Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 8 - Evidence - December 15, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 15, 2016
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9 a.m. 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, everyone.
We will get right to Item 1 in the agenda, the adoption of minutes of proceedings of the December 8, 2016 meeting. Are there any questions on the minutes? If there aren't, maybe somebody can move them.
Senator Marshall, seconded by Senator Jaffer. I assume there's no opposition, so it carries.
Item 2 is the addition of a fourth member of the steering committee. I have a motion here in the new context of the changes that will be recommended to the Senate by the Selection Committee. It reads as follows:
That, pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2016, the membership of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be increased by one non-voting member chosen from the senators who are not members of a recognized party; and
That the Honourable Senator Campbell be the fourth member of the subcommittee.
It is moved by Senator Wells, seconded by Senator Tkachuk. Despite the attempts by Senator Campbell to be a contrarian again, it passes unanimously, let the record show. Thank you, colleagues.
Item 3 is the third report of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates. Senator Wells, you have the floor.
Senator Wells: Thank you, chair and colleagues.
The Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its third report. On December 8, 2016, your subcommittee was given the following mandate by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration:
That, pursuant to the order of the Senate on December 6, 2016, to approve funding for the Independent Senators Group for the current fiscal year and for the fiscal year 2017-18, the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates be authorized to examine and report on the funding for the Independent Senators Group;
That the subcommittee be further authorized to recommend conditions for funding, including but not limited to:
(a) Structure; (b) membership; (c) deputy leader duties; and (d) whip duties;
That the subcommittee report to this committee no later than December 15, 2016.
Which is today.
Your subcommittee met on December 12, 2016, with Honourable Senators Elaine McCoy, Frances Lankin, P.C., Ratna Omidvar and Murray Sinclair on behalf of the Independent Senators Group. During its deliberations, the subcommittee recognized that the Senate is undergoing significant transformation to its structure and its operations due to the appointment of a large number of senators not affiliated with a political caucus. It is clear that, barring any unforeseen changes in the method of selection of senators, this number of non-affiliated senators will continue to increase for the time being.
The majority of the non-affiliated senators have chosen to group themselves collectively to form the Independent Senators Group. The Rules of the Senate do not recognize this type of group as a caucus; therefore, the group is not eligible for caucus funding. The Senate has recognized the need for the ISG to receive funding and has requested, by order, for the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to determine funding for the current fiscal year and for the fiscal year 2017-18.
During the presentation from representatives of the ISG, the subcommittee heard that the group meets twice a week when the Senate is sitting for the purposes of planning and sharing information, similar to a caucus. The group also has selected senators to sit on committees as members. It has developed a "chamber team'' to fulfill the traditional roles of a deputy leader and a whip.
While the decentralized structure of the ISG is very different from the political party caucus, and its development into a structured parliamentary group is still ongoing, the subcommittee is of the view that funding be provided to the ISG for the current and 2017-18 fiscal years.
Following its hearings with representatives from the Independent Senators Group, your subcommittee recommends the following:
1. That the Independent Senators Group receive annual funding in the amount of $722,000 for fiscal year 2016-17 effective January 1, 2017, on a prorated basis, which amounts to $180,500;
2. That the Independent Senators Group receive funding in the amount of $722,000 for fiscal year 2017-18, which will be added to the Main Estimates;
3. That the Independent Senators Group shall only use the allocated funds for personnel (employment contracts) listed in the appendix of this report; and
4. That all personnel listed in the appendix of this report fall under the same policies, terms and conditions as those working in a senator's office.
That, colleagues, is respectfully submitted by me, the chair.
I would also like to point out that the members of the Estimates Subcommittee, Senator Jaffer as deputy chair and Senators Campbell, Downe, Tannas and Tkachuk, all worked diligently on this. I also want to give a special thanks to Senator Cordy who, while not a member of the Estimates Subcommittee, attended all meetings and has contributed greatly to our efforts.
I also wish to thank the senators who appeared as witnesses for answering our questions and being extremely well prepared.
We recognize that the Senate, as I said, and the ISG are still in transition, and the subcommittee took the approach that any funding considered would be foundational for the development of their team, enabling the group to establish itself as a functioning parliamentary group. We now know and clearly see this is necessary for the effective operation of the chamber.
There's a slight difference. When we decided to put in the condition of having the employees that would come under this $722,000, they would be seen as employees under the policies, terms and conditions of a senator's office versus house leader staff. There's a slight difference between the two, but it's an important difference. The subcommittee was of the view that it would be better to operate under the terms, policies and conditions of a senator's office.
Colleagues, it's important to note that with this new funding the new total budget for the Senate will be $103,874,365.
I'm happy to take any questions.
Senator Batters: Given the conditions set out in the motion of the Senate said that the subcommittee was going to recommend funding, including but not limited to structure, membership, deputy leader duties and whip duties, why aren't any of those conditions in this report? In fact, there aren't any conditions on this particular funding.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Batters, for that question. The conditions are actually in the attached document, under the appendix. This was the request from the Independent Senators Group, so we used that document as the basis to set the conditions. They have specific minimums and maximums for funding individuals.
Also, the terms, conditions and the policies are bound by, as I just said, this staff being under the purview of a senator's office and research terms and conditions and policies rather than house officers. So there are conditions around that.
Also, the testimony from the four members of the Independent Senators Group that appeared before us — as well as Senator Campbell, who was obviously there as a member of the subcommittee but is also part of the Independent Senators Group — very much binds them to the commitments that they gave at that subcommittee testimony.
Senator Batters: Except from this document we don't know what any of that testimony is. The appendix simply sets out what the different staff positions are going to be in that particular group, which was provided earlier — I think the day that this committee considered their initial request — by Senator McCoy.
I accept your explanation, but to me that doesn't really go to any of those particular conditions about structure and membership of the independent senators themselves. It simply sets out what their desired staff positions are.
Senator Wells: I did say in my report that they have established a leadership team with people assigned to whip and deputy leader duties — so scroll duties and organizing their presence in the chamber and on committees, which is an important part of the organizational role in the Senate, to allow it to operate as a group. I think we satisfied those. I know I satisfied that in my report by clearly stating that they have people who are assigned to those duties.
The Chair: If I may add to what Senator Wells is saying, for the benefit of our colleagues and the public, if you look at the breakdown of the report we have received from the Subcommittee on the Estimates, they have actually gone further than other leadership offices in breaking down what every single dollar will be used for, which is quite unprecedented, for that matter. I just wanted to point that out.
Senator Batters: That was actually what was provided by Senator Harder when he recently made his $1.5 million request.
My point is that I'm wondering how a number of these conditions are satisfied. I don't know who the chamber team is. Can we find out who those people are? It just says "chamber team'' in the report. It doesn't say who they are.
Senator Wells: I would pass that over to the convenor of the Independent Senators Group.
Senator McCoy, perhaps you could answer Senator Batters' question and delineate your leadership team.
Senator McCoy: I am the Facilitator of the Independent Senators Group, and thank you for that.
The chamber team is composed of Senator Murray Sinclair, who is the scroll lead, and his backup deputy lead is Senator Ratna Omidvar. The chamber liaison and backup are Senators Frances Lankin and Don Meredith. That's the chamber team, and then I'm sort of ex officio, so I pitch in everywhere as needed.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator McCoy. I would also add that Senator Campbell has obviously emerged as a leader now. He's on steering, which is a leadership position.
It's important to recognize that the Independent Senators Group is in transition just as the Senate is in transition. As we recall when we were new senators, it took us some time to find our way. I would like to commend Senator McCoy on not just her efforts but her achievements to date in herding these new senators together and forming under a group that's organized — I might even say well organized — has a leadership team, a focus and an objective. That can only help the chamber.
Senator Batters: In this report we don't have anything in the document indicating a definition or an indication of exactly what is the Independent Senators Group. It's not defined.
Another question I have is this: What is their membership? What if it drastically decreases over the next number of months? Will we have half of that particular group coming back to us in six months saying they want $722,000? There's no minimum or maximum number of members listed for this particular group or for any point in time.
Senator Wells: Thank you for your question, Senator Batters. Of course we can only deal with what's in front of us. We don't know what might happen in three months when the new fiscal year starts, or in six months or any time in the future. We can only deal with what's in front of us. The subcommittee was tasked with considering the request from the Independent Senators Group as they stood, so if the numbers change, then the prerogative always rests with this committee, not the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates, to make decisions on what further funding changes might look like.
Senator Batters: Perhaps as an appendix to this, should there be a listing of the people who are currently in the Independent Senators Group as of that particular time? Already this week we have heard that one particular member of that group, Senator Wallace, will be retiring relatively soon.
Senator Wells: I'm not in favour of there being a requirement attached to the funding to list the members, as there is no requirement attached to the Senate independent Liberals or the Conservatives to attach specific names to funding. In fact, I'm generally not in favour of having levels of funding tied directly to numbers in a group or caucus.
Senator Cordy might want to expound on that.
Senator Batters: That's exactly what we do have now with the "less than 20'' and that sort of thing. So we do have numbers tied to it. I just think it's helpful for information purposes, if nothing else, to know, at the time that this was passed by the subcommittee, who comprised the members of the group, because all we have is a name. We do have definitions of caucuses in many places, but for this, we don't have that, so that could be a helpful thing to have.
Senator Cordy: I'm not on the committee but was at all the meetings, and we did get a list of not just the independents but also the Conservative caucus, the independent Liberal caucus and the independents. I thought it went to everybody, but perhaps it didn't.
In terms of providing the names, I know that when the request came in from the independent Liberal caucus, it was signed by Joe Day, our leader, but that doesn't mean that we can't change our leadership team today or next week or six months down the road. Not that we have any plans to.
But I don't like the idea of names being with the titles. We were given names today. That may change. This is all in flux. This is brand new for all of us.
The Subcommittee on Estimates certainly didn't just rubber stamp things. We asked a lot of questions over the several meetings where Senator McCoy was there and the last meeting where we had a presentation from their caucus team or their group team, independent team. We asked a lot of questions before we came to the conclusions that we came to.
As I said earlier, it's brand new for all of us. It might change. The individuals without names, but the positions that they have requested funding for, might change. They might come back to us and say, "We're finding that translation services provided by the Senate are sufficient. We really don't need somebody, so that's fine.''
I think these are growing pains that we're going through right now. There will be wrinkles along the way, guaranteed. There were with us when we became the independent Liberal caucus. Where were we going? We had to find our own path in the same way that the independents would. But I think that just because it's new doesn't mean we can't provide funding for them.
The Chair: I would also just reinforce that the chamber is in an ever-changing flux.
I also remind colleagues that funding models for caucuses and groups in the Senate have changed from time to time and have adapted according to the needs of the chamber.
I think I understand clearly the principle that the Estimates Subcommittee is putting forward here, which is a principle to give all groups, regardless of whether they are political caucus groups or, right now, independent, non- affiliated groups, the resources to be able to conduct their work in the chamber, regardless of whether their numbers are 9, 18 or 27.
Senator Batters: I guess my point would be that we're dealing with $722,000 of taxpayers' money. It might be helpful for information purposes to at least — I don't know how many senators are included under this Independent Senators Group currently. Is it every single independent senator, or are there some who are not included under that group?
Senator Wells: Thank you Senator Batters for your question.
Of course, like the Conservative caucus, and like the independent Liberal caucus, the Independent Senators Group will also have fluctuating numbers. Just because they may have 36 or 38 or 40 on April 1 doesn't mean that that will be consistent throughout the fiscal year. There will be some flexibility. Obviously, if the Conservative caucus is reduced, our budget as a caucus won't change. The subcommittee was satisfied by the responses given by the Independent Senators Group. Afterwards, in our deliberations, we recognized that for the effective operation of the chamber, which really is the objective for all of us, it can only be beneficial if groups are funded enough to do what their job is, what they are tasked to do, which is to give consideration to legislation, reports and studies in chamber and in committee. I think the $722,000, while, yes, it's taxpayers' money, is money well spent or budgeted.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Batters. I have a long list of senators.
Senator Batters: I just have just a couple of other short questions.
The Chair: I will put you on the second round. I think you've interjected a number of times, and your questions have been answered by Senator Wells. There are a number of senators who want to participate in the questioning.
Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Thank you for the report. I certainly support the recommendations. I have a couple of questions, one of which is housekeeping. It would be nice if Senator McCoy would send an official list of her team so that our offices can know who to deal with on chamber duty and other things involving schmoozing.
I would like to know what the translator position is all about. Obviously you found a need for this. We do have strong translation services that other senators access. And why would a translator's salary be so much lower than an administrative assistant? I see the minimum-maximum. I would like to have an explanation of that. Obviously there's a plausible explanation, but I need to know since the rest of us don't have, in our group, a translator.
Senator Wells: Sure, I understand. I'll answer it and then I'll ask Senator McCoy to provide detail.
The subcommittee looked at that and saw it as a special assistant position that could also or would also do translation services. We recognize and discussed that the Senate itself has a translation service. So we looked at that more as a special assistant/translator than primarily a translator.
Again, one thing I'm loathe to do is reach the long hand of whatever position I might have in authority into a senator's office and dictate how they spend money that they've assigned to specific individuals.
So I would answer the question mostly that way, but I would also ask Senator McCoy if she would contribute to answering the more detailed part of your request.
Senator McCoy: I think you have summarized it very well. The salary range is the one that the Senate itself assigns to that level of position.
Senator Munson: I recognize that it's important. Obviously you wouldn't have asked for funding for a translator if the group didn't need a translator. What function would this person do that has not been supplied by the Senate of Canada?
Senator McCoy: Timely translations.
Senator Munson: I'm satisfied with it; I would just like to know.
The Chair: Senator Munson, from time to time, leadership offices need to turn on a dime on certain issues and documents, be it press releases or communiqués. As much as we have worked very hard to get the translation department — right now translation is offered to us by Public Works. By and large they have been effective and have provided decent service. There have been some challenges, and there are instances where leadership offices need a supplemental translator, who I know in the case of Senator Carignan doesn't do only translating. They do other things in addition to translating, just to be able to be equipped to turn on a dime when required.
Senator Munson: I appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator Marshall: Most of my questions have been answered, but I just wanted Senator Wells to clarify a few issues. First of all, thank you for your presentation.
It says in the appendix: "Position and salary scale as requested by the Independent Senators Group.'' Their request was for $722,000, was it?
Senator Wells: Their request was for $542,448 to a maximum of $722,000.
Senator Marshall: And that would take into consideration the salaries going up?
Senator Wells: The lows and the highs, yes; the minimums and the maximums.
Senator Marshall: It's more as a block as opposed to a formula that would accommodate increases in the number of senators. Is that right?
Senator Wells: That's correct.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much.
Senator Downe: Thank you, Senator Wells, for your committee work. I was not at any of the meetings, even though you were kind enough to mention me in the report, but I understand Senator Cordy picked up the slack and did an outstanding job.
I'm concerned about the senators who are not part of the Independent Senators Group and are on their own. Do I recall correctly that we took away from them the $7,000 additional funding for policy research and that they will not be entitled to any of this funding?
Senator Wells: That's correct, Senator Downe. We removed the amount of $7,000 that was in place for the last year for senators who identified themselves as independent or non-affiliated. It was one of those things where there was an unintended consequence, and I will give an example.
Senator Harder is clearly affiliated with the government. He's their representative, but yet he was eligible for $7,000. I consider myself an independent-minded senator. I was not eligible for $7,000, so there was an inequity or an inequality among senators.
When the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates addressed this in one of our previous reports, we looked at that and decided it was prudent to remove the $7,000 and increase everyone to the tune of, I think, almost $37,000. So while the seven may have been removed, it was replaced by a considerable amount that would allow all senators, not just those identified as independent or non-affiliated, all senators, if they wished, to group their tasks and partner with other senators on a non-partisan basis. It would give them resources to do additional things than initially the $7,000 or perhaps the foundational funding that each group or caucus has. It would allow the three senators that you speak of — or maybe there are five now, with the two new appointments yesterday — to have that additional funding to do the additional work that a senator does that isn't necessarily supported by the foundational funding provided to groups and caucuses.
Senator Tannas: I want to speak to this as well. So now we have a group that is 100 per cent independent, non- partisan and coming together for administrative and research purposes.
If we have a senator who is independent, non-partisan but for whatever reason doesn't want to come together for administrative purposes, then I think we've done enough to provide extra funding. If that person genuinely wants to be all by themselves, not collaborating with other non-partisan senators, I don't think we need to give them the $7,000. I think they really want to be on their own and fair enough.
Senator Downe: I accept Senator Wells' answer, particularly the point that the budgets have gone up quite dramatically. A $37,000 increase is more than enough for anyone.
The point I would like to make is that we have to be sensitive on a go-forward basis — the whole committee — that all the senators are treated equally.
I accept Senator Tannas' comments as well, but we have identified groups. If individual senators want to be individuals in silos, if you will, we have to make sure the rules don't discriminate against them and that they are treated the same as others. We should keep this in mind.
The Chair: This is also consistent with the principle of trying to provide funding to caucus groups regardless of numbers. You're trying to separate, I think, the consistency here of all senators being independent and yet caucuses have specific work to do as well that is related to other issues.
Also, I want to highlight what Senator Downe pointed out: The House of Commons also had an increase of 22 or 23 per cent, if I'm not mistaken — 20 per cent — across the board at the beginning of this Parliament. Our increase of about 20 per cent is consistent with that.
Senator Lankin: I want to also point out that the ISG has committed to and has in fact provided support and services to other independent senators who are not part of ISG. For example, when we did the selection of committee members, we have a process for that. All independent senators were invited to attend that. There are other examples of that. So we're committed to providing some supports there.
Also, there are opportunities for us to come together as senators to work on issues. This is one of the things that Senator Wells pointed out; namely, the advantage of the salary structure that's been put in place for all senators now. We have the opportunity to pool funds with independents, Conservatives and Liberals to work on issues. That is a huge stepping stone toward the kind of collaboration with and being supportive of independent thought of senators from wherever their political perspectives may lay.
Senator Jaffer: I want to share here with Internal that when Senator McCoy and her team came to speak to us about this budget, what struck me is that in a very short time — they weren't given a lot of time — they have come together and are finding ways to work in the Senate. Our job is to help them. Nobody chose this. Everybody is ending up having to do the work that they have to. They have come together.
One of the things that impressed me is they are not pushing; they are taking their time as to how they will operate. Our job is to make sure that they have the sufficient funding to be able to find a way to operate, and that's what we were looking at.
In this budget, to be fair to them, they have not asked for many things that the independent Liberals or the opposition has asked for — for example, hospitality, and they don't have a separate whip budget or a separate deputy leader's budget that we have. I feel that this is a good start.
Not that I'm asking them to come back for more; that's not what I'm saying. What I'm trying to express is that they have been very prudent. When they came to the committee, they explained how they were working. It was very clear to us that this is still a work-in-progress, and we have to enable them to continue.
The basic premise was that this is for the better functioning of the Senate, and we have to make sure the independent caucus has sufficient funds.
Senator Campbell: I like "blue-skying'' and navel-gazing as much as anybody, and we did that in the committee with the "what ifs.'' What if 15 of the independent senators leave? It's like saying "What if five Conservatives leave? What if five Liberals leave?'' Everything changes.
What we do know is that the Conservative numbers will drop over the next four years. We do know that the Liberals will drop. It's gone; there will be no more Liberal senators. We know that the independents will increase.
I don't know why we're so afraid of the future, because these are the questions that are going to be asked of everybody down the road as the numbers change and go up. We want to have someplace where everybody is treated equally and where we go forward.
I reiterate what Senator Jaffer said: This is salaries. There's nothing in there for research or anything else.
With regard to the independent senators, if anybody had just taken a little time, the information is all out there. The information is published as to who is an independent, a Liberal or a Conservative. It's published who is on committees and who are the senior members.
With regard those who don't belong, they're always welcome. As Senator McCoy said, they were included in all our deliberations. If they need help, they can come to us. They don't belong for a variety of reasons. They don't belong because they're brand new here and have a whole lot of stuff happening that they have to clear off the board before they become really actively involved. There are a number of reasons.
This is a good budget. We worked hard on this. This wasn't something that just popped up. I have to say that thanks to this committee, we followed proper procedure: We went back to the house, we had the motion and we came back here.
I would urge everybody to not be afraid of this, to look forward to the future and to pass this.
Senator Batters: Senator McCoy, your preferred nomenclature of independent means "alone'' or "sole'' — those types of words. Given that, why have so many coordination-type staff positions? How does that work in an Independent Senators Group?
Senator McCoy: If you were to refer to the Oxford English Dictionary, you will see there are multiple connotations to the work "independent.'' What we generally mean by that is "independent-minded'' in terms of not being unduly influenced by, in particular, members of the executive branch of the Government of Canada, as was pitifully the case before.
However, the Independent Senators Group is collaborative in the execution of its functions. We have come together to support one another for logistics reasons in order to facilitate each individual's ability to come to independent decisions on matters that are their constitutional duties, such as voting on legislation and participating in committee studies.
Senator Batters: Senator Wells, your recommendation number 3 says that this group is allowed to only use the allocated funds — the $722,000 — for the listed staff salaries. Don't those staff who are operating in conjunction, as they seem to be for this particular office, need money for certain office expenses used in the course of their duties? Was there a budget for those types of expenses requested or was none requested for those types of expenses?
Senator Wells: Yes, we discussed that. We looked at office outfitting and that sort of thing. Those things are provided by Senate administration under existing budgets for all senators and staff. The people that would be employed in these positions would be provided that under existing budgets.
Senator Batters: I'm not talking about the actual facility, like where their office is located. I'm thinking about things like telecommunications and all these other office-type expenses that are paid out of an individual senator's budget. These people are clearly meant to be operating in conjunction as a group. Are those expenses then coming out of individual Independent Senators Group senators' budgets? Where would that money come from?
Senator Wells: I'll going to direct this one to Nicole Proulx.
I understood the point of your question. I wasn't talking about where they might be housed, but specifically things like telecommunications and the costs associated with actually being in a place and working.
Nicole Proulx, Clerk of the Internal Economy Committee and Chief Corporate Services Officer, Senate of Canada: There is basic equipment and furniture that is provided to all staff. So in terms of desktop computers, access to phones and things like that, that would be provided to the newly hired staff.
The discussion was that if there were other needs, the Independent Senators Group would have to come back and request it.
The Chair: There are also guidelines that exist. There are guidelines for leadership offices and senators' offices, and the administration follows those guidelines vis-à-vis faxes, scanners, photocopy machines and so on. There's a general budget for that.
Senator Batters, if you would like, the administration can send you those guidelines in writing.
Senator Batters: I know what they are. I'm thinking about things like a monthly cellphone bill.
The Chair: Since you know what they are, they are the ones that will apply to them as they apply to everybody else.
Senator Batters: Except the $722,000 is the maximum limit, where individual senator's budgets for those kind of things —
The Chair: We have a recommendation here to recognize them as a working group, Senator Batters. Individual senators have ample resources to do their work as individual senators. They will have those, since we are recognizing them. Most importantly, I want to highlight that the chamber, notwithstanding the rule, has decided to recognize them as an independent group.
Senator Downe: I support the report, but I was just reading the Selection Committee report and I have a question. After having read it, I'm confused about the independent group. Senator Mitchell has been appointed to this committee under the Independent Senators Group?
The Chair: The committee meeting right now, Internal Economy?
Senator Downe: Yes, to Internal Economy.
Senator Mitchell, are you part of this committee as part of the —
The Chair: Senator Downe, that's a whole other issue.
Senator Downe: It pertains to how I may vote on this bill. I'm going to support the motion but if Senator Mitchell is appointed by the independents — is he appointed by the independent group?
Senator Mitchell: No, not at all.
The Chair: My understanding is Senator Mitchell is a non-voting representative.
Senator Mitchell: I can explain if you want. I'm a member of this committee now officially. That was passed yesterday? No, not yet. I'm a non-voting member as of this moment but I will be when the Senate adopts the motion.
Senator Downe: But he was nominated by the Independent Senators Group.
Senator Mitchell: No, not at all. But I can explain that process.
Senator Downe: I would like to know that before I vote, chair.
Senator Mitchell: The process is that because the Independent Senators Group has about 33 of 43 non-Conservative or non-Liberal positions, on any given committee they would have roughly three-quarters of the seats that would be "their'' seats.
It happens that they were good enough to involve people who weren't within their 33 dedicated ISG members. It's a process which I would recommend to each of the caucuses, actually, because it's remarkably smooth. No whip is having to offend somebody because they get to choose where they go, so it reduces that kind of tension.
I was appointed and I asked to be on this committee. I got one of the seats that's not an ISG seat. It happened to be in the process that was collaborative and an excellent model for how this place can work. But I'm not here representing an ISG position and I'm not speaking for the ISG.
The Chair: Colleagues, order, please.
Senator Downe, are you satisfied with that answer?
Senator Downe: I'm looking at the Selection Committee report that was tabled yesterday. I have no objection to Senator Mitchell being on the committee. I do, however, have a problem if he's appointed by the Independent Senators Group. He's part of the government leadership in the Senate. Is the group an extension of the government? In other words, did we give money to Senator Harder and a second group?
The Chair: That is a valid point. When I look at the list from the ISG group of who will be representing the ISG at Internal Economy, we have Senator Campbell, Senator Dupuis, Senator Lankin, Senator Marwah, Senator McCoy, Senator Omidvar and Senator Mitchell. I understand the point that, Senator Mitchell, you are also the whip for the Government of Canada in the Senate.
Senator Lankin: A few minutes ago I said that one of the things we're committed to doing is to provide logistics support for all independent senators. Our selection process was not about us selecting senators; it was about senators selecting the committees that they wanted to sit on. At another point I can talk about the process, but it's very collaborative. There's nobody making a decision, but individual senators are working it out between themselves.
We invited all independent senators to take part in a process that we facilitated in terms of setting it up and the logistics. We included every independent senator, and that included, for example, the vote on the Ethics Committee, inviting the Speaker, who chose not to participate, which I think is a wise choice, but that was his choice. He's independent. It included the G3. Senator Harder, I think, didn't participate — I can't remember — but Senators Mitchell and Bellemare did. It was the same things in terms of putting their names forward for committees.
We did not appoint anybody. It's just all independent senators.
May I point out that in terms of the independent seats on a proportional basis, ISG does not represent all independent senators at this point in time; the vast majority, yes. But it would be unfair of us to suggest that all of the independent proportional seats would be controlled by ISG. That's not our basis of operation. There are these additional seats that people put their names forward for.
What I think might be confusing is that when the motion was being worked on and Senator Plett and others from the Selection Committee were doing that, they put it all down under "ISG.'' In fact, there are certain people like Senators Bellemare and Mitchell for whom it should just say "independent.'' It's up to them what they designate themselves as, but they are not ISG members.
The Chair: Senator Lankin, I think we're really hammering down on an area that is causing some concern for people.
Senator Mitchell, who is a good friend of mine, is the whip for the Government of Canada. He's been appointed by the Government Leader in the Senate. I appreciate the fact that on most days he's convinced he's independent, but I think to some of us, just to draw a parallel, it would be the equivalent of Senator Plett coming to your committee selection meeting.
Senator Downe: Yes. Now we're talking.
The Chair: He will profess he is an independent-minded senator like everybody else, but he happens to be the whip of the official opposition. If he were to come to your meetings where you select your spaces on the various committees and he requested to be an ISG representative on one of the committees, I suspect your caucus or your group would probably find difficulty with that.
I think that's what Senator Downe is referring to. I don't know how this will resolve and play out, but I think some of us are trying to figure out where the line is between the 3G and the ISG.
Senator Lankin: I think what's important, as people have said, is that we are transitioning. I think we want a very clear line between ISG and G3 and others. But Senator Plett, for example, through the process in the Conservative caucus, as the Conservative whip, also is a member of committees and has a right as a senator to be a member of committees. Senators Mitchell and Bellemare also have a right to be members of a committee. There are certain things that are ex officio — Senator Harder, for example, and Senator Bellemare in some situations — and that happens also with leaders and deputy leaders of the caucuses.
One of the things that we tried to understand is how senators who are independent, and not part of the other caucuses where appointments are being made, have the opportunity to take up some of the independent seats.
The Chair: Senator Lankin, I want to correct you: Senator Bellemare, as Deputy Leader of the Government, has the right as ex officio on all committees.
Senator Lankin: That's what I just said.
If I may, there are situations where I would say Senator Martin, for example, has the right to attend but also is a member of some committees. So when an ex officio attends, it is convention to advise the other parties in the ex officio counterpart so that the votes are not skewed. So we understand that.
But people have the right, as senators, to be members of committees, so how to facilitate some of those independent seats that we voted, on a proportional basis, be allocated to people who are not in the ISG because the ISG is not the whole. That's all we're trying to accommodate. If questions are raised in the long term about this, I think those are opportunities to look at how we can do it better so that people are comfortable with it.
What I would say, Mr. Chair, is that it's not directly on the point of the Estimates Subcommittee report in front of us.
The Chair: Right. Well, it seems like it's going to have an impact on individuals. I agree with you; I don't see the connection.
Senator Tkachuk: I'm on the Estimates Subcommittee, and I wish I had known this at the time, that the ISG was appointing.
Senator Bellemare, Senator Harder, Senator Mitchell have made every attempt to say they're not a whip and they're not a deputy leader. What do you guys call yourselves, anyway?
And then we have a situation where they are now being appointed not because of their position, because a government leader can come to committees. Usually, the niceties are that they notify the other government leader or the other whip or the other political organizations in the Senate and say, "I'm going to be attending this as a voting member.'' I know that we used to do it and I know the Liberals used to do it to us. Now they're being appointed as full- time members. So now the government gets $1.5 million. The Independent Senators Group gets $722,000, and they are actually one group. You can't be both.
I have a real problem with this now. I have a real problem here.
Senator Cordy: This is an excellent discussion, and there is a tie-in between the two. But the Selection Committee report is on the Order Paper for this afternoon, and I think a lot of these excellent questions that are being asked at Internal Economy should actually be directed to the discussion that we have this afternoon in the Senate chamber.
Senator Tkachuk: But we're approving the money here, and then it's going to be reported to the Senate. My view is that we should table this until we find out exactly what's going on with the selection group, and then we can deal with this when we come back.
Senator Mitchell: A couple of arguments. One is that there is precedent for exactly this kind of arrangement because when the independents originally arrived, the Liberals and the Conservatives gave up two seats on each committee. There was no suggestion that these seats taken by independents were being whipped or controlled by the Conservatives or the Liberals or that somehow the independents were expected, in those positions, to speak for the Conservatives or the Liberals. So there was precedent.
So the distinction was made. There was a long time when in fact there was a delay in making the balance more formal, and this arrangement seemed to be quite acceptable to Senator Tkachuk's group.
Secondly, I note that Senator Plett is a whip. He's not an ex officio. I think he sits on committees, if I'm not mistaken. Yes, he has positions on committees.
Thirdly, and this is really where —
Senator Tkachuk: It's our party. It's our numbers.
Senator Mitchell: I'm speaking; I have the floor.
Thirdly, I think it really comes up against the entire model that is now new and just beginning to be understood, and that is that nobody in ISG is whipped, so each of the people in those positions speaks essentially for themselves. They're not coming to those committees to speak for an ISG group. So the distinction is quite nominal, if even nominal. The fact is that I am taking a non-ISG position essentially. They don't control 100 per cent of the independent seats, and the fact is that no one in those seats, in any event, is whipped. They speak for themselves. The fact is that we're not going to be partaking of their $722,000.
We can have that as a debate, but, really and truly, we have to make this work, Senator Tkachuk. We're trying to do that in good faith and in collaboration, and it's not a threat to where you are or what you do.
The Chair: Colleagues, we've had a thorough discussion, which I think we are obligated to have on this issue. I also want to remind colleagues that the issue we've embarked on right now regarding the Committee of Selection is, I think, a little bit different than the issue of funding, in principle, the ISG group.
Colleagues, I also think that we have to be cognizant of the way things are changing in the chamber. We're not sure where they are going to go. Many of us have deep reservations about the direction the government has decided to take with regard to the appointment process. We've voiced that. That debate continues to go on in the Modernization Committee.
I think, colleagues — and my message is to the independent senators — that the onus is really upon you to show your degree of independence in the next few months and overcome the skepticism that some of us have that independent senators are generally independent from the government.
Having said that, in this new model, I also do recognize the argument that Senator Mitchell is ostracized and not able to participate legitimately in committees because he's a stand-alone representative of a government group that is only three individuals, and that is no fault of his. It's the life he has to lead with the decisions that the Prime Minister has currently taken.
That's the message I'm putting out on the table for everyone to contemplate. Senator Campbell has called for the question, and we'll have a recorded vote on this issue.
Senator Wells will have the final word since he's the chair of this proposal.
Senator Wells: Thank you, chair and colleagues. Back to the question at hand, which is the budget for the Independent Senators Group, some questions have been stated regarding taxpayers' money.
Colleagues, we're the Senate of Canada. We've spent the last number of years being choked of resources, probably choked by fear based on the things that we've gone through. We have a lot of good things that we can do, and we need to be well resourced to do them. If we don't, we end up confirming the narrative that's been placed in front of us for the last couple of years.
I just wanted to make that statement. This shouldn't be a race to the bottom about how we can save money or reduce our expenditures. We have jobs to do and we need to be resourced to do them.
The Chair: The motion is moved by Senator Wells, seconded by Senator Campbell. The clerk will proceed to a recorded vote.
Ms. Proulx: Honourable senators, I will call members' names, beginning with the chair and then going in alphabetical order.
The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Campbell?
Senator Campbell: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Cordy?
Senator Cordy: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: Abstain.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator McCoy?
Senator McCoy: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Ngo?
Senator Ngo: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Smith?
Senator Smith: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: Yes.
The Chair: The vote is 11 yes, 2 no, with 1 abstention. Accordingly, the motion carries.
Thank you, colleagues, and thank you Senator Wells. Thank you to the Estimates Subcommittee for their fine work.
Senator Munson: Just a point of levity since it's Christmas time, Senator Campbell who talks loud, talks a good fight, did say that the Liberals would disappear. If our recruitment program fails over the next two or three years, I just want to show on record that he's right because Senator Downe will be the last living Liberal in 2029.
Senator Downe: I'll be long gone before then, thank you.
Senator Munson: He'll be by himself. He'll be alone.
Senator Cordy: It'll be nice for him.
Senator Munson: He'll be the leader, the deputy leader, the whip, and the budget that he wants will be astronomical, I can assure you.
The Chair: Senators Munson and Campbell, the downfall of the Liberal Party might be a little premature at this particular point. It might be around the corner, but it's a bit premature.
Colleagues, I'm glad to put this issue behind us for the time being as we end this session. It's highly inappropriate that we spend enormous amounts of time arguing over process. We have to preoccupy ourselves when we come back in the new year with the business at hand, which is legislation. That is far more important, and that's what's expected of us.
We have other business on the agenda. Senator Wells is asking for the final word on this, but make it short because we have to continue.
Senator Wells: This will be short. In addition to thanking the witnesses, the members of the subcommittee and the other senators who appeared to assist us, I did want to thank our clerk Dan Charbonneau who did a great job in rallying the forces.
The Chair: Colleagues, we're now on Item 4 on the agenda, which is the fifth report of the Advisory Committee on Diversity and Accessibility. Luc Presseau, our HR director, was supposed to be accompanied by two lovely ladies, Kathy Jacobs and Angela Vanikiotis. You're welcome to come to the table. We also have Marie-Chantal Eynoux, responsible for the diversity program.
Luc and team, you have the floor.
Luc Presseau, Director of Human Resources, Senate of Canada: Good morning, honourable senators. I am pleased to be here this morning, accompanied by three outstanding contributors to the diversity file at the Senate.
[Translation]
I would like to introduce Kathy Jacob, Chair of the Senate Committee on Diversity, Maria-Chantal Eynoux, who recently became the Human Resources manager for the Diversity Program, and Angela Vanikiotis, who was responsible for the program until recently.
[English]
Honourable senators, I know that we are running a bit late. I don't have a long presentation for you. You were provided with the report about two weeks ago on this, so I don't want to take up too much time going through all of that.
The fifth report on diversity within the Senate administration is being presented to you for information. Also, we want to be able to post this report the same as the other reports were posted on the Internet as soon as possible.
The report highlights the accomplishments for the last year or so. It highlights as well that we have one item outstanding that is currently being put in place, and that is an employment systems review. The employment systems review will look at all of our employment systems and advise us on changes to processes and policies that may be required in order to further the diversity file within the Senate administration at this point.
You also have a series of statistics. Again, I won't go through those in any detail. However, I will point out that the diversity file within the Senate administration is very active and robust, as you know. I am new to the Senate, so in my initial review, I find that we are working diligently in attempting to address all of the diversity issues.
You will note that there's probably a decrease in the number in certain diversity groups. You will remember that there has been a move of the Parliamentary Protective Services to another employer. That affects the number of people in those diversity groups, but it does not negatively affect the percentages. Our percentage representation is still well in hand.
I'm open to questions. I really don't want to take much of your time.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for the great work you have done, Luc, and thank you for meeting with me as well to go through this report.
I want to bring to people's attention that this place was very different 16 years ago when I came here. When I look now and see how much it reflects the new Canada, I have to say to the Senate administration that it truly has done an amazing job. I want to thank the Senate administration
I would be remiss if I didn't recognize that when I fought very hard to have this many years ago, the two people who were so supportive, besides Internal, were Senators Marshall and Stewart Olsen. We worked really hard as a team to start to get this process in place, and I want to acknowledge the work the two of them did to move this work forward. I want to thank them formally for the great strides we have made in the 16 years that I have been here. I look around and we have more women and more diverse communities.
I am concerned about two groups in terms of where we go next. I spoke to Mr. Presseau about our hiring of Aboriginal people. I would like in the coming years to look at how we can be proactive in hiring so that we truly reflect the new Canada.
The other group I spoke to Mr. Presseau about is disabled persons. By that, I do not mean people within our organization who become disabled, but people we hire who have disabilities.
I also want to speak about the Friends of the Senate Program. I have asked this before. I would again humbly ask senators, especially at Internal Economy, to consider encouraging a young person to come work with you. It's a once- a-week commitment, a morning or an afternoon, with a very disabled person. I have had them for a number of years, and the teachers tell me that when they come to work in our offices, they feel so special. Our staff and I also learn from it; it's not one-way. I would encourage you, colleagues, to look at the Friends of the Senate Program.
Chair, if you look at the people who are on the advisory committee, its administration. I feel the time has come again that there should be a subcommittee from here to look at where we go with our vision and work with our administration for the next few years.
The Chair: We will allow the questions to go on, and at the end you can move a motion, Senator Jaffer.
Senator Marshall: I was looking at the statistics and the numbers that you provided, and I'm wondering if I'm interpreting this correctly. At page 15, if I back out all the four groups, 59 individuals are left. Would that be 59 men?
Mr. Presseau: I'm sorry. Which page were you looking at?
Senator Marshall: Just look at page 15 of your report. You broke down the number of people and the number who are visible minorities, Aboriginal people and women. When you back all those out, I'm left with 59 people. Are they men? Are we so successful now that the men are in jeopardy? I can't believe I'm asking that question, but are we now —
Mr. Presseau: We're over —
The Chair: We've come to terms with it.
Senator Marshall: Are we in reverse? If you look at the chart, what we're saying is that more than 50 per cent in the group are women. I would expect that in the visible minority, persons with disabilities and the Aboriginal groups, there are also some women in those three groups. What's the split? How many men do we have working in the Senate?
I realize that we have been very active in promoting the four groups, but now I'm wondering if we have reached our objectives and if we are into almost reverse discrimination.
Mr. Presseau: That is a very interesting question. As you are looking at the report, we do show that there are currently 41 per cent men and 59 per cent women working at the Senate. In the numbers that's 145 to 209.
To be frank, we haven't looked at it from the point of view of a reverse discrimination concept. We would need to do more analysis to get to that point, senator, honestly. However, that is certainly not something that jumped to mind immediately.
Senator Marshall: It jumped to my mind. As Senator Jaffer said, we worked on this together a number of years ago. I'm not a diversity specialist. Human resources is not my background; I'm an accountant. Looking at the numbers now, where we've come from and where we're going, sometimes you become focused on looking after certain groups. Are we not giving enough attention to the other group, which is men in this case?
That is the first thing that jumped out to me when I read this. It seemed like it was great for the groups, but now is it possible that we're into reverse discrimination? I just wanted to raise that point.
The other point I wanted to raise is the same one that Senator Jaffer raised. Do many senators participate in the Friends of the Senate Program? I participate in it, as do Senator Jaffer and Senator Munson, but is there a lot of participation in that program?
Maria-Chantal Eynoux, Senior Advisor, Services to Senators and Programs, Human Resources Directorate, Senate of Canada: Unfortunately, no. We just have four senators and three from the administration; seven all together.
Senator Marshall: Well, I would encourage all senators. It's very rewarding and it's a very interesting day. We usually have our friend of the Senate come on Wednesdays. I would encourage all people to do it.
In closing, I know there are just 12 members in your group, but I would appreciate it if you would keep in mind about the representation of men. I think we should hold that uppermost in our mind, to make sure that we are not into reverse discrimination.
I will ask the again question next year.
Senator Jane Cordy (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I never thought I would hear a question like that asked from the accountant.
Senator Omidvar: This is the first time I've been to this committee, and I'm absolutely delighted there is such work being conducted. It comes to me as a surprise, but a very pleasant surprise.
I have to admit this is material I have not seen before today, and I would like to request time to look at it. This is a serious matter, so I would like to ask for an opportunity to re-table the report the next time we sit. I'm not prepared to comment on it in the way I would normally like to. That's one request.
On the point of reverse discrimination, I would simply make one observation. I am assuming that competency is still, regardless, the top-level requirement. Senator Marshall, maybe we should think about the fact maybe the men just aren't competent enough.
Senator Tkachuk: That would explain it.
The Deputy Chair: I know the report was sent out two weeks ago, but I understand you're not a member of the committee. When the chair comes back, he can discuss that at the end of the questions.
Senator Munson: We figured that out a long time ago, Senator Omidvar. As I tell people here, I used to be 6'2''.
On the issue of the Friends of the Senate Program, as the new independent group finds its way — and as we have had that previous discussion — I would recommend that in the outreach program, the first part of the outreach is that you should ask to go and meet with the independent group and sit down with them as a group to explain clearly what this program is all about. I echo the words of Senator Jaffer and Senator Marshall. Michael Trinque has been in my office for almost seven years now. He is a fixture here, and he is a shining light in terms of a young man with Down's syndrome who can do anything we can do, and sometimes better. With that, he also brings much joy to our office. I will give you a brief example, because I know time is running out, but these are the kinds of things that are unexpected.
It's his birthday every December. On his birthday he likes to sing Christmas carols. When I was part of the leadership, I said, "What do you like to sing, Michael?'' He said, "I like to sing "Hark the Herald Angels Sing.'' So he sang it in front of me in English and in French. The next day was his birthday, and I wanted to make sure that everybody came in and around the other offices. Everybody seemed to be too busy until I told them, as a whip, to come into Michael's birthday. They came into Michael's birthday, and Michael sang "Hark the Herald Angels Sing.'' Out of 16 people there, all 16 were in tears of happiness. I said to them, "You were busy; you didn't have time. Well, you always have time.'' It's more than just the working part of the operation. It's who we are as a Senate.
The other issue I have deals with accessibility. I know we're leaving here in two years, but I found it to be a shame that when the Vice-President of Argentina, who is in a wheelchair, was here, she had to be recognized on the floor of the Senate down below as opposed to being upstairs. After 13 years of being here, why we haven't — to this day — built something easy and accessible for a vice-president to be brought into the proper space, high up, to be recognized by us? That is unforgivable. There are so many things that haven't been done.
About five years ago I was a "chairleader,'' in a wheelchair, and they said I couldn't come into the Senate Chamber because they had to build a little wooden ramp for me to sit at my desk during that time.
I know we have done well, and I know we're going to do better, but I'm passionate about this. I've been passionate since I've been here and I'll be passionate when I leave here in four years and eight months. Thank you.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
Senator Tkachuk: We have been doing this for three or four years now. I just want to commend all the members of the committee that have been working on this program.
We often have talked about the page program. A number of years ago we started to talk about where they came from and found out that they were kind of Central Canadians, but we have a real good program now. I think we are expanding it.
I'm just wondering how the employee numbers break down by region. In other words, how many Western Canadians would there be in the Senate bureaucracy? I don't know that, but I'd like to see some attention paid to that because I think it's important.
Mr. Presseau: Senator, that's a good idea. I don't have that information at hand. We can look to see if we can find it. Sometimes it is more difficult to have in our records the origin of the person. I should point out that even in the full report it is self-identification, so there are also possibilities that there are other people within our midst that would meet the diversity criteria but who have chosen not to self-identify. That's part of it.
Whether somebody comes from a different province or a different geographic area of the country is not something that we would typically record in our human resources files, unless they were moving in from somewhere and we would know that.
Senator Tkachuk: I think it's real important and you should pay attention to that.
Mr. Presseau: And we will.
Senator Tkachuk: I don't see a big problem in getting a general idea of how that works. We don't have that many employees. You could send an email out and ask them. Say, "We're trying to find out for the purposes of the future.'' I don't mean that we have to tie our hands with exactly that many — that's not what I'm talking about. However, within the administration, I think it would be a good idea if we had some idea of how many Atlantic Canadians and how many Western Canadians there are.
Mr. Presseau: Thank you.
The Chair: It would be interesting to find out if you go back and do some research where everybody comes from, right? Because once you're all here, you're all considered Ontarians from Ottawa. Everyone's origin is somewhere in Canada.
The committee, I assume, is comfortable with allowing Senator Omidvar time to review this and all the new members? Not a problem.
Senator Jaffer: May I move my motion, though? I have a motion that we strike a subcommittee of members of Internal to look at further work we should be doing on the issue of diversity.
The Chair: Colleagues, I have a motion by Senator Jaffer. Will anyone second the motion?
Senator Tkachuk: I second that.
The Chair: I suspect we're all in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion carries.
Maybe, Senator Jaffer, you can reach out to some of our colleagues and leadership, and at the next meeting we can strike the committee and make it official.
Item 5 on the agenda, colleagues, is communications support for CIBA. It's essentially a request to put into place a budget. You will all remember our Blueprint report, and we set up our new model of communication. One of the essential elements of that new platform and model was that all issues management and media relations regarding the Senate will be handled by the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Subcommittee of Communications. For a little more than a year now my office has been handling it, in particular Jacqui Delaney, in conjunction with myself as chair of the committee, Senator Cordy as deputy chair and the members of that committee.
Like all committees, of course, in the new year when we come back we need to rejig that to make sure the Subcommittee on Communications is also reflective of the new realities in the chamber. What we also need to do is provide the funding to the subcommittee in order to be able to pay a full-time contractual employee who will be doing issues management/media relations. Right now, like I said, it's been Jacqui Delaney who has been doing it for over a year out of my office. That's been at my expense because as a result, she's been preoccupied literally 24-7 on issues management/media issues in the last 12 months, instead of working on my speeches, research and everything else. Of course, she finds the time to juggle it all.
Going forward, I think it is essential that we approve a budget and that we have a budget available so the chair and deputy chair of that subcommittee can hire a professional communicator to deal with these issues. It will have to be a contractual arrangement because, of course, chairs and deputy chairs of committees evolve. It wouldn't be a full-time position.
I'm seeking from this committee approval today for a budget at the level of a senior policy adviser in a senator's office, for which I believe the minimum is $90,000 to $108,000. Is that the range? I'm also seeking approval to give the subcommittee the mandate to be able to identify candidates to fill that position on a per-need basis and on a monthly contractual basis.
Are any questions before I move any motions?
Senator Tkachuk: I'm with you if you hire Jacqui.
Senator Downe: I second that.
Senator Wells: I don't disagree that there's a need for that function.
My question is more on logistics. Under what umbrella would this budget fall? Would it be a committee budget, the Communications Directorate or your office?
The Chair: It would be a budget that would fall under the purview of the Internal Economy Committee, because the Subcommittee on Communications is directly linked and subservient to Internal Economy. It's not a stand-alone committee. As we remember the model that was set up for the Subcommittee on Communications, with the chair and deputy chairs having to be members of Internal Economy, the other members of the subcommittee could be, of course, any member of the chamber. The budget would be approved by Internal Economy and under Internal Economy's budget.
Senator Wells: I'm just trying to figure out where in our structure that $108,000 would fit.
The Chair: We would have to create a line item in Internal Economy, in administration, for an issues management communications director for the Subcommittee on Communications. You would have to create that.
Senator Wells: Would it fall under the umbrella of this committee?
The Chair: Yes. Subcommittees do not have the right to apply for budgeting.
Senator Wells: I understand and that's why I ask. It would be under this committee. Would it be more under the administration or would it be more in line with a political staffer?
The Chair: More in line with a political staffer. As you remember with the Blueprint report, we thought it essential that media relations and issues management were completely independent from the administration and would be under the guidance of senators exclusively.
Senator Wells: I recognize that you're chair of this committee and also Chair of the Subcommittee on Communications, but in a functional way, absent of that current convenience, under whose direction would this person fall?
The Chair: Remember, whoever is Chair of the Subcommittee of Communications in the future will automatically be a member of Internal Economy, or else they can't serve as chair.
Senator Wells: I understand that. Recognizing that you're the chair of both this committee and the subcommittee, what if there's a circumstance where the person who is Chair of the Subcommittee on Communications is not the Chair of Internal Economy but simply a member of Internal Economy? Under whose direction would that fall? Would it be the Chair of the Subcommittee on Communications, or would it be the Chair of Internal Economy?
The Chair: The operational direction would come from the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Subcommittee on Communications. The administrative direction would come from steering because of the overlap of those two committees.
Senator Wells: Thank you.
The Chair: I remind people that Internal Economy took a decision more than a year ago under the Blueprint report's guidance that we would have full control of communications going down the pipe from this organization.
Senator Wells: My other question is that if this $108,000 is approved, would it be under Main Estimates? Would it be under supplementary estimates? How would that work?
The Chair: It would be part of committee budgets. Right now you have budgets for all committees.
Senator Wells: It would be absorbed within the existing committee budget?
The Chair: Right.
Senator Wells: We're putting in new money, so my question would be to the Director of Committees Directorate: Is this under existing funding and would it be, perhaps, a reallocation? I would like to ask that question to the Committees Directorate. Or is it new funding and therefore under Main Estimates, which would affect the discussion I had last week with this committee, or would it be supplementary? It's very much a functional question.
The Chair: I will let Nicole answer that and then I'll weigh in.
Ms. Proulx: This is a request under Committees. As you know, there is an overall envelope for committee budgets. Every year, there's a process whereby each committee goes before the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets to make their proposal on their request for a budget, and within that envelope funds are allocated.
For this year, I do not have the exact amount, but I know —
Senator Wells: But this year it's not a problem.
Ms. Proulx: Right. But for next year, the amount would form part of the amount that is distributed. When the request comes from the other committees, if this is approved, it would be $108,000 that has been already allocated.
Senator Wells: Just a comment: I don't disagree and I think $108,000 is something we can risk manage, but we just went through a process where we very much moved away from risk management and went towards something obviously generated from a zero-based budgeting exercise last year to allocate money where it was required and nothing more, but also nothing less. I just want to make the comment that it goes against the process; not the need for the position but how we fit it in under our budget.
The Chair: Originally, of course, this would have normally gone to the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, but we're finding that unusual given the fact that all those members are sitting around this table and that we all understand there is a need for this in the future. Like I said, I have absorbed it as we have put this communications model in place. Senator Cordy and all the members of the committee, yourself included, wanted to see how it functions, and now that we have seen it's functioning well, we need to put into concrete terms a process going forward. When myself and Senator Cordy are no longer there, this committee will need to function in that fashion, so they need to be equipped with the resources to be able to do so.
Senator Wells: I don't at all disagree with the need for it. That's not at all my question.
The Chair: Plus the benevolence from my office is starting to run out.
Senator Jaffer: I want to formally recognize the work that the chair and steering — Senator Cordy and Senator Housakos — have done. It's the first time since I've been here that I've felt that there's somebody speaking for us. Jacqui has also done an exceptional job.
I feel, when mistakes happens, you are right on the ball and correct it, and you've told the media that you are going to defend us. I want to thank you for that.
Senator Cordy: It seems like I don't have to say this is extremely necessary, listening to the comments around the table. Times have changed. We can't take a week to respond to a media inquiry. We need someone on the ground with a ready answer.
Chair, you have been extremely generous, because Jacqui's salary is paid out of your budget, and I know that she's working 24-7. I know that the amount of work that you're able to get in terms of speeches and those kinds of things has been reduced because of the work she's done.
I agree with Senator Tkachuk. We have to clone Jacqui in terms of the person that we hire. She's done an exceptional job. In fact, Matt in my office always cringed every time Jacqui said she was going on vacation because he was nervous about all the calls that would come in. But she's trained us all very well.
In terms of responding to errors in the media, the same thing; she's dealt with them immediately. I think it's important that we have our own person for Internal.
Senator Marshall: I want to go back to the $108,000. That's within the existing budget, because we've already tabled our budget in the Senate, the $103 million or whatever. It's just a reallocation.
Senator Mitchell: I echo the comments of colleagues about the effectiveness and importance of this role, and just to say that having worked with Jacqui Delaney, I'm fully aware of how effective she's been. She's created a model for that role that I hope we can replicate. So thanks to Jacqui Delaney.
Senator Tannas: I wanted to also say that this role that you're talking about is extremely important, and it is completely different than the role that the Communications Directorate is also engaged in with all of the other work.
We have a fantastic communications team. There's the hot-seat role, and then there are the thoughtful, well- planned, beautifully executed communications that we're getting from the Communications team. I hope that they don't think that somehow they've failed or that this is something we're taking off their plate.
This will allow the Communications team to focus on the good work that they doing and the important communications job that they're doing so well.
The Chair: Without a doubt. I think Mélisa Leclerc and her crew always understood the model we set up. I'm very proud of the work that has been done on that side.
Again, the whole idea behind having issues management and media relations in the spokesperson — if you want me to call it that — of the Senate, has to come from within, from senators. We thought that was essential when we did our review of operations last year, and we were right, because right now the Press Gallery and the public understands that there's a real desire on our part to connect directly with them, answer their questions and be transparent. When they give you question now, we answer in minutes rather than in days. It helps that the people answering sit around this table in Internal Economy because they're aware of the decisions that are taken day to day.
I move the motion, seconded by Senator Munson. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
(The committee continued in camera.)