Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 6 - Evidence - October 27, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 27, 2016
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:30 a.m., in public, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, colleagues. We will continue our questioning of the auditors as we did last meeting, and I will ask all members of the Senate administration and staff to vacate the room. I think we had agreed last time we would maintain translation, correct? If everybody else except for translation could vacate the room, we'll then invite in our auditors.
This meeting will continue on an informal basis with our auditors in camera. Do we maintain the recording, colleagues?
An Hon. Senator: Yes.
The Chair: Senator Batters is suggesting maybe not maintaining the recording. We did have the recording last week.
(The committee suspended.)
——————
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Colleagues, I call the meeting back to order, and I would like to have a motion to approve the financial statements for the year end March 31, 2016 and have permission to table them in the Senate.
Moved by Senator Marshall, seconded by Senator Cordy. Thank you, colleagues.
We'll go right to Item 2 of the agenda, which is the 2015-16 Annual Report on Parliamentary Association Activities, and we have with us this morning Colette Labrecque-Riel from the house who will be presenting. Good morning, Colette, bonjour.
Colette Labrecque-Riel, Acting Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate, Senate of Canada: Good morning, honourable senators. Thank you for welcoming us here this morning. In addition to this first item on annual reports, we will be presenting a number of items. As we will be speaking at this meeting about parliamentary associations and conferences, I'm accompanied by Gérald Lafrenière, Principal Clerk, Parliamentary Exchanges and Protocol. His team is also responsible for supporting all parliamentary conferences.
I'm also accompanied by Danielle Labonté. Danielle is the deputy principal clerk responsible for associations.
We're here this morning to present, in addition to the annual report, four other distinct recommendations on behalf of the Joint Interparliamentary Council, or JIC.
As for the first recommendation regarding the annual report on activities and expenditures for parliamentary associations for the fiscal year 2015-16, the recommendation is that this committee take note of this report. Although the JIC has been producing these reports for a number of years, the format for the 2015-16 report is significantly different. This new format provides a much more detailed focus on each association's activities and expenditures and supports the JIC's ongoing efforts in making parliamentary associations' activities and related expenditures more transparent.
As is the usual practice, once this report is presented to both internal committees, it will be published on the Web. The digital version of this report contains a number of links, such as links to senators' and members' information for those who hold positions on the executive committees, as well as links to reports from interparliamentary delegations. Those reports are actually tabled in both chambers from time to time.
Finally, while this is an information item only for this committee, the JIC, as well as IIA staff who prepared this report, hope that it will be well-received and would certainly welcome any feedback senators may have.
I don't know if there are actual questions or comments at this time about the annual report.
Senator Jaffer: It's not so much directly to do with the annual report. I keep bringing this up every time we have JIC in front of us, about what is the progress of having co-chairs on every parliamentary association?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Again, the subcommittee that is conducting its five-year review on behalf of the JIC continues to hear submissions from various stakeholders. Its report is not anticipated until March of next year. Again, presentations are still being made in front of the subcommittee, and that is certainly one of the questions being raised.
Senator Jaffer: What stakeholders? Are you hearing whether they should — I'm sorry; I don't mean to be rude.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: The five-year review —
Senator Jaffer: For Canada-Japan we have co-chairs, for Canada-Africa we have co-chairs and for Canada-France we don't. Which are the stakeholders you're hearing from?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: In conducting this five-year review, the JIC did mandate a subcommittee to hear from current chairs and co-chairs, as well as past chairs and co-chairs. They are hearing from various representatives who are involved in associations and the governance of associations. So this particular issue is before that subcommittee.
The Chair: Senator Jaffer, I've had that discussion with Colette and with our representatives at JIC. I know we've made this request on a number of occasions. The message I think we need to send to our friends at JIC and the colleagues on the other side is that if they want to continue to have our financial support in these projects, they're going to have to give serious consideration to these proposals.
A number of these associations have co-chairmanship presidencies and representation. U.S., I believe, is one of them, and there are a number of others. There are four out of the twelve that already have that, so I don't understand why the others can't make the same changes to their functioning in order for this to work.
Senator Jaffer: Chair, I don't mean to belabour this, but I've travelled with David on Canada-Japan, and the fact that we had a co-chair from the Senate made a huge difference in the representation. I think it makes a big difference to have co-chairs. I keep saying this, and I won't say any more, but I want you to understand why I think it's important — and you do understand.
The Chair: I understand, and I think we all understand. I think the other side just has to understand. I suggest that we move a motion to attach to support additional funding for the work of JIC with the fact that they should seriously give directives to these associations to execute our requests.
Senator Marshall: Thank you for being here. I like the report. It was very informative. I have one question.
The 261 members that you mention in the report, what's the total amount of money that people pay for membership in all of them?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: The fee for our membership in a parliamentary association is $25 per fiscal year.
Senator Marshall: Okay. So it comes out to just over $300, then. For the 261 members, they would have paid that total amount or part of it.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Yes.
Senator Marshall: How many actually participate in the visits? I'm a member, but I don't participate in any of the travel. That's my choice. I'm just curious: How many actually participate in travel?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: In terms of numbers of participation, we have on page 6 of the annual report a table. Table 3 does provide some metrics in terms of participation over the last five fiscal years. What we have are the number of trips — which is outgoing, international, as well as outside of Ottawa — and then we have a breakdown in terms of participants, so senators, members of Parliament and employees that are part of these delegations on these outgoing trips.
Senator Marshall: Some people must be in there twice, because the total number of members in the association is 261, and the number of participants — so that must include the staff also, is it?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Yes. There are obviously repeat — how should I put it? There are repeat travellers and that's what those numbers reflect.
Senator Marshall: So if we have an MP participated in three trips, they would be in there three times?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Yes, but paid one membership fee.
Senator Marshall: To go back to my original question, is there any way to determine how many members actually participated in one or more trips?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: We could do that analysis. It's not presented at this level of an annual report, but this is information we could provide.
Senator Marshall: I would be interested in that.
Senator Tkachuk: I think you could assume, Beth, that if you're a co-chair or the president of an association, you would be travelling more often, because your delegation would be different each time, but not always. But they are different each time. I know David Tilson, who is Canada-Europe, he would have led that delegation probably on every trip.
Senator Marshall: Okay. I'd be interested in that information. Thank you.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: If I understand correctly, would it be information provided for each person or member or senator who is a member of an association, how many trips they have been on, on the individual basis?
Senator Marshall: No, I just wanted it in total. I just wanted to determine how many members are actually taking advantage of the travel.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Okay.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Senator Downe: I would like to follow up on Senator Jaffer's point, if it's the will of the committee that we make a representation. I think Colette has indicated the subcommittee is doing a study now, so they are receiving representation. We should make a representation directly to them, either in the form of a motion or, if it's the will of the committee, a letter from you, chair, asking for that to be included in their five-year report.
The Chair: We'll address that very point, Senator Downe, when we get to point 3. I think it's a good idea.
Senator Batters: I'm wondering if the reason for the additional permanent funding request of $1 million is coming — you've decided to handle it in this particular fashion. Because I remember there was a time, maybe it was in the spring or so —
The Chair: That falls in item 3. We are still on the annual report.
Senator Batters: I'm sorry.
The Chair: We are all getting ahead of ourselves.
Senator Batters: I haven't even had coffee yet.
The Chair: I think all the questions that are following up on this we can deal with in item 3. Maybe we can have a motion just for the report, colleagues. It's moved by Senator Cordy, seconded by Senator Wells. Thank you.
As you see, Colette, item 3 now would be more interesting.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Thank you. Actually, before speaking to the next item and the next four JIC items, I wish to explain why so many requests from the JIC are coming forward at this point in time. Simply put, because these items are requests for either permanent or temporary funding, the JIC and, by extension, IIA staff, as well as the financial teams of both the Senate and the House of Commons, have made considerable efforts to accommodate the Main Estimates budgetary process timelines. All funding requests aim for the 2017-18 fiscal year and, for some, beyond.
To the specific Item 3, the permanent funding request, this is the second recommendation from the JIC, and it is a request for permanent funding increase for parliamentary associations. At its meeting of October 5, 2016, the JIC met to consider a proposal for a permanent increase to the parliamentary associations' budgetary envelope. During discussions at that meeting, as well as at several previous meetings, the following issues and concerns were raised. I will just give highlights without having to read the actual complete document itself.
Pressures on Canadian parliamentarians to further engage their international counterparts are increasing. There is a new dynamic in both the Senate and House of Commons due in part to the high number of new parliamentarians —
Senator Tkachuk: Excuse me. I'm a little bit confused here. This is asking for more money. How come we don't have our two co-chairs here asking for money? Why is the administration asking for money? Shouldn't we have Senator Manning and Mr. Stanton asking for the money?
The Chair: Senator Manning did speak to me last week and mentioned to me that he would be away this week, and that's why —
Senator Tkachuk: Well, then he can wait until next week.
Senator Marshall: I would like to hear from Senator Manning.
Senator Tkachuk: I think it's important that the people who are in charge of governance — the senators and members are in charge of JIC, not — I'm sorry. These are the people that work for them, so I don't mind if they were here in support of them —
The Chair: Just in respect to the agenda, maybe we can let Colette run through the facts and we can push off decisions to next week when our representatives are here, if that's okay, colleagues?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Okay, so these discussions did highlight some of the issues and concerns. There is a new dynamic in both the Senate and the House of Commons due in part to a high number of new parliamentarians and parliamentarians in new roles. Many such parliamentarians have a strong focus on international issues.
The JIC is conducting a five-year review via subcommittee. The subcommittee has already heard from many current and past association chairs and co-chairs. Most if not all have commented that associations wish to do more to engage their international counterparts and require additional funding to do so and to fully meet their mandates.
In recent years, the budgetary allocations have generally been half of what associations have requested in order to fully participate within their mandates.
As a result of this limited funding, associations have had to adjust planned activities, either by eliminating certain activities and/or reducing the size of delegations. Since the major budget reduction in 2012-13, the average delegation size has decreased by an average of 8 per cent per year, excluding election years.
The effects of these adjustments are that various associations have not been able to fully leverage Canada's participation on the international scene, for example, not being able to exercise full voting rights or missed opportunities to obtain influential positions on international executives and committees.
The number of officially recognized associations has remained unchanged since 2003, yet the funding available to associations has been reduced during that same period by a total of $860,000, which represents a 20 per cent reduction.
Contributions account for a significant portion of the funding. This year, nearly $1.4 million went towards contributions, thus leaving $2.1 million for actual activities.
Lastly, there are significant pressures from international counterparts on Canada to host more activities. One of the contributing factors is that from a security perspective, Canada is a preferred location. It is, therefore, anticipated that activity levels will rise.
Therefore, on the basis of these issues and concerns, the JIC recommends that approval be granted for additional permanent funding of $1 million for fiscal year 2017-18 and subsequent years which would be shared using the usual 30-70 formula between the Senate at $300,000 and the House of Commons at $700,000.
Again, this is a summary of the discussions held at the JIC and previous meetings since January, basically, of this year.
The Chair: At this point, before you go on to the specific conferences, if I can just brief the committee a little bit on the discussion I had with Senator Manning, but he can do that himself next week. Essentially there was a decision to increase funding. We've had that discussion here, that JIC was heading towards that direction.
The majority view is that they need increased funding in order to pursue some of the parliamentary diplomatic work they want to pursue. I think two of our representatives on JIC, Senator Plett and Senator Manning, voiced this disagreement with that strategy. They voiced this disagreement on the record. I guess they'll get an opportunity to express that point of view with this committee next week. Keeping that in mind, of course, I know Colette and her team will be going before the House of Commons' Internal Budgets and Administration Committee today I think, or next week.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Later this morning.
The Chair: So obviously we need to find a way to take a decision in unison with our colleagues on the other side.
Now I can maybe allow you to just brief us on these particular projects.
Senator Downe: As the third member of JIC, I'd like to indicate — because you indicated two members —
The Chair: Sorry, Senator Downe.
Senator Downe: — that I voted in favour of it because the current federal government, I'm not sure if they've trademarked it, but they are spitting constantly that Canada's back. This is a part of the government's agenda, apparently, to increase parliamentary participation.
Senator Tkachuk: Nice try.
Senator Downe: And therefore I support an initiative for more funding.
Senator Tkachuk: Can you take that smile off your face?
Senator Campbell: He's dancing as fast as he can.
Senator Cordy: Are you allowed to have time now for comments or questions?
The Chair: Yes, keeping in mind we're going to take the final decision next week.
Senator Cordy: I understand that.
Funding has been reduced significantly over the past number of years, and I know from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly we have not had a full complement of delegates since I don't know when, I can't remember, because of funding. In addition to that, we've had to prioritize. We said that the spring and fall sessions are extremely important. We want as many delegates as possible to go attend those and also to attend the session in Washington in December when we have a large number of people attending.
I don't have a problem with increased funding if it means that there is more participation by senators and MPs to attend what I think are extremely important sessions, and dialogue particularly with all of our recognized associations and interparliamentary groups because I think that they do good work, and there's nothing that can take the place of looking people in the eye.
It's not always the sessions where you're sitting down listening to speakers and asking questions. It's the in-between times that you're talking to people from other countries, whether it's NATO countries or Canada-U.S. or Canada- China or Canada-Japan, whatever it happens to be.
I do have a couple of concerns that I would like linked if we do approve the funding. One would be Senator Jaffer' long-standing concern about co-chairs of associations and interparliamentary groups. I know there will be a report in March. It's too late then. If we approve the funding, it's too late then if they come back and say, "Oh, whoops, not this year. Maybe when we have another study in 10 years' time we'll look at it.'' It makes a huge difference when you have co-chairs, when you have a representative from the Senate, because we're always lower in number when we attend these things, and when you have a co-chair from the Senate, it becomes much more inclusive.
Another thing that I feel strongly about, if we're going to increase the funding, if, and that will be decided next week and it will be decided also on the house side, I don't want us to increase the funding and then suddenly we have five more associations, because that's not going to help any group. That's just going to take an increased amount of money spread over a further group, and we'll have the same kinds of things. In the case of NATO, again, we are not able to send representatives to a large number of meetings that are taking place. The Europeans greatly appreciate the presence of Canada because the Americans only do two or three a year. It is a transatlantic group, so when Canada attends, they feel like it's not just the European side of the Atlantic, but in fact it's representation from both sides of the Atlantic.
The request is for $300,000 from the Senate. If we increased it and added a pile more groups, then it's not going to make any difference.
We should look at co-chairs of the associations as being part of it and at least for two years that no new associations or official parliamentary groups will be brought forward.
Senator Marshall: Mr. Chair, did I hear correctly? Did you say that Senator Manning and Senator Plett didn't support the funding request, or did I misunderstand?
The Chair: Well, there wasn't a formal vote. They expressed this disagreement with having these increases, and that was on the record. He informed me of the fact that they were not in the majority view. They expressed that point.
Senator Tkachuk: At JIC, it's usually consensus. Rarely is there a vote.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: If I may seek clarification on Senator Cordy's latest point about the creation of new associations. It could be that no new associations, as you suggest, are to be recognized for the next two years, or that no new associations be recognized without additional funding accompanying the request for official recognition, which would speak to your point. Because the normal process for the recognition of a new association is to come forward with, yes, the request for official recognition, and all past incidents of new associations have been accompanied with a funding request to accompany that official recognition. There may be a nuance on that one perhaps to consider.
Senator Cordy: Whenever anybody brings forward the suggestion, there are always good reasons for it. You want Canada whatever. There are always really good reasons to have it. But I think that we have to get our house in order first and ensure that the funding is proper. I take your point that a request would come with a request for additional funding.
Senator Wells: Thank you, chair. Actually, the question I had for Colette was exactly the same as Senator Cordy's regarding new associations and either having a moratorium on new associations until funding is in place or new associations being accompanied by a budget for that, and an approved budget for that.
Because we all recognize that Canada's participation in various spheres of influence changes over time. While Europe might be an important one now, maybe South America or Africa or something else will be in the future. That's dependent on the government and the government's position. I just want to associate myself with Senator Cordy's comments on that.
The Chair: Colette, nothing else to add?
Colleagues, we'll revisit this item when our representative from JIC, the co-chair, Senator Manning, will be here next week.
I also want to point out for the record that maybe it would be a good thing that when you make your presentation to our colleagues on the house side, you reiterate the point that we would — there is a propensity here to probably want to put forward a motion to attach a condition to the increased funding on our side. If we see some movement on the Senate co-chair issue, which we've been asked that it be addressed on a number of occasions, maybe you could put that on the table for discussion.
The second item is that steering had suggested that in regard to the IPU conference proposal, which is a request here to have it in November 2017, we thought it would be a good idea that we go back to IPU and make a request that the conference be named in honour of our former Speaker, Pierre Claude Nolin. Given the fact that he was a big proponent of parliamentary diplomacy and he was quite active in NATO and the IPU, I thought it would be a good gesture to recognize him in that way. I've had a discussion with Senator Fraser. I'll be speaking with Senator Ataullahjan and Senator Dawson, who were very active at the IPU on our behalf. I wanted to bring that up. I assume this committee would unanimously support such a gesture.
Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, Colette.
Senator Wells: One more question came up as you were speaking. If we attach that condition of the additional co- chair, will the budget request change, or significantly change?
The Chair: It shouldn't change.
Senator Jaffer: I do know that if they say yes, obviously each association's bylaws will have to change as well. But I don't want the response to come up, "Well, the bylaws need to change.'' Just change them if we —
The Chair: It's been done in a number of instances and it works quite effectively, so I don't see what the difficulty would be. Thank you.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Just a point of clarification. We were prepared this morning to present very quickly the requests for the three conferences. Am I to understand we'd like that to be put off to next week, or would you like a summary?
The Chair: We can do that next week, given the fact we're bringing the item back to the agenda.
Senator Tannas: I just have one thing for next week on one of the conferences, which is the big one proposed for July 2018; isn't that right?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Perhaps NATO, which is November 2018. That's the big one.
The Chair: The Commonwealth one.
Senator Tannas: The big one, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference, right?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: That's actually the smallest of the conferences.
Senator Tannas: Is it really?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Yes.
Senator Tannas: It sounds like the most important to me. So we're having 150 people here for that. I want to remind you, and you can answer next week: We're going to be moving that month.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: We realize that.
Senator Tannas: My wife would kill me if I threw a party for all the neighbours while we're in the middle of moving. Maybe we should rethink accepting at this point. To me, that will be total chaos that summer. I leave it with you to give me a great, thoughtful answer as to why we should carry that on.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Noted.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We'll see you next week. Thank you so much.
Colleagues, we'll go to item 4, the Seventh Report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets.
Senator Tannas, you have the floor.
Senator Tannas: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the Seventh Report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, which includes a recommended allocation for two committee budgets.
Before moving to the adoption of the report, I wanted to provide a quick financial update on the committee budgets.
For the 2016-17 fiscal year, $2.382 million was allocated to committees, minus $500,000 that was held back for witness expenses, leaving $1.882 million for release to individual committee budgets.
To date, we have approved $2,205,458 in approved travel for 11 different committees. Of that total amount approved, $520,248 has been spent so far on eight activities, leaving $1,785,463 of the allocated amount that has not yet been spent.
Senate Finance is working with the Committees Directorate to determine the amount available through the clawback process. However, with significant travel this fall that has either recently taken place or is soon to come, the settlement of expenses is in fact ongoing.
We hope to have revised information in the coming weeks but are confident in reporting that committees continue to spend well below their approved budget amounts, at a rate of about 40 per cent. We therefore expect a significant amount will be clawed back, and we will provide that information to you once it has been confirmed.
Regarding today's budget report, last June your subcommittee 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: a fact-finding trip to Western Canada, and this trip took place in September; a fact-finding trip to southern Ontario, and the committee wishes to undertake this trip in November; and then they proposed a third activity in Montreal and had some general expenses with respect to printing. These activities of this committee are in relation to their study on the effects of transitioning to a low-carbon economy.
Based on the information for the budget application, we had recommended to this committee a partial release of funds in June for Activity 1, the trip to Western Canada, and Activity 2. So we are now recommending an additional release of funds for Activity 2 in the amount of $29,792, and for general expenses in the amount of $1,000, for a total allocation of $30,792.
The committee intends to provide us with a supplementary budget request in relation to Activity 3, the trip to Montreal, so we will continue to defer consideration of that activity.
The subcommittee also met in June with the chair of the Fisheries Committee, whose budget application contained a proposed expenditure of $260,254 for two activities. The first is a fact-finding trip in the Maritimes. This trip is taking place this week. And Activity 2 is fact-finding and public hearings in Newfoundland and Labrador. The committee wishes to undertake this trip before the Christmas holidays. This activity is in relation to their study on marine search and rescue activities.
Based on the information provided for this budget application, we recommended a partial release of the funds in June for Activity 1 in the amount of $107,588. Your subcommittee revisited the committee's request for funds for Activity 2 and we now recommend an additional release of funds for Activity 2, which is the trip to Newfoundland and Labrador in the amount of $152,657.
Based on the anticipated clawbacks from other committees, the subcommittee is comfortable recommending the release of these funds.
We would like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of senators — and in particular, committee chairs and deputy chairs — to the following observations about the current budgeting process: We have observed that there is a tendency to submit budget applications without firm plans in terms of the expected travel dates or the number of participants. Often this leads to a budget request that is far greater than necessary, which leads to large surpluses once the actual travel has taken place.
Although we are pleased to note that most committees spend carefully, sometimes this budgeting activity leads to funds that are tied up unnecessarily while committees sort out their travel plans. This also leads to the subcommittee over-allocating funds to committees and then waiting indefinitely for unspent funds to come back.
In an effort to be prudent, we have on occasion chosen to defer consideration of some budget requests, as is the case with what we've presented here today. As we wait for the remaining unspent funds to be clawed back, we are now faced with the fact that, in all likelihood, we will have a significant surplus as we approach the end of this fiscal year.
The subcommittee feels that this is not terribly efficient. We anticipate that the upcoming fiscal year will be busier than the current one. The subcommittee would like to avoid having to tie up funds unnecessarily for undetermined periods of time, and we want to avoid over-allocating funds and then having to wait for clawbacks to kick in before approving funding requests later in the year.
Accordingly, the subcommittee will be looking at a new framework and recommendations for committees who wish to submit budget requests in the upcoming fiscal year. At the end of the day, we want to be able to maximize the amount of funds available for committees to do their important work.
That's our report, colleagues. I welcome any questions.
Senator Jaffer: Because we don't have the details, may I please ask of you that you always — and I know you do — provide a communication plan, and I'm sure you had it for these two.
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: I'm guilty, but I recently travelled with defence and there was not an interpreter because our monies were tight. But I believe, because we are a bilingual country, that if I may ask that you always put that as a requirement about interpretation and have money set aside for that. I ask you, besides the communication plan, that there should be a provision made for interpretation, please.
Senator Tannas: We'll add that to the list and, at a minimum, ask them, if there isn't one coming, why not.
Senator Jaffer: In the report you said that to find out how many people are going. I thought that was a rule, so that will have to change. You always have to plan for 12. You can't say 10 will go.
Senator Tannas: This is the issue: We have a number of trips where we budget for 12 because there are 12 on the committee, so we wind up with a budget request that says, "We're anticipating or budgeting for all 12 senators to go. We don't know when we're going. We're not sure exactly where we're going.'' We've had all of those things happen to us. "But we need $300,000,'' and that sits all year. Then the committee either doesn't go, which has happened, or to go, and we've said no — this year it didn't happen. Next year we could be in a position where we're saying no to people; we haven't got enough money.
If we follow through with the same process, we'll wind up with a big clawback at the end of the year and somebody who didn't get to go won't serve Canada in whatever way they were proposing. We need to tighten this up. We don't think it's too difficult to ask senators: We'd like to know 90 days, 60 days before your travel date how many senators are committing to go and we're going to take the rest of the money away, that kind of thing.
Senator Jaffer: That's fair.
Senator Tannas: That's what we're thinking, just to tighten it up to maximize the use of funds without overbooking the budget and praying that an over-allocation is in fact happening.
Senator Jaffer: As we do more, equity concerns me. It's the chair that decides — this is a first-come, first-served kind of basis. I believe that we need to have a discussion at some time with committee chairs so the chair that's doing the work that you're asking to do then ends up not getting the money because they were careful. I think we need to have that whole discussion as to if, for example, X committee got $300,000 this year, then should they get it next year too? I'm not saying they shouldn't get it, don't get me wrong, but we need to have that discussion of equity between committees.
Senator Tannas: I think we will be taxed with some of those decisions based on the fact that we're anticipating next year to be very busy with lots of interest. We have new senators and a new government with a different mandate. So we expect it will be busy and we will need every dollar allocated properly and spent.
The Chair: Senator Jaffer, are you specifically referring to National Defence that was travelling recently?
Senator Jaffer: I'm not saying anything.
The Chair: Because I have it from reliable sources that they did have allocated budget for translation and that steering decided that it wasn't required. That's what I understand. We'll discuss that at another point in time, I guess.
Senator Tannas: We can ask.
Senator Jaffer: I think it should be like the communication now.
Senator Tkachuk: I was just going to ask the same question as Senator Jaffer. Was it a meeting where you had quorum, and was it in Canada? Because I don't think you have a choice. You have to have translation.
Senator Jaffer: It was in New York.
Senator Tkachuk: I don't know what the rules are on that when it's in another place like New York. I don't think you need translation then because that's not their language.
Senator Jaffer: I might get in trouble.
Senator Tkachuk: It should always be in the budget if it's in Canada, unless it's impossible to get quorum, like happened to us on one of our trips. We were supposed to have quorum. We had a budget for it, and then for one reason or another, people fell off the table and all of a sudden there were only three of us. The committee decided to send us three, and we just had a listening group. We didn't have a formal meeting. We just took papers; that was it.
The Chair: Colleagues, despite the last election, I remind us all we still live in a democracy, so feel free to speak openly, even in public.
Senator Cordy: I think there's a difference when committees are travelling. One is when you're holding official hearings when we are mandated to have translation. The other is when committees just choose to go on fact-finding missions, and then I think it's up to committees to determine whether or not they feel it's necessary. That would be a decision that we would leave to committees, and the chair and deputy chair who would appear before us, rather than us making that decision. But certainly it's always been translation, and recently it's been communications because we feel that they are necessary, and translation is mandated by law if it's public hearings.
Second, in terms of the number of participants, a number of years ago when I was in the Senate we were actually told at committees that only six can travel or only eight can travel. That's not what this subcommittee is doing. This subcommittee is saying every member of every committee should be travelling. If they're attending all the meetings in Halifax, then if we're going to Nova Scotia, then we should all be finding out what the people of Nova Scotia feel about something.
We are saying look at it when you're planning your budget. There are some committees that don't have a full complement of members, and yet they're still putting in budgets as if there were a full complement of members. We're saying we want to be able to use the money wisely. It's great to have a small surplus at the end of the year, but to have a huge surplus at the end of the year is sort of the same kind of thing: Are we managing our money properly? And as a subcommittee, that's exactly what we're trying to do, manage the money properly so that every committee that feels it's important to meet with Canadians around the country has the opportunity to do so.
Senator Wells: This question is regarding the practice that we have, and referencing Senator Tkachuk's comment about not having quorum at a committee, what's our practice on having members who are not part of the committee travel when there's space to do so and if they have something they can bring to the table?
Senator Cordy: I know in Nova Scotia I have attended meetings as a Nova Scotian, but there haven't been any expenses because that's where I live. I did take the place of somebody at committee hearings in Nova Scotia, but I had to drive to get there, so it was a small expenditure. I don't know if there is a policy of filling slots.
Senator Wells: Has it occurred? I'll ask Senator Tannas, because he may have addressed it.
Senator Tannas: Similarly, it occurred for me in one of the Energy Committees where they needed somebody, and so I jumped in the car and attended. But I don't know about, and we haven't seen any requests from somebody saying, "Listen, we'd like someone to go on a major trip who isn't on the committee.'' I don't think we've seen anything like that. I would expect that the clerks would twig to that and make a request if it was there.
Senator Cordy: A number of years ago —
The Chair: Senator Cordy, maybe we can have Blair tell us what have been some of the practices in the last little while, and if there are any deficiencies that we need to look at.
Blair Armitage, Principal Clerk, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: I note that our committee clerks work closely with the whips on both sides through their chair and deputy chair; and when they get a sense that there's a need for additional members on the committee or there's interest from senators from where the committee is travelling, the use of membership change forms allows the clerk to pay any related expenses for them to participate, especially if the committee is travelling regionally and not just in their hometown. But without being made a full member of the committee, the clerk is unable to cover their expenses.
The Chair: Maybe that is something that also the committee that's reviewing the SARs right now can look at in our next meeting, colleagues. We'll take note of that.
Senator Jaffer: I brought this up before. Also, when committees are travelling, can we remind the co-chairs that if they are travelling to a region, to invite the local senators to participate, if possible? Recently, Transport Committee was travelling. The clerk wrote me a letter because they were travelling to B.C.
I think it's very effective if you're going to do outreach. When I first came to the Senate, it was a given that if a committee came to Vancouver, I would be part of it. But we've gone away from that. I truly believe that if we want to do proper outreach, we should have the local members join.
Senator Tannas: Good question. We'll add it to the checklist.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
Senator Wells: I think also senators may have particular skills regarding that topic, who may not be sitting on the committee, and that might be helpful to the work of the committee.
The Chair: Any other questions, colleagues? If there are none, maybe Senator Tannas can move the motion.
Senator Tannas: I so move it, please.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Tannas, seconded by Senator Campbell. Thank you, colleagues.
Item 5. We have received at steering a couple of requests in regard to leadership funding. We have a request from the Leader of the Government for additional funding to his budget. We also have a request from the independent Liberal caucus to review their operating budget. My suggestion is that we send these requests to our very capable Subcommittee on Senate Estimates. Senator Wells, you have gone through that exercise over the last little while. Maybe you want to speak to it, and maybe you can address this in the next few weeks.
Senator Wells: Yes. Thank you, chair, and thank you again so much for delivering this mandate request.
Senator Campbell: It's an honour, a privilege.
Senator Wells: I would like to talk a little bit about the timing that we have. Of course, this is budgeting season, and I would look to Pascale, perhaps, to talk about some of the milestone deadlines that we have for presenting estimates for next year.
Thank you, Pascale.
The Chair: Maybe we can ask Ms. Legault to address that issue.
Pascale Legault, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: So the next step — we have already taken the process to receive all the information from the various directorates, as well as all the funding requests affecting the senators and the overall Senate.
In Finance, we have already processed all this information challenge, and we are getting ready to prepare it for the executive committee — that is the next step — the following week, so next week. After that, it would go to the proper subcommittee, whether it's the steering committee or the main subcommittee, and there is a little bit of time in between if we need to make adjustments. All of that needs to be signed and approved by the Speaker before mid-December. This is the timing that we need to send it to Treasury Board Secretariat. Building enough time so that it goes to the subcommittee, to this committee and to the Speaker before December 15 is a little bit of a challenge. We're on it.
Senator Wells: Fantastic. Thank you, Pascale.
The Chair: Colleagues, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Marshall that the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates be authorized to examine and report on the supplementary estimates. This includes a new funding request for the current fiscal year 2016-17, as well as the Main Estimates for 2017-18, that the subcommittee review the proposed estimates, keeping in mind the necessity for the Senate and its administration to demonstrate responsible management of public funds that are allocated to the institution.
Is everyone okay with that? Can I have a seconder, colleagues? Seconded by Senator Cordy. Thank you.
Good luck, Senator Wells.
Item 6 on the agenda is an update on the Phoenix pay system, the famous Phoenix pay system.
[Translation]
Joining us today is Luc Presseau, our Director of Human Resources. Good morning, Luc.
Luc Presseau, Director of Human Resources, Human Resources Directorate, Senate of Canada: Good morning, everyone. I am pleased to give you an update about the Phoenix system and the information gathered since it was implemented six months ago.
When I first appeared before the committee, many questions about Phoenix came up. We made a commitment to keep you informed of the situation.
[English]
I'm happy to report, senators, that the overall error rate that we have been able to identify is under 1 per cent. Now, that is not to say that we haven't corrected things as time has gone on. For example, we have done under 50 emergency salary advances over the course of time, but that was earlier in the process. As we have moved forward, there has been less of a need for that.
Currently we have identified 72 individuals who have been overpaid, and that's going through about 8,000 pay transactions that have occurred since April 21, so every two weeks. Of course, 660 pays works out to around 8,000 over the course of time. Out of that, we have identified 72 that have been overpaid.
Now, I want to be careful in mentioning that number. About 50 of those 72, the overpayment is under $100. So the reality is that as we look at our pay accounts every two weeks, $2 here or $4 there doesn't really twig that there's a problem and so on. Those are the types of errors that are there, and those are the ones that are directly related to Phoenix.
We were able to identify fewer than 10 underpayments at this point in time, and again those are amounts that sometimes are hard to determine as you're looking out. If you don't get your entire pay, you tend to notice that very quickly and you report that to us quickly. But if you're short $50 on your pay, sometimes you don't realize that you shouldn't be, or if you're getting a retroactive payment from whatever. If you've just gotten a salary increase and you're not sure what the amount will be, it's one of those things that you don't notice.
We have identified those people who have been underpaid in that way, and we'll be addressing those individuals as well.
We are in the process of finalizing the strategy with respect to recovery of the overpayments for those that we need to look at, and the communication strategy with staff as well, from the point of view of those people who had an overpayment.
[Translation]
Although that's good news, the Phoenix system continues to be a challenge for payroll staff. The processes are not always clear. Some things work well one day, but not the next. There are a number of reasons for that, but the implementation still requires a lot of work and changes to our processes. Our employees are doing an outstanding job. Overall, Senate employees are receiving the appropriate biweekly payments.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: I know we hear in the paper about people who don't get paid enough. Did you get any complaints from those who got overpaid? I'm just asking.
Mr. Presseau: Senator, it's a fair question. Sometimes if somebody is overpaid in a significant amount, typically people will notice that and will say, "Well, there's something wrong.'' The situation right now is that sometimes you don't really know what to expect or what not to expect in a paycheque, and so people may not be aware that they have actually been overpaid, and that's why we need to —
Senator Tkachuk: It was a bit tongue in cheek.
Mr. Presseau: I understand that.
Senator Tkachuk: I knew what the answer would be: "No.''
Senator Downe: Of the 110 who have been underpaid, what is the largest individual amount?
Mr. Presseau: Of underpayment?
Senator Downe: Yes.
Mr. Presseau: The largest is just over $2,500.
Senator Marshall: How are you picking up the overpayments? I think you said that most of them are under $100. Are you manually checking all of the payroll transactions?
Mr. Presseau: That's what we did, senator, to get to the numbers that I am referring to now. We had to manually verify, with our colleagues in finance, what had happened and where it went. That's how we identified those individuals.
Senator Marshall: I had hired somebody for six days, and they were overpaid, but it was by over $100. I can't remember now if my assistant picked it up or if your staff did, but thank you for the update. Ms. Proulx had given us an update probably about a month ago, so thank you very much for that.
The Chair: Item 7 on the agenda is "other items.'' I would like to address an issue, colleagues. The administration sent out a request that they had training sessions with regard to the new disclosure platform that will be coming out in the next little while. To my surprise, the participation from senators' offices has been very scarce, to say the least. I don't even want to give the exact numbers, but it requires, I think, all senators to make an effort to participate in those training sessions for the new disclosure platform. I suggest the administration reach out to all caucus whips and send a notice to all non-affiliated members who are not involved in a caucus to let them know the importance of it.
The platform will be rolled out soon. Obviously, we all unanimously approved this new disclosure platform, and I think it will be very important to continue to make sure that we're transparent in terms of the public. Colleagues, we should make sure all our colleagues know that they should be aware of how this functions. Particularly, there was very light participation from the non-affiliated members, so Senator Campbell and Senator Wallace, maybe you can pass the message to your colleagues that it's well worth their while to go and get themselves acquainted with the administrative rules and how the new platform works.
Are there any other issues, colleagues?
Senator Wallace: Chair, yesterday, as I think everyone would be aware, I sent a letter to each of the members of Internal Economy, and others in positions of leadership, regarding the directed seizure from Senator Duffy's sessional allowance. I wanted to say today that I will be making a request to speak at the open portion of next week's Internal Economy meeting regarding that issue and the issues and the conclusions that I addressed in that letter.
I wanted to make members aware of that.
The Chair: Nothing would have prevented you from doing that this week, senator, so you're welcome to let steering know whatever issues you want brought to the agenda, and we would be more than happy to do so.
Senator Wallace: Thank you for that, chair.
The Chair: Is there anything else, colleagues?
Senator Tkachuk: I've read quickly the letter that Senator Wallace has sent regarding Senator Duffy. I think we get to decide whether it's in camera or in public. I'm not saying there shouldn't be, but Senator Wallace has said he will speak during the in camera. Well, he has to request an item on the agenda and once the item is placed on the agenda, the committee gets to decide if it's in camera or public. I'm not saying that I don't support the idea of it being public. I'm saying it's very important that the process is correct.
The Chair: Senator Tkachuk, you're absolutely right. We have always followed the process to a tee. Furthermore, the issue that he is referring to —
Senator Tkachuk: Since the whole letter was about process.
The Chair: The issue he's referring to I've addressed in detail at previous meetings, in public hearings, as well. But I have no issues. I always take guidance from this committee.
Senator Wallace: Chair, just one comment on Senator Tkachuk's comments. A decision would be made as to whether or not this issue would be addressed in public or in camera next week. I just wanted to be clear that I wish it to be open. I realize I don't ultimately determine that, but Senator Tkachuk said that would be decided by the committee. I just want to clarify: Would that be decided by the entire committee, or would it be decided by the three-person steering committee?
The Chair: Senator Wallace, you've been a member of the Senate now for a number of years. I think you know by now that committees determine if we go in camera or if we go in public. Steering does not make those determinations. For sure, this committee will give guidance as to what it wants to do. That's how it works here.
Senator Wallace: That's good. I'm new to the committee and I just wanted to make sure I understand. Thank you.
Senator Tkachuk: He was the chair of legal.
(The committee adjourned.)