Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 4 - Evidence - June 16, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 16, 2016
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, pursuant to rule 12-7(1) of the Rules of the Senate, met this day at 8:35 a.m. for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we'll go right into Item 1 of the agenda, which is the adoption of minutes of proceedings of the June 9, 2016 meeting. Anybody have any questions?
Senator Tkachuk: On the advisory group on 150, there was quite a bit of discussion and different proposals were put forward. I had got the impression from Senator Joyal that they were actually taking note of these, but it's left here in the minutes that we just talked about questions, but it doesn't say what we talked about. Are they going to come back, or by adopting this, is there a report on what we agreed on, which I didn't think we did?
The Chair: I thought we agreed that the two senators would take consideration of all the concerns of Internal Economy. Maybe what we can do is quantify those concerns in an actual listing.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes. I think there should be some paper on it.
The Chair: I think that's a valid point that we can quantify on paper all the suggestions that were made around the table, but the impression I got from Senator Joyal and Senator Seidman is that they were quite open to all suggestions in the way he finished the discussion.
Senator Tkachuk: Good intentions are great.
The Chair: I hear you. I think that's a reasonable request. We'll do that and make sure that's in the minutes and on the record so we can follow up with the committee.
Senator Tkachuk: So what's going to happen?
The Chair: We'll make the list and forward it to the senators, including the chairs of the committee on 150, and let them know about the concerns we have and that we want them to make sure they're taken under consideration.
Senator Tkachuk: And maybe at another meeting we can see how they incorporated any or decided not to use any.
The Chair: We can bring back the chair of the committee at any time to see how they're following up.
Senator Lang: I think Senator Tkachuk raised a very valid point. Perhaps what we could ask in the recommendations, so it is followed up, is that the recommendations that came over the course of our discussions on their report, that they come back with a compilation of their sub-themes and we can see how it was incorporated. We don't necessarily need them back. If we look at it and say we're satisfied, that's fine. At least we get something in writing.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Lang: Agreed?
The Chair: Yes.
Any other questions on the minutes? Anybody want to move the minutes?
Moved by Senator Jaffer. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item 2, the fourth report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, Senator Tannas.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, chair.
Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, which includes recommended allocations for four committee budgets.
Before reviewing each budget request, I will remind you of the context. The total funds available for 2016-17 is $2.382 million, less $500,000 for witness expenses, which leaves $1.882 million for release for individual committee budgets over 2016-17.
To date, $1,668,727 has been committed for travel by nine different committees. Of that total amount approved, $168,745 has been spent so far on five activities, leaving $1,329,963 which has not yet been spent. The remainder is available for committee travel expected to take place between September, October and November of 2016.
A further $649,905 in funds has been requested by three committees; however, the subcommittee has recommended the deferral of the release of these budgets.
Yesterday, the subcommittee received additional requests from two committees totalling $225,778. This brings the total amount requested for 2016-17 to just over $2.5 million, and as I mentioned earlier, we have a budget of $1.882 million.
As I indicated to you last week, the subcommittee sought and received feedback from committees about their anticipated travel expenses so that the subcommittee could consider carefully how much of the available funding might be returned to the central fund via the clawback process. We are happy to report that two committees have indicated that they do not expect to spend any more funds on their already approved budgets, which will return up to $318,665 via the clawback.
An analysis by Senate Finance over the past five years confirms that, typically, our committees spend about 40 per cent of their approved budgets. Based on that, and along with information we have received from various committees about the timing of their anticipated travel, we are presenting you today with a report which recommends the release of funds in the amount of $536,741 for four committees as follows.
In March, the subcommittee met with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry whose budget application contained proposed expenditures of $401,236 for two activities. The first activity was fact-finding and public hearings in Calgary. The second activity was fact-finding in Beijing and Shanghai, China, and it includes a request for business travel for staff. Both of those activities are part of their ongoing market access study carried over from the previous Parliament.
At that time, we approved their request for Activity No. 1, and if you recall, we suggested that Activity No. 2, the trip to China, be postponed or deferred until we had a clearer picture of finance.
The committee yesterday provided us with an update on their anticipated plans, and they have revised their request for Activity No. 2 to $260,000, down from $301,000. Based on this information, the subcommittee now recommends the release of this reduced amount.
Your subcommittee also met with the Deputy Chair of the Energy Committee whose budget application contained a proposed expenditure of $154,983 for three activities and general expenses. The first activity is fact-finding in Western Canada; the second activity is fact-finding in southern Ontario; and the third activity is in Montreal.
These activities are in relation to their study on the effects of transitioning to a low-carbon economy. Based on the information provided for this budget application, we recommend a partial release of funds specifically for Activity No. 1, which is the Western Canada trip, in the amount of $119,143. Your subcommittee will revisit the committee's request for additional funds for activities two and three in the fall once funds from other committees have been clawed back.
The subcommittee also met with the Chair of the Fisheries Committee whose budget application contained a proposed expenditure of $260,000 for two activities. The first one is fact-finding and public hearings in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. The second is fact-finding and public hearings in Newfoundland and Labrador. This activity is in relation to their study on marine search and rescue activities.
Based on the information provided for this budget application, we recommend a partial release of funds, specifically for Activity No. 1, the trip to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I., in the amount of $107,588. Your subcommittee will revisit the committee's requests for Activity No. 2 in the fall, again, once funds from other budgets have been clawed back.
The subcommittee also met with the Chair of National Security and Defence Committee whose budget application contained a proposed expenditure of $69,795 for one activity, which was fact-finding in New York City in relation to their study on the government's defence policy review. The budget contained a request to include two senators' staff from the offices of the chair and the deputy chair. As we indicated to you earlier, funds for committee travel are tight. Based on the current constraints on the overall amount being requested for committee travel, the subcommittee did not feel it would be appropriate to recommend approval of this request specifically for senators' staff.
Accordingly, though, we are recommending a reduced release of funds for Activity No. 1 to New York City in the amount of $50,000 and stipulate that the funds included for staff in this budget be used for the committee clerk and the Library of Parliament analyst only. The subcommittee will revisit the matter of senators' staff travel and will endeavour to report back to this committee in the fall.
With today's recommended release of funds, just over $1.6 million of the $1.882 million is committed, with the decision of approximately $300,000 being deferred to the fall.
Although it may appear that the planned spending is high, it is well established that full participation rarely occurs and that our committee clerks work diligently to ensure that they use every opportunity to reduce fare costs and unnecessary expenses, so we expect funds to be clawed back upon the completion of these trips, as is normally the case.
Based on this, your subcommittee feels comfortable recommending the release of these funds. At our subcommittee meeting yesterday, we did talk about the need to more accurately and diligently do budgeting so that we're not always waiting for clawbacks, that we can actually have a clearer picture of where we are budget-wise. So we're going to work towards trying to be more accurate with budgeting in the future.
I'm happy to take questions, colleagues.
The Chair: Are there any questions for Senator Tannas?
Senator Tkachuk: Regarding the 10 senators to travel to Beijing and Shanghai, how many staff members are travelling? Are there staff members besides senators travelling?
Senator Tannas: There are not senators' staff members.
Senator Tkachuk: How many of those are staff?
Senator Tannas: Twelve senators, two staff — a clerk and an analyst.
Senator Tkachuk: So it's 12 senators, not 10?
Senator Tannas: The original budget was for 12 senators and 2 staff, which includes a clerk and an analyst, but that was for a budget of $301,048. Since then, the chairman has suggested that based on his review and the committee's review of the budget, they can reduce that to $260,000 from $301,000. In fact, he mentioned that he has canvassed his committee.
Senator Tkachuk: He knows who is going and who is not?
Senator Tannas: Yes, exactly.
Senator Tkachuk: Thanks.
Senator Wells: Senator Tannas, when you say "work towards trying to be more accurate with budgeting," would you be looking for committees to supply what they actually expect to spend or to use their full complement of senators on the committee and then assume that it's 75 or 80 per cent of that? What do you mean by getting more accurate accounting?
Senator Tannas: What we have is in these budgets is every imaginable expense taken to the extreme and then put in. There are pads on pads that wind up meaning that typically only half the money gets spent. So in times like this, we're seeing more and more committees with specific timing for trips. There is and has been reluctance, rightly so, to overcommit on the expectation that money's going to come back.
We haven't got specifics, but there are so many areas. There are always a number for working dinners, but they never offset with per diems, so money is always double booked, and we should just get a little more rigorous with the budgeting.
We'll work to come up with some ideas. It will probably take us two or three tries to get it right, but just to get something that reflects reality.
We don't want to approve something and then all of a sudden find we're preventing senators from participating. There's a middle ground there somewhere.
Senator Wells: That's good. I think that rigour is important. Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Senator Tannas, for the Agriculture Committee, they have told you that there are only 10 senators travelling, but we still have the policy that all senators on committee can travel, right? This is just that they know 10 are travelling.
Senator Tannas: That's right. They've canvassed the group.
Senator Batters: I have a brief question about the Energy Committee's trip to Western Canada. I'm really glad to see they're going to Estevan, because they have a wonderful carbon capture plant that's world class. When is that trip? If possible, I'd like to stop in there if I'm in Regina then.
Senator Tannas: The plan, because they're going up north in B.C., is to try to get it done by the end of September. They're going to Kitimat and they have to fly into Terrace. Winter comes earlier there, so they mentioned to us that their plan was to go at the end of September, at the very latest early October.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Manning: I have a quick question. If I find myself in conflict, I'm sure someone will tell me.
In relation to a committee travelling in the fall — and you deferred one of their trips for the fall — it's going to be end of September before we get back here.
In regard to planning and when I talk to the clerks in relation to making bookings, getting the best rates on flights, hotel rooms, arranging for conference rooms for public hearings, the audio, all this, I find it difficult to understand how, if you could approve something for the end of September, to arrange to have a trip made in October.
When I look at some of the budgets — and I've been on the subcommittee — we talked about 12 senators going on two trips when there's really only 6 senators going on each trip. We're deferring the money and planning out to the fall based on the fact that we're talking 12 senators, when in reality, we're talking 6. To me, it kind of throws off the plans of the committee in regard to getting the best value for our dollar when you have to book a flight two weeks before you're planning on going instead of booking the flight today for September, if you follow what I'm trying to say.
Senator Tannas: Right. Again, you highlight the point that the over-budgeting puts us in this position where we're trying to manage within a budget where we know the inputs aren't accurate, and so we've got to get a better handle on that. We're committed to doing that.
Fisheries has planned a trip to the Maritimes and then a trip to Newfoundland and Labrador. Step one is the Maritimes, and we said get that one approved, which is what we're proposing today.
Based on what everybody has told us, there will be a torrid travel schedule in September, and we should be able to free a bunch of money up at the end of September.
If you're engaged in your first trip, by the time you get back, I would expect we would have a good strong indication for the second trip. If that puts pressures on booking for October, then I guess we'll have to see if you can stretch it to November.
Senator Manning: I echo the comments of Senator Tannas and the fact that we need to get this under control somehow. For planning and the expenses of travel, we could be saving megabucks here if we were doing it properly.
Senator Tannas: Yes.
The Chair: If there are no questions, Senator Tannas, you'll move adoption of the report?
Senator Tannas: I will.
The Chair: Seconded by Senator Munson.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
I gather, Senator Tannas, we're deferring Item 3 to the next meeting?
Senator Tannas: Yes, we will. This is something that's been on our work schedule for a few weeks, and we beg another week's indulgence, please.
The Chair: Very good.
Item 4 is the report from the Banking Committee. Recently, the Banking Committee had been on a trip and had taken along a communications officer.
Senator Tkachuk, members were wondering if you can give us an overview on the benefits of that and how it worked out.
Senator Tkachuk: We found out something. I'm not sure if there were a lot of immediate benefits, because what happened was a lot of the senators weren't able to go. It went from a full committee meeting, which we had expected when this whole process started and we asked for a communications officer, and it ended up that we only had three senators travel.
We didn't get a lot of press at the actual time, but I believe the long-term benefits were that because that person was there with us, plus followed us during the hearings, it was tremendously beneficial for the development of the communications plan. I advise all committees to engage communications people right at the beginning of their study, as we did. It was really beneficial.
By the time we got to the end, I thought the plan they put together was excellent, and I think the results were terrific.
If I was doing this again, we wouldn't have taken the one person with just the advisory group of senators and not a full meeting. With a full meeting, there would have been a lot more interest, and there would have been a lot more need, but I wouldn't asked for it again.
Senator Batters: When I looked at this, I saw a long list of media outreach and attempts to try to get media, but I didn't see that there was actually any media; is that right?
Senator Tkachuk: That's what I mean. We didn't really get any stories out of it. We developed a whole bunch of relationships, but we could have done that without her actually going out there.
Senator Batters: Do you think that was because it was an advisory thing and there weren't public hearings?
Senator Tkachuk: That's right. It wasn't a full-blown public meeting.
Senator Batters: What resulted from your report this week was awesome. I loved that title — I re-tweeted it — about the "Top 10 Weirdest Barriers to Trade." That was very good.
Senator Tkachuk: All I'm saying is engage Communications from the beginning of the study to have them involved and having participating when they can. They're busy anyway; they don't come all the time. The thing is, Marcy knew the subject matter as well as anybody, so it was a lot simpler that way. We didn't have to brief her or anything. She just knew the stuff.
The Chair: Is it fair to say that what you're really recommending is that we have to, right from the outset, have the committees engage with Communications? You're saying that in this particular instance, they probably could have given that support from Ottawa, right?
Senator Tkachuk: Just for this one trip.
The Chair: There would be cases where there's a full committee.
Senator Tkachuk: If we had had a full committee, we would have had a lot more press. It would have been a bigger deal.
It was difficult because it was only one party there. That was the other thing that bothered me as chair. But because we had all agreed for that to happen, it worked out.
Senator Cordy: I think Senator Tkachuk has raised an excellent point: It shouldn't just be automatic that you request a communications person but that you look at the agenda. In your case, it didn't turn out the way that you had planned it, but you look at it and say, "Is this the best use of our time?"
There were situations up North that it was spectacular. There are other times that maybe it's not as workable. I'll put it that way.
Senator Tkachuk: That's right.
Senator Cordy: That's a discussion that the chair, deputy chair and the committee can have before they come to the Subcommittee on Budgets. We, as the subcommittee, are certainly allowing communications people to go along, if I could speak for my two colleagues.
You should have a communications plan, but do you need somebody, or can that person do the same job when they're in Ottawa?
But that's a really good point that you raised.
On that note, this would probably be an appropriate time to thank the Communications Directorate. The work they did on Bill C-14 was above and beyond. When I look at Twitter, I see the media talking about whether the House of Commons should be learning from the Senate on how to do things when bills are brought before the house.
Mélisa, if you could pass that along, because they continue to do an amazing job.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes. They were really good.
Senator Munson: To echo all of that, you talk about relationship-building. That's extremely important because the dividends can come another day when you have a communications officer with you.
During our Syrian refugee study, we didn't get a lot from the mainstream media in Toronto, but VICE News, which is brand new, were there. They had a thing they will be putting up on YouTube — I believe it's next week — within our own Senate site of what they were doing. They were shooting our fact-finding mission and our hearings.
So it's not conventional media all the time. But on the other hand, for the conventional media for the Syrian refugee study, we had big stories in Montreal in La Presse and the Gazette and Le Devoir and on Radio-Canada. It was exceptional. It wouldn't have happened without communications.
You've seen it all the time in our committee work and travel, when you have the clerk sitting and coordinating things, and you have the library analyst taking down the notes. The clerk always seems to be running to the door when a media person pops his or her head in and asks about what's going on, and it takes away from his or her primary function. The communications person who is there, who has been facilitating, really is an added benefit.
Senator Tkachuk: The websites for CBC, CTV, Global and others are way down the list of places where young people get their news, but if you can get on YouTube, FaceTime or Facebook, it's a whole different process. That's where they get their news. I don't think it's very good, but that's where they get it.
Senator Munson: Well, it's short and snappy. Maybe they can read something quickly.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, no depth.
Senator Munson: It takes time.
The Chair: We'll go on to item 5, which is the Joint Parliamentary Council request for office space. Once again, we have Colette and Gérald with us. They are appearing regularly before us, which is always welcome.
Colette, you have the floor.
Colette Labrecque-Riel, Acting Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs, Senate of Canada: Good morning, honourable senators. I'm here again to present an issue relating to parliamentary associations. However, this is not a request for funding for associations activities but, rather, a request on behalf of ParlAmericas International for additional office space for its secretariat. Please allow me to briefly summarize the information note provided to you.
Since 2001, Canada has hosted the International Secretariat for ParlAmericas by providing office space for its staff. The secretariat, comprised initially of four staff members, has expanded and today 12 to 15 staff members support ParlAmericas International. Not surprisingly, the additional office space is no longer adequate. As such, the chair of the Canadian section presented this request on behalf of ParlAmericas International to the JIC on May 4 of this year. The JIC agreed to recommend to the Senate and the House of Commons that both the Senate and house support a review of the office space agreement. The specific recommendation is found on page 2 of the briefing note.
Essentially, the terms of the original agreement would remain unchanged, with Public Services and Procurement Canada paying for the office space. However, there may be additional costs for network connectivity, refurbishment and office equipment. These costs could vary considerably, depending on where the selected location is. If it's a building where there is currently full-blown network connectivity, the cost would be very low. If it isn't, as honourable senators are probably more aware than I am, finding office space near or around the precinct is not an easy task these days.
The note presents three funding options for these costs. I refer honourable senators to the briefing note on pages 2 and 3.
The first option would see the Senate and House of Commons, as per the usual 30/70 formula, carry these additional one-time costs for up to a maximum of $200,000. Option 2 would have the Senate and house carry the costs for the connectivity reconfiguration and refurbishment up to a maximum of $160,000, while the secretariat would purchase its own additional furniture and equipment. Finally, option 3 would have ParlAmericas, the international secretariat, fund all additional costs.
I should note that the JIC was not prepared to recommend an option in terms of funding these additional costs as it did not have the specific costing information at the time the matter was considered.
At its meeting yesterday, the JIC reviewed these three options and agreed that the Senate and house internal committee were better positioned to assess the three funding options. As such, they were not prepared to make a specific recommendation in terms of these costing options.
I'm hoping the information note contains sufficient background, and I'm prepared to take questions.
Senator Downe: Is the requirement for the office space to be close to Parliament Hill? Why is that?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: This has been the agreement since 2005 when the request was initially made. The original four- member staff was actually working out of Senator Hervieux-Payette's office. In 2005, the request came forward that they find more appropriate space, which they have had, on Wellington Street, within the enlarged precinct for some time. They are currently still there; it's just that the office space is too small.
Senator Downe: Why do they have to be there? I can understand them requiring a location in the Greater Ottawa Area, but, as you correctly identified, the closer you get to Parliament Hill, the higher the cost. They're an international secretariat, not just serving Parliament Hill. They could be in Kanata.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: They could be. This was the initial request again since 2005. It certainly is a recommendation. This is something that the House of Commons Facilities Management Group would negotiate with Public Works. The difficulty would therefore be that if it's so far out, there could be a question of network connectivity; that is, whether or not they're inside or outside the firewall, if you like.
Senator Downe: Sure.
You may not be able to answer this, but tell me about the funding for this international secretariat. I assume Canada pays a portion, or do we pay 100 per cent?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Canada has been a significant supporter of ParlAmericas since 2001 — actually, one of the main players. The annual membership fees that we pay to be a member of ParlAmericas this year amounts to approximately $20,000.
As for ParlAmericas International itself, I'm not privy to their detailed financial information. However, I do know that they receive additional significant grants and funding from a number of organizations, including Global Affairs Canada.
Senator Downe: Do you know the percentage of the pot of money that Canada is contributing to this secretariat? Is it 40/90?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: No, I don't. As I said, the detailed funding information is not made available to the Canadian section but it is to the international level.
Senator Downe: Are the staff hired by Global Affairs Canada? How are they selected?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: No. The staff and director general of the international secretariat are hired by the executive committee of ParlAmericas International. She is responsible for hiring the staff, paid for by the funds that she's able to receive from the international membership fees from the member countries and whatever grants that she is able to collect.
Senator Downe: I have other questions, but I'm sure you have other questioners, Mr. Chair.
Senator Marshall: The funding for ParlAmericas comes out of the JIC funding, doesn't it?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: I need to make a distinction between the Canadian section of ParlAmericas and the international section. This has nothing to do with the Canadian section of ParlAmericas. They simply agreed to sponsor the request on behalf of ParlAmericas International. Canada happens to be the host of the international secretariat, just like the U.K. is host to CPA International and like France is host to the international secretariat to the APF.
Senator Marshall: For the 15 requests of staff, that's who we're looking for accommodations for; is that right?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Yes, it's for that international secretariat.
Senator Marshall: Who is paying their salary?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: The funding that the international secretariat is able to gather from its member countries and its grants and contributions that it receives from Canada, as well as other countries.
Senator Marshall: How much are we paying?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: The contribution that the Canadian section pays to belong to ParlAmericas is $20,000, as I mentioned. The remaining grants and contributions is not something that I have in terms of information. This committee could always request that from the international secretariat.
Senator Marshall: What I'm trying to determine is where the salary for the 15 staff is coming from. It would seem to me that whoever is paying their salary should also pay for their accommodations within whatever budgetary allocation there is. That's why I was asking. From where are their salaries being paid? Is that part of the overall JIC umbrella?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: No, not at all. This has nothing to do with JIC funding. The Parliament of Canada does not pay for the salaries of the international secretariat.
Senator Marshall: Who is paying the salaries of these 15 people?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: It is the membership fees that each member country pays, in addition to the grants and contributions that the International Secretariat of ParlAmericas is able to obtain.
Senator Marshall: Why is it coming to us to pay? It is because we're hosting?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Yes, because we're the host, as I mentioned.
The Chair: Maybe, Colette, I can weigh in on this a little bit. Our annual fee of $20,000 to this association is just one amongst many other nations.
In addition to that, we decided many years back, as a Parliament, to host this organization in Canada. It is customary that most nations that host these associations provide space for them.
That's what I always understood was the agreement, Colette. That's why the actual rental of space is not included in their annual operating budget. Salaries, office expenses, all other expenses are, I guess, except the actual rental of the location.
Senator Marshall: If we approve this, where is the funding coming from?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: As the note explains, the actual cost relating to providing office space is paid for by Public Works, just as many of our offices are. It simply is a request that Parliament would make to Public Works to provide them with offices. So there's no funding directly from either the Senate or house budgets.
The additional costs I referred to, as I said, depend on where the offices are going to be provided, in which building. If it's already equipped with full network connectivity, the costs will be very low, one-time costs to ensure that they have proper network connection. If that's all in there, then there would be no cost.
Senator Marshall: Just go through the options: Option 1, Senate 30 per cent: are you saying that our 30 per cent won't come from our Senate budget of $100 million?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Yes, it will. The funding option is a one-time costing. So for these additional costs, there's no cost to the Senate and the house for the provision of the actual space.
Senator Marshall: So option 1, the Senate will have to come up with funding from somewhere that's not budgeted. Option 2 will also require the Senate to come up with some money that's not budgeted. But option 3 won't?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Exactly. No costs.
Senator Marshall: Do we know where we would get the money if we approved either option 1 or option 2?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: There's no specific recommendation as to the timing and the funding mechanism, whether it would be cash managed or through the mains, because at this point conversations with Public Works are — how shall I say? — lengthy. The timing of those expenditures is such that we were not in a position to suggest that even on the house side that it be included in supplementaries or through the mains for the next fiscal year. Once that information is known, then that funding strategy would be put forward.
Senator Marshall: My inclination at this point is to go with option 3 so that it wouldn't require us to take funding from some other source within the Senate of Canada. But I'll wait to hear the questions other senators have.
The Chair: Colette, it seems all conversations with Public Works for some reason are lengthy, but the question I have is these 15 individuals, where have we placed them right now? Where are they currently?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: I was hoping Senator MacDonald would be here, because when he was at the JIC and this came up for discussion, he has been to their offices several times. They're crammed into those four office spaces.
The Chair: But where are those office spaces?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: They've recently been moved because of the domino effect of the renovations, but if I'm correct, they're in the Booth Building or the National Press Building.
The Chair: In the basement somewhere? Is it adequate where they are right now? Have we visited the facility?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: I have not. Senator MacDonald has. His comment at the JIC was that it's pretty packed.
Senator Tkachuk: I just want to say that ParlAmericas was funded, up until recently, by some Crown corporation of ours, if I'm not mistaken; but for the staff, this $20,000 that we pay is a relatively new fee.
Up to at least 2013, there were no fees for ParlAmericas. They were paid from some other fund. But this is probably the least expensive group funding that we have for a membership fee, $20,000. If everybody else was as inexpensive as ParlAmericas, we would probably have a million dollars left over for parliamentary activities. By us just giving them some office space, it's a small price to pay. I wish all the other ones were as thrifty as this group.
The Chair: Senator Manning, who speaks with some authority.
Senator Manning: I don't think so.
Anyway, in the documents that you had there is comparative data of where the CPA is housed in the British House of Commons and the OSCE, Parliamentary Assembly Secretariat, that is housed in the Danish Parliament.
Our concern with this yesterday, and Senator Munson will speak to it as well, is that we didn't have specific costing information. That's why we deferred the decision on it. It's very difficult to come to a decision or make a decision when you don't exactly know what the costs are going to be. That's why we deferred it.
I guess what we're looking for here, as I see it, is a go-ahead to begin the discussions with Public Works to look for the space. I'm sure it will come back to this table once that decision is made. Maybe not; maybe I'm wrong there. But to have a more firm, fixed cost, I would lean towards option 3 at the present time due to the fact that we don't have costs.
We could be into next fiscal year before the reality of spending any dollars comes to us, for the simple reason that finding space for 12 to 15 personnel, as Senator Downe touched on, may be a long, drawn-out process. Therefore, worrying about what the cost is today is not something that I'm, as co-chair of JIC, as concerned about for the simple reason that we don't have any idea where the space is going to be at this point.
Senator Munson: As the outgoing member of JIC and handing the mantle to Senator Downe with — do you want to take it now, Percy?
Basically, Senator Manning has explained it well. The monies, we don't know about. So I believe, like Senator Marshall said, it's easy or sensible for us right now to do option 3. It's not costing us any money. It's sensible for us to do this now.
That's it. I'm not going to make a great big, long preamble statement that we hear in the Senate all the time.
The Chair: I get a sense maybe there's a fourth option we can put on the table, which is we can always request Public Works to go back, identify some appropriate office space and report back where that office space would be, what the initial costs would be, and then we can take a more enlightened decision, instead of taking a decision on dollars and cents before we know where we're moving. I think that might be a logical way forward. That's just something I'm putting on the table.
Senator Tannas: Exactly what I was thinking: if they could give us a request concurrent with our budgeting process for 2017-18 that had specifically where they would like to move and what the costs would be. It would be nice to have an outline of this organization, where they get their funding from, what Canada's overall contribution is to that, to give us some context. I wouldn't want to just say, "No, go away," but timing and information would be nice.
The Chair: I would add to that list that maybe JIC can give us a sense of the degree of commitment the Canadian Parliament has made, so we can also add that to the equation.
Senator Cordy: That's what I was going to say as well. Having a headquarters in Canada for ParlAmericas is a very positive thing. We look at CPA, as others have said, in the U.K., NATO is headquartered in Belgium for the Parliamentary Assembly, the OSCE in Denmark, the Francophonie in the French National Assembly; so I think it's not highly unusual, but I think it's a positive thing that we have ParlAmericas here.
But as others have said, I would like more information about available space and the cost or at least an approximate cost. I think that today we could ask you to move forward in getting more information for us.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: If I understand correctly — and I'm looking for clarity, because we are presenting the same case to the House of Commons board this morning — that this committee would be in agreement to move with the first portion of the recommendation to mandate the Facilities Management Group of the House of Commons to enter negotiations with Public Works.
Senator Cordy: Yes.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: With regard to the second part, after the word "that," once more detailed costing information is available, if need be, they return to both Internal Economy Committees for authorization in terms of a funding strategy.
Senator Cordy: Yes.
The Chair: Are we good with the recommendation, colleagues, of having Colette go to Public Works and ask them to report back here with a recommendation of where, when, how, how much and why? Perhaps JIC can also get back to us and give us a sense of the degree of commitment from their perspective, and then we can take a more educated decision.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Thank you, Colette. Gérald, it's always a pleasure to see you.
Item 6, colleagues, is in regard to a press secretary in the Speaker's office. Again, as a result of the Blueprint report and the review we did on communications, it was pretty clear that we thought it was inappropriate that for years the Speaker's office was the institutional head of the Senate but it did not have a press secretary or communications person in the office dealing with media relations, outreach, public relations and all the rest of it. One of the recommendations from the Blueprint report was to have somebody in the office. As a result, when I was Speaker we instituted that. The question now is just to figure out the budgeting.
Initially, we had that individual put on the Communications budget over the last year or so. The Speaker and I, as we continue to go forward with this new platform and model of communication we've put into place, have found adjustments needed to be made. We thought the best way forward for the Speaker's press secretary is that they would be accountable to the Speaker and that the funds should come out of the Speaker's budget. Essentially, we should have an increase in the Speaker's budget to be able to accommodate this position.
Effectively, the recommendation that I'm making is that the required funds be transferred from the Communications budget for this year, 2016-17, to the Speaker's office to make sure that this position is accounted for. Going forward in next year's budget, however, there will be an allocation of this amount of money in the Speaker's budget for this position.
This is an exempt staffer, not somebody who works for the Communications Directorate. It fits into that model we have right now, which is that media relations runs through the Subcommittee on Communications, the chair and deputy chairs; the Speaker's office is involved in that through that subcommittee; and there's a Communications Directorate that does all the rest in terms of the platform we've put into place.
Are there any questions on this recommendation, colleagues?
Senator Marshall: There are four recommendations. I understand what the first three are, but the fourth one refers to the "reinstatement of the full annual budget approved for the Communications Directorate." Did we take money away from the Communications Directorate?
The Chair: I guess what it's referring to is that currently the position in the Speaker's office is being paid for out of the Communications Directorate.
Senator Marshall: When we say "reinstatement," does that mean the $101,000 will go back into Communications?
The Chair: I don't know why they put that in there. I think for this year the money is coming out and it's being used by the Speaker's office.
Senator Marshall: And it won't go back into place next year?
The Chair: Not this year, no. Next year, it will.
Senator Marshall: The $101,000 will go to the Speaker's office and it will also go to Communications?
The Chair: For next year we're increasing the Speaker's budget. What this is referring to is we're not taking away from the Communications Directorate. We're still keeping that.
Senator Marshall: It will stay —
An Hon. Senator: That position?
The Chair: Not that position, the funding. I guess the issue regarding this is I don't want to diminish the budget of the Communications Directorate because, especially from the fall on, we're in the process of developing an outreach plan which will require more resources. I don't want them to come back in the fall and say, "I need this money that you've taken away from us."
Senator Cordy: Chair, the Communications Directorate has been in the process over this year of hiring additional staff. They have basically been understaffed. The complement is less than it had been when we started the restructuring because Mélisa and the department have been careful about the kinds of people they need for specific roles. The department currently is understaffed and underfunded. That full complement should be reached for 2017-18.
The Chair: Remember that in October and November we sort of gutted the department for a while, and now we're slowly building it back up.
Senator Marshall: For this year the $101,000 is coming out of Communications and going into the Speaker's office. Next year, the $101,000 that's in the Speaker's office this year will still there, plus we will have another $101,000 put into the budget for next year. That's what you're saying, right?
The Chair: As part of the mains process, yes, that's exactly it.
Are there any other questions, Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: No, that's it.
Senator Jaffer: I just want to get a better handle on this. I get it that the Speaker needs a press secretary. I don't have an issue with this. One of the best things that's happened is how you, Senator Housakos, as well as Senator Cordy and Senator Wells stood up for our institution when we had wrong media coverage, or whatever. What kind of support do you have? I'm okay with the Speaker, but he's the statesperson. I won't tell you what he does, but I don't want to lose the inroads we've made by standing up for ourselves. I think it's important that the steering of this committee also gets supported, because it's more partisan — not partisan in the party sense but in the sense of standing up for our rights. The Speaker is not going to do that.
The Chair: No, you're absolutely right. This new model of communication that we put into place is a work-in- progress. It's been working quite well.
I also want to highlight the great work on the subcommittee done by Senator Batters and Senator Mitchell. It goes back to Senator Eggleton and Senator Dawson. It's been quite a team effort over the last two years to get to where we have.
You're quite right. In the model that we've put into place, media relations is operated by the chair and deputy chair of the subcommittee, which is me and Senator Cordy. There has been a lot of pressure on my office because I'm doing it within the confines of my regular Senate budget. That is absolutely true. It's something that needs to be addressed in the near future so that, going forward, the chair and the deputy chair of that Subcommittee on Communications, which is quite a working group that works regularly and is the desk right now for media relations, will require some additional budgeting. It's something we have to address. I'm glad you brought it up. It is something we've discussed, and we are trying to get our heads around the best way to get it done.
Senator Jaffer: I know that it operates from your office, but I am concerned. The Speaker's role is different. The Speaker is there to defend the institution, not senators. I'm not talking about it personally, senator. For example, when there is fallout from Bill C-14, obviously leaders from all parties will speak, but they may be speaking for all senators. I'm just making that up. I don't know what will happen. I'm just saying, for example, that when the media has reported something incorrectly, Jacqui from your office has reacted quickly. I've loved that, because nobody has stood up for us before. I don't want to lose that. I also want to make sure you have the budget to continue doing that. The Speaker is fine, but I want to make sure we are also getting a budget.
The Chair: I appreciate that. Media relations have worked great and I will give kudos to Jacqui Delaney, who has done tremendous work on that front. With the permission of Internal Economy, it is something that we will look at addressing. Going forward, needless to say, the subcommittee needs to be supported a little bit more than it has been.
Like I said, it's been a work-in-progress. We've tried to work out all the kinks and tried to put into place the model that works. So far it's working. We'll continue to make adjustments accordingly.
Your point is well taken. At the next meeting, or the meeting after that, we'll try to address that issue as well.
Are there any other questions, colleagues?
Senator Cordy: I want to thank Senator Jaffer for bringing up that point. We didn't discuss it before, but it's a very legitimate point that she has raised. The communications for Internal Economy is being done 99 per cent by Jacqui. When Jacqui ventured to take a week's holidays, Matthew in my office was hoping that Jacqui would be back quickly and not allowed any more holidays, by the way, chair. Both have done an exceptional job. However, Senator Housakos is paying for Jacqui out of his budget and his staff, namely Jacqui, seems to be doing all the communications for Internal. While we greatly appreciate the job that she has done, I think we should be looking at another model; maybe the same person, but a different model. You're very generous; it's your staff person doing it.
I think we should take into account Senator Jaffer's comments from this morning.
The Chair: Back to the Item 6. Do I have a motion for the required funds and that that prorated amount be transferred from the Communications budget 2016-17 to ensure that this pressure is internally funded in the current year?
Moved by Senator Manning and seconded by Senator Lang. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Downe: I'm abstaining. I have a conflict because the person is seconded from my office.
The Chair: We have an abstention from Senator Downe. It is noted.
We have, on other matters, confirmation regarding the Advisory Working Group on the Review of Policies and Rules. We struck that committee at the last meeting, and there were some loose ends of identifying an independent member of that committee. I think Senator McCoy is, right now, officially a member of that committee. I've also been informed that Senator Bellemare wants to participate as an ex officio, which she's entitled to do. For that matter, all senators are welcome to participate on all committees.
Senator McCoy, you sent me a letter in regard to Senator Bellemare as ex officio. I just want to highlight that in the Rules of the Senate, the way I read and understand it, "ex officio" doesn't apply to subcommittees of the Senate. If anybody reads the Rules differently, they can let me know.
All senators are more than welcome to participate on any working group anyway, and there won't be any votes or issues on the subcommittee. All these issues will be brought back to Internal.
Senator Campbell?
Senator Campbell: I just want to raise this news article, "Senators' complaints delay Parliament Hill renovations . . ."
Senator Jaffer: I have a question on the "ex officio" issue. I believe a lot of our Rules are not being followed. When I first came to the Senate, if an ex officio member was going to participate on a committee, they would let the other ex officio members know so there would be no surprises.
Senator Tkachuk: That would be the leader, the house officers. That's true.
Senator Jaffer: People need to be reminded if an ex officio member is going to go to committee, because otherwise the balance goes.
Senator Tkachuk: You have to notify the other.
Senator Jaffer: Yes. They were very strict about that. I remember that our leaders would not attend without telling the others, and I'm sure the same courtesy applied the other way. Otherwise, if there's a voting situation or another situation, the balance changes.
I know the group on policy and rules is going to look at all this. I'm concerned a number of our Rules are now being put to the wayside. Some rules, perhaps we don't need to have them, but there is a reason for rules. People should be reminded about ex officio, that when you attend, you should have the courtesy to let the others know.
The Chair: Duly noted.
Senator Tkachuk: I think that's a matter for leadership groups.
Senator Batters: On that point — this was a number of meetings ago — I was wondering if that particular process had been followed when the matter of Senator Harder's office budget came up and he attended that particular meeting as an ex officio member. I'm not sure if he had given the proper notice. He did vote on that motion.
Senator Jaffer: I remember from that time that I was concerned. We have to be careful.
The Chair: Colleagues, from time to time, we do need to remind ourselves and others of what the actual rules of the place are. What I'll do is undertake to speak with the Speaker and our clerk, and maybe we can get out a notice to leadership regarding this issue.
Charles Robert, Principal Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments and Chief Legislative Services Officer, Senate of Canada: The other problem is this is a working group. It's not designated a subcommittee.
The Chair: I'm not specifically talking about this. I'm talking about in the future .
Mr. Robert: For the ex officios?
The Chair: Some ex officios are showing up without having the courtesy of informing their other colleagues, which apparently is clearly stated in the Rules.
Senator Wells: As we're at the end of this, could you tell me the membership of this working group?
The Chair: It is Senator Neufeld, Senator Plett, Senator Seidman, Senator Ngo, Senator McCoy, Senator Massicotte and Senator Jaffer.
Senator Wells: Thank you.
The Chair: Any other issues, colleagues?
Senator Wells: Colleagues, you'll recall some time ago that a working group was struck consisting of me, Senator Jaffer and Senator Batters to review the corporate credit card services that we receive. We asked AMEX if they would extend their contract by six months. They said no, that they would only extend to a year, so their contract is now extended to March 31.
We had committed to deliver our report to this committee by June of this year. Our work is continuing. The credit card industry is a bit of a moving target these days, so I would ask that we be allowed to submit our report in the fall.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Wells: Thank you, colleagues.
Senator Campbell: I just want to bring up this article, "Senators' complaints delay Parliament Hill renovations, possibly adding millions to cost."
What are we going to answer to this? This is some whack-job. I mean, don't they get that there's dust, there's noise and people are trying to carry on work here? I don't actually think it's a problem with public services, if I read the article properly. Public services says this is how it goes.
We should answer this, because again, it's here we are, "all the entitled senators slowing down the beautification of the Hill." I think we should be answering this. We should have somebody saying, "Here's the reality of it."
Their biggest worry is that a bunch of stonemasons will go back to Italy.
The Chair: Maybe Senator Tannas can give us some background, because I know he was the one who graciously spoke to this journalist in question.
Senator Tannas: Yes. This is a surprising kind of story. It obviously was initiated by the bricklayers and stonemasons union person. He's featured heavily in it. I understand his concerns.
First of all, this program isn't going to cost any more money. The program ultimately would have resulted in the East Block having the same treatment that's happened here in the northeast corner of Centre Block, which caused no end of disruption. We would have had to move out of sections of offices in East Block. They would have been working weekends and evenings at a premium, and we would have had people moving all over the place just to try and stay away from the noise and the dust. There were bad consequences here when they tried it on the northeast corner of the Centre Block.
So I'm getting a few interview requests; not a lot. Hopefully most people saw through the motivations of the story.
Senator Manning: The dust.
Senator McCoy: On another point, I have a question for information. Just to make your point in your interview, if it's visual, maybe you should wear a dust mask, gasp a little.
I have a question of information. You invited me some time ago to contact the audit subcommittee of Internal Economy, and I can't find it. Could you tell me who chairs and who sits on the audit subcommittee of Internal Economy?
The Chair: Senator Larry Smith is the chair. Senator Batters and Senator Campbell, if I'm not mistaken.
Senator Campbell: Yes.
Senator McCoy: Thank you. Senators Smith, Batters and Campbell.
The Chair: They are keeping a low profile.
Senator Batters: I just wanted to say further to that story that I know that Senator Tannas brought this point out pretty vociferously with that reporter that what the Senate and this particular committee initiated was to save $200 million by not having East Block courtyard used, but instead using the existing Government Conference Centre. Unfortunately, that wasn't covered in the front page story, but hopefully that will be covered in follow-up stories.
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Senator Lang: I want to follow up on Senator Campbell's question to Senator Tannas and the allegations. They're talking about millions of dollars of being added on to the cost of doing the renovations. How much validity is there to that? If there isn't, what are we going to do to refute it?
Senator Tannas: Well, I'm not sure. Apparently the millions of dollars come by virtue of the fact that we're not going to do this right away; we're going to do it later. The point was that the British Parliament tried to do what they're proposing to do with East Block, which is a huge renovation while people occupy the building. It was a disaster there, and they said they don't think they want to do that again with future pieces of work.
There are big costs: People have to be moved around and they have to work around people, and so on, while they're doing the construction. None of that will happen if we go with our new amended plan, which we're still working on, and which would provide that eventually we'll empty the whole place out and they can do the renovation sometime five years down the road. They've got to ready another one of the buildings in the precinct for us, which is on the schedule, and then we'll all move out and they can do it properly and far more cost-effectively than having us in the building.
Senator Lang: Could I say, Mr. Chairman, I think that common sense has to apply here. In spite of this allegation in which you're talking about millions, you are, in fact, probably going to wind up saving money doing it this way.
Senator Tannas: Yes.
The Chair: My initial reaction last night when I read the story was amazement at how non-factual it was. But, you know, it is what it is. Senator Tannas put the facts out on the table, and this particular journalist unfortunately decided to slant them in a certain direction.
My initial reaction yesterday when Jacqui and I talked about it, was to sort of discard the story because it didn't get any legs or much interest. But if this committee wants, Jacqui can push back on the story. She can sit down with Senator Tannas and the chair of the committee and get our story out there, because we've gotten that story out before. We have a very good story to tell. We've been fiscally responsible, ultra-responsible vis-à-vis the temporary Senate over at the Government Conference Centre. It's too bad that the journalist didn't recognize that our decisions are saving hundreds of millions of dollars to taxpayers. We'll push back on that today and Jacqui will be in touch with Senator Tannas to coordinate that.
Senator Downe: Just to follow up, this is one of those occasions, in my opinion, where the pushback is not only against the reporter, because they did such a terrible job, but also with the reporter's boss. It's one of those occasions where you get on the phone and ask, "What the hell is this?"
I think it's time to send a message out that cheap shots at the Senate are going to be fought back against. We've done a great job on that, as we talked about earlier, on many levels and on many platforms. I read this story and I had the same reaction you had: This is unbelievable. We're saving hundreds of millions.
That reporter files that dirty, cheap shot story and then goes and yucks it up with their colleagues about getting in another dig at "those entitled senators," but the situation is completely reversed. I would go after their boss, if it's a her or a him, as strongly as you could, and complain, write letters and so on. You don't do that often, but on this occasion I would do it. The purpose is not so much to correct this story. It's to keep this person from doing this on a go-forward basis, and other people.
The Chair: You're absolutely right.
Senator Jaffer: If you want an example, they have been fixing the roof on Victoria Building, and my poor staff deal with banging all day over their heads. Come and talk to them; they have headaches all day. And we've had a leak that's destroyed my papers and my personal effects, so it's not a little knock here and a little knock there.
I have another item. When I was on Internal before, I asked for a diversity committee. Senator Stewart Olsen and Senator Marshall did a great job working on that and we made some recommendations, and I would like to know what's happened to those, but not now; when we come back.
I would also like people to consider two things. The Senate has a very good program in Friends of the Senate through which disabled young people are hired, mostly by administration and a few senators, and once a week they come and do some work in your office. It's a really good program. It brings young people who have no other opportunities into the offices. Since the program was established, I've had a person come once a week for a few hours. Yes, it's a little bit of work, but it really brings my staff together. It's a win-win situation, and I know other senators here do this as well, so I would respectfully ask senators on Internal to consider expanding this.
The second thing is that when we are looking at that diversity program, we had, at that time, talked about bringing two young Aboriginal people in as interns for a year, on an ongoing basis. So when we come back, can you tell us what the cost would be and how we could do it?
The Chair: Senator Jaffer brought this issue up with me in private a couple of days ago, and I have committed to her that steering will go back and look at that old recommendation, and also come back to this committee with a recommendation for a diversity program, taking into consideration some of the elements she's highlighted. If there are senators who want to take the lead on that, please step up and do so.
Senator Jaffer: I also want to remind people that the Human Rights Committee has been taking on the federal government for years to say that there are not enough people of colour working in the federal public service. It's still an ongoing thing, and part of this is who we are as a Senate and so I'd like us to proceed. We've done a good job, but we need to not forget about the representation of Canadians in the Senate.
Senator Wells: Senator Jaffer, thanks for bringing that up. Again, you and I spoke about it the other day. When you do provide the information to steering, could you include what the process entails, such as whether there's an application form and that sort of thing?
Senator Jaffer: I can do that.
Senator Lang: I just want to echo what Senator Jaffer said. From the North's point of view, one area of concern is with respect to the Senate Page Program and representation. The requirement for being bilingual is a very difficult one, especially for those young people coming out of the smaller communities, and we haven't had a page in the Senate for a number of years. I've done everything I can to make sure that people are aware of the program, but it's been difficult.
Actually, in the Yukon we have been successful for this coming year, but I do think that's a program through which the First Nations community and other communities in the North can get some representation without necessarily starting a new program. If we were prepared to look at maybe relaxing a number of the requirements, we could get that representation.
The Chair: Colleagues, if there are no other items to discuss, I will adjourn the meeting. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)