Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 4 - Evidence - June 2, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 2, 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 9:08 a.m. 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 call this meeting to order.
Hon. Senators: Good morning.
The Chair: Glad to see everyone is in fine spirits.
We have an uncharacteristically short and sweet agenda this morning. So I would like us to get started right away on item one, which is the adoption of the minutes of proceedings from the May 17 meeting. Are there any questions? If there are no questions, may I have a motion from someone to move the minutes? Senator Doyle, and seconded by Senator Cordy; are there any objections? Approved.
Item 2 is the creation of an advisory working group on the review of policies and rules. Colleagues, we've been talking over the last few weeks about our rules and policy review process that has been going on over the last year internally with the administration and with various members from our staff on steering. It has reached the point now where it needs to go to the final leg of this work, which is over the summer. We were talking about striking a committee that would finalize the work and the review of those policies and rules.
We've reached out to the various caucuses and independent senators to try to finalize members on that committee. Right now I'm three-quarters of the way there, but I know that our Liberal friends need some more time to decide from that long list of volunteers who would do this arduous work over the summertime. I need further discussion with the independent members to find out who they will identify as their lead person on something like that.
I will defer this item to next week's meeting until we have concluded our discussions and finalize the candidates for that committee.
Senator Cordy: Who is the chair?
The Chair: The committee itself will determine the chair and deputy chair. Right now we're looking for four members from the Conservative caucus, three from the Liberal Caucus and an independent member — from the independent caucus, yes, or the non-affiliated caucus or whatever we want to call it.
I'll go to item 3, which is the update of the Subcommittee on the Long-term Vision and Plan by Senator Tannas.
Senator Tannas: Honourable colleagues, I'm appearing before you today on behalf of the Senate Subcommittee on the Long-term Vision and Plan to seek final approval of the functional program and design development for the Government Conference Centre.
As you are aware, the construction of the GCC has begun, and Public Services Procurement Canada is now seeking final confirmation from the Senate on its functional program for the interior of the building.
To date, CIBA has already approved several of the functional spaces in the building and recently the subcommittee met to review the proposed locations of the remaining functional spaces. The presentation before you illustrates the core Senate spaces in the building.
On Page 1, the Committee on Internal Budgets and Administration has already approved the interim chamber, the two large committee rooms, the Speaker's business centre, as well as the Speaker's main quarters on Page 2, which unfortunately are not coloured but are slightly darker. In colour copy, if you have it, it would be green. The two medium committee rooms, the chamber and the Speaker's business centre have already been approved by CIBA. On Page 2, the Speaker's main quarters, you will see that they have been approved by CIBA.
Last week, the subcommittee reviewed the proposed location of the leadership and legislative offices on Page 3 as well as the location of a reading room and the senators' work area on Page 4. Those are highlighted and shaded slightly darker.
We are in agreement with the locations presented by the Senate staff for these remaining spaces and ask that you formally approve the complete functional program and design development for the GCC. Going forward, the subcommittee will continue to review the progress of the GCC and provide direction to Senate staff on the detailed design. We will continue to consult and provide progress reports to CIBA regularly.
We will also review and provide direction on other projects under the Long Term Vision and Plan, including the Centre Block and East Block rehabilitation projects. We will keep you apprised on the progress of these initiatives as well over the coming months. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Senator Downe: Senator Tannas, I greatly appreciate receiving this. Maybe it's not part of your responsibility, but are we still on budget?
Senator Tannas: Apparently we are still on budget and on time.
Senator Downe: Perfect.
Senator Wells: I have a question about the chamber. Is there a public gallery and a media gallery? Could you tell us about that please?
Senator Tannas: Yes, there is a public gallery and the location of the media gallery hasn't been determined yet.
Is that right Mr. Patrice?
Michel Patrice, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, and Chief Parliamentary Precinct Services Officer, Senate of Canada: The media gallery will be situated in the same fashion as the chamber. It will be all around a bit like the House of Commons as opposed to the Senate chamber where they're on each side. There's still discussion in terms of where the media can be allowed to congregate outside the chamber. Currently, they do it in the foyer. The subcommittee will look at where they can congregate outside the chamber.
The Chair: Can someone identify what the total cost of the retrofit of the conference centre has been for Public Works? And what percentage of that total cost is actually attributable to the Senate facilities and for the use of the Senate? I understand that Public Works had to do a maintenance operation on the conference centre that was scheduled before the decision was taken to move the temporary Senate there. I was wondering if we could know what that total cost is and what percentage of that cost is attributable to the Senate.
Senator Tannas: That's a great question. As senators will recall, at some point in the past, we actually proposed an enormous cost-saving measure whereby rather than by replicating the glass dome that is being done in the West Block for the House of Commons in the East Block, which was the original proposal of Public Works, we proposed the idea of moving to the GCC, which would then allow that building's scheduled overhaul, which is some $200 million, to take place instead of ours and we would move in there. The cost of the renovations to accommodate the Senate for the scheduled 10 years that they will be there is less than 5 per cent of the cost of the entire building. Around $11 million is the cost for the retrofitting build-up and pull-out of what is needed for the Senate. That was a very wise proposal and decision made by CIBA that will allow for the conference centre to be redone and for us to save taxpayers a couple hundred million dollars.
The Chair: What was the cost for the temporary House of Commons?
Senator Tannas: That I'm not sure of. Do you know, Mr. Patrice?
Mr. Patrice: I'm not sure because it depends on how you count in terms of the project. In terms of the savings for the East Block, it saved $200 million.
Charles Robert, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments and Chief Legislative Services Officer: There was an article in The Hill Times last week where they talked about prices for the renovation of the West Block and the Metropolitan Life Building. They were into the near billions.
Senator Tkachuk: They also put a building between the Centre Block and the East Block, if I remember, that was kind of underground. We didn't think that was such a good idea for the Senate.
Mr. Patrice: There was a discussion about underground facilities for material and storage and other purposes. It's not completely off the table in terms of the underground facility.
The Chair: I wasn't on Internal Economy when the decision was taken at the time. For those of you who were, kudos to you. I take my hat off to you.
Senator Marshall: Mr. Patrice, speaking from memory, I thought we had a budget and then it was increased and then it was decreased. Can you remember the historical part? I know we're on budget now, but it's a revised increased budget, isn't it?
Mr. Patrice: It's a revised increased budget. It's not the Senate portion that changed. The Senate-specific requirement has always been around $11 million or 5 per cent. But there was an increase in terms of the budget for the renovation of the Government Conference Centre because when they started to tear it down, they saw more damage to the structure than they initially planned.
Senator Marshall: When I look at the ground floor plan, I see the rooms on the right and what they are. What are all those rooms on the left? Are there any senators' offices there?
Mr. Patrice: Yes, there will be a series of offices.
Senator Marshall: How many senators' offices will be on the ground floor?
Mr. Patrice: There will also be staff offices in terms of the core legislative function.
Senator Marshall: There are some of those on the upper floor, too?
Mr. Patrice: There are some on the upper floor and there are some on the ground floor.
The Chair: Mr. Patrice, on the ground floor there will be the Speaker's quarters, if I'm not mistaken. There will be working rooms available to all senators, but they won't be specific.
Senator Tannas: There will be no senators' offices.
The Chair: On the second and third floors there will be offices for leadership.
Senator Marshall: None of those offices to the left on the floor plan will be senators' offices. They will be staff offices. For the two committee rooms, I take it that we will still have access to the committee rooms in the Victoria Building and that is it? I'm just concerned now — and the Wellington Street building.
The Chair: Those offices are going to be common offices for senators.
Senator Marshall: On the first floor plan, again, there are no senators' offices; is that right?
Mr. Patrice: If you look at a cross-section of the building, you can see that the front on Wellington is higher than the back. Basically, you don't have the same number of floors throughout the building if you see a cross-side cutting. That's why it's a bit confusing.
Senator Marshall: Looking at the first floor plan, in the middle, what is that?
Mr. Patrice: It's the great hall. That will be preserved.
Senator Marshall: That will be vacant, will it? It's just a great hall.
Mr. Patrice: It will be restored to its original state.
Senator Marshall: What is to the right of that? What's that big room?
Mr. Patrice: On each side you will have a committee room.
Senator Marshall: That's a committee room, too, is it?
Senator Tannas: Which are you looking at?
Senator Marshall: That one. That's a committee room. What would be to the right of that — the rightmost room on the first floor plan?
Senator Tkachuk: That's the Senate Chamber.
Senator Marshall: Okay, I want to make a mental note of everything.
Senator Tkachuk: We haven't done this before. I wonder if we could arrange a tour.
The Chair: When I was Speaker, I visited last year when it was gutted, but I think we can organize that for members of the committee.
Senator Tkachuk: I think that would be great. If other senators ask us, we will have actually seen it.
Mr. Patrice: It could be arranged. Right now, you're still at the cement of the building but, yes, it could be arranged.
Senator Marshall: There are 105 senators. Do we know where the 105 rooms are now for senators when we move here?
Mr. Patrice: Yes.
Senator Marshall: We know exactly where the 105 rooms are?
Senator Tannas: We are getting close.
Senator Marshall: But not there yet?
Mr. Patrice: We are almost there.
Senator Tannas: We got a report from Public Works. We will still have the Victoria Building and 100 per cent of East Block. Then the balance of senators will go to the Chambers Building. Final negotiations are underway. I gather they have a meeting of minds, and they are in the "papering" stage.
Senator McCoy: Thank you for your questions, Senator Marshall. That helps explain quite a bit.
I'm looking at the upper floors. I guess this is main entrance block — upper floors. I'm observing that, on the second, third and fourth floor plans, there are large suites of offices put aside for — it says here "government, opposition and legislative." For one thing, I think there will be three caucuses and groups, or whatever we are calling them — the independent senators group, which will be larger than any other political caucus by the time we move into this building.
I understand we do try to group functions to facilitate business in the chamber. This is merely a label on it for the moment, but we need to keep in mind we might need to accommodate some people in the Government Conference Centre to facilitate easy access for the efficient functioning of Senate business.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for that. We did have an initial discussion about that, and the reaction was that the essential actors in the legislative activity are opposition and government. But as you can see, there is a lot of space, and we're going to need to make the decision on purpose about the issue you've raised.
Senator McCoy: Perhaps you and our group could have a meeting —
Senator Tannas: That would be a good idea.
Senator McCoy: — and begin to imagine where we would end up in 2017.
Senator Tannas: I think that's a good idea. I'm going to ask Mr. Patrice to make sure that engagement happens. Otherwise, we'll make decisions by default.
Senator Batters: With the chamber plan that's being put together here, is there any provision being made for the possibility — hopefully in the near future — of cameras in the chamber?
Senator Tannas: Yes. That's something that has also been raised, and the plan includes all the wiring for that to occur.
The Chair: As was the recommendation of blueprint from this committee. They are on top of things.
Senator Wells: Senator Tannas, I know it's not the Government Conference Centre, but it's related: What is the program for East Block? Are there renovations still planned for East Block? What's the timing of that?
Senator Tannas: Given the experience of the senators and other parliamentarians on the rehabilitation at the east end of Centre Block here with the hoarding, the noise, the added heat and so on that's happened, administration has made arrangements with Public Works to not do that program. The original plan was to do a rehab of the exterior of East Block while we were occupying it. Now we're talking about urgent repairs around the outside while we occupy the East Block.
There is potential that East Block may actually go under renovation five, six or seven years from now if Public Can move up a plan to free up another building — potentially the old U.S. Embassy building or something like that. But at the moment, it's discussion, thinking and whatever. The plan for now and for the foreseeable future is urgent restoration work all around — just safety — making sure that the exterior is safe and nothing is going to fall on somebody — or structural issues. We don't think that will be a major disruption. Then East Block would be left to be dealt with some years down the road.
Senator Munson: I'm a member of Senator Tannas's committee, so I'm really happy there was no conflict when we worked it out that I can skate directly to work now without having to take my skates off. With that separate door inside, just across from the National Arts Centre — up and in. It's just perfect.
In our work with Public Works, I know it's way down the road — and I realize what they are going to be using for government business — have we been told what is going to happen to the Senate Chamber itself when we vacate the place and everybody is back? What are they going to use it for?
Senator Tannas: My understanding is that will be kind of the grand ballroom if you will for the centre. It will be a large meeting room. I may have just assumed that rather than actually know it. We'll dig in and find out that answer.
Mr. Patrice: In terms of possible Senate use, it's possible that it will become our alternate chamber in terms of a business continuity plan.
Senator Munson: In case of earthquake.
Mr. Patrice: In the case of earthquakes, fires and things of that nature. But the government will repurpose it and probably use it for government facilities in terms of conferences, meetings and all that.
Senator Downe: Following up on that, the former chair and Speaker Kinsella always raised the point to make sure that the renovations to our existing Senate, we keep the same space and facilities, because we don't want to come back and find out a bunch of rooms are gone and so on.
Senator Tkachuk: Same line in the sand.
Senator Downe: Exactly. So I assume that is being defended, as well. Thank you.
Senator Tannas: The committee hasn't engaged on any of that yet. We thought we would get our plans lined up for what is coming, and then focus on that. But you're right: That's critical.
Mr. Patrice: That had been the subject of a written agreement between the House of Commons, the Senate and Public Works in terms of when we return to the facility.
Senator Cordy: Thank you, Senator Tannas, for the update. When we look back, the decision made by this committee to retrofit the Conference Centre has been a win-win for the taxpayers of Canada. It's coming in at far less money than was predicted by Public Works. In addition to that, it's going to be a facility that will be used long after the Senate vacates and moves back to Centre Block. So I think that's terrific.
Another question: You, again, probably didn't look at it yet as a committee, but Senator Kinsella was also always quite concerned that all the art work that is now on the Senate side indeed be labelled as being Senate resources and that it be used in the new conference centre facility and then brought back to the Senate side. Has your committee looked at that at all?
Senator Tannas: We're just starting to now, and this is probably the next phase. Now that we've got most of the functional decisions out of the way, the next step is really the fit and finish and the decorating, if you will, and the placement of art and the symbolic things that go with our role in Parliament and so on. On that, we will have Senator Frum and Senator Joyal and, frankly, any other senator who has an interest in that because there are some decisions that will need to be made about what goes, what stays or what goes into storage and that kind of thing.
Senator Cordy: Because so much of the art work is historical. It's a history of our country.
Senator Tannas: Yes.
The Chair: I will break the idea of giving you the last word. Senator Downe has begged to weigh in.
Senator Downe: I'm interested in food. I see, in the Speaker's quarters, there appears to be a dining room. Are there any other food facilities in the building?
Senator Tannas: There is, on site, in the conference centre, a very modest cafeteria, something along the lines of what you see in the East Block, so not a great deal.
We do have a tunnel to Chateau Laurier, and we are across the street from a fantastic food court. There is some discussion that we think we need to have around catering the rooms, the meeting rooms, and that's another item on our agenda for the next number of months.
The Chair: Colleagues, can I have a formal motion to approve the complete functioning, program and design of the government centre?
Senator Munson moves, seconded by Senator Wells. I assume there is no disagreement.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you colleagues.
Item 4: We have with us again this morning, Colette Labrecque-Riel, from JIC. She came last week and, I guess, enjoyed the result so much that she's back this week for more. Colette, you have the floor.
Colette Labrecque-Riel, Acting Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate: Honourable senators, I am here this morning to, once again, provide you with information regarding the Joint Interparliamentary Council, or JIC, and, more specifically, to present an additional request for funds for this fiscal year for parliamentary associations.
As Senator Housakos mentioned, the last time I was here, the request affected all of the associations. This morning's request is specifically for the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
When it made its presentation to the JIC, members of the executive of the Canadian branch of the CPA noted that, despite an initial budget allocation of $150,000, the CPA will be facing a shortfall of $35,000 for activities ending September 2016. The CPA will be facing that shortfall in terms of a number of activities that will be taking place by the end of September.
It was also noted, during their presentation to the JIC, that there is a unique formula for the CPA, whereby, following the September activities, a portion of the contributions or those membership fees are refunded to the CPA. So you have to pay to participate, but, if you do participate, you are refunded some of your membership fees. That is basically their formula. However, this refund is expected only in the fall. As such, the CPA currently does not have sufficient funding to commit to the September activities. Members of the JIC were satisfied that this request was well founded.
Honourable senators will recall that, during my last presentation before this committee, it was noted that the funding for associations is challenging due to the continued pressures from high international membership fees and significant budget requests from associations to carry out their planned activities.
Given that the 2016-17 fiscal year budgetary envelope for associations has already been entirely allocated, the JIC is seeking this committee's approval for an additional $10,500, which is the Senate's portion of the CPA's $35,000 request.
As for the House of Commons portion, the JIC continues to the have the Board of Internal Economy's authorization as it is still operating within that $550,000 over-allocation mechanism. Finally, as we are still relatively early in the fiscal year, the dollar amounts I referred to are very much budgeted and forecasted amounts, as opposed to actual expenditures. At this point, it is very difficult to say with any certainty whether these budgets will be entirely utilized. Based on the past several years, parliamentary associations have not spent beyond the regular funding envelope. It is difficult to say whether this pattern will repeat itself this year.
Senator Jaffer: I just want a clarification. How did it come about that they have a shortfall? What happened? Can you clarify that, please?
Ms. Labreque-Riel: The exercise that the JIC undertook this year, as it has for the past several years, was to hear from all of the association chairs and co-chairs. In the end, the associations, globally, submitted requests that were double what the budget would allow, so, basically, associations were given half of what they requested.
For the CPA, in terms of its planned activities — and associations tend to have similar plans from year to year, the same conferences, the same activities — there is some room to manoeuvre in terms of size of delegations at times. In this particular situation, the way it was explained to the JIC, the size of the delegation is the optimum size or the smallest it can be given the number of votes and influence that you can have at these activities, and, as I say, the refund mechanism, which is quite unique to the CPA, once the refund comes in in the fall, the monies will be returned to them, which will allow the CPA to continue on until the end of the fiscal year.
Senator Marshall: So, last month, we approved $36,600. Is that the correct amount? I didn't agree with approving the $36,600 last month. Now, it's less than a month later, and we're back looking to increase the overall allocation. I'm not receptive to approving this. I know there is going to be a clawback, but, if we go over the budget, if those expenditures are actually incurred, the money has to come from somewhere else in the Senate budget. We should be aware of that.
The other point I would like to make is that senators, when we get our budgetary allocations for our offices, we have to live within our budget. I know Ms. Proulx has been into looking for funding for certain items. She has to live within allocations for IT and human resources, so everybody has to live within their budgetary allocations. So I'm not inclined to approve this one either.
Senator Wells: Is this essentially that the Senate is the cart and the House of Commons is the horse? If they're going to approve their amount, what happens if we don't approve our amount?
Ms. Labreque-Riel: That would be a first, for me anyways. This question did come up with the two co-chairs at the JIC. Because the over-allocation mechanism, as I described it the last time, is being interpreted differently in the House of Commons and in the Senate, what happens if the Senate comes back and says, "No, we don't agree." This would be for the JIC to respond to. I would inform the JIC that the request was denied, and the JIC would have its discussions. I notice that Senator Munson is here. He is a member of the JIC, and I'm sure he may have some opinions as to what the JIC might do with this outcome. Again, they would be informed, and we'll see how they react.
Senator Wells: I want to say, for the record, that I think the kind of work that is covered under JIC is important for Canada, and I would be supportive of the increase or of the approval of the increase.
Senator Downe: My question is about JIC, but it's not on this topic. So I'll go after.
Senator Campbell: I'm really tired of seeing JIC here with their hand out time after time after time after time.
I'm not shooting the messenger. JIC, it seems to me, is an out of control group that's always here with their hand out. I agree that we're the cart and I think we unhook this cart right today from that horse and tell them to live within their budget.
Here is something unique: maybe the members that belong to this committee could reach into their own budgets and make up the shortfall. I will be voting against this.
The Chair: Colleagues, I want to weigh in on this as well. Let's keep in mind that the JIC is not just any other entity within Parliament. It is the fundamental body that represents parliamentary diplomacy around the world and I think all of us have to understand that parliamentary diplomacy is a key part of what parliamentarians do, both from the House of Commons and Senate sides.
We also have to understand that when Colette comes before us, it's because it's a large joint committee of parliamentarians from the House of Commons and Senate side with objectives that have going on with various organizations around the world for over 100 years. Be it the IPU or our friendship associations with Canada-U.K., Canada-France and Canada-Germany, our bilateral dealings with these countries are important.
We cannot just look at this simply from a dollars and cents point of view as if we're buying a communications package and negotiating with Rogers. This is a fundamental part of what Parliament and parliamentarians do. So we have to keep in mind, when we ask some of the questions, we can't look at it simply as going to the grocery store to buy a case of wine.
Senator Campbell: I've never seen them on budget.
The Chair: There's no doubt, but keep in mind the last eight years we have frozen and reduced the budget of the JIC and have asked them to conduct the same work they've been conducting over the last eight years within that freeze. We have to be cognizant of all of those facts.
Senator Munson: JIC is not looking for handouts. Let's have a reality check too here, senator. The JIC represents every party in the House of Commons and it represents us here. The new representative for us is Senator Manning, and I wish he was here to be part of this conversation because we're living in the changing reality of work that the CPA does each and every year.
I want to echo the sentiments of our chair. Things change. This is not a big amount of money. Budgets change and the allocations that these parliamentary associations go for — they ask for double and get half. What they do with money is represent the face of Parliament and parliamentarians around the world on all of these trips. I think, for example, of Canada-Africa, with Senator Andreychuk, MP Mauril Bélanger and the work of parliamentarians on human rights and other issues in African countries.
It's the same thing with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and Canada-U.S., as Senator Cordy said. We're not talking about $350,000, we're talking about $35,000 to get their job done. I think that we might revisit the whole cart-before-the-horse, horse-before-the-cart — whatever the analogy is — with the House of Commons, but why we are taking it out on CPA this morning, I just don't buy into that. I will certainly support their modest, modest request, but it is not a handout.
Senator Tkachuk: I'm with Larry on this.
Look, we always had this issue with budgeting on JIC, and you used Canada-Africa as a good example: Canada- Africa has no membership, no central administration. All the work is done by the MPs and the co-chairs. It's the same with Canada-U.S., with France, Britain, Japan, China and then, basically, the Commonwealth and IPU. And I can't remember, but in NATO there is something like four organizations that eat up all the money.
And half that money is for membership. It isn't for parliamentarians' travel. We're supporting a bunch of bureaucrats or driving around in cars that are paid for out of our membership fees. We've asked them to cut down their budget and, basically, they don't do it. They don't do it and that was frustrating for me when I was there. You just wanted to shoot yourself because you hear the same stories every year.
My view is they should keep to the budget. It isn't that big of a deal. There is lots of money around and they could always find it. We cut it in half and you know what? They still found the money. I'm with Larry. Let them live within their means.
Senator Mitchell: I'm not with Larry, probably for the first time ever. I'd rather be with Larry.
I'm with Senator Munson. When you look at JIC, do you know what you see? You see us. One of the most important features of the work that we do in Parliament — not the most important, but a very significant feature of the work we do — is international diplomatic work. It's extremely important to how we sell this country around the world and if we back off from that it has economic impacts and international influence impacts.
It may not be a perfect science trying to budget for that kind of diplomatic work in the world. We don't control a lot of the pressures on it; it ebbs and it flows. But what we do when we attack what I believe to be a reasonable budget request under the circumstances is we limit our own work, which is a very important and significant part of the contribution that the Senate and senators make to the progress, the economic success and the international reputation of this country.
So the idea that there are poorly run organizations in the world that we're part of can't influence or change that, so we have to accept it if we want to get the benefits of the diplomatic work that that involves. I support this request and I support JIC.
Senator Lang: I don't think this discussion should be about whether or not we're participating and meeting our obligations in this particular organization. The question is whether or not they should live within their budget.
I really don't think the message should be that if a person doesn't vote for this reallocation that they're opposed to CPA. It's a simple message to send but I don't think it to be true.
I want to make it clear from where I stand. Everyone in this room has an office budget. They're expected to work within that office budget. If you don't, I don't know what the repercussions are, but I guess you pay it yourself. My point is that we've had this coming back to this committee on a repeated basis, similar to what Senator Tkachuk talked about, and we've asked and requested that these organizations get their acts together and work within the dollars that are available.
So from where I sit, when I vote, I'm not voting against the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I'm voting for responsible money management and I think this is the bellwether that should go back. You're already talking about a $150,000 allocation over and above what has been approved.
So what are we talking about here? From where I sit, yeah, you can talk about $10,000 not being a lot of money but where I come from $10,000 is a lot of money. It's the taxpayer's money and in my judgment, as far as I'm concerned, we have supported these organizations and I won't be voting for it.
Senator Downe: I was going to save my comments until later, but we got onto the issue that I want to raise.
I think this committee should hear from whoever is on JIC representing us because I'm at a loss to understand the position of the new government.
As the chair correctly identified, the JIC budget was cut over a number of years, then it was slowly increased. It was down. It's not where it should be in my opinion, but the government has made, it appears from reading in the media, a major priority for outreach and international involvement. I read in all the papers about the importance of the trade deal with Europe and the importance of the TPP coming up. All our parliamentary associations can be engaged in that.
We had a delegation in the Foreign Affairs Committee from the Czech Senate this week. The first item we raised was the trade deal. Our outreach groups could be raising it. But there seems to be a disconnect between what the government is saying and the dollars to have parliamentarians participate.
So I would like to know, and maybe it could be added to a future agenda, what is the intention of the government? Do they intend to keep a restrictive budget on JIC or do they want parliamentarians engaged in parliamentary diplomacy to advance some of the issues that are important to Canada and I think once we know that we can fix these budgetary issues.
In the short-term I'll be voting for it because I don't have those answers.
The Chair: Maybe I can comment on that because it's an important point.
Colleagues, number one, JIC represents Parliament, it doesn't represent the government. We have a new Parliament on the other side and as the former co-chair of JIC the last few weeks and months, I will tell you there is a desire on the part of that new Parliament to increase and its coming. We'll be getting a request, I suspect, for next year's budget of a 20 per cent increase because they want to intensify parliamentary diplomacy.
We have to also be cognizant that the elected side has some higher weight than we do when it comes to taking some of these decisions and we have a secondary role, so we also have to be cognizant of that fact when we take some decisions on this issue.
Senator Munson: To echo that, the JIC's budget has been cut over the last eight years substantially over and over again; it's almost like a retreat. We're retreating. Yes, we are. It is true. I'm speaking the truth. I always speak the truth and nothing but the truth.
In any case, look, folks, it's $10,500 from the Senate of Canada. Surely we can show a little compassion and generosity towards parliamentarians who want to put a face on Canada out there. It's not a substantial amount of money, and yes, I agree we could revisit the whole issue of this but, as the chair has said, it's a bigger Parliament, too. There are 338 MPs, not 308, and maybe one day before I leave we'll have a full complement of senators and we would like to complement their work in what they do to be part of these associations.
I recognize that Senator Tkachuk talks about these different memberships and that is an issue I think we can sit down with our esteemed leader on our side, Senator Fabian Manning — I wish he was here today — to discuss this. He discovered what JIC is like in there. It's a very robust debate that goes on with Liberals and Conservatives and the NDP and a few of the Bloc and so on and senators to work this out because we will have to recognize as well that the biggest group in this Senate will be the non-aligned — has kind of a Soviet connotation to it — group of individuals acting as a group and I think we have to treat them with great respect.
The Chair: Senator Jaffer, you have the final word and then we'll go to a decision.
Senator Jaffer: I am a member of CPA and I know the good work they do and they have a big trip coming up going to Bangladesh and India, which is bilateral. They have genuine reasons for wanting that money. But I really want to put on the agenda, which I have been asking since I've been on here, that I want each association to have co-chairs because when we don't have co-chairs we lose power like Canada-Japan and Canada-Africa. We have co-chairs and I have been saying and I want this on the agenda and I want this done soon because we lose power when we become vice- chairs. If we are going to be there we should have a co-chair on every association.
The Chair: I agree with that idea and I think we should all have a discussion with our new co-chair, Senator Manning, on that and maybe it will be a mantle he can run with.
I get a sense on this important issue a vote might be required; I sense there is no consensus.
Senator Cordy: So we're talking about $10,500?
The Chair: Yes, of over-allocation for the Commonwealth association.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell: No.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Downe.
Senator Downe: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Doyle.
Senator Doyle: No.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Jaffer.
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Lang.
Senator Lang: No.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: No.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Munson.
Senator Munson: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: The Honourable Senator Smith.
Senator 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 Wells.
Senator Wells: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: Senator White. Not there — sorry.
Senator Housakos.
Senator Housakos: Yes.
The Chair: We had nine for the "yes," five for the "no," so the "yes" have it. The motion passes.
There is another item on the agenda.
Senator Cordy: This is related to JIC. I think that it's extremely important that we come back to the comments that Senator Jaffer made earlier. Perhaps we can discuss it at the next meeting. It seemed like there was unanimous consent but maybe I read the room wrong, but I think it is extremely important because her point being that if you're vice-chair it's not quite the same as being co-chair and I think that it's important that there be a co-chair in either of those committees from the Senate if in fact we are contributing to JIC and to the associations.
The Chair: Given the fact that I get a sense there is a consensus on this, maybe we can ask our representatives, Senator Manning, Senator Munson and Senator Plett, to get together on this issue with Senator Jaffer and lead the way at JIC that we really strongly want this to happen.
Senator Downe: I go back to my earlier point. I appreciate the information you had about the budgets possibly being increased by 20 per cent but I think we have a number of issues — Senator Jaffer raised one, I'm sure people have others — I think we should add it to our agenda just to have an overview of JIC. If they're increasing the budget by 20 per cent I think that's good. They also increased the budget for MPs' offices by 20 per cent. Some of those things we will have to consider in this chamber as well.
The Chair: Having the insight of trying to forecast what's coming given the fact that I was on the committee, I suspect maybe in the next few months, once JIC decides where they will go in next year's budget, we'll have the two co- chairs come before this committee for a more fulsome discussion.
Last item before we adjourn. I know Senator Jaffer wants to add something to the agenda.
Senator Jaffer: I do. And thank you, chair.
Senators, I want to point out to all of you that on next Monday starts a month of fasting for Muslims on the Hill — for Muslims all over the world — with Ramadan, and so for many years we have had a prayer room here. We have a prayer room in East Block but we also have a small room here. May we circulate that if people want to pray there is a room here?
My second thing is more to human resources. This year, the fasting is really bad. It's almost 14 hours when we can't drink or eat and so I'm asking to watch out for employees. I'm worried. I was speaking to somebody at the Ottawa Hospital and they say they get lots of people who are dehydrated, so just to be aware that if you have Muslim staff to keep an eye on them.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. Colleagues, are there any other items anyone wants to address? No. If not, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)