Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 4 - Evidence - June 9, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 9, 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 9:02 a.m. for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: We will get right into the crux of the agenda and go to item 1, which is the adoption of the minutes from June 2, 2016. It is moved by Senator Campbell, seconded by Senator Batters. All in favour? You didn't second?
Senator Batters: I just got them now.
The Chair: Is everyone in favour of the minutes?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item 2, creation of an advisory working group on the review of policies and rules. After consultation with all caucuses and independents, we have a recommendation of members for this working group that will continue the review of the rules and policies.
As I expressed to the committee at the last meeting, some preliminary work has been done over the last year and a half by the administration, by steering, and now it's in the final leg of its work. We need this group of senators to work on this over the summer and hopefully bring a final proposal to this committee by September. The nominations that I have for the committee are Senators Plett, Ngo, Seidman, Neufeld, Massicotte, Jaffer and Bellemare.
Senator McCoy: I think that's not correct. The independents are putting me forward for the group, and I just had a meeting with Senator Harder. I understood he spoke with you and suggested there be two independents. He's putting Senator Mitchell forward he told me this morning.
The Chair: After consultation with Senator Mitchell and Senator Harder, their recommendation for the committee was Senator Bellemare yesterday. That's what I understood.
He did bring to my attention the desire to have another member on the committee, which I brought forward to the other caucus leaders, and there did not seem to be a consensus on that. Unless this committee would like to entertain that, of course; it's the right of this committee to make a final decision.
Senator McCoy: If you're having independents on this committee, as you initially said, then our group is the independent group. We are nominating me.
The Chair: If the committee is in favour of that. I just want to point out, Senator McCoy, it's been complicated for me as a chair to navigate under these new waters because you claim you represent the independents. We also have Senator Mitchell who claims to be the facilitator of the independents. The committee sometimes has a bit of difficulty in determining who the independents are, if this committee had agreed to one member on the committee of independents.
I went to leadership after Senator Harder brought it to my attention. I couldn't get consensus from leadership to go with another member of independents. I understand, Senator McCoy, you speak for a group of independents, but I think Senator Mitchell and Senator Harder also speak for a group of independents.
I'm looking to this committee for some guidance on this because I'm on a surfboard here in the middle of the ocean trying to find the direction.
Senator Tkachuk: Why don't we appoint the ones we know about until a meeting with Senator Harder is sorted out? Why should we be involved in their issues? I'm not interested in that. Then they can bring a name forward after the discussion.
Senator Lankin: I'm not sure only because I don't know all of the terminology; when you say you spoke with the "leadership," could you first of all tell me what that means? Whom did you speak with?
The Chair: In this place, leadership are the people who represent caucuses. I spoke to Senator Carignan; Senator Cowan from the Liberal caucus; and Senator Harder, who is the representative of the government in the chamber.
Senator Lankin: My understanding is that Senator Harder — only because — my apologies — I walked into the chamber during your conversation with him yesterday — he was making the point to you that he thought there should be two independents. Is that correct?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Lankin: When you consulted with leadership, you consulted with Senators Cowan and Carignan, and they said no, there can't be two independents. Is that what happened?
The Chair: They were not open to the idea, and they sort of understood that this committee would make the decision. They certainly didn't give me any clear guidance, so that's why I'm here before the committee looking for some guidance.
Senator Lankin: Well, then, if I may, I'd just like to say to the folks around this table that this doesn't change the balance of numbers in terms of the majority caucus in the Senate having the majority of votes on this committee. It is a working committee. It's about people rolling up their sleeves and looking at the administrative rules and attempting to bring greater clarity. And diverse minds and cognitive diversity around a table can help in that situation, when you're looking at words and understanding how people read and interpret them and what they mean.
I can't see how it affects the balance of anything in this case to entertain having two independents to sit alongside — I think there are two members of the independent Liberal caucus there and a number of members of the Conservative caucus.
It is just people putting people to work, and the results of that work will come back to this committee. I'm not a member of this committee. It will come back to you, and the regular voting structure will be here.
As a working committee, I'd ask you to entertain bringing another person on, and let's have some good, full representative work done over the summer.
Senator Munson: In the words of somebody famous, "Why can't we all get along?"
There were supposed to be, I think, three Liberals. We have two; right? Why can't we have a compromise and have a representative from the government? They're not independent; they're the government. They represent the government. Then you have the independents who represent all of the independents who want to be independent.
In the interests of independents, why can't we just have an independent and a member of the government on this committee? There are two Liberals. It makes sense. We're moving into new territory, so let's get it done. We're going to work all summer, good luck.
Senator Batters: How many people are proposed to be on this working group?
The Chair: It's a working group. Seven people. Keep in mind, colleagues, as well, that all the recommendations of this working group will come to this committee. None of them will be approved without the committee's consent.
Senator Batters: I just wanted to point out, the independents, not the Liberals, are proposing to have two out of that seven. Didn't we just change things to have two independents on large Senate committees, which typically can have how many members, 12 or 15, that sort of thing? Two on this would seem to be out of proportion, if that's what we're looking at.
The Chair: Sorry?
Senator Batters: It sounds to be out of proportion, given the makeup of Senate committees that we've just made those changes.
Senator Marshall: Could you repeat who's on the committee?
The Chair: From the Conservative side I have Senators Plett, Ngo, Seidman, Neufeld. They were kind enough to volunteer to do this work. Senator Massicotte from the Liberal side, Senator Jaffer, and after consultation with Senator Mitchell and Senator Harder, I had Senator Bellemare, and that's where we're at.
Senator McCoy: In fact, what you did is you had conversations with three political leaders. Mr. Harder is a representative of the government. I understood that you wanted an independent on the matter, and I'm telling you that the independents have put my name forward.
So it's a question of whether you want, in addition to me, Mr. Harder's nominee. As I say, just five minutes ago I was with him, and he said to me that it was Grant Mitchell that he was recommending be on here.
Senator Downe: Colleagues, I think the chair is bound by the existing rules, and the Senate has been structured for a long time on caucus and, where possible, trying to accommodate independents, as the chair does at this meeting by letting independents speak, even though they're not members of the committee, ahead of other committee members and so on.
We all know the Rules of the Senate allow any senator to attend any meeting and speak. But the chair, it seems to me, is bound by the existing rules, unless the committee gives him other directions.
Currently, until we change the Rules of the Senate, we're organized by caucuses. And I'm not sure, when we say independents, when we count the numbers, are we counting Senators Harder, Bellemare and Mitchell in that group? Are they considered independent even though they're not part of the main independents? Is Senator McCoy representing all the independents?
I notice with the presentation of the committee's recommendations yesterday for independents a large number of them weren't on any committees. Are they separate independents? Are they independent, independent? We're independents because we can vote any way we want, but we're organized by the existing rules and therefore we have the benefits of it.
The Chair: Senator Downe, that's precisely the problem I have. You're absolutely right. We have Senator Harder and Senator Bellemare who are the representatives of the government but don't represent a political caucus, and they claim they represent the independents. Senator McCoy is a facilitator for a group of independents, as I understand.
So I'm trying to decipher which independents and who speaks for which independents and when.
Senator Lankin and Senator Wells, and then we'll try to close this up.
Senator Lankin: I'm kind of chuckling because I think it's a tough job but somebody's got to do it. We're into that place.
Senator Downe, I've heard many times what you said and I appreciate that. I've heard it from others, "until the rules change, until the rules change." Well, you know what, we are evolving as we go along. I suggest to you that if there's room for latitude on things, a working committee that's going to work in the middle of the summer, which is not the opportune time for anybody to want to come to Ottawa to work, but people are willing to do that to try and bring together recommendations to come to a full committee where the committee membership, which is structured by the rules you talk about, will have the vote, this is the place to be lenient and to engage people who want to be engaged.
To say that we're bound by the rules when we're striking a working committee and when the chair has already said it is up to this full committee to decide who will be on it, I would argue with you and ask you to consider the reasonableness of having people who want to be engaged and want to contribute be allowed to do so and to bring their recommendations back to this full group for the controlled vote by the majority caucus.
The Chair: Senator Wells, you get the final word before I weigh in on this.
Senator Wells: Thank you. Just for clarity, I want to ask Senator McCoy if she's the — and I'm not even sure of the title — representative of all independents in the chamber or just some independents in the chamber.
Senator McCoy: All independents other than those who are constrained by their office, being the Speaker and three government representatives.
Senator Wells: So you represent all of the others?
Senator McCoy: Yes. And we meet regularly, and they have elected me as their facilitator. If you wish to have only one independent on the committee and you want me to negotiate this, any embarrassment that you might have encountered with Senator Harder, I will do so.
The Chair: I will break my own rule and allow two more speakers on this and, colleagues, I will close the debate after this. So Senator Campbell, then Senator Plett, and we'll move on.
Senator Campbell: I am independent, period. I don't belong to any caucus. I don't have any leaders. I meet with other independents to discuss issues that may or may not be of import. But I do not belong to anybody. Actually, nobody wants me, now that I think about it.
Senator Wells: Senator McCoy just said that she was your leader.
The Chair: Order, colleagues. Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair. I just want to weigh in a little bit on what Senator Lankin said about this is an evolving place; and indeed it is. I'm not sure why we have to put that into fourth gear immediately. Why not work slowly at evolving? Clearly, the fact that there is an independent on this group is already an indication of something evolving. Clearly, the fact that there are independents on any committee is a sign that we are evolving.
However, it seems to me that we need to evolve at the pace that the group of independents wants to evolve at and everything is supposed to take a back seat. Yes, this may be a working group, and you may well be making a good point about letting people who want to be on there, but with that reasoning there may be another 20 people who want to be on there. We don't know that. There were certain people who asked to be on there, and Senator Cordy is shaking her head, and she's probably correct.
Senator Tkachuk: We were on it once.
Senator Plett: I'm sure there would be others who might want to be on it. There still has to be structure, folks. Whether or not this group is too small can be debated, and this group, when they start working, may feel that they would like a few more people on there and may make a recommendation to this committee here that we add another person.
Why can we not evolve at a pace that we're all comfortable with? We've been trying to do that. We saw again yesterday in the chamber what happens when people want to just simply evolve too quickly and then things grind to a halt. So let's not let this grind to a halt. Let's move along with the recommendation that we have.
Again, Senator Campbell just made very clear that he doesn't belong to anybody, so I'm not sure where Senator McCoy says that she is speaking for all the independents. I don't think she is. Anyway, that's my comment. Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, thank you for your comments.
Again, the problem persists. As you see, Senator McCoy, you claim to represent all independents except the three government representatives, and the one independent here with us today claims he is genuinely independent and nobody represents him. That's why I'm always put in this difficult situation.
Maybe I can suggest a compromise in the meantime. We can strike this committee and gear it up because it will start its work sometime in July. I suggest to this committee that you reach out to all the independents again and continue the consultation to identify the right independent and also reach out to the leadership and see if there is a willingness to open that committee to more than seven members, which I personally don't see a big problem with because it is a working group and there shouldn't be votes there. There will be suggestions and recommendations that come back to this committee.
I think we should respect the process we have in place and then build from there going forward. Colleagues, is that compromise reasonable?
Senator Cordy: I have a quick question. If it's a working group, isn't any senator allowed to attend a working group?
The Chair: Any senator can attend, I would suspect. Why would the committee refuse any senator to come before it in —
Senator Cordy: Having served on that committee for a while, there were never any votes. That's not to say there wouldn't ever, be but it was always by consensus. We didn't have any in about two years or three years.
The Chair: I agree, Senator Cordy. If there's a long list of senators who want to come in July and August and plow through the work with them, they're welcome to do so. I don't think anyone will ask their affiliation at the door. Is that compromise reasonable, colleagues?
An Hon. Senator: That's good.
The Chair: I move the motion that the committee is struck with Senator Plett, Senator Ngo, Senator Seidman, Senator Neufeld, Senator Massicotte and Senator Jaffer.
My understanding now is that Senator Bellemare is not clarified, so we will have a clarification in consultation with the independents of who the independent representative will be on this committee and continue the discussion.
All in favour of that motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Do we have a seconder?
Senator Tkachuk: I'll second.
The Chair: Seconded by Senator Tkachuk. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Item 3 is the fourth report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets. It's being deferred to the next meeting, I understand; or do we have an update from Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: We just have a couple of things, not a report. We have some additional requests coming in next week. We also have had a number of the approved committee travel trips that were intended to go in the spring that have been moved to the fall. What that means is that the anticipated clawbacks that we would have that would allow us to continue to approve other trips have not yet materialized substantially.
So we're going to be in a position where we have more asks than we have freed up dollars, by a significant margin, by $400,000. The subcommittee is not comfortable overbooking the amounts, so unless this committee feels that they have an appetite for us to go there, we're going to suggest to the other committees to wait until the fall for approvals beyond the amount that we have right now. We're just trying to get a handle on it. It may be $250,000 or something, based on some of the clawback information that we're getting for the few committees that have travelled.
So we will have a report, but we will also start telling folks that they may not get their ask. That's number one. We just wanted to put that out. If it's the will of the committee to have us overstep the $2 million by some amount, or the $1.882 million that we've approved, then we will take that into consideration when we come back with our recommendations. That's number one.
Number two, with the changes to the membership of CIBA, we've lost one of our members, Senator Doyle, so we need a volunteer, or somebody will be voluntold to come on the committee. We need it by Tuesday.
The Chair: Senator Tannas, if I'm not mistaken, does it have to be a member of CIBA? It has to be a member of CIBA because it's a subcommittee.
Senator Tannas: Yes.
The Chair: Senator Campbell, you're volunteering?
Senator Campbell: I am.
The Chair: Excellent.
The Chair: Can I have a motion from someone that Senator Campbell will be the replacement? Moved by Senator Cordy, seconded by Senator Lang. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Unanimous. We're on a roll.
Senator Marshall: Senator Tannas, would you have the information on the budget for the committees and how much we've committed, and then the requests that are working their way through the system?
Senator Tannas: Yes. The total budget is $1.882 million. We have approved $1,668,727. Out of that, only $175,000 has been spent. We already have a deferred recommendation for $389,000 that we've deferred for fall travel. We just received a $260,000 request. We know we have at least another one coming next week. We think, based on the small amount of travel that was done — we're just trying to verify it — we've got somewhere around $250,000 of clawbacks coming, off of the $1.668 million; so we'll call it $1.4 million with a $1.882 million budget, $389,000 already asked for and deferred, $260,000 asked for this week and more coming.
Senator Marshall: It looks like if the clawback materializes we would have about half a million dollars?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Senator Lang: Senator Tannas, I want to say I appreciate the work you're doing with respect to this subcommittee. If you can clarify, in one case, in one committee, the decision was that monies were allocated, then the decision was not to proceed, and subsequently, obviously, the financial commitment was not spent.
Now, in this particular case, the National Security and Defence Committee, we've been asked to review a certain item of concern by the Government of Canada in the defence file, and it probably will require a visit to, in this case, New York.
Does the committee have the ability to look at an allocation that has been made to a committee, and that committee then revises their priority and looks at going in another direction but the money has already been allocated?
Senator Tannas: I think, senator, my reaction would be you get to go to the back of the line, but at the end of the day this is the committee that makes the decisions, and I haven't consulted.
If that's the case, if you could submit it for Tuesday, we'll consider that, or we may have one more meeting before we break for the summer, and we could consider it. Maybe I was hasty in saying going to the back of the line; but if you want to bring it forward that way, we will make the consideration and the recommendation, unless this committee wants to weigh in on it and tell us what to do.
Senator Lang: I'll proceed accordingly, but I just wanted to get it clarified.
The Chair: Senator Tannas, we like to empower our subcommittee members.
Item 4 as well, I guess, Senator Tannas, has been addressed; right? The fifth report of the subcommittee?
Senator Tannas: Yes. It will be next week.
The Chair: Shall we go to item 5?
[Translation]
Senator Joyal and Senator Seidman are here to present the first report of the consultative working group on Canada's 150th anniversary. You have the floor.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you. The report is being distributed right now.
Honourable senators, good morning. As you already know, the advisory working group was established by your Internal Economy Committee this past March 10, 2016. It was mandated to review proposals for legacy projects to mark Canada's one hundred and fiftieth anniversary and make recommendations for consideration.
We appear before you this morning to present the first report. The group wishes to note the significant contribution of Senator Joyal. While not an official member of the group, he has provided us with the benefit of his experience on two similar projects, and Senator Joyal joins me here this morning.
It must also be noted that there are time constraints now that will have an impact in terms of the scope of projects that can reasonably be achieved within the limited time frame available.
The advisory working group held four meetings, and during the course of the meetings, a consensus emerged among members that a legacy project should highlight the contributions of the Senate over the past 150 years, but especially since the centenary 50 years ago and going forward. It should appeal to the Canadian population broadly, beyond the Ottawa bubble.
This exercise of going back in time to understand the changes and the impacts moving forward will ensure the visibility of the Senate as a parliamentary chamber truly contemplating the future of the country on the occasion of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Canadian Confederation and will constitute an enduring legacy in print and digital format.
The working advisory group recommends the following: One, that a Senate symposium be held in the Senate Chamber during the break week in May 2017, calling on the contributions from experts and historians, with a central theme, which is as follows: Determining the events since the centenary of Canadian Confederation in 1967 that influenced Canada's evolution and that outline the country's future orientation.
Two, that the subthemes located at the end of page 1 and the top of page 2 in the report be further explored. As you can see, the subthemes include the re-emergence of Aboriginal peoples, gender parity in Parliament on boards, in traditional occupations and other areas of Canadian society, the equality of Canada's two official languages, the protection of minorities and recognition of their rights, evolving national unity, Canada's emergence on the international scene and environmental preoccupations. You can read more details in the report itself.
Three, that the best suited experts and historians from Canadian universities representing both official languages participate in the symposium and that the texts and contributions be published in a bilingual book.
It's important to note that in the symposium, and then as reflected in the last chapter of the book, these subthemes will be elaborated to showcase the Senate and its work in relation to them. In this way the chapter can demonstrate the Senate's modern role in our parliamentary system and showcase its perspective on the future.
The symposium will be broadcast, we propose, on CPAC, and then with the consideration of a documentary film to follow, which would indeed be, again, a lasting legacy to help the Canadian public understand the role of the Senate in the past and how we project the role into the future.
Honourable senators, the advisory working group is mindful of the time and preparation required to identify the contributors and solicit the writing of materials in advance for the symposium and therefore recommends the approval in principle of a budget of $150,000, and we have a model budget appended to the report that estimates to our best understanding the symposium and the book but likely does not include further exploration of the documentary film.
Your advisory working group is equally mindful that Canada 150 is a momentous celebration and an opportunity to highlight the Senate as a parliamentary chamber, truly contemplating the future of the country on the occasion of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Canadian Confederation.
I'd like to ask Senator Joyal to provide any additional comments he may have regarding the symposium and the book, and we'll be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
Senator Joyal: Thank you, Senator Seidman.
As Senator Seidman has stated, this would in fact be the third iteration of such a symposium. We organized one in 2008, which was, of course, the four hundredth anniversary of the establishment of French in Quebec, and the Senate hosted the symposium with 20 historians drawn from all kinds of domains of expertise and knowledge. The idea was to explore with our French counterparts, and the symposium took place as an initiative of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association, on which I invited senators to be members.
The theme of the symposium in 2008 was essentially what explained the special relationship and influence that France has had over Canada for 400 years. It was a theme that was never researched, as such, by any historians, and we received enthusiastic support and contributions, which led to the publication of this book that was published by Montreal University Press.
As a matter of fact, we got the annual prize of the National Assembly of Quebec for the book. It was one of the legacies of that celebration, and it helps to understand in each period of the history of Canada how France and Canada share common influence in the making of the country. That's what we did in 2008.
In 2014, it was the centenary of the declaration of the First World War, and we all know that Canada strongly participated in the war, and I proposed to the interparliamentary association to look into the participation of Canada in France, and how the war transformed Canadian society.
We organized a joint seminar, one that took place in the Senate Chamber on November 11 and 12, 2014, with 10 historians. I have brought the leaflet that explained the program. We organized another part of the same seminar in France the year after, in May 2015. It again gathered 20 historians who looked into different aspects of the transformative impact of the war, how the war transformed the economy, how the war transformed the social relationship, the status of women, how the war influenced the approach to propaganda and censorship, how the war influenced the financial milieu, how the war in fact was so transformative that after four years Canada was, to a point, a different country.
The book is being printed now. I have the cover of the book here to circulate. It's titled Canada and France in the Great War 1914-1918. A film producer has proposed to film a documentary in two parts, in France and in Canada, on the basis of the script of the book.
That symposium that we organized — in fact in part last year — was financed essentially through a grant of the Veterans Affairs Department, Minister Fantino, who was invited to open the seminar, and a joint grant by the French government, because of course they had a centennial commission for the war and they had money available and so forth.
We got a grant of $20,000 from Minister Fantino and the equivalent of $20,000 from the French government — 15,000 euros. That essentially covered the transportation costs of the historians. We paid for economy airplane tickets, a three-star hotel in Paris, a two-star hotel here, a Best Western sort of hotel. We are very cheap. And of course there is a per diem based on the scale of what an average civil servant would be allowed, and we broke even. There was no deficit. We paid for the commitments that we had.
The book will be financed through sponsorship from me and another private source because we want to have a book that will be illustrated with at least 150 new images that have never been produced. And the important thing about this book on Canada and the war is that as you know next year will be the centenary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, and the government has accepted to co-finance with a private foundation, of which I am a member, a new interpretation centre at the cost of $10 million, and in fact it will be almost the only recent book in French that will be made available to tourists who visit there by the rate of about 200,000 visitors in the year.
It's an incredible place to visit. If any of you have a chance to go there one day, go, because it's an experience you will never forget.
This book is important because it's going to be the legacy of the centenary of the war and, as I said, how the war impacted the transformation of Canada.
I wrote a chapter in that book, which is essentially the role that Parliament assumed during the war, in other words, how Parliament acted during the four years of the war.
Honourable senators, I don't say that to impress you, but I spent a whole summer reading the journals of the House of Commons for the four years. I will never condemn anyone to do that because that's cruel and unusual punishment. But the chapter is very important because it outlines how Parliament was also transformed during the war.
I will advise you, if any of you have an interest to read it, the book will be out of press by July, and we will have a launching in the Senate this fall.
When Senator Seidman and the other members of the group talked to me about the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary, I thought that we could use that opportunity to also reflect on the kind of country we are at the one hundred and fiftieth age of maturity. I thought one thing that would be good would be to start from 1967, where Canada was in 1967 and where we are now and what happened during those 50 years that transformed Canada. These are the determining events that really shaped the Canada that we have today, and how it will impact in the future.
That's the way I thought we could have a reflection, and I thought, of course, the Senate being a chamber of sober second thought, it would be appropriate for us to give a legacy to Canada in the form of a book and in the form of a film, because CBC is looking for material for broadcasts for next year.
Now there's not the fever of the one hundredth and fiftieth anniversary, but next year at this time, honourable senators, everybody will be talking about the one hundredth and fiftieth anniversary, what we are doing, what are the celebrations, what are the events and the circumstances in which we can be, and that's why Senator Seidman has proposed that we host that seminar in the month of May during the break week. In the third week we are always on break.
We can sit in the Senate. Historians are always very impressed to sit in the chamber. We will, of course, have a selection of historians from all regions of Canada because the experts are not only in Toronto or Montreal; they are also in Vancouver, Alberta and Winnipeg. You might be surprised to see the kind of interest it has generated. In fact, I have touched base with colleagues at the Royal Society of Canada, a group of professors and experts in the humanities and social sciences, and I had a tremendous response and interest.
The important thing is to be visible for the Senate. How can we be visible? CPAC broadcast two previous seminars that I organized, and they rebroadcast them during the summertime, because it's not material that is boring; it's always interesting to listen to a historian telling how Canada participated in the war and the conscription crisis, who made money during the war.
There was a team —
The Chair: Senator Joyal, maybe I can ask you to wrap up in 30 seconds because your very in-depth briefing has generated many questions.
Senator Joyal: I think I have said enough.
The Chair: We'll get right to the meat of the order.
Senator Batters: Thanks very much for this. I wonder what about having a subtheme of Confederation and the Senate's link to Canada's history? What I was thinking about is, for an example, showcasing some of the amazing historic features that we have in Senate buildings, like Sir John A. Macdonald's office and the first cabinet room and East Block. I see in here you want to appeal to people outside of the Ottawa bubble. If you want to do that, show them things that people from outside Ottawa can't see unless they come here. People in my province would like to be able to see some of those things that they can't see otherwise.
Senator Joyal: I'm taking note.
Senator Tkachuk: First of all, I would like to thank the committee for all their obvious hard work and thought into the program; but as I go through here, as you went through it, senator, I don't see any mention of Confederation, which is what we're celebrating after 150 years. There are so many interesting stories, including the story of how the Senate was such a prime mover in creating the final deal in Confederation. We have a real opportunity to tell our story as a Senate institution because we're involved in the history right from 1867 on, and, of course, all the debate that's going on between — anyway, that's the one thing I see missing here.
It seems that we start 50 years ago, which is fine, but I think we're celebrating 150 years of Canada's history.
Senator Wells: Thank you, chair. Thank you, Senator Seidman and Senator Joyal, for the presentation and your work up to this point.
I have a couple of points that I'll roll through. In the two and a half pages there's no mention of a communications plan for the entire project. How is it expected to roll out? How do we educate the public about what is coming up? How do we make this bigger than what it might appear just on paper?
Not just the symposium, but the book — would it look at the eight or nine themes that you have listed? Would that be looked at through a Senate lens, or would it be just a Canadian lens, aside from the Senate? What's the format of the book? Would it be a hard cover with lots of nice photographs that are appealing, a coffee table format, or something like that what holding, Napoleon's book?
Finally, the timeline — there would be the symposium in May. Would that result in a book, or would there be a launch of the book and the symposium at the same time?
Senator Marshall: It sounds like what you're going to do is ambitious. The budget doesn't seem large enough to me. I can't believe I'm saying it, but —
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Marshall: But there, I've said it. It was hard.
The other point I want to make is that it sounds like the book is fairly well along, so I don't know if you included anything on Newfoundland, because we are a part of the Canadian federation now, but we didn't join until 1949. Newfoundland participated in World War I, the Royal Newfoundland Regiment; we served at Gallipoli, Battle of the Somme. I'm concerned that Newfoundland might not be included in the book.
Senator Joyal: I choose the images, senator. Don't worry.
The Chair: Newfoundland has a lot of influence on this committee, Senator Marshall.
Senator Jaffer: I want to thank the committee and also Senator Joyal. I can hear from your enthusiasm, and as you always put yourself into these projects, I want to thank you for all the work that you have done.
I am concerned with what I heard because when I read what you have said, you said you are looking, going forward, to appeal to the Canadian population and Canada's evolution. I didn't hear anything about people like me. South Asians have been in B.C. for 100 years. I want to make sure that this project also reflects the ethnic communities, people of colour. I ask that you make sure that the history from Nova Scotia, the history in Ontario and B.C.
What I was looking at is where you have all these subthemes, if you could add another subtheme to include — in a few seconds I have just put the increasing role of Canadians of ethnic communities, because it certainly has increased over the last 150 years.
Senator Munson: Thank you for your report. Three or four short items here: I guess the $150,000 figure is just coincidence; it's the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. It sells, I guess, that way.
The symposium on CPAC, I would like to know whether the video would be available to the major news networks so that they could use it as it goes along throughout the week, and not just on Saturday night. I believe that you should take the Senate on the road, led by the Speaker. Symposiums are good, but having senators from all walks of life be on the road with the Speaker and going to universities or service clubs would be a good thing.
I understand Senate Communications is already beginning their preparations for the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary, and it would be extremely important, long before that time, that Senate Communications would be putting out all kinds of things starting January 1, or even starting in the fall of this year, to make sure that we are seen each and every day, as you have seen by SenCA Plus, and the many followers. We're up to 30,000 already. This is an ideal format to start that.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for this very thoughtful proposal. On the issue of Confederation and going back, I think birthdays don't always have to be about your birth; they can be about a milestone or a piece of time. I think that's what you're trying to capture here. Let's look at the last 50 years and see what we can do. I think there is some real merit in that.
This may be pedestrian, but we've had other interventions, immigration and that sort of thing, which are all worthwhile. We've had some tremendous innovations in industry that have made contributions to the greatness of the country. The one that I think of in the last 50 years is the oil sands. What has that done to transform this country in terms of our wealth from coast to coast to coast?
Blackberry: There are a number of things that actually have been transformative that Canada has contributed that have improved the world and had an enormous positive impact on the country.
We can tick some of the politically correct boxes here, I see, but let's not limit it to that. If we can open it up, I think it would be a wonderful place to be to get the 50 top transformative things, but maybe we shouldn't try and limit it to tidy things. That would be my feedback. Thank you.
Senator Lang: Like Senator Tkachuk, I want to thank the subcommittee because you obviously put a lot of work into this, but I also want to echo Senator Tkachuk's comment about through the lens of the Senate and how the Senate was involved in the various areas that will be highlighted over the course of this symposium. I think that that's good for the Senate and good for the country because it tells people what our involvement was. I think that should seriously be taken into account.
I also want to go along with Senator Marshall. She talked about Confederation and Newfoundland. Obviously, the North was later in Confederation and obviously that's something that the Senate played a role in to some degree, and that's something that has to be taken into account.
On communications, Senator Wells' point was well taken, and the whole idea is to let Canadians know this is being done and this is how we're going to help celebrate the one hundred and fiftieth.
The other area — and, once again, Senator Tannas talked about innovation and research — we really should be looking at is one of the themes of innovation, research and how we're meeting our environmental responsibilities with our natural resources. I think we should start telling our story because we're being told a story on the street right now that, quite frankly, is not true. This is an opportunity to do that and be proud of what we do and how we do it, and how we're moving ahead. In good part, most of us don't really know everything that has been done. I think we should be really pushing that file. Thanks.
The Chair: Senator Mitchell, you get the last word on this.
Senator Mitchell: I of course congratulate and thank your committee, and Senator Seidman and Senator Joyal as well for their input. Mostly, to emphasize things, communications is extremely important, and I don't know whether you've actually integrated the Senate Communications group in. It sounds to me like you have. They are excellent.
With respect to televising, I'm assuming that the CPAC-broadcasted symposium would be live. I would like to see if you could add in webcasting as well, just because it's 2016.
I am very interested in the history of women in the Senate, and whether or not this is way too deep into the woods, it is a very interesting story that Senator Nancy Ruth's grandfather was the lawyer who took the Persons Case to Britain to win so that she could sit in the Senate, and I tell that to many, many people. It's one of those interesting anecdotes about that the Senate.
Also, I may be wrong about this, but another interesting anecdote with respect to Aboriginal peoples is that Gladstone was appointed in 1958, and, if I'm not mistaken, he could vote in the Senate but he couldn't vote in elections. That's a powerful comment about racism, perhaps, and our evolution passed at least some of it. And then multilateralism, of course I would emphasize as well.
The Chair: Maybe Senator Joyal or Senator Seidman can give us a short answer because time is of the essence. There have been a lot of good points, suggestions and questions put on the table by our colleagues.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Chair, I took note of all the comments from Senator Tkachuk, from Senator Batters and from Senator Tannas.
Senator Tannas, in the symposium on the war there is a chapter called "Science and War in Canada." I won't give you an explanation, but you understand that the country leading the science wins the war. It's as simple as that. I'm certainly not opposed to that. We will make sure that is reflected.
The same with Senator Jaffer; there is a new kind of citizenship that emerged from Canada, and of course your contribution is very important.
Senator Mitchell, there is no doubt about what you propose; that will be part. I will make sure that in each chapter there are highlights of the Senate's impact on the theme so that we reflect the role and the influence that the Senate has, and there could be a chapter or a theme essentially on the Senate per se in the making of Canada since the beginning.
You know my interest personally for the Senate, and I won't tell you that I have already published a book on the Senate. I think you know it. But there is no doubt that there are a lot of experts in Canada who would be interested in taking part on that very basis.
Senator Mitchell, the budget; we've tried to be as prudent as possible on the basis of what was spent on the previous seminar. That's essentially where we based our conclusion. Of course, that doesn't include the film that CBC might want to make with the team that we have developed and that will continue to be developed. As I told you, this is essentially the basis of the work that we're going to be initiating this summer.
If you want to know what I'm going to be doing this summer, it's going to be this. As you might understand, there's a lot of development to take place.
What I could certainly do is report to you in September or early October about the progress, where we are in the development, who are the experts, historians and so forth that have been invited to participate, and the response we have. We could keep you informed in a progress report so that you have a fair sentiment that the proposal is one in which each of us has a stake.
In terms of communication, we have already developed a plan of communication with Senator Wells. There is no doubt that the webcast, the CPAC film, the CBC film we want to develop, the CBC Radio series to be developed that wants to use that screenplay or that script will also be part of the visibility of the institution.
I want to say that in the other place, on the other side of this building, to my knowledge they are not contemplating anything special. So we will be the only chamber of Parliament doing something in the form of a legacy that will be our own.
I want to add that because I think it is important for honourable senators to understand.
The Chair: Do I have someone moving this motion?
Moved by Senator Cordy, seconded by Senator Tannas. We're all in favour, I assume, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, senators; very much appreciated.
We'll do item 6 because we are running out of time. I'm going to ask Nathalie Charpentier to come to the front. She is, of course, our comptroller.
A short summary of what Item 6 is about, colleagues: It has been brought to steering's attention over the last few months that the government rate for hotels in the capital has been negotiated to be between $140 and $199. It's a rate that has been, to my understanding, frozen over the last eight or nine years. In some instances, a number of senators are having difficulty getting hotels in the region to honour that $199 rate. It's getting a bit challenging in some instances.
I can speak for one at the Sheraton, I've had conversations with the manager, and they also find it a bit challenging. It's gotten to the point where some hotels in the city are almost finding it cumbersome to serve the senators' needs.
Having said that, I want everyone to keep in mind that the proposal we have is to bump the rate up to a reasonable level. I asked Finance to do much research on hotel rates in Ottawa and across the country, and Nathalie will give us a discussion on that. Keep in mind, though, that the proposal we have on table is to bump the rate up to a reasonable level, but it would not increase the overall budget for accommodation. The actual current budget in place would be the same.
Nathalie Charpentier, Comptroller and DCFO, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: The purpose of the presentation is to provide the committee with the information required to review and adjust the daily rate of hotel accommodations within the National Capital Region. Senators have reported a number of cases where even with diligent planning and verifications with various hotels, no rooms were available to senators within the current daily rate, which has been in effect since October 1, 2008.
Finance services received 42 requests in fiscal year 2015-16 for daily rates above the current rate of $200. On average, these claims were for a daily rate of $243, and 64 per cent of these requests were for rates between $200 and $250. It is important to note that some hotels in downtown Ottawa offer discounted rates only based on room availability and low season.
[Translation]
So increasing the daily accommodation rate from $200 to $250 is warranted. This corresponds to a 2.85% increase per year, since 2008. We are not expecting an increase in expenses or budgetary pressure, as senators will continue to seek out the best rates and make their bookings as early as possible, whenever they can. Moreover, the annual budget for expenses in the national capital is still the amount approved for fiscal year 2016-2017, namely, $24,000.
With respect to accommodations outside the NCR, daily rates vary greatly. Moreover, reservations cannot always be planned in advance, as is the case when the Senate is sitting. As a result, the maximum overnight rate will no longer be applicable. The cost must nevertheless still be justifiable, appropriate and reasonable.
To conclude, it is recommended that the daily accommodation rate for hotels in the NCR be increased to $250 effective immediately, and that the rate be reviewed annually to ensure that it is still sufficient. This rate will be in effect for the accommodation expenses of witnesses who are asked to appear before committees.
[English]
If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. I don't have a question. I don't stay in hotels, so I can be totally objective when I say this.
I think the fact that we haven't looked at this since 2008 is unacceptable. I think we have to make a conscious effort to look at this every year or at least every second year, because for people who have no choice but to stay in a hotel and to be finding it a challenge to get a room where you work is not optimum, to say the least. It's not changing the overall budget, but it is saying that you have flexibility in the amount that you can spend for a hotel room.
The Chair: We understood clearly, hearing from Finance and from a number of colleagues, that Finance had, on a number of occasions, to give exemptions in order to accommodate requests from senators. So we think we need to bring the guidelines into a consistent situation.
Senator Marshall: I didn't realize that exceptions would be approved. I know many times I paid more than $200, but I just claimed the $200. But I agree with the proposal. I don't have any problem with it.
Senator Munson: Does this not affect hotel rates when senators are travelling to places like Toronto and Vancouver?
The Chair: As Nathalie pointed out, the policy regarding hotels outside of the Ottawa precinct, when you do other travel across the country, will be consistent with committee travel. It will be to get the best possible rate and it will be on a per-request basis because, obviously, the rates in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal are different than the rates in Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières or Kamloops. To set a rate of $250 or $300 — it really varies from one region of the country to another.
Currently what the House of Commons has, if I'm not mistaken, Nathalie, is a similar rate. No, they have a different policy? What's their policy?
Ms. Charpentier: They don't have any rates.
The Chair: They don't have any rates?
Ms. Charpentier: No. They don't have any maximums.
Senator Tkachuk: What would the government rate be in Ottawa? Did you look at the major hotels? I pay $159 to $169, and that's at the Sheraton, and I don't have any problem. I know if I want to stay at the Westin in the summertime it costs over $200, but in the wintertime you can often get rates better than that. Where is the difficulty here?
The Chair: If I can answer the question, Senator Tkachuk —
Senator Tkachuk: You can, but I was hoping she would tell me.
The Chair: I'm at the Sheraton like you are, and I had to intervene on a couple of occasions for our colleagues because the Sheraton would no longer accept our Senate colleagues. They honour the long-standing customers like you and me — we have been there for a long time — but I had to intervene on two occasions in the last month on behalf of our colleagues because the Sheraton refused them at our current rate of $199.
Senator Tkachuk: What is the government rate?
The Chair: Right now, their rate varies from $202 to $215, but if senator were to call up the Sheraton during their busy peak they would say they have no room available at our current government rate. If we bumped it up to $250, that would be their current rate: $202 to $224. Because of the problems, we had to intervene. I don't know if that answers your question.
Senator Tkachuk: Well, it doesn't, but nonetheless I just wanted to know what the government rate was at other hotels, like the Chateau Laurier and the Westin. What is the government rate there?
The Chair: Maybe Nathalie can answer the question, because I know she has investigated it.
Ms. Charpentier: I don't have the rates with me at the moment. However, we do consult the government rate directory that's available online, and it's available for all departments, and the Senate and the House of Commons as well. It all depends on the season and when we are booking the hotel rooms. The rates are going to vary depending on the season and depending on the hotels.
Senator Lang: Just a clarification, if I could, from the point of view of being outside of the capital and going to Vancouver or Toronto, as Senator Munson inquired about.
What I don't quite understand is if you're going to a convention and the rate is $260, let's say, I'm assuming that as a participant I put that in as a senator and that's approved through the normal course of events. Does it have to go to steering and all the other things involved here? I want to get this clarified.
The Chair: It would go to Finance, and Finance has been given instructions to make sure it's a reasonable request.
Senator Lang: A reasonable rate in view of the circumstances?
The Chair: it would only come back to Internal Economy if they deemed it to be unreasonable.
Senator Mitchell: Maybe for context, in some sense this is a moot point because the max allowance is $24,000 a year, and if you pay $200 for a hotel you're at $20,000 for 100 days, and your per diem takes you over the $24,000. So whether you're still getting it in the hotel or in the per diem, it doesn't matter because you're still going over $24,000. So just as a matter of record, this is moot. It's either going to go to the hotel or into your pocket. Then you're still going to subsidize, because everybody who is in hotels in a normal year maxes out and subsidizes.
And with regard to rentals, the cheapest for the public is for people who own a condominium or a house because you get $12,000 and you seldom get to the $24,000 even with per diems. The cheapest way for the public is for a senator to actually own. I mention that because that's another way we can cut costs.
The Chair: Colleagues, I hate to cut debate off, but we're already cutting into the next committee's time. I will give the last couple of minutes to Senator Lankin and Senator Downe.
Senator Lankin: Very quickly, then, the challenge I faced in the first weeks coming here was availability in the area at the rate. It wasn't that there aren't rates available sometimes. There are some new hotels: the Alt Hotel rate is at $154 or something like that, and it's a great little boutique hotel. There is that challenge, although I suspect as soon as we start having flexibility, the rates for senators in the Chateau Laurier and everywhere else will go up to the new maximum, and it will cost us.
I also would just like to comment on the conversation around the $24,000 and indicate I had raised this with you. I'm renting now, and as I started to look to rent, Senator Omidvar and I sat down and tried to figure out what amount of money we had to rent versus per diems and those sorts of things.
We found that because I travel in one day earlier than she does, I can afford a lesser rent when you put in the per diems for travel versus the per diems for in Ottawa. I suspect someone like Senator Lang is in an even more disadvantaged situation.
I think at some point in time, as this is being looked at, it's separate from this issue of the rate of hotel, but it's encompassed within the $24,000. The amount to which different senators — not by choice of an enriched living condition but by necessity of travel arrangements — have different amounts available to support their living, perhaps that needs to be looked at in the overall context at some point.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Downe: I just want to pass this on: I was approached by a senator who knows I'm on Internal. That senator stayed for many years in the Westin and had to move this year because they could not negotiate a rate below $200. It was substantially higher, so the senator relocated.
Senator Mitchell is absolutely right; it's best for the taxpayers if people own condos. Maybe we can have an amendment to the capital gains. It would come back to the Senate afterwards, but we could consider that.
The Chair: Colleagues, do I have a motion from anyone to pass this change in the motion? It's moved by Senator Marshall, seconded by Senator Munson.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I will be deferring items 7 and 8 to the next meeting of Internal Economy. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)