsibilities you feel that you have to engage in that would require a significant budget, close to a million dollars when you add it all up, with your senators' budget of $188,000, plus the additional $250,000 you get currently as Leader of the Government. Of course, the additional ask would bring it up substantially.
Senator Harder: Understand that you'd subtract the 250.
The Chair: Right. But it's give or take $800,000 plus the 188, so you're close to a million dollars. You mentioned in your address that a lot of it is to be able to coordinate the independents. You talk about finding a role for the independents on committees. You talk about identifying where the vote process is going on particular pieces of legislation. You talk about identifying senators to carry legislation on behalf of the government because essentially your role is to make sure legislation gets through this place.
You mentioned this directly: You said "organizing" the independents. It sounds, for us who have been here for a little bit of time, like working within an independent caucus because all of the roles you highlighted are roles that government leaders have played in the past, and they've played it within the confines of a defined caucus.
I also want to make a correction here. Independents have always had a place in this place in terms of committees and all the roles we play. Of course that has been coordinated by the whips from the two caucuses, traditionally.
We are, agreed, in uncharted territory, but we're also a place of law. We make laws, and we're functioning within the confines of the Parliament of Canada Act and the Constitution of Canada. I think our colleagues are trying to get our heads around a desire to reform and to modernize. We've been moving in that direction for the last couple of years, but we need to do it also respecting the conventions, traditions and laws of this institution.
Senator Harder: Senator, let me comment briefly by saying that my point of reference was the budget of my predecessor, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who, while a privy councillor, was not a member of cabinet. I see my role very much in that, without the advantage, if I can put it that way, of a caucus.
The Chair: Or disadvantage.
Senator Harder: He can put it that way.
If I used the word "organize," that would be overstatement. I thought I was repeating the whole notion that it's up to the independents to determine the degree of coherence and in what fashion they wish to caucus or not. My responsibility is to provide a mechanism that will allow a more institutional set of relationships to develop.
In terms of the number of people that the budget I'm proposing would provide, my understanding is the previous was 13 people, and I'm proposing a complement of 9. There are some puts and takes to this all.
All that I'm asking for is a sense of the appropriate resources, and I use the baseline of my predecessor. We will happily review, as we work through this. But, in the spirit of goodwill and of openness to the appointment, which I recognize is an innovation in itself, I would ask the committee to work with me through this period of experimentation.
Senator Marshall: I had a couple of questions. Senator Wells stole the first one and Senator Munson stole the second one. I did have a question on managing independent senators, and you've answered that one.
Senator Munson asked for a copy of your request. Does that itemize the individual positions?
Senator Harder: Yes.
Senator Marshall: So it's not just saying 600,000.
Senator Harder: No.
Senator Marshall: I do have a comment. As a former whip, I know you're going to definitely need a whip, whether you call them a facilitator or some other name, but you're certainly going to need somebody to fulfill that role.
Thank you very much.
Senator Batters: Senator Harder, you said earlier, "I don't have a play book." Well, we do. It's called the Parliament of Canada Act and the Rules of the Senate.
First of all, I would ask if you could please table your letter of appointment that you received from the Prime Minister. I'm wondering if you could table it at this meeting today, if you have it with you. I've seen a couple of things on the website, et cetera, that cause me some concern. This position is called the Leader of the Government in the Senate. That's what the Parliament of Canada Act and the Rules of the Senate say, yet you want to be styled as "Government Representative."
When Minister Dominic LeBlanc came before our Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament on Wednesday, February 24, 2016, I attended that meeting and asked him and Minister Monsef questions about different items. At that point, in his opening remarks, he said:
Under the Parliament of Canada Act, and I understand in many of your rules, the office is called the "Leader of the Government" in the Senate. So we will be appointing a government leader in the Senate to be styled as the government representative. There shouldn't be any mystery about this.
In order this person, he or she, will be able to properly operate in your rules, as we understand them, but also in the Parliament of Canada Act, which is a statute that remains in force, the government leader will be styled as the government representative, but for the purposes of the rules and the statutory requirement, that person will be the government leader.
Because of that, I expected that every reference to you would be always, on official Senate resources, referred to as Leader of the Government in the Senate, yet the website has already been changed to list you as the Government Representative in the Senate. I've heard that that may have been the case as well on the seating chart.
I guess my comment would be: You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want the government leader's budget, abilities, that sort of thing, you have to assume the government leader's responsibilities, things like Question Period.
Minister LeBlanc confirmed in response to people's questions that day that the Leader of the Government in the Senate would be the appropriate title. He referred to this stylization as well, but he did confirm that according to the Parliament of Canada Act and the Rules of the Senate, that's how it would be referenced. We have received no other clarification. In fact, this process has gone on for quite some time, since early December, when this first reference to "representative" was made. Finally, Minister LeBlanc came to our committee to talk about it. That's really the only confirmation we have received. The Senate resources website, all of that sort of thing, every reference needs to be the appropriate legal reference to refer to you.
I also point out that some of the duties of your role, which you described in your opening comments, are the duties of the deputy leader and the whip. For example, the scroll process is a deputy leader's responsibility; and committee responsibilities fall under the deputy whip. Those positions are also named in both the legislation and the Rules, so if you want to have different titles for those, then they wouldn't have the same rights and obligations that would be in our Rules.
Also, when you referred to Senator Carignan's responsibilities previously, he also had 50-plus senators in a caucus for almost the entire time he was there. When you spoke about intending to go to the meeting next week of independent senators, I wonder if you will suggest forming a government caucus because earlier you referred in your opening remarks to managing independents. Could you please respond to that?
Senator Harder: Let me start with where you started with respect to the letter from the Prime Minister. I'm happy to table that. It's very short and I could actually read it to you.
Senator Batters: You can table it too.
Senator Harder: The letter states:
I would like to congratulate you on your appointment to the Senate and to thank you for accepting to occupy the position of Leader of the Government in the Senate, effective March 23, 2016. I ask that you refer to yourself as Government Representative in the Senate in your work on the government's behalf.
I am providing a copy of this letter to Mr. Charles Robert, the Clerk of the Senate, to the Honourable George J. Furey, the Speaker of the Senate, and to the Honourable Claude Carignan, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
Sincerely,
Justin Trudeau
With respect to the law, of course, any documents of law that are required to be signed will be signed under the authority of the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
This is not uncommon in the other place. A number of ministers, and you will know some of them, have titles that are not legal titles at this time. The Minister of the Environment is also the Minister of Climate Change, which is not in the legal requirements. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans also has a reference to the Coast Guard. A host of ministers have titles in the public usage that are different than the order-in-council of their particular appointment or the authorities that flow from their appointments; so it's not irregular. Indeed, in the appointment of the Minister of Indigenous Affairs, the legal title is still Indian Affairs because the law never caught up to Aboriginal Affairs, which the previous government used as a styled name.
We have this practice of recognizing the wishes of prime ministers. Mr. Trudeau is the first to use the titles that are the preference of the ministry, recognizing that legal titles and legal authorities are also transparently revealed. I personally don't see the problem. My intention is to reflect the request of the Prime Minister in how I conduct myself in this chamber.
Senator Batters: You don't see a big difference between a government leader in the Senate, which has references throughout the Parliament of Canada Act and the Rules of the Senate, and Government Representative — compared to calling someone minister of the environment or minister of the environment and climate change.
Senator Harder: The various acts that are relevant to various ministries will reference the minister in a name that perhaps is styled differently today. That's my only point.
Senator Batters: I'm saying that to me it's a matter of convenience rather than a matter of conforming to the laws.
The Chair: With all due respect, Senator Harder, you're not a minister. You represent this institution, the highest chamber in Parliament; and you're not a government department, that's right. I can appreciate the government wanting to tweak ministerial titles, but in this case, a government that has wanted to be independent from this chamber and allow the Senate of Canada the freedom to operate within the spirit of the Parliament of Canada Act and the Constitution has set it up to do so. Quite honestly, we find it an affront that the Prime Minister is trying to change a tradition and a rule of the Parliament of Canada Act to try to transform a political issue in the Senate of Canada. That's just a comment.
Senator Batters: You could just continue to answer my question about what you intend to do with the meeting of independent senators next week and whether you intend to ask them to form a government caucus.
Senator Harder: Absolutely not. It's not my job to form a caucus or to direct independent senators in a particular organized fashion. I hope to discuss with independent senators my role in how I can effectively advance their interest in speaking to legislation and perhaps sponsoring legislation. I would look to any senator, frankly, to sponsor legislation and to provide mechanisms of organization. That's not a caucus. That's simply trying to bring some coherence to how we work collectively.
With respect to the aspects of how I outlined the role, that very much reflects the kind of work that my predecessor did, admittedly with, I would argue, an advantage of a caucus, because there are added complexities for my role in having not only the interaction with caucus leaders but also a large number of senators who sit as independents and a larger number coming. I'm trying to be as transparent as I can with what my role is.
Senator Batters: Okay, just one last point on that. You discussed your role and participation in cabinet committees as you have been already sworn in as a privy councillor. In fact, I think you were sworn in last week prior to being sworn in as a senator. Have you asked the Privy Council Office for any budget money?
Senator Harder: As in the case of Senator Carignan, who was a privy councillor and had his budget established by the Senate, the view from PCO is that we should use the precedent of the existing practice, at least in respect of the previous government in this case.
Senator Batters: Did you ask and you were declined, or did you simply not ask?
Senator Harder: I asked whether they would be prepared to, and their view was that we should use the precedent of my predecessor.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Harder: That is what I'm coming with.
Senator Lang: Welcome, Senator Harder.
Senator Harder: Thank you; and thank you for your note.
Senator Lang: Quite frankly, I'm not surprised to see you here, having served in a legislature for four years that was independent. You're a very quick learner because there has to be some organization or otherwise it doesn't function. We could just be the Wild West. Recognizing that, I would like to ask specific questions.
I'm not quite clear on your role and position within the Privy Council. You mentioned in your opening statements a reference to cabinet committees. Do I take it that you're in such a position that you will be regularly attending cabinet committees that are germane to the Senate? Would you be reporting to them or participating in cabinet committees and, if so, which ones so that we have an idea?
Senator Harder: Thanks very much for your question. We first met when I was in a different role, working as the Chief of Staff to the then Deputy Prime Minister.
Senator Lang: That's right.
Senator Harder: I have been sworn in to the Privy Council, as was my predecessor, Mr. Carignan. As was the case with him, I am invited, as is appropriate, to cabinet committees. Obviously, "appropriate" would be interpreted as where the work of the Senate is important and the voices of the Senate's concerns are important to be conveyed directly. I have already attended such committees and look forward to continuing as appropriate and as invited.
Senator Lang: I want to get it clarified, if I could, so I understand how your role relates to the executive council. Are you actively participating on a regular basis on the policy and planning committee of the government?
Senator Harder: No, I have not attended that committee.
Senator Lang: Which committees do you see yourself being part of?
Senator Harder: Those of you who have been in cabinet and perhaps outside of cabinet know that there is a degree of invitation involved. I have participated in the Parliamentary Affairs Committee.
Senator Lang: I would like to follow up on the question of the money, because this is what this is all about. As we know there is change taking place, but at the same time there is only so much money at the end of the day with respect to how we operate within the Senate. Each senator, to some degree, is governed, and each office is governed, by how much is allocated, and we have pretty much held that line for quite some time.
We now have two caucuses. Perhaps this is directed to the chairman more than yourself, but we now have a potential caucus of independents who are, perhaps, looking for more money. We have a Liberal independent caucus that has an allocation of dollars, and of course you have the Conservative caucus. Then we have you with no caucus, but you are asking for as much money, if not more, than others have been allocated.
I'm not quite clear, with respect to this, if there is going to have to be some discussion here as to how all this is going to shake down because. I say this with all due respect. You will be speaking, I assume, on behalf of the government. Senator Campbell will speak on behalf of himself and I assume that I will be speaking, perhaps, in some capacity within the organization that I belong to. Of course, I need resources and you need resources, so perhaps somebody could tell me, if we were to approve, with your salary over a million dollars, where is that going to come from? If somebody is going to get more, who gets less? That would be my question.
Senator Harder: Let me respond as best I can. I am simply seeking the resources of my predecessor in a similar function, and if I take your logic as to the similar title, without, as I mentioned several times, the advantage of caucus or the responsibilities of having a caucus, that's my baseline.
I think you are raising a really important issue that the Senate as a whole will have to deal with over time, and that is how will budgets in the future reflect the changing reality?
I do note that this committee has recently made adjustments to research budgets. Whether or not those are sustainable is worthy of some reflection on how research funding ought to be allocated. I spent five years as Secretary of the Treasury Board. I have some idea of parsimony and allocating budgets. It's not for me to do here, and it's not the purpose of my presentation, but I absolutely share your notion that we are going to, as a body and a collective institution, have to review how budgets are allocated to reflect the changing reality of representation and behaviours.
Senator Lang: I want to conclude this, so I leave this as a comment. I didn't necessarily agree with the past government with respect to the fact that the allocation of the dollars from the executive council was discontinued because of the fact that a minister's position was no longer part of that responsibility. In my view, maybe that should be part of this discussion. Because it was done once doesn't mean it has to be done twice.
I understand you do need some resources. I'm not going to argue that, but I would be prepared to argue with you how much, depending on what your role is in respect to your colleagues. I would argue that maybe your colleagues need more money too, and you less, depending on the roles they take on. That's my observation.
The Chair: That's a very good point, Senator Lang. The direct answer to your question is that it's a legitimate proposal we have before us. We will review it and send it to the estimates committee to see what the budgetary implications and the options are.
The other thing that I want to point out, Senator Harder, is that we have a mechanism in place for allocating budgets for caucuses that is based on numbers. It's a floating rate: As the numbers and the responsibilities of those caucuses go up, the budget goes up, and as the responsibilities and the numbers of those caucuses go down, the budget goes down.
I want to remind colleagues that you keep referring to the fact that you want no different treatment than what was given to the former government leader in the Senate, Senator Carignan, but by your own admission you are not quite playing the role that Senator Carignan did with a large caucus to manage and the intricate responsibilities between the majority caucus and the minority caucus in the Senate of making sure that we operate in a proper and cohesive manner.
Senator Harder: I appreciate that senator, but I also point out that, in his role, he had other leadership support structures to accomplish some of that. His office budget, as such, was very much focused on the roles that I have articulated as being, logically, in my job share.
Senator Doyle: I think my question might have been partially answered in the various discussions, but I wanted to be clear on the terminology, Senator Harder. You said you would be working with independent senators. Are you referring to all the Liberals who became independents, or just the independents that are down in the back of the chamber? What is the terminology? Are the independent senators the former Liberal senators, or —
Senator Harder: Well, first of all, I hope to, in this role, be working with all senators. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, or the Representative of the Government in the Senate — whatever the nomenclature — has a responsibility to all senators, and to work with caucused and uncaucused senators.
With respect to independent senators, I don't think it is my job to discriminate between or to identify within the group of independent senators who would come to a meeting of independent senators and who wouldn't. That would presume that I was trying to create a group. I'm not, so I have invited all independent senators and they can choose to come or not to come to have a discussion as to how, as I said earlier, my role and my office can enhance their ability to be effective and to coordinate, where appropriate, their desire to participate, and to work with my colleagues in leadership roles to accomplish that. I'm not discriminating or setting a hierarchy of independents.
Senator Doyle: Working with all of the independent senators. Okay.
Senator Jaffer: Senator Harder, we welcome you and also look forward to working with you. I just need one clarification from you.
You know that my caucus leader, Senator Cowan, uses the funds he is given directly or indirectly to aid the whole caucus. What he does, he does on behalf of all of us and supports our work.
Are you looking at helping the independents and supporting their work with your budget, or would it just be for your office?
Senator Harder: Frankly, I don't know. I do know that as a senator from Ontario and an independent senator myself, I do wish to have a capacity to deal with some of the issues that are of importance to my constituency, if I can use that word, and that my preference would be to have the leader's role and the senator from Ontario role; but obviously there will be a degree of support and coordination to ensure that the budgets are maximized for their effectiveness, just as, I'm sure, other leaders have done.
Senator Jaffer: If I understand correctly, for your role as a senator of Ontario, as we all have roles, we have a budget for that.
Senator Harder: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: So the budget each of us has, I would imagine that's the budget you would use. But I'm speaking of the extra budget that you are asking for. When we are having discussions, would that be on behalf of all the independents, or would it just be to support your role as the Leader of the Government?
For example, I will use Senator Campbell because he is sitting next to me. If I want and I need help, my leader could consider giving me some of the funds that he has. Would Senator Campbell have the same ability?
Senator Harder: I would have to discuss that with Senator Campbell. Of course, it would depend on the funds that I had available. I'm simply trying to make this place effective and allow myself to perform my role expeditiously, effectively.
Senator Manning: Welcome, Senator Harder. Somebody mentioned loose fish a few moments ago. I think it was you yourself, but, definitely, we are in uncharted waters, whatever we want to be calling ourselves. It's an interesting conversation for sure.
I want to reference the total budget allocation first and give a quick comment on that, and then I have some questions. All senators receive $188,000 to operate their offices. You're no different in that, so as far as I'm concerned that's not even part of the discussion. In my opinion, what you do with your $188,000 is between you and the administration.
The $250,000 you have been allotted in your position right now, as the chair touched on a few moments ago, would increase if the number of independents increases under you, whatever way you operate that. It's the $600,000 request that's here this morning that we need to zero in on. Certainly, some interesting comments on those have been passed on.
When do you anticipate the appointment of a deputy leader in your group?
Senator Harder: I would hope soon. Certainly, my colleagues at scroll would hope soon.
Senator Manning: And with regard to a facilitator, whip, coordinator?
Senator Harder: I would hope soon.
Senator Manning: I'm still having some issue with understanding the role of the whip, facilitator, coordinator. We'll get the name straight one of these days. Maybe it's just me; it could be. What do you see as Leader of the Government versus Government Representative?
Senator Harder: That's a good question. I haven't had a specific conversation with the Prime Minister on this, but I am interpreting the desire to use the change in nomenclature to reflect his intention, now practice, of appointing independent senators and to signal a desire to have less partisanship; therefore, nomenclature that makes clear that the role is to represent the government, not to lead a particular faction in the Senate. So the independents aren't being led by his appointee, but the Senate is being represented by his representative.
Senator Manning: I've had the privilege to sit in a provincial legislature as a member of the opposition, a member of the government and an independent. I've been in Ottawa in opposition and in government, and I consider myself to have some level of independence here. But one thing I have learned in my political career is that — it doesn't matter where you are — this is a numbers game, whether we're talking committees, budgets or legislation. You need more numbers than the other crowd to win the day. That's the bottom line.
My issue is I just want you to further explain to us, because when legislation comes to the Senate Chamber and you want to represent the government and have that legislation put forward and passed, you are going to have to bring people together. Our experience here was that it is done by caucus. Now we can all talk about our independence, and, as I said, I believe I have some. There are things I have voted for that I was not necessarily comfortable with all the time as a member of the government, and I'm sure there will be some that come across your plate, too.
If you're not whipping — I hate that word — how do you see your role in regard to getting the numbers? It's all about the numbers.
Senator Harder: I think you're asking a very good question, and experience will inform me of the tools that I have or don't have of persuasion and charm and otherwise.
I should also say that there may well be conversations around what it would take in terms of an amendment. Those are all part of the role of trying to seek how I can achieve the government's agenda in this chamber in the circumstances and the numbers that are presently there. So it's a democratic responsibility, without the advantage, in the strict management of vote structures, of a whip, a whipping function.
Senator Manning: The $600,000 request is based on today. Some senators have talked about the fact that we have a Conservative caucus; we have a Liberal independent caucus. We have the group that arrived with you the other day as independents. Then we have another group of independents. So we're operating in, as I said earlier, uncharted waters.
As your numbers — I say "your numbers"; let's not be naive here — increase with regard to the independents under you, do you see a need to come back here to us, requesting more funds than have been allocated right now or that you're seeking as the $600,000?
Senator Harder: Senator Manning, I wouldn't anticipate being back here for more funds in this Parliament, other than those annual adjustments that are made across the board, I suppose. I would hope, as we chatted earlier about, that at some point in this Parliament we probably want a broader conversation on budgets. I would be completely open to that in terms of taking advantage of these adjusted circumstances and our experience. But I'm seeking to ensure that in the course of this mandate the Government Representative, Leader of the Government in the Senate — call the person what you wish, and there may be other names too — has the capacity to deliver the mandate and work with all parties, all senators.
Senator Manning: Senator Munson mentioned this earlier in relation to committees and the roles of appointments to committees and the fact that we have several vacancies there now — and you may not be able to answer me today, but I'll put the question out there anyway — would you agree with the election of chairs and deputy chairs to committees versus the appointment of chairs and deputy chairs?
Senator Harder: I'm not trying to duck it, but I am. That's a question I should respond to with greater reflection and, frankly, greater conversation with not just independent senators but also those of you who have been around the table longer. It's always easy to say "yes" without necessarily the benefits of other perspectives, and I would hope to have those before I declare one way or the other.
The Chair: I also want to remind senators and the audience, Senator Manning, that we do elect our chairs and deputy chairs of committees at the beginning of every Parliament.
Senator Manning: In your world, sir, yes.
The Chair: Senator Manning, we do. I remember you participating in that process.
Senator Cordy: Being close to the end of the lineup of questions, I find that all of my questions have been answered.
I want to welcome you to the committee. I hope you'll come regularly because it's a great way to find out the workings of the Senate.
I'd also like to reiterate what others have said, that your requests be put in a more formal written fashion so we can deal with it as we dealt with the budgets for Senator Carignan and Senator Cowan in a fair way. I'm a visual person, so I like to actually look at the numbers on paper. Thank you very much.
Senator Tkachuk: I'm a little confused because if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it is a duck.
Senator Harder: I have ducks.
Senator Tkachuk: Exactly; you have ducks.
What you're talking about here is how you manage those who, on our side, don't support the government. We're kind of organized. On the other side, those who support the government don't seem to be.
We're not here to solve the government's problems; we're here to help you solve your own problems. You're asking us to fund you on a path that we don't know the end of if the Prime Minister wishes to change the Senate.
With all due deference, Senator Harder, the leader of the Senate represents the Senate to the government; it's not the other way around. We are an independent house. You're putting it as if you're the deputy minister to the Prime Minister in the Senate. You're not that. You represent the Senate as the Leader of the Government in the Senate. You choose not to take that position. You're calling yourself something else, but that's really what you are. If there were changes to be made, someone should put down a piece of paper saying where we're going, because none of us here know. The Liberals don't know — the independent Liberals — but in the end, Senator Harder, you have to manage those people who support the government. It's as simple as that. It ain't that complicated. We have 150 years of history telling us how to do that. You may reject all that, but you seem not to know, nor does the government know, what's taking its place.
You're expecting all of us to sort of accept the fact that all of a sudden everybody is going to be independent, when we all know from human experience, because we've all been here for a long time, that there will be those who support the government and there will be those who oppose the government, which is the way it's always been. Except from time to time, people decide, "Well, I'm not going to support it this time or I'm not going to support it the next two times."
We've had many instances in our caucus where people have not supported the government. It happened on many bills. There have been many cases in the previous government where I worked with Liberal members on a government bill. We always did that. I didn't see that as being complicated because we're supposed to be an independent house. But I don't see how you're getting there.
I'd like to know how you're getting there before you get any money, that's for sure, because I don't see an end to this. You can appoint a whip and he gets $50,000, I think; but as an independent senator, we also add another $7,000 to the $188,000, if I'm not mistaken. You really get $195,000. Then, as a deputy leader, you would pick up another $75,000. Pretty soon you'll be building your own caucus. Whether you like it or not, that's what you're going to have. You cannot escape it. You can tell me you can, but you can't.
I'd like to think about this, Mr. Chair. I'd like to know what the plan is on a piece of paper maybe, which we don't have, before we proceed.
The Chair: I agree.
In all fairness to Senator Harder, he has provided us with a document this morning. Again, he was scheduled to appear on April 21 but was kind enough to come before us today. The document hasn't been translated yet. As per our Rules of the Senate, it has to be translated and then we will distribute it to all members of Internal Economy for review in the next few days. We'll deliberate on that as soon as possible.
Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell: Thank you. This is my first time speaking as an independent.
Senator Cordy: You've always been independent.
Senator Campbell: I think we're wandering way away from the budget and getting into areas that I can guarantee you Senator Carignan and Senator Cowan would not be sitting here answering and planning how to do things. I wouldn't tell you dick. I wouldn't tell you nothing. Unfortunately, or fortunately, as Senator Harder is of a gentler and probably more knowledgeable base, he's putting up with this. As an independent, I sure as hell wouldn't. I don't mind answering about a budget, but this idea that I have to tell you what I'm going to do —
The previous government wanted to do reform. I admit that. They tried and got knocked down by the Supreme Court. Then they ended it. We sat here for how long with no new senators, virtually dying by atrophy.
I think that what is going on in this Senate is proper. I support what's going on. I do not know how it will end or where it will be, but you know, sometimes that's how ideas and how great things take place. They start with a kernel and they grow from there. There will be bumps and bruises and tough times, but that's a fact of life.
I also read numbers. I know that you could whip the Liberal caucus until hell froze over, but the numbers aren't going to change, as you said. I also know that the number of Liberals is going down, the Conservatives will be losing members, and the independents will be going up. Short of a change in government, the Liberals will continue to not appoint senators and maybe the Conservatives will. I don't know. At the end of the day, what we're seeing here is a new way of doing business. You can call it what you may.
With regard to the budget, I'd like to know, for instance when the Conservatives were not in government, what their leader got when they had 20 seats. What happened there?
I don't think it's so much the budget; it's the fact that there are duties that have to be taken by a leader. You can call it whatever you want, but by a leader. There are certain duties that have to take place and there are certain costs to that. Whether you have 10 people or 20 people, it doesn't matter. Those duties have to take place and there's a cost to it, and staffing is part of that.
What do we do? Do we say, "Okay, when the Liberals lose a seat, when somebody retires from the Liberals, another independent is put forward?" Do you get another $5 for that and you guys lose $5 or the Liberals lose $5? I'm not quite independent yet. I almost used "we" there. This is the issue we're talking about.
I don't like this idea that we should expect a leader to come in here and tell us what they're going to do. I've never heard any leader actually come in here and tell us what they're going to do. You'll find out as we go along, as it develops. If you don't like it, then you can vote against it. If you like it, you can vote for it.
As far as the budget goes, I don't see anything untoward with the amount of money being requested vis-à-vis what we paid other leaders, no matter how many members you have. This is the government. The same thing happened with us when the Liberals went the other way.
I think we're taking advantage here, quite frankly, of Senator Harder, because I don't think that some of the questions that we're asking here should have to be answered. The budget? Obviously, that's what we do. But political tactics? That's not something we should be dealing with in here.
Thank you.
Senator Tannas: I'd like to say how much I agree with deputy leader Campbell's comments.
Senator Harder: Representation.
Senator Tannas: Deputy representative Campbell.
Senator Harder, welcome. I have a couple of simple questions. We talked about "facilitator" and "whip," and I think Senator Tkachuk made it a presumption that it would be an expectation that your appointed deputy representative and facilitator would qualify for the same kind of funding that a caucus deputy leader and a caucus whip would. Would that be your expectation as well? I got a sense from what you described that that wasn't necessarily the case and that you were looking for boots on the ground in the chamber that could assist you, as opposed to somebody who needs more staff to do stuff and therefore needs a bigger budget.
Senator Harder: It would be my expectation because of what I've come to realize are the work responsibilities of those functions requiring support, as they have today. That support becomes a little more complex in some respects given the nature of independents and the need. It would be complementary to, and ultimately it is, if I can put it this way, a leadership team of three functions with three different allocations.
Senator Tannas: So additional salary for those individuals, plus a potential for an increase in their budgets?
Senator Harder: Yes.
Senator Tannas: Secondly, the Senate Modernization Committee is currently seized with a number of recommendations that came from two particular events. One was a large symposium held in 2015 with academics and convened by Senator Joyal, and then the Massicotte and Greene convention of almost half the senators who participated and generated recommendations.
In addition, the Modernization Committee very clearly, if you look through what has happened in the proceedings and what is about to happen, is very focused on the role of independents and the emerging reality that we've got.
I did have a bit of a concern, when you were talking about what sounded a lot to me like taking on the role, potentially, of a convener, organizer and facilitator of independents, that you might be front-running a little bit what the committee is currently studying, and in a rush because we want to get these thoughtful recommendations out. We're working hard, working on days off, and so on, to do that.
I want your comments if you think any clarification is needed.
Senator Harder: Yes, please, I appreciate the opportunity. I am not trying to pre-empt that work. It will continue, and I'm sure as a result of that work and interaction with a broader group of senators that we may, even in this Parliament, be looking at changing some rules, procedures and mechanisms, et cetera. I am trying to ensure that I have the capacity immediately to do some of the functions which, at an earlier meeting, Senator Tkachuk talked about. Who will do the parking? Those are realities around which conversations must be had, and with all due respect, as important as it is, I think that needs to be done outside, not by me. There are established mechanisms, and we just need to have the docking mechanism in this period of change within my work.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, sir.
Senator Munson: Just a clarification on the new proposed Deputy Leader of the Government and facilitator, or whip. Would you have to have an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act? How would you do that? This is a favourite question of Larry Campbell: He goes "Ah" every time I bring it up. There is the deputy leader over here, and the whip, who do get paid. In the Senate, the third party — and Mr. Chrétien would like to call it a different name — does not get additional remuneration for the whip or deputy leader. How do you envisage that in terms of parity for all?
Senator Tkachuk: Now they're asking you for money.
Senator Munson: Step up to the plate.
Senator Cordy: You didn't expect this, did you?
Senator Harder: You're raising the question that we all have — amongst others — of how we are going to adjust over time. I'm trying to at least get to the starting line, and I would welcome those conversations.
Senator Munson: All I'm saying is that if your deputy whip is getting paid, I want to get paid.
Senator Harder: I take that as a representation.
Senator Munson: There are routes you are going to have to take, whether you seek amendments or whether, as the Leader of the Government or Government Representative, I presume, you could probably just do it.
Senator Harder: I think people of goodwill can find ways of accommodating the pressures in this period of adjustment and transition.
Senator Batters: I have one point on Senator Campbell's question, wondering what the situation was when the Conservatives weren't in government in the Senate. Just like now, we were the official opposition in the Senate, and of course we had, as we do now, a clear role to challenge the government and hold them to account.
With respect to the question that Senator Manning asked a little earlier, Senator Harder, you answered that you don't anticipate asking for more money, aside from the annual increases that there may be over the next couple of years or over the course of this Parliament, I think you said. I wanted your confirmation that, even in the scenario you were earlier referencing that there will likely be 20 more senators appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau by this fall, you don't anticipate coming back to this committee and asking us for more money.
Senator Harder: Not with respect to my office. The leader's functions — the representative's functions — are somewhat elastic on caucus size. The function is the function. Just because there are more independent senators doesn't make my attendance at cabinet committees more or less interesting.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Harder, for your generous time and taking our questions. As you can appreciate, this committee is trying to be as diligent as possible in trying to get it right when it comes to these requests.
As you've seen from the questions, we are in uncharted territory. Having said that, though, this is an institution of governance of the highest level in this country. We're governed by the Parliament of Canada Act and the Constitution, and I've always said we have to be careful when we make fundamental changes to how the institution operates. We always have to do it in accordance with the rule of law and the governance of the country.
Clearly, you've made a request that we will consider carefully. We will send it to I suspect, after deliberation, to our estimates subcommittee, which will be struck very soon, and try to get back to you with an answer as soon as possible. I'm sure there will be some dialogue between you, the subcommittee and Internal Economy to come to a resolution on this.
Senator Harder: Thank you. I appreciate, chairman, your allowing me to speak today in a more informal fashion. While I appreciate the need to dialogue and have further conversations, I hope that your consideration as a committee can be expeditious. I look forward to responding to any further questions and opportunities.
The Chair: Thank you, leader. Of course, you're welcome to stay.
Senator Harder: I'll stay until the scroll meeting.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Manning: Just a point of order for clarification. I didn't have my earpiece in. Did you just say that the request from the Government Representative is going to the estimates committee?
The Chair: Subcommittee on Estimates.
Senator Manning: Which hasn't been struck yet?
The Chair: Right. We'll be electing that committee shortly.
Senator Manning: I'm wondering about a time.
The Chair: We will do that in the next few days, couple of weeks. It will be done.
Senator Manning: Whatever the answer is going to be.
The Chair: It will be done in a timely fashion.
Senator Manning: Okay.
The Chair: The third item on the agenda is the second report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets.
Senator Tannas: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the second report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, which includes the recommended allocations for three committee budgets.
Before reviewing each budget request, I wanted to provide some context. The total funds available for all of 2016-17 are $2.382 million, less $500,000 for witness expenses, leaving $1.882 million for release for individual committee budgets.
To date, $878,575 has been committed for travel by six different committees. This travel is expected to occur before the end of June 2016. Your subcommittee has also previously recommended the deferral of a further $386,926 in funds requested by two committees.
Today the subcommittee is presenting you with a request to release an additional $612,730 for two committees.
In meeting with the individual committees, we wanted to be sure that each one had clear objectives for this genre of expenditure and that the strategy would effectively reach its intended audience. Your subcommittee took special note of each committee's intended travel dates, communications plans and expected reporting dates, and commends those who provided us with detailed and specific plans.
Your subcommittee met with the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who submitted two budgets. The first budget application contained a proposed expenditure of $8,952 for one activity, which is fact-finding in Mexico City, which would take place prior to the end of June 2016. This activity is in relation to their study on strengthening relations with Mexico and would allow three members of the committee to travel to Mexico as a follow- up to their June 2015 report to make a presentation to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Mexican Senate.
The committee also submitted a second budget with a proposed expenditure of $249,126 for fact-finding in Argentina and Chile. This activity is in relation to their study on the political and economic developments in Argentina and their potential impacts on the region.
Based on the information provided for the first budget application, your subcommittee recommends the full release of funds for this activity.
Based on the information provided for the second budget application, the one to Argentina and Chile, the subcommittee also recommends the full release of funds for this activity.
Your subcommittee also met with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Transport and Communications Committee, whose budget application contained a proposed expenditure of $354,652 for two activities: fact-finding and public hearings in Western Canada, specifically, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver, to take place before the end of June 2016; and fact-finding and public hearings in Eastern Canada, specifically Montreal, Saint John, Halifax and Port Hawkesbury, to take place in the fall of 2016. This activity is in relation to their study on the transportation of crude oil.
Based on the information provided for this budget application, your subcommittee recommends the full release of funds for both activities.
With the release of funds we've recommended to date, $1,491,305 of the $1.882 million will have been committed. In addition, we have $386,926 that we had recommended be deferred until more information is available. There are still a few committees in the planning stages of their activities, and there may be some new orders of reference or work plans to come this fall.
We recognize that because committees are budgeting for full participation, which is standard practice established by this committee, and using full-fare airfare costs, the planned spending may appear high. However, it is well established that full participation of members rarely occurs in travel and that our committees will be finding every opportunity to reduce fare costs and unnecessary expenses. So we expect significant funds to be clawed back upon completion of these trips, as is normally the case.
Based on this, and the fact that a good portion of the travel being planned is supposed to take place before the end of June, your subcommittee feels comfortable recommending the release of these funds.
Before concluding, the subcommittee would also like to draw your attention to one issue that was raised over the course of our more recent discussions in relation to the possibility of security risks that may occur when a committee is travelling. The subcommittee is encouraged to learn that some committees have already taken steps to consult with the Senate's Corporate Security Directorate in order to ensure the safety and security of those who travel on behalf of the Senate.
In addition, the subcommittee will inquire, as a part of its review of committee budgets, about what steps individual committees have taken to consider potential security risks associated with their travel activities.
However, we note that it is not always possible to anticipate security risks at the planning or budgetary stage. So we will assure applicants that if additional resources are required — for example, security officers or insurance — under the current process, committees will be able to request additional funds through the normal budgetary process.
Unless there are any other questions, colleagues, we will ask for adoption of the report and also ask for your advice with respect to any guidance you might want to give us around establishing clear guidelines for committees with respect to security.
Senator Marshall: I've got a couple of questions, Senator Tannas. Don't we usually get more detail than this on the budgets? Usually airfare. We looked at one where we questioned taxis.
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Senator Marshall: These are high-level numbers. Is this a new format?
Senator Tannas: I'm not sure. Did we do that in the last go-round? We did. So we have it, and it's an oversight that it's not in your package. We will make sure that it's attached.
Senator Marshall: I like to see the detailed numbers. Could you give us the numbers again? We're only in April. We're just at the start of a new fiscal year. How much did we budget for committee travel for the whole year?
Senator Tannas: We have $1.882 million for the entire year as the budget. We have essentially authorized around $1.9 million right now.
Senator Marshall: More than our budget?
Senator Tannas: Roughly the same as our budget, although that includes — I'm looking for the one that we've deferred for China — $386,926 that we've deferred. So we're under our number. The 386 we've deferred. If, by some remarkable circumstance, all the money got spent by all the committees travelling, then the deferred amount would obviously come into question for the fall.
Senator Marshall: Okay, but our numbers are getting close, so we had better be careful.
The Chair: Senator Marshall, I also want to point out that the last couple of demands we had came before CIBA because the subcommittee was not struck. As a result, the subcommittee had the full documentation of the trip. We don't want to duplicate the work of the subcommittee.
Senator Marshall: Yes. We don't want to go over our budget. We heard from Transport Canada last night, and they're in the news because they overcommitted on their salaries. We're the Senate. We don't want to be overcommitting. That was my second issue, just a caution.
The issue of security is a concern for me too. I think Argentina is okay now, but there's a bit of unrest in South America. I wouldn't go to Brazil right now or Venezuela. We should look at the security issue.
Senator Munson: On the security issue, we're not suggesting we are going to have security people come with the committee, are we? Do we have to go that far?
Senator Tannas: The issue arose in discussion around the South American trip. We have a corporate security directorate here. It makes sense that if a committee is traveling somewhere, it should at least consult with our security consultants —
Senator Munson: Sure.
Senator Tannas: — to get advice. I have the same concern.
I don't want to see, and I think we all agree, that it becomes normal practice for a security person to go on every trip. It can be case by case, but we also don't want to second guess our security people if they feel that there is a need for security. There may be situations where a volatile, controversial subject matter is being studied. We could have a need for security in a place like Vancouver over something controversial.
The point is that we believe, and we're asking for some guidance here, that we should be asking committees whether they've checked with the corporate security directorate to see if they have any intelligence or concerns.
Senator Munson: That's important, but on parliamentary association trips, which I've been on to South America, the government of the day has provided serious security in conjunction with the military attaches and others in embassies. That is where the consultative process has to be. In the past, we have had to cancel out library analysts to go on some of these trips where senators and others and members of parliament write their own reports. There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo here. It has to work in a balanced way in terms of the efficiency and efficacy of our reports.
Senator Tannas: Agreed.
Senator Munson: There's another thing I have to bring up as the whip or facilitator, whatever you want to call me. You said "before the end of June." The idea of traveling in June can be difficult because as we know, no matter what government is in power, they seem to like to throw things at us at the end of June to get this done: pass this, don't pass that and amend this. It turns into a bit of a gong show on this side: We must get it done! Why? Because the government wants it done. I don't think anything is going to change in that regard.
Has Transport and Communications said that they'll travel during a break week? It's really damn important that when these committees travel for work, they do it during break weeks. You have two committees saying that all senators won't travel, but there could be important legislation before us.
Senator Tannas: That's not something our committee has been asking about. Our job is to look after the budgetary process and not the other side. We don't want to do your job or get in the middle of that. We're presuming that senators who come to us have had that discussion or feel good about their potential and are presenting to us their timelines. Their timelines can change because of issues that arise in their discussions with facilitators/whips. We then bring that back to this committee to say that it has been postponed to further on in the year.
The Chair: In response to Senator Marshall's question, history has shown over the last couple of budgets that travel expenses have been at 60 per cent of the requested annual budget. They have always seemed to come in significantly lower at the end of the year.
Senator Marshall: Usually we don't spend or commit it all in April. We need to keep an eye on it.
The Chair: We are well within that target.
Senator Downe: Years ago I was on that subcommittee. We always spent a third more than the budget. We never ran into trouble for the reasons noted by the chair or the subcommittee. Many people don't travel, things happen, meetings are canceled, and trips are shorter. We always budgeted 30 per cent over. Of course, the Liberals were in power so we spent lots of money. We were always 30 per cent over; and we were never over budget.
Senator Jaffer: On security, when the Human Rights Committee went to Lebanon, Senate security took over. We have a separate body that looks after it. I don't think we need to budget. Thereafter, the embassies looked after us.
My concern is not what you have presented senator, but we have almost spent the money and a number of other committees will be coming before us. My concern is: Should we let the chairs know that we have no more funds? How are we going to handle other requests?
Senator Tannas: We anticipate additional requests in the fall. The nice thing about what we have here is that all of the approvals have been anticipated to be wrapped up by the end of June. We'll have our clawback in the bank account, 40 per cent or 50 per cent of the amounts that we have allocated, and available to spend in the fall.
Security is important. It's not that we want to get into that, but we want to perform as a bit of a gatekeeper where we simply say, "Have you actually thought of this?" Again, we're anticipating that in the future committees will be more active. They will be taking on interesting and potentially controversial subjects. The transportation of crude oil is a beautiful example. There should be in people's minds the thought that at least they have raised the question and sought some advice from corporate security.
Senator Jaffer: May I suggest, because I have been involved in this for quite a while, telling the committee chairs to inform our corporate security that they will be travelling and to get a report from corporate security. That should be enough.
Senator Tannas: All we're looking for is whether there's word that they have asked or thought about it.
Senator Campbell: I'm just wondering what the first one is for $8,900. What is going to take place there? I take it that the steering committee is going, but I don't know. What will happen in Mexico City? What presentation are we giving to the Mexican government?
Senator Tannas: We are lucky to have one of the members of the steering committee here. I'll let Senator Downe respond.
Senator Downe: The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade did a detailed report on Mexican-Canadian relations and others, including part of the U.S.A. This report received a lot of attention in Mexico. Last summer I was going to a Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group meeting in the states. The Americans and the Mexicans knew I was coming and that I was deputy chair of the committee, so they asked me to be on a panel with the Mexicans about the report. The report received tremendous coverage in the Mexican media.
In a follow-up, the Mexican Parliament invited the chair of the committee to make a presentation to the Parliament of Mexico. That could not be arranged because of time restraints and so on; so it never worked. The chair's view was that she should take the deputy chair, and we have a unique situation with the third member of the steering committee, Senator Johnson, who was the driving force on recommending that we study this issue. She happens to be President of the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group, and that's the link. Normally, it would be the chair and deputy chair, but in this case, given Senator Johnson's prominent role on this issue, we thought it should be the three of us. You fly in, stay overnight and meet with the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Mexican Parliament, because the Parliament will not be sitting, and then leave.
Senator Campbell: I wondered what the context was. That's good.
Senator Downe: I could go on and on if you want.
Senator Campbell: I'm independent; I don't have anywhere to go.
Senator Manning: Mr. Independent across the row asked my questions.
The Chair: Can I have a motion for this report, colleagues? It is moved by Senator Marshall and seconded by Senator Munson.
Senator Downe: I'm abstaining, chair.
The Chair: Okay, so we have an abstention from Senator Downe. And Senator Campbell?
Senator Campbell: No, I was seconding.
The Chair: Oh, you're seconding. Thank you. All agreed, minus an abstention. Let it be noted.
Item 4 on the agenda is the 214-215 annual report on parliamentary association activities. We have with us the capable Colette Labrecque-Riel and Gerald Lafrenière.
Colette Labrecque-Riel, Acting Clerk Assistant and Deputy Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs, Senate of Canada: Good morning, honourable senators. It's my pleasure to be here today to speak to the 2014- 15 Annual Report on Parliamentary Associations Activities and Expenditures. I am Colette Labrecque-Riel, Acting Clerk Assistant and Deputy Director General of the International Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate and have been in that role since last September. I am accompanied by Gérald Lafrenière, Principal Clerk responsible for Parliamentary Exchanges and Protocol. Also, Patrice Martin, Acting Deputy Principal Clerk, responsible for Parliamentary Associations was supposed to attend here this morning. Unfortunately, he needs to attend to a family matter.
Before speaking directly to the annual report itself, I wish to provide the committee with a brief overview of the team at IIA that actually supports these associations. First, I wanted to reiterate that IIA is a joint directorate, meaning that we have staff and funding from both the Senate and the House of Commons. Essentially, the Senate provides 30 per cent and the House of Commons the remaining 70. As you know, despite that 30-70 split, the team at IIA services both houses equally.
In terms of associations, there are 12 plus 1, the OECD parliamentary association, in addition to 4 interparliamentary groups. Each of these interparliamentary associations and groups is composed of members of the House of Commons and of the Senate. These members meet annually and elect executive committees, and those committees coordinate and direct activities with their bilateral counterparts or with the international secretariats of the multilateral organizations of which they are members.
The remaining team at IIA, Parliamentary Exchanges and Protocol and Conferences, headed by Gérald, offer supporting services for speaker-led activities from both the House and the Senate, as well as the very popular Parliamentary Officers' Study Program, in addition to all protocol activities and protocol assistance to both incoming delegations and Speaker-led delegations, as well as incoming association activities. Finally, the team also coordinates any major conferences hosted by the Parliament of Canada.
All of this wonderful work is carried out by a team of slightly over 50 employees at IIA. Twenty-five or so directly support parliamentary associations.
In terms of the process by which parliamentary associations receive their funding, the Joint Interparliamentary Council, or the JIC, which operates under the authority of the two Speakers, is responsible for determining all budgetary and administrative matters relating to parliamentary associations. Specifically, the council determines the level of funding to be distributed to each association, within the limits of the total allotment approved by this committee, as well as the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy.
With regard to the 2014-15 annual report, you may be wondering why it has only recently been presented here. It's a year late, one would say. This is quite simply because prior to the October election, the last meeting of the JIC was held on March 15, 2015. The JIC meets very often in terms of the budgetary cycle but then meets only on an as required basis. So there was no other opportunity to put this report before the JIC until February of this year, when the new JIC was constituted and actually had a meeting.
I now want to provide the highlights of the 2014-15 annual report. The total budgetary envelope for that year was $3,563,537. Of that, international contributions, which are essentially membership fees for the multilateral associations that Canada belongs to, $1.2 million, roughly, were in terms of contributions. In terms of monies left over for actual activities and missions abroad, as well as here in Canada, $2,299,348 was the actual available budget.
In terms of expenditures, slightly more in terms of international contributions were spent for that year, mostly due to the difference in exchange rate and the lower Canadian dollar in terms of paying those international membership fees or contributions as you like.
International contributions for 2014-15 amounted to $1.3 million and expenditures $1.9 million.
In terms of unspent monies, at the end of that year, a little less than $300,000 was actually left on the table.
The report itself basically is in the same format as previous years. It provides information from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015 and details expenditures and activities for the 12 plus 1 associations, in addition to the 4 interparliamentary groups. The report provides the information regarding the teams that actually support these associations, as well as the number of members, both House of Commons and Senate, who are actually part of the associations.
In addition, the report outlines a number of outgoing visits by participant type — members verses senators, et cetera. Finally, the report provides detailed expenditures with regard to transportation, accommodation, per diems, miscellaneous, hospitality, official gifts and international contributions and revenues.
In conclusion, compared to the previous fiscal year, 2013-14, the overall expenditures contained in this report remain essentially stable. There are slight drops in spending, but the activities are comparable to previous years. Like I say, some of the differences would be due to the change in exchange rates. So, generally, the activities for 2014-15 are in line with past years. We are prepared to present some of the specific tables contained in the report should you so desire. Otherwise, this actually completes our presentation, and we can take questions.
Senator Jaffer: It's not so much with this report, but I have brought this up before. I would like to find a way to move this discussion.
Chair, I am finding that we are losing our presence on these associations. Let me give an example. On Canada- China and Canada-Africa, we have co-chairs. We have a co-chair from the Senate on both of those. On Canada- France — I'm just giving an example — we don't. I believe that if we are going to be playing a very active role in these associations, we need to have leadership as well. So I'm asking to start the discussion on having co-chairs on all associations, as I believe we have continued to hear. I believe that with regard to Canada-Africa and Canada-China, with Senator Stewart Olsen and Senator Andreychuk, we have a better, effective leadership role and are able to bring better activities to those associations. I don't know where that fits in. I have raised this before, and I would like us to start working on changing constitutions so that we have co-chairs on all associations.
Gérald Lafrenière, Principal Clerk, Parliamentary Exchanges and Protocol, International and Interparliamentary Affairs, Senate of Canada: I think what is important here is every association has their own constitution, which is dealt with at the AGM every year, where motions can be brought forward with respect to changes. So I believe that would be the proper way to make those changes.
I will note that the report does say that for 2014-15 the percentage of participants for association travel was 35 per cent participation by senators and associations. I would predict that for 2015-16, the number will be significantly higher because of the election and the fact that members of Parliament on the other side would not have been able to participate in association travel in the last six months or so.
The Chair: If I'm not mistaken, Gérald, Senator Jaffer is referring to leadership positions in the associations, not the Senate level of participation. The Senate level of participation is inevitably equitable based on our funding. I think she is speaking in terms of leadership.
I'm co-chair of JIC, of course, and I have a number of responsibilities as Chair of Internal. Is it realistic for Senator Jaffer to come and make a proposal to JIC with regard to that? At the end of the day, they have independent constitutions, each and every association, but we fund them. We can set guidelines in terms of what their constitution should dictate in terms of leadership.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: There are a number of venues. Gerald was suggesting that each association has its own constitution and executive, and there are mechanisms to move motions. That is definitely one venue if you want to do association by association.
It so happens that in a five year cycle, this year the JIC will undertake a review of how it functions, not just in terms of funding but also in terms of operations and governance. A subcommittee has been set up to undertake this five-year review. Senator Plett is a member of that subcommittee in addition to three members of the House of Commons. They are about to get their work under way. They have a year to conduct this review. I would suggest that this item be added. We're obviously in an exercise of suggesting areas for this review for the subcommittee, so this is a perfect opportunity for that item to be looked at.
The Chair: That's where I was heading. I'm glad you went there.
Senator Jaffer, it's a good point that you address it with Senator Plett, who is our representative on that committee. The chair, if I'm not mistaken, is a member of Parliament.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Mr. Simms from Newfoundland is the chair; and Mr. Stanton is a member.
The Chair: I suggest you see both of them. I would be more than happy to support you in that regard. Senator Munson is also on the committee.
Senator Jaffer: May I address the issue of the constitution? I have suddenly become very active in these associations. Senator Manning said it well when he said that we don't have the numbers. When we go there to say, "Oh, the constitution covers it," that really doesn't cut it because we don't have the numbers in the Senate if all or many from the other side show up. It's more of a leadership role. I would very much appreciate your support.
The Chair: Honourable colleagues, do I have a motion that this report be tabled in the Senate? It's moved by Senator Wells, seconded by Senator Cordy. Do I have unanimity? No abstentions? Thank you.
Thank you Colette and Gérald.
Honourable senators, the steering committee has approved a request from Senator White to attend and speak at the Canada-Australia Symposium on Countering Violent Extremism and the Radicalisation of Youth in Brisbane, Australia, February 10 to 12, 2016. I have the pleasure of tabling Senator White's post-trip report. I would ask for a motion to table this report in the Senate if senators agree.
It's moved by Senator Doyle.
Do you have a question?
Senator Munson: I'm really happy to see that Senator White attended this, but am I missing something? At one point we had two international travel points to go, then it went down to one, and I thought it then went to zero. This is the first I have seen of this. I'm really glad the steering committee did it, but I was going to put into Other Business the whole idea of international travel because I think it's extremely important what Senator White has done. In the past, I have been invited every four years as one representative for Canada at the World Special Olympic Games. I make speeches and talk to people. Is this all back on the agenda now that you can do this to steering? It's extremely important.
The Chair: It was my understanding, since I've been on steering, that you can always bring these requests to steering. I understand the rule used to be two points for international travel.
Senator Munson: It was two and then it was one.
Senator Cordy: In the past these requests for international travel went to the subcommittee that deals with committee travel. The change was made that international travel wasn't allowed. If you have a request outside the rules, such as a concern with finance or if you want to travel internationally and you think that you have a legitimate case, then you can bring that to the steering committee. We will examine it and report back to the committee.
Senator Munson: That's one of the most positive things I have heard this week.
Senator Wells: Senator Cordy is correct. It might prove useful to have a report on this from steering or have a further discussion, as you suggested, in other matters.
Some things have come to us that we have seen great merit in. Other things have come to us and we have seen that they shouldn't be part of international travel, so we have declined them.
Senator Munson: If it's on merit, that's excellent.
The Chair: Do I have a motion to table this report in the Senate? Senator Doyle seconded by Senator Munson. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)