Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 3 - Evidence - April 21, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 21, 2016
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, pursuant to rule 12-7(1) of the Rules of the Senate, met this day at 8:19 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, colleagues. I would like to start by welcoming again to our committee the Leader of the Government, Senator Harder. He was before us last week and is welcome to participate every Thursday morning. Also with us are Senator Lankin, Senator Pratte and independent Senator Wallace.
Item No. 1 is the adoption of the minutes of proceedings of the April 14, 2016, public portion of the minutes. Do I have any questions on that issue?
Senator Batters: The item about addition to the in public agenda says "the chair welcomes Senator Harder, Government Representative in the Senate, to the committee.'' As I pointed out last week, that title is not the official title. The title should be listed in the official minutes as government leader of the Senate.
The Chair: It's noted.
Senator Campbell: I don't know that we should be making a decision on what anybody is called. I mean, are we starting at this point to nitpick over names? Really?
Senator Batters: We have the Parliament of Canada Act and the Rules of the Senate.
Senator Campbell: There're words.
Senator Batters: Words are important in this situation. They determine what budgets are allocated.
The Chair: The minutes should reflect what was discussed at the meeting. For accuracy purposes, I don't think we're deciding what anyone wants to call themselves; we're basically having the minutes reflect what was discussed at that meeting.
Are there any other questions with regard to the minutes? Is there a motion to move the minutes?
Senator Tkachuk: I move the motion be adopted as amended.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Tkachuk, seconded by Senator Batters.
All in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Item No. 2 is the request from government leader in the Senate for extra budget.
Before we get to that, colleagues, I want to deal with an issue. Internal Economy had passed a motion allowing political staff to be authorized to be present during in camera meetings of our committee on Internal Economy. Of course, that motion highlighted that political staff from Internal Committee Steering Committee as well as political staff of the opposition caucus and the Senate Liberal caucus. Of course, since then the dynamic has changed, and we have a government leader in the Senate. If everyone is in favour, we should have a motion where we also allow the political staff of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, his staff, to be present during in camera meetings. That would be only appropriate. I'll read a motion:
That the motion adopted at the organization meeting on December 10, 2015, regarding political staff attending in camera meetings be amended to include:
That a political staff member of the Leader of the Government in the Senate be authorized to be present during in camera meetings of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Would somebody move this motion?
Senator Munson, seconded by Senator Cordy.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Adopted.
At the request of the committee last week, I made a suggestion that we send this issue to the Subcommittee on Estimates for further review. Colleagues wanted to have a discussion on it. The result is Item No. 2 on the agenda today.
I want to clarify for some of our new senators because a question arose in the chamber from one of our colleagues about what portions of the meetings are public and what are private. To be clear, anything that has to do with budgets is a public discussion and that was the decision made by this committee. The chair does not unanimously determine what elements are public and what are private in this committee. It's a committee decision to determine what issues are going to be discussed in camera and what will be discussed publicly. A decision was taken by this committee that anything to do with budget issues would be discussed in public. As a result, I follow that direction.
Senator Tannas: Senator Harder, I've had a chance to look through the submission. I go back to the argument you put forward that you're performing all of the essential functions that the last government leader provided. With all respect, I do not know that I agree with that. There are some different ones, as you put in here, such as the whip's element in running around and checking with a whole host of independents is different than what was done before — the canvassing and that work. However, there are some elements in your role, as I understand, that will be zero or significantly diminished over what the previous leader was doing. That's the first one.
Second, the way in which we agreed on funding organized groups and offices for the Senate prior to your arrival now means that, with this request, we do not have the budget. So there needs to be a re-examination of what you're asking for and an understanding of those elements as well as a rethinking of the money. Otherwise, we will have to go back to Parliament and ask for more money. If we decide to do that, I guess we decide to do that.
I would very much like to see the request go quickly to the reconstituted Subcommittee on Budgets and Estimates for a thorough review and recommendation back to the committee so that you can spend the time, or your office can, with that group to do a thorough dive. That group, potentially if they need to, can bring back some thoughts about reallocating the money that's already been handed out, if that's appropriate.
I'd like to see it done quickly, within a couple of weeks. It's really important as we all understand the game is changing. The organization of the Senate is changing, and we need to make this decision on purpose not only for the present but also for the future. My recommendation to the group is that we do this as quickly as possible but thoughtfully, and bring something back from a committee of senators who have examined it and would say, "Here's what we recommend.''
Senator Marshall: There has been a lot of discussion about the name of the new leader, but we all have to recognize that he has a job to do and so we have to approve an appropriate level of funding for him.
The issue for me is the formula we have in place now, where we're funding the independent Liberals a certain amount. It might be in the vicinity of $1 million. We're funding the independent senators an extra $7,000 each. We really need to go back and look at our formula because things are changing. We need to go back and rationalize how we will allocate the funds. There isn't an infinite amount of money, so it has to be apportioned in some rational manner. I would like that to be done and probably something along the lines of what Senator Tannas was saying. I would want it done fairly expeditiously because Senator Harder is in the Senate basically by himself. Out of courtesy and respect for his position, we should do that as quickly as possible.
Senator Tkachuk: I agree with both previous speakers. We're put in a position. The way it looks right now, we have a large group of people that support the government and we have an opposition. As far as we're concerned, we're kind of organized because we fall under a rubric and budget that is usually allocated for opposition parties.
Then we have independents and the Liberal caucus. The Liberal caucus is funded — the leader's office is funded by over $1million. Then we have the Leader of the Government in the Senate, our government leader, who now wants funding of the same amount. They're both of the same political party. Then we have all the independents appointed by the Prime Minister, who are funded an extra $7,000 per office, which we do not get.
We have an independent caucus that isn't an independent caucus, but they're a kind of caucus. I do not know how all that is going to work and it's not for me to say. It's up to them to decide. But we have to look at how we're going to allocate the cash in a responsible way and make sure that Senator Harder is able to do his job, we're able to do our job, and everyone is able to do their job. This is new to us, so we have to find a way to budget it.
Senator Cordy: I agree with the comments. Senator Harder, we all respect the job that you have to do. I shouldn't say "we all'' because I speak for myself. I believe that you should have the resources to do the job well. This is all brand new for us.
The budgets for the Leader of the Opposition and the independent Liberals were not done in a day. It took weeks and weeks of discussion to get to where we were on it. I don't think we want to spend weeks and weeks in fairness to you. It's seems that we've been saying, "Oh yes, the independent Liberal caucus, you'll get this much and the Leader of the Opposition will get this much.'' Now we have a number of independents and they'll each get $7,000 which anybody in a caucus does not get.
I'm a member of the budget estimates committee, and I didn't want it to go to budgets and estimates, but actually having had a week to think about it I think that would be a good place for it to start and to bring back a budget.
Having said that, I think in fairness it would be good if the committee would allocate money to Senator Harder so that he could start looking for a chief of staff. It's very difficult to do all of these things: To be in the Senate answering questions and try to run your office as a Leader of the Government. So what I would suggest would be that it be sent to budget and estimates but that in the meantime we allow funding. You have put in the range of $133,900 to $157,500. And that we allow that expenditure of money to Senator Harder so he can begin the process of hiring a chief of staff, if we are able to allocate bits of a budget.
Senator Tkachuk: Does he not already have $450,000?
The Chair: The government leader, automatically upon being named government leader, has a budget of $250,000, as was determined by our formula when we originally put that in place, in addition to his Senate staff budget of $188,000, to my knowledge. He has a budget of $438,000, so he has been allocated from Internal Economy as per the budget that was determined at the beginning of the year.
Senator Campbell: Thank you. I have a few questions.
You said that the roles are diminished, Senator Tannas. What roles are diminished?
Senator Tannas: Here are a couple of quick ones: Question Period preparation, and another would be the caucus management, the leader's office and the work they do to coordinate caucus activities. Those are a couple. I've said that I think some of them, potentially, won't go all the way to zero but they're replaced by other activities.
This is my own suspicion. Rather than debate it, what I want to do is put it in a committee where they can actually spend the brain time, go through it line by line and come back here with a proper, thoughtful recommendation that we can all happily accept and move on with rather than just debate back and forth.
I didn't mean to cut off your question. Sorry, Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell: There is Question Period and there is no caucus management. I agree with that. But the caucus management actually would be fulfilled by other functionaries within the leader's office.
We've got so many committees here and I'm never sure who is where. Who is on the budgets and estimates committee?
The Chair: In the previous Parliament Senator Wells chaired it, Senator Furey was the deputy chair and we were in the process of trying to reconstitute that subcommittee going into this new Parliament.
Senator Tannas: I was on it and Senator L. Smith was on it also.
Senator Campbell: Do we have one right now?
The Chair: We would be striking one up now.
Senator Campbell: We keep adding in the budget that every senator gets and I think that we have to separate those two functions. I mean, on the one hand, we as senators get a budget. Everyone gets the same and that takes care of — basically, from my point of view — the constituency and what we do personally as senators. That's what those funds are for. I don't think we can add that on and say, "Oh no, that is part of the budget for the leader.''
I've gone back to 2006. At that time, Conservatives had 21-25 seats and then they became government, and so their budget was $325,000, which went to the leader. But she also got $427,000 from the PCO for a total of $700,000 and that's gone pretty well all the way through and up $100,000 over that period of time.
My position is that while I agree with you that there is a recognized caucus called the Conservative caucus and there is a recognized caucus called the Liberal independent caucus, we can't lose sight of the fact that this is the Leader of the Government. No matter how many he has behind him, this is the Leader of the Government and as such he needs those resources.
I like to think of myself as an honest broker. I don't think there is anybody here that can say that I've stuffed it to them on any occasion where I've said something that I wanted to do. I think that there is a saw-off here. I don't disagree that you may need to form that committee but it has to be done quickly. My saw-off on this is that we give him half. He cannot just operate without a budget.
We're going to give him $400,000 no matter how we slice it down the road. At the end of the day that's going be there. The rest is for budgets and estimates to look at and argue. He has to have more than a chief of staff, and he has to have more than these people. Quite frankly, it's like looking at a big piece of raw meat at the SPCA when I walk into the Senate and see him sitting there by himself with no staff and with no way to answer our questions. And when he doesn't answer the questions we scream and yell that he's avoiding them.
I'm not saying whose fault it is, Senator Tkachuk. I agree with you. I would be the first to agree with you that this whole thing is really badly planned. I don't disagree with that but we shouldn't compound it. We have to live together here, we're going to be living here for a long time and I just think that what we're doing is unseemly and I do not think we're getting where we want to be. My position on is this that we approve the $400,000 and we send the rest of it to this committee for them to decide how much of it that he should have.
Senator Tkachuk: Just to clarify, are you talking about $400,000 on top of the $400,000, or the $400,000 that I understand has already been approved?
Senator Campbell: We've only approved $250,000. You can't count the $180,000 so I'm suggesting that we put it up to $400,000. At least let this office start to move or we're just going to be going through this forever.
And you know something? We're going to have to rethink why the Liberal caucus gets that much money. We're going to have to rethink that because this is all changing, too. There is never going to be another Liberal senator appointed to this place. I don't care what happens. If the Conservatives win the next election I don't see them appointing more Liberals and if the Liberals get elected in the next election I don't see them appointing more Liberals.
All I'm saying is that, at the end of the day, the thing is in flux. My suggestion is that we put it up to $400,000, let the leader get moving, send this to budget, put a time limit on it of — whatever, we're going into a break week — and come back and make a decision. Otherwise, this whole thing keeps playing out.
The Chair: Colleagues, let's try to limit the back and forth because I have a long list on this issue and I don't want to spend all morning on just one item.
Senator Batters: First of all, dealing with a couple of points Senator Campbell just made, I want to point out that people who have significant responsibilities in the chamber, like chairs of committees, are also required to be under the same budget as a senator who may not have onerous committee duties at all.
Also, there is no change in the current situation from what was envisaged in January when this particular $250,000 government leader in the Senate budget was passed by this committee, by Conservatives and by Liberals. There is no change at that point. What was thought was that the government leader would receive that amount. If there was a deputy leader, they would receive an additional amount, a whip would receive a different amount and then, depending on the size of the caucus, that would be an additional amount too. There isn't any caucus now so there is no change in the situation from what existed and was planned for going into this brand new reality.
When I looked at the proposal Senator Harder provided, I noticed that some elements of those duties are generally done by a deputy leader or by a whip. Last week, Senator Harder indicated that he would be appointing both positions soon. I note that even though Minister LeBlanc, when he came to the Rules Committee in February, indicated there wouldn't be a need for a whip. Some of those duties will be handled by the two people you indicated you would appoint.
As well, in the proposed office structure listed on the chart provided, three of the nine people are listed as legislative assistants. In Senator Carignan's situation, when he was Leader of the Government in the Senate, those positions were held by people whose job, the vast majority of their job, was to help Conservative senators in his government caucus with committee responsibilities. Given that you won't have a caucus and that's a big part of their job, I'm not really sure why three legislative assistants would be required.
There's an addition to those people, a director of parliamentary affairs and a senior policy advisory. Those are separate positions as well.
I also note looking at this chart that the very minimum salary listed here for any of those nine positions you would like to hire is $76,000 a year. Until very recently, the maximum salary that any senator could have for a staffer in their office was $74,465. The maximum for any senator hiring their staffer, the most qualified staffer, would be $2,000 less than your minimum. Those things need to be taken into account.
Senator Munson: Let the record show that Larry Campbell and I did not talk about any of these issues — zero on these things.
Just before I give my opinion on scenarios, leaders have the discretion to pay their staffers what they want to pay them. That's always been above the norm of the rest of us. We always felt that was unfair, but that's the way it was and that's the way it still is.
I agree that there is a second scenario — a scenario two. I hope this subcommittee is struck by noon today. We're going into another break week and things move at glacial speed in the Senate on anything. I will use the words in fairness to the government leader in the Senate, Senator Harder: When you look at the list of positions that he has here, quickly free up that $400,000 or $450,000 or maybe $500,000 for chief of staff, executive assistant and somebody to deal with legislative affairs — these sorts of things. I know there's another budget for a receptionist and all of that, but at least five of these positions I see are really important for the government leader in the Senate to have.
I live here in Ottawa. We have to have this in place within two weeks, really, or even 10 days. We're behind schedule now. Take a look at this for the input of the makeup of this committee — this scenario two, for the sake of common sense and decency, to allow the government leader in the Senate to do his job. I agree with what's happened in Question Period. I said to Senator Harder yesterday that what's missing on his desk is this great big tab book that Marjory LeBreton had in front of her. It didn't stop us on our side from asking her questions and it didn't stop us from challenging her to go to page 15, tab 4 and so on. Somebody in short pants in the PMO put it in there and she answered it.
She was able to substantively and contextually use her own personality to embellish and promote the government agenda. She couldn't do that without having that kind of background to look at. You can't do that without having a legislative assistant, without having somebody whose sole job is to deal with the rest of us in keeping the government to account. Scenario two I call it, $500,000, free this up in two weeks. This is my input to whoever makes up the subcommittee.
Senator Lang: I have a couple of points I'd like to make. A lot has already been said.
Senator Harder, in your capacity as the government leader on behalf of the Government of Canada, you have a responsibility. We understand it and that you need the finances to be able to do the job. The question is: To what degree within the Senate budget should your office be funded? That's the issue. That's number one.
Second, I want to put on the record that I don't totally agree with my colleague, Senator Campbell, which is not uncommon sometimes. I know that as chair of a committee, I have a policy advisor, not unlike other members around this table who are chairs or deputy chairs. Probably three quarters of his or her time is actually taken doing the job of the committee that you're in charge of. A policy advisor for the government leader's office, I assume, would be in the same realm. The position wouldn't strictly deal with his responsibilities for the region. We shouldn't say there are silos here and one job doesn't overlap the other because it becomes predominant. There's no question about that.
Another point is: When we make this decision, everybody needs to realize that if somebody gets more, somebody gets less. When you raise your hand, understand that any proposals coming in here, at the end of the day there will be readjustments so that Senator Harder can do his job.
Another point, and I made it at the last meeting, is that at one time, at least in good part and Senator Campbell referred to it, the Government of Canada paid over and above the Senate for certain responsibilities of the government leader's position. That was made available, not through the Senate, but for the responsibilities that the government leader had.
I would say this, and perhaps Senator Harder might be able to clarify, in respect of his relationship with the Government of Canada and his being the spokesman for the Government of Canada actual participation with the various policy committees and whatever. He indicated at the last meeting that he was invited and could go at any time to these particular meetings for the purposes of bringing forward the government's agenda, which quite frankly I'm in favour of. It would be very irresponsible if it wasn't set up in some way like this. Here we are in this august body discussing trying to readjust all our Rules where the only plan made was that senators were to be appointed and we'd have to figure it out.
With that, I'll conclude by saying to Senator Munson and everybody else here that at the end of the day, somebody gets more, somebody gets less.
The Chair: We're heading to consensus.
Senator Jaffer: Chair, a lot that has been said will go to the subcommittee anyway, so I don't want to add to it. I want to move a motion on what Senator Campbell said, that we immediately give Senator Harder $400,000 until the subcommittee decides.
The Chair: Hang on to the motions until after.
Senator Jaffer: Okay.
Senator Wallace: I followed the transcript when Senator Harder appeared last week before Internal Economy. It struck me when I read what was said. I was trying to determine whether a constant standard or rationale is applied by this committee in determining the funding for the government leader or the Government Representative in the Senate, the opposition leader and other caucuses.
Following up on that, I went back and looked at the funding formula approved in January of this year and compared it to the funding provided last year to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the opposition leader. I want to point out some observations that struck me. I would say that those observations led me to the conclusion that I would support, and I think there's a need to support, the suggestion made by Senator Marshall, Senator Tkachuk and Senator Tannas that the funding formula should be reviewed and revised.
I'm looking at this from the point of view of whether there appears to be a common, fair, reasonable and consistent rationale or standard with regard to the funding. Comparing this year to last, the funding provided to the Conservative leader is $12,000 more to Senator Carignan, yet his role this year is as opposition leader, not as government leader. I would tend to think the responsibilities of the government leader are somewhat heavier than those of the opposition leader.
Interestingly enough, I know there's been discussion within the current formula of basing it upon the number of members that exist in each caucus and that the funding could fluctuate as the numbers go up and down.
I went back and looked at the numbers of the Conservative caucus last year versus this year. At the beginning of last year there were 52 members in the Conservative caucus and there are 42 members today, so we have the Conservatives receiving $12,000 more this year than last year, 10 fewer members and the role of the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Carignan, being, I would say, somewhat different than what it was last year.
Similarly, I looked at the funding provided to the Liberal caucus and to Senator Cowan. His caucus would receive an additional $74,200 this year compared to last, and yet, last year Senator Cowan was the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate while this year he's neither the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate nor obviously the Leader of the Government in the Senate; he's the leader of the Liberal caucus, which he describes as a Liberal independent caucus. It strikes me that in that way that his role is no different than that of each of us as independent, non-partisan senators have other than we haven't formed a caucus. The individual responsibilities, I would say, are identical to his, yet he is receiving $74,200 more than he did last year.
The size of his caucus, comparing this year to last year, has decreased by five. There were 30 members last year and there are 25 members this year.
So what conclusions would you draw from all of that? My sense is that there does not appear to be a consistent rationale that is being fairly, equitably and reasonably applied to each of those seeking funding from Internal Economy. Maybe there is, and if there is I would be interested to hear it.
I've heard some comment on the fact that back in January Internal Economy developed a new formula, which it did, but I think it's important to remember that Senator Harder was not here in January. Those decisions to establish that formula were made before his arrival and before having the benefit of hearing from Senator Harder and what his needs might be. Now, I sense there's almost criticism that he's coming in looking for more money and we would have to adjust the formula.
I think, in fairness to him, had that discussion about creating a new formula occurred after hearing from Senator Harder, and perhaps hearing from other independent non-partisan senators such as ourselves, we may have ended up with a better result. At the end of the day, we know that each of us, regardless of whether we're Liberals, Conservatives or independents, is here individually with a responsibility to do our work. We all have the same fundamental role. There has to be fairness in allowing each senator to do that. To the extent that requires funding, there may be fluctuations as to who gets what, but it has to be on a consistent, fair, reasonable and rational basis.
In conclusion, I would go back to the comment I made in supporting Senators Marshall, Tkachuk and Tannas in their suggestion that all of this be reviewed quickly so we can develop a new standard.
Mr. Chair, sorry, one further point on that: If a committee is being struck to consider a new formula for funding, I strongly believe that independent, non-partisan senators should have a presence and a representation on that committee as well.
The Chair: If I may, I would like to quickly respond to Senator Wallace because he brings up good points.
Senator Wallace, Internal Economy was found in an unusual situation after the last election where a government leader was not named in a timely fashion, as has historically been the case. We were, sort of, thrown into uncharted waters — and that term has been used on a number of occasions — because the Senate had to function over those months after the election.
So we decided to, as has been the tradition here in consultation with caucus leaders and the various members of Internal Economy, try to come up with a formula that is fair. We went with a scale formula based on the numbers because we thought, under the circumstances — not knowing what the new reality would be and what the new government caucus or government leader would be — we should try to be fair to all. I think I get a sense around the table there's a willingness to review now, of course, that the circumstances have changed and we want to do it again in a spirit of fairness.
Keep in mind I understand both sides of the argument, but imagine, for argument's sake, the opposition leader in the House of Commons tomorrow morning names a Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and asks him to be the representative of the opposition in the Senate. Then, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons comes to the determination that Conservative senators have to be independent and unaffiliated with the national caucus and we would have the situation — and I'm drawing parallels in the difficulty in which we've found in dealing with this — where we have a Conservative caucus with a $1,000,000-plus budget and a representative of the opposition with two, three or maybe five members saying, "Now I'm the Leader of the Opposition and that's the independent Conservative caucus.''
To get to the point I think a number of senators made, we have a limited amount of resources that have to be equitably distributed. That's why there's willingness and that's why I made the suggestion from the beginning to strike the estimates committee and have it do its due diligence in a timely fashion so we can be fair to Senator Harder.
In response to your last point, Senator Wallace, from what I understand of the Rules of the Senate and Internal Economy, a subcommittee membership can only be composed, if I'm not mistaken — at least the chairs and the deputy chairs — of members of Internal Economy. Michel, correct me if I'm wrong.
Michel Patrice, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: That's correct.
The Chair: There wouldn't be any impediment, for my part, to have any representation we want, but I would have to consult the two chairs after that, if I'm not mistaken, on whether they want to have participation from non-members of Internal Economy.
Based on our rules, he is a sitting member so Senator Campbell would be a welcome member of the estimates committee. We'll tackle that issue when we strike the committee. Senator Campbell, sometimes you have to take one for the team.
Senator Campbell: What am I taking for the team?
The Chair: I was pointing out that when we strike the sub-estimates committee, in response to Senator Wallace's question, on the rules of committee budgets and administration, you have to be a member of it to sit on a subcommittee of sub-estimates. You would qualify as both: You're a member of Internal Economy and you're an independent senator, so you would be welcome. Otherwise, Senator Wallace, you can invite members, but as non-voting members. I'm just putting that out there in response to your question.
Senator Harder, I'll give you the last word so we can move on.
Senator Cools: Chairman, on a minor point of process, we have had precedence in the past where the committee has expanded numerically just to accommodate membership on subcommittees.
The Chair: I agree. I said we can do that but they would be non-voting members. But we can.
Senator Cools: No. They were voting members of the subcommittees.
The Chair: That's not how the rule was explained by the law clerk.
Senator Cools: We should do a search of precedents. We have had those situations in the past. Not recently, but we have had them. The committee is free to expand its membership but it would need a reference from the house. It has happened.
The Chair: The Clerk of the Senate is telling me that was by decision of the Senate only, in the past.
Senator Cools: It is possible and it can be done.
The Chair: It was before I was born, Senator Cools, but we will look into it.
Senator Cools: A lot of us were here long before you got here.
The Chair: I appreciate that. We will look into it and clarify that.
Senator Cools: A whole stack of us, both girls and boys.
Senator Harder: Thanks very much. I'll be very brief. I just wanted to, for the record, respond to Senator Tkachuk's reference to Senator Cowan and myself as both being in the same political party.
You might dispute my title, but I am sitting as an independent. I am non-aligned and, in that sense, non-partisan. I wanted, for the record, to make that point.
Senator Tkachuk: I didn't say he was a Liberal but he is the Government Representative.
Senator Harder: I agree with that, and I appreciate the reference to Government Representative.
Senator Tkachuk: You see the comedy in that.
Senator Harder: Senator Lang, I note your comment with respect to a previous practice of governments having funded a portion of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. That was the case when they were ministers. The precedent for funding from the Senate was established when Senator Carignan was appointed government leader in the Senate and was not a member of cabinet. That's the precedent being used.
The second point I would like to make is with respect to my Senate member budget. The comparator of numbers that people are raising doesn't include that for Senator Carignan, his $850,000. Let's either include it in both cases or not include it at all. You can choose either way of describing it, but let's not compare apples to oranges.
The third point I would make is with respect to the whole notion of: If somebody gets more, somebody gets less. Absolutely — and I referenced last week and in my speech this week that budget allocations have to be looked at and revised within that context. Just as somebody got more and somebody got less when the budget for the Leader of the Government in the Senate was moved from $850,000 to $250,000. I'm not disputing that or suggesting that it's not appropriate.
The final point I'd make is on timeliness. I hope it's not the "eternal economy committee.'' The issues of overall budget allocation are important and ought to be studied and reviewed. In terms of my little piece of it, the sooner you can draw some conclusions on that which the committee can make a recommendation, I would appreciate it.
The Chair: We have a lot of stuff on the agenda and everyone has made their point. I don't want to continue and carry on. I get the sense there are two motions on the table; so I want to put both motions before Internal Economy for consideration.
I want to get some clarity from Senator Campbell, Senator Cordy and Senator Jaffer with regard to releasing some short-term budget increases to the current government leader and upping it. The motion is to increase the current approved $250,000, which is in our current Rules, to $400,000, taking the $250,000 and moving it so an additional $150,000.
Senator Campbell, is that the motion?
Senator Campbell: That would be my suggestion, yes.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Campbell, seconded by Senator Jaffer, that the current budget of $250,000 be increased to $400,000 until the Subcommittee on Estimates does a full review and makes recommendations to this committee.
All in favour, senators, of that motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All opposed to that motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Opposed.
The Chair: Can I have a registered vote, please for the record?
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Housakos.
Senator Housakos: I abstain.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: No.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Doyle.
Senator Doyle: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Harder, as an ex-officio.
Senator Harder: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Martin.
Senator Martin: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Munson.
Senator Munson: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Smith (Saurel).
Senator L. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Tannas.
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: No.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Jaffer.
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Lang.
Senator Lang: Agreed.
The Chair: On the motion, I have 11 yeas, 3 nays, and 1 abstention. The motion is carried.
Can I have a motion to strike a subcommittee on estimates for this Parliament?
Senator Batters: I'll move that.
The Chair: It was moved by the Senator Batters, seconded by Senator Munson.
Can we have nominations for chairs and deputy chairs?
Senator Munson: I would like to nominate Senator Jaffer for the committee.
The Chair: Let's first nominate chairs and deputy chairs.
Senator Batters: I'll nominate Senator Wells for the chair position.
Senator Munson: I nominate Senator Jaffer as deputy chair.
The Chair: Are there any other nominations for chair and deputy chair?
Can we have nominations for additional members?
Senator Cordy: What was the composition in the past? There were three Conservatives and two Liberals. Will that stand and then we add an independent?
The Chair: We would have Senator Wells as a Conservative and Senator Jaffer as a Liberal and two more Conservatives a Liberal and an independent. Those would be the numbers.
Senator Munson: I'll tell Percy Downe he has another job.
The Chair: Are you nominating Senator Downe?
Senator Munson: I'm nominating Senator Downe.
The Chair: We have a nomination for Senator Downe. If independent senators want to sit as non-voting members of the committee, they are welcome.
Senator Doyle: I nominate Senator Tannas.
The Chair: Senator Campbell seems to be automatic, given the request of Senator Wallace. He doesn't want to disappoint Senator Wallace.
We have Senator Wells as chair, Senator Jaffer, as deputy chair, Senator Downe, Senator Tannas, Senator Campbell. I understand that one more Conservative can be nominated.
Senator Cordy: I nominate Senator Tkachuk.
The Chair: I want to confirm that we have Senator Wells as chair, Senator Jaffer as deputy chair, Senator Downe, Senator Tannas, Senator Campbell and Senator Tkachuk as the Subcommittee on Estimates? Can I have a timeline when that committee has to report?
Is it fair to say that we would have a report by the next meeting of the Internal Committee? That would be the week of May 5.
The committee would work during the off-week and could report the week we return. There is plenty of time for leadership to have consultation, Senator Harder, with the leaders. It's ample time for the committee to do its work.
Senator Plett: I have two questions, chair. First, although I don't oppose Senator Campbell being on there as he's certainly completely eligible to be on there. But you seemed to just accept Senator Wallace's suggestion as something that the committee agreed to and automatically put an independent on there. I don't recall there being agreement on Senator Wallace's suggestion. Maybe we will all vote in favour of having that, but I don't recall that being done.
Second, is it not the intent of most of the committees in the Senate at this point that the majority party has a majority on each committee? The way this is struck, it's not a majority. It's three Conservatives and three others.
The Chair: Senator Plett, those are all valid points. I have not signed off on this committee because I haven't had a consensus yet and I haven't asked for approval, so your points are well taken.
Senator Pratte: As you well know, I'll not familiar with all the rules so I understand that they are not, maybe, exactly clear. You all know that the leaders of both caucuses have made known an agreement between them that they offered two spots on all standing committees and special committees for all independents. They have not talked about subcommittees but I would invite members of this committee to, maybe, abide by the spirit of that agreement and offer two spots for independents on this very important subcommittee.
If there were two spots one would be obviously for Senator Campbell who is already a member of this committee, and I would nominate Senator Wallace for the second spot on the subcommittee.
The Chair: Your nomination is well taken but keep in mind that I still disagree with the Dean of the Senate, for whom I have the utmost respect, in that the Rules, as far as they've been explained to me and I understand, say you have to be a member of the Internal Economy Committee to sit on a subcommittee. I've been stuck with this problem in the past.
Senator Cools: You do, Senator Housakos. A committee is a delegated authority. All it takes is a motion in the Senate this afternoon to create some new members.
The Chair: I recognize that and that's why I will take under consideration your suggestion, as I always do. If that is the case then we will have to take it to the Senate a as a whole. I don't have the authority to do it, senator — that's the point I'm trying to make — and I don't think this committee does.
Senator Cordy: First, I think since we're allocating a $400,000 budget to Senator Harder and his office that May 12 would not be unreasonable for the committee to report back so that they're not just having one meeting before it's got to be a done deal. I think it's important that the committee has an opportunity to go through it.
Second, I would also suggest — I'm not sure that making a motion is necessary — that the committee be composed of three Conservatives, two Liberals and one independent so that it's a committee of six people.
Senator Lankin: Thank you very much. I appreciate the Rules and respect them, and I also appreciate that you're going to undertake to look into whether, by motion or reference in the Senate this afternoon, a change could be made to that.
I'm reluctant to feel comfortable with a recommendation that there only be one independent member on the subcommittee given the recent decision and agreement of the two house leaders.
The very first time we're presented with an opportunity to live up to the spirit of that in terms of having two independents, we move to create a different structure. I would appreciate it if some thought would be given to that. I recognize that you still need to deal with the balance and apportioning of numbers but I would appreciate it if you would give thought to living up to the spirit of that recommendation and the decision between the two house leaders and find a way to accommodate two independent senators. I also would also support Senator Wallace being the second nominee.
Senator Munson: I have a great deal of empathy for that, but the Selection Committee has not met yet. The leaders have sent the letters of intent out, but we have not sorted the whole thing out yet. The sense of spirit is one thing, and it is a good thing to have, but the other practicality is that at the other committees, we haven't even solicited names that would come from asking individual independent senators to put their names down because we want to have a very fair process there too. When it comes to some of these committees we do expect that some will want to be on certain committees and the independent senators will have to sort that out themselves when four people want two positions.
I'm not going to be involved in the negotiation that happens with independent senators because there will be a very delicate balance of what happens there. I think we can have a chat about that but at the present time, I think we worked quite well here this morning with consensus; I think three, two and one will work well for this time, anyway.
The Chair: If I may, colleagues, keep in mind that the formula and numbers have to be, to some extent, representative of the chamber and when we do go to the chamber, the results you will get will be representative of those current numbers. So, Senator Lankin, you're requesting a subcommittee of sub-estimates where the independents would get, right now, a third of representation there when they don't make up a third of the chamber, for example.
Senator Lankin: With respect, I see the heads nodding and I understand there isn't support for what I'm suggesting but I want to be clear on the record. I did not suggest that the independents have a third of it; I said you would have to have numbers appropriate and appropriation resembling the numbers in the Senate, so I understood it would be a larger committee to accommodate that.
The Chair: You're talking about expanding the size of the committee. These are valid points. We're in uncharted territory and we're trying to find the just way forward.
Senator Lankin: I agree that it is uncharted and that it would take breaking from tradition and I can see that that's perhaps a radical suggestion, in the way I'm making it, by people's responses. I understand and I will learn as I go along what things you are open to considering that are different and what things aren't, but I appreciate the opportunity to state a point of view.
The Chair: I appreciate that as well, but we're sort of bound by rules more than tradition and I as a chair, particularly and especially with this committee, have to respect the rules in place.
Senator Plett: Thank you. I do want to echo what the Liberal whip has said.
I was going to say those same things but I want to add one thing to that in reference to what Senator Lankin and Senator Pratte said about a decision that has been made by our respective leaders.
When we do that, the majority party still keeps the majority on every committee. If we want to follow the spirit of that then we need to add one more Conservative to this committee if we want to have two Liberals and an independent. We would then need to have four Conservatives on the committee because, clearly, in all the other committees the majority party still has the majority on the committees.
Senator Tannas: A couple of things, just in response. If we go with your suggestion that we would have a subcommittee that's roughly the size of the committee, we might as well keep going. I don't think that makes any sense. It's not about trying to protect anything, and in fact I support the three, two and one. It is reflective. If we go by the numbers, the Conservatives no longer have the majority in the chamber. We have 42 members, right? And how many senators are there in the chamber? We're talking about the number of senators: there are 86, and there are 42 of us, so I think three, two, and one is pretty darn close to what we need.
Senator Martin: I think my point has already been made. I was going to support the motion regarding the makeup of the subcommittee. It is a smaller committee, so having one independent on that committee is absolutely reflective and fair, but everyone has made that point.
The Chair: Colleagues, for me, it's important this is handled in a timely fashion to be fair to Senator Harder. This cannot go on forever and I get a sense right now that there is no desire to have this discussion about the budgets in the Senate as a whole. I think we can come to an accommodation amongst ourselves with the subcommittee sitting down and coming to a logical conclusion. I think there is a willingness to make this work, so if I do have support from this committee for this formula, the subcommittee chaired by Senator Wells, with deputy chair Senator Jaffer, Senator Downe, Senator Campbell, Senator Tkachuk and Senator Tannas has a commitment that it will report back to this committee by May 12, at the latest, with a template that Internal Economy can approve.
Colleagues, is that reasonable? Do I have someone to move that motion? Moved by Senator Cordy, seconded by Senator Marshall.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Anyone opposed?
Carried. Thank you.
We can move now to the in camera portion of the agenda, please.
(The committee continued in camera.)