Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 10 - Evidence - March 30, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 30, 2017
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:06 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. With the acceptance of everyone, I've been asked by Senator Joyal if we can delay item 2 a few minutes because he has to go back to his office to acquire some documents. I was wondering whether, with the committee's approval, we can just switch item 3 and 2 on the agenda. Everyone okay with that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We can go right to item 1, which is the adoption of minutes of proceedings of March 9, 2017. Anyone have a question on the minutes? Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Where it is referring to the appeal of decision regarding legal fees, regarding former Senator Carstairs —
The Chair: What page?
Senator Batters: Page 2 of 4 of the minutes, page 3 of 11 of the package — the item appeal of decision regarding legal fees. Just the way it finishes, that particular item, just to say the debate concluded, I wondered if there's maybe a better way to indicate that. "The committee determined no further action was to be taken,'' or something like that because that's a little bit of a strange way to conclude.
The Chair: Do you have any words to recommend?
Senator Batters: I don't know. People that write minutes all the time probably have better words to recommend than I would.
The Chair: The debate concluded, so that's what it says.
Senator Batters: The debate concluded, and the committee did not request to take further action.
The Chair: If members are okay with that, we can add that qualification. Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: The debate concluded, and the committee determined not to take further action.
The Chair: We're okay with that? Good.
Any other questions on the minutes? Anybody want to move the minutes? Moved by Senator Wells, seconded by Senator Marwah. All in favour? Carried. Thank you.
Like I said, we'll go to item 3 right away, generic versus detailed purpose for hospitality expenses. Senator Wells, you have the floor on this.
Senator Wells: Thank you very much, chair. Thank you, colleagues. Honourable colleagues I'm pleased to provide the committee with an alternative to the current model for providing detailed purpose for hospitality expenses. I want to reiterate that this is an internal control, not an external, publicly viewed control.
As you know, we're required under the current hospitality policy to provide detailed information when submitting a claim to Finance. This documentation and validation are necessary for internal control and accounting purposes. Some senators have expressed that the level of detail required is unclear, and some back and forth with the Finance Directorate has been time-consuming. I know, in my case, that has been the case a couple of times, and for other senators who have come to me asking about it.
Your steering committee has reviewed this issue and recognizes the importance of a balance between due diligence, accountability and transparency and the need to respect the sensitive nature of certain business meetings. An alternative model for providing specific purposes is therefore being offered for consideration. It should first be clear that the same level of detail will continue to be provided for external proactive disclosure. However, internally our offices will not have to develop a detailed narrative anymore. A drop-down menu, with pre-populated event type and guest, will be available for selection. I would like to highlight that, following consultation with colleagues, a revised version — and that was based on the presentation I made on this topic at a previous CIBA meeting — of the briefing note was provided for this meeting. That's version 3.
The main change from the last briefing note is the addition of an optional field to provide the outcome related to hospitality expenses. That was a suggestion made by Senator McCoy and I thank her for that.
The new model would be implemented in our electronic system e-claims as of June 2017, but nothing would prevent senators from proactively and manually using these standard purposes starting April 21, 2017. It is recommended that this committee approve the alternative proposed for internal justification of hospitality expenses for efficiency and clarity purposes effective April 1, 2017, with an understanding that the e-claims system will be ready in June 2017.
I would again like to reiterate that this is simply an internal control and not for public posting. I'm happy to take any questions, colleagues.
Senator Munson: Just a clarification on number 2 on the optional field. What does "investigative'' mean?
Senator Wells: It's an option for some senators who are doing — well, it's investigative work. I guess we could change the nomenclature, but it's essentially a research option, if you're extending hospitality in the course of your investigations.
Senator Munson: All right. Thank you.
Senator McCoy: I want to congratulate Senator Wells and Pascale for their work on this paper and endorse what has been presented to us today. I'll leave my comments at that.
The Chair: Based on the number of questions, Senator Wells, it seems like the operation was a success.
Senator Wells: Yes. And, as I always must, credit goes towards Pascale and her team, Natalie and the rest of her team at Finance. They do a great job in assisting on all of these.
The Chair: Can I have a motion, Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: I move that this be adopted.
The Chair: Seconded by Senator Munson. Carried.
I can now turn the floor on item two over to Senator Joyal, who is with us, and Senator Wells to present the report on the Advisory Working Group on the 150th Commemorative Medal. I ask both senators to go to the witness stand, please.
Colleagues, Senator Joyal and Senator Wells have provided to us models of the medals which will be circulated around the room while they make their presentation. Senator Wells, Senator Joyal, you have the floor.
I remind colleagues that our hearings are public. I now turn the floor over to Senator Joyal.
Senator Joyal: Thank you for the note.
Senator Wells: Honourable colleagues, the Advisory Working Group on the 150th Commemorative Medal of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its first report.
On March 2, 2017, your Advisory Working Group was given the following mandate:
That the Advisory Working Group on a Senate 150th Anniversary Commemorative Medal be established;
That the membership of the working group be as follows: The Honourable Senator Joyal as co-chair, the Honourable Senator Wells as co-chair, Senator Bovey and Senator Unger;
That three members shall constitute a quorum;
That the working group be authorized to examine and make recommendations for the production of a Senate one hundred and fiftieth anniversary commemorative medal including the following elements: cost, design, quantity, schedule and other considerations as required for the implementation of the program and;
That the Working Group report to the committee no later than March 31, 2017.
Your Advisory Working Group has met to discuss the possibility of the Senate striking a commemorative medal to mark the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Confederation in 2017.
During the course of these meetings there was consensus among the members that a Senate medal would be well- received and would provide senators with an opportunity to recognize recipients in their community who have made a meaningful contribution to Canada or to a particular province, territory, region or community, or have made an achievement abroad that brings credit to Canada.
Christopher McCreery, an expert on the Canadian honours system, was present at the first meeting of your Advisory Working Group. Mr. McCreery provided the members with information and advice on the creation of a program as well as a draft design of a medal created by Lieutenant Colonel Carl Gauthier. The medal has been designed in such a way that it can be used beyond the sesquicentennial. A copy of the design is appended to this report.
Your advisory working group makes the following recommendations:
That a Senate of Canada sesquicentennial medal be created;
That an initial run of 5,000 medals be struck;
That your Advisory Working Group explore how the medal can be used by the Speaker and individual senators in the years following the sesquicentennial;
That your Advisory Working Group continue to work with the Royal Canadian Mint for the production of the medals;
That the draft design be approved in principle, with minor changes as directed by your Advisory Working Group;
And that is appended, colleagues:
That your Advisory Working Group continue to meet to further the development of the medal and the administration of the program;
That a Senate of Canada sesquicentennial advisory committee be appointed to meet as necessary to review nominations;
That the nominations be vetted by the advisory committee according to established criteria;
That the Clerk of the Senate serve as secretary of the committee and be responsible for the administration of the program;
That your Advisory Working Group regularly report back to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on the progress of the program.
Your Advisory Working Group is mindful that a project of this scope requires funding, lead time and preparation in order to properly launch and administer a medal program.
In order to proceed, your Advisory Working Group recommends approval for a budget in the amount of $558,750. This budget is appended to this report with certain costs to be confirmed and with future adjustments, and includes funds for the medals, presentation cases, certificates and administration of the program.
Colleagues, I would also like to thank Mr. Charles Robert for his assistance in getting this to the point where it is now.
Respectfully submitted by Senator Joyal and me. We're happy to take any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Wells and Senator Joyal.
Questions, colleagues?
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I have a question about the initial run of 5,000 medals. Why did you choose that number? Can people from outside submit their candidacies? What is planned to mark Canada's one hundred and fiftieth anniversary?
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Dupuis, for your question. Actually, we didn't start at 5,000. We started at the elements that ended up at 5,000. If you go to annex B in your draft, we felt it would be appropriate for the Speaker of the Senate to have a separate allotment to give visiting dignitaries, people that will come specifically during Canada's sesquicentennial, on state visits and official visits.
Each sitting member of the Senate in good standing would have one. Members of the Senate individually would have 30 to allot for their province or their particular community. It was built up like that. It came to 5,000. The rounding number was the allotted pool. You'll see that we have the symposium planned for May. We thought it would be appropriate for each Speaker to have a medal; specimens for repository institutions like various museums and official institutions; obviously, some replacements; and an allotment for the executive committee, Clerk of the Senate, the Law Clerk and Chief Corporate Services Officer, so 10 each for those. It came up to that.
There will always be instances where it's appropriate to consider giving this medal to other people after the sesquicentennial. We wanted to make accommodation for that. This is commemorating Canada's one hundred and fiftieth birthday, but we think that has a life beyond 2017; so that allotment was built for that.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: You partially answered my question. From what I understand, there will be an advisory committee responsible for receiving nominations and determining to whom the medals will be awarded. Can you repeat what you said about the 30 medals that will be given to each senator? Did I understand that correctly?
[English]
Senator Wells: That's correct. That's our proposal. The criteria for awarding haven't been established yet, nor has the committee put that together or assessed it.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I was thinking about the smallest village in my Senate division. That village will not necessarily measure up in terms of our national history with a capital "H.''
I have another, more technical question. Thank you, by the way, as I am learning a new French word, "sesquicentennaire.'' I was wondering whether that word would appear on the medal. In general, an effort is made to use language that everyone can understand.
Senator Joyal: As to your first question about the French word for "sesquicentennial'' — a word that is not familiar to most of us —, in French, we say the hundred and fiftieth. I was surprised myself, but it is the correct word. In French, we say hundred and fiftieth rather than sesquicentennial. The term is not commonly used, but it is approved by the Académie française.
As to your second question, you make a very good point. The purpose of the medal is not to double nominations for the Order of Canada. The medal is a way of recognizing the outstanding service of a person for a given cause, whether in a social, cultural, sports, economic, scientific or political sphere. We are very familiar with the extremely rigorous selection process for Order of Canada candidates. As to the Senate medal, it is essentially a way of recognizing the contribution of citizens who would not qualify for the Order of Canada, but who nonetheless help build and improve our society.
The impact of the medal can be very different depending on whether it is for an organization in a small village or for one in a big city. Both can make an equally essential contribution to the growth, life and development of a community. We know for a fact that an organization in a small village has a very slim chance of being recognized. As my colleague, Senator Wells, said, the committee will develop eligibility criteria. We do not want to award medals that are not warranted or are sponsored by a well-known community organization. Otherwise, it would end up going to an uncle, aunt, cousin, friend, et cetera. We want to preserve the medal's credibility, especially since senators will be invited to present the medal and the certificate. At that time, they must be able to explain why the medal is being awarded to that specific person.
We will accordingly develop a range of criteria and a sponsoring system that will provide for some objectivity in the selection of recipients in order to remove any personal factors that would tarnish the medal's credibility.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, I gave it to you. If I may use your question, senator, to make some comments on the design of the medal, you have the design of the medal, and I'm circulating the medal that has been given by the Senate of France. The design doesn't give you a real impression of its texture. If you allow the circulation of the medal that has been given and granted by the Senate of France, you will see there is a thick relief of the design of the medal. It's not a flat impression over a sheet of metal. It's engraved.
I have other medals that I can circulate, not that I want to promote the medal I have received, but to show you the quality of the medal. As Senator Wells mentioned, who will be working with the Royal Canadian Mint. In other words, the money stays with government agencies; we're not contracting in the private sector. It is an important element, because when we use public money we have to make sure the government agencies or institutions that are partners of the government are part of the initiative.
You will realize that on both sides of the medal, the Senate is fully represented. The Senate badge, of course, is on the front of the medal, and the quatrefoil, which is one of the symbols of the Senate. On the other side, the Senate chamber, similar to the design of the Senate chamber in France. Of course, there's a window to have the name of the person inscribed on the bottom of the medal. It's a very personalized medal.
It's not something somebody would say, "Oh, it's just a medal, I can give it, sell it, give it to a kid to play with it.'' It's part of your identity. When you have a medal with your name on it, of course you make sure that when it has to be given to the next generation, you know to whom you will be giving it, because it's part of your identity.
Senator Wells and the members of the committee were very concerned about that, that the medal be personalized and not just be a medal that anybody can have and you give it to your neighbour. When your name is on it, you take care of it and you make sure that it remains within your family. It is something that has important personal meaning. We were certainly positive in making that recommendation to make sure that the medal has a link with the institutions in a way that can be demonstrated and valued through the years.
Senator Munson: Is the Government of Canada or anybody else involved in this medal? The one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of a country is very important and should be recognized. There's a cost to this. Do you know why the Government of Canada has not been part of this initiative?
Senator Joyal: Thank you for your question, Senator Munson. I won't repeat the speech I made in the Senate for 15 minutes when I introduced the motion. In a nutshell, the Government of Canada decided not to proceed with the distribution of a medal to mark the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Confederation, even though, of course, there was a medal for the Centennial in 1967. There was a medal for the fiftieth anniversary of Confederation in 1927, and there was a medal for the birth of Canada. It's a big medallion, and there are the four original provinces represented on it. I see somebody from Prince Edward Island, Senator Downe. The four original provinces — New Brunswick; Nova Scotia; Upper Canada; and Lower Canada, Quebec — are represented in the form of an allegory on that first medal of Canada.
I was like any of you: I thought that the government would, of course, continue the historical tradition of having a medal at each fiftieth anniversary of Confederation.
The government decided not to have such a medal, and that's why I introduced a motion in the Senate requesting that the government review its decision. I met with the Minister of Heritage, Madame Mélanie Jolie, with other senators in attendance, and I impressed upon her the need to review the decision. The main argument was that they wanted to have an initiative of celebration that would not be singling out individual citizens. In other words, they were against the idea that the merit of individual citizens be marked for the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary.
I thought it was an easy argument, because on that basis we would not celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Order of Canada this year, because as you know, the Order of Canada was created in 1967. It is 50 years old this year.
Minister Joly was present last week when the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario was granting medals to a certain number of persons who contributed to the dynamic life of French in Ontario. For instance, Madeleine Meilleur is one of the key spokespersons for the maintenance of French hospitals in Ontario, just to give an example. Minister Joly was there that evening and applauding the seven persons who received that honour from the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario.
I don't think the argument really has any basis. I think it's bad to break the tradition. I don't think it's a mark of exclusivity, in a way, of creating two classes of citizens. I think that Canadians, in their daily lives, contribute on a volunteer basis in all kinds of associations, food banks and rallies to raise money to support sports associations for kids who play for the weekend and want to travel and compete outside their province. There are all kinds of initiatives in the community that make the communities thrive.
I think we have an opportunity at this stage of our history, at our one hundred and fiftieth anniversary, to recognize that Canada is thriving because those people involve themselves on a volunteer basis. They're not paid for it. They just believe in their communities and the values they serve. They believe in generosity and in their convictions that they can make their society or little village better. I think it has to be recognized. It's part of the celebration. You have to celebrate people, and you have to celebrate the fact that we belong to a country that has developed that kind of society that is open, accepts new citizens and welcomes, for instance, the refugees that we have had this year. There are a lot of groups and churches who welcome immigrants and it's part of the success of integration.
If we recognize those people at this juncture of our history, I think it's worthy. For the Senate to be able to connect with those people and to establish the recognition of their contributions, in my opinion, is worthwhile for the Senate's reputation as the spokespersons for minorities, regions, provinces, community groups and all those people who come and testify in front of us, depending on the issue we have to tackle.
It seems to me that the argument put forward by the government is not supported by our past history and is certainly not vindicated by our legacy, which is what concerns me very much as a citizen.
The government will spend $180 million this year on all kinds of initiatives that will last 30 days. Two months, three months and six months later, $180 million will have been spent. What will be the legacy of that?
This will be a legacy. People will keep it as a token of recognition of what they have been doing. I think that if you compare the amount of money there with the rest of the money that is going to be spent with, as I say, the kind of legacy that will remain on the books in relation to that, I think it's worthwhile to take this initiative.
That's why we are in front of you this morning. If the government would have taken the initiative, Senator Wells, Senator Unger, Senator Bovey and I would have done something else with the hours we spent meeting to prepare this recommendation for you. We would be happy to celebrate the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary with the Commonwealth Medal of the Government of Canada.
But after our pressing presentation and the unanimous vote in the Senate, the government doesn't want to review its decision. So I think it's up to the Senate to decide what it wants to do.
The Chair: You're absolutely right, senator, that at the end of the day, the Senate's role is to help misguided governments. This is an example.
Senator Tkachuk: I have a couple of questions. They are a little expensive, and I'm not sure how you're going to allocate them. Is it so many per senator or per province?
Also, you're nominating, so how will it work? Will a senator nominate someone and then it will go to an advisory committee? Who sits on the advisory committee? Other senators? The usual group?
Senator Wells: It could be made up of senators or partially made up of senators. That hasn't been determined. I think that the senator would select a recipient based on criteria. I think that's how it would go, Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: So the advisory committee would turn it down or accept it? Does it have the power to do that? "Senator, we can't nominate that person because we don't think that they're valuable or worthy enough.''
Senator Wells: I understand.
Senator Tkachuk: Because it becomes very small "p'' political, whether or not we like it.
Senator Wells: I understand, and that's the nature of the business we're in, senator.
The criteria would be established. In fact, there are some limiting criteria already suggested in our proposal, that is, members of provincial legislatures, for instance, or employees of municipal governments would not qualify; things like that. Criteria would be established, but part it would have to be up to the good judgment of the senator. Senators know, or are among those who know best, who in their region, geographical community or community of interest would be deserving of this. Somewhere along the way in this process you would have guidelines, and then a decision. In my recommendation, that would be up to the senator, based on the guidelines.
The other thing I'd like to mention that would make sense is that I know in my case, in Newfoundland and Labrador, I would consult with my Newfoundland and Labrador Senate colleagues on making sure we don't overlap within specific communities or areas of interest so that there's a semblance of coordination for Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously, that would not be mandated, but I think it would make good sense to do that.
Senator Tkachuk: Have you considered that senators may use their office budget to buy these? That would spread the cost around a little. It's going to cost a lot of money.
Senator Wells: I understand, senator. No, it wasn't contemplated that any of the costs would come from senators' office budgets.
Senator Tkachuk: It's not a bad idea, actually.
Senator Wells: Senator, you make a good point. Of course, we have the ability to travel around our provinces and, in fact, travel around the country, and this would be a nice ceremonial event, for many people in many communities, to have a presentation. Of course, you will see a draft certificate that will go along with this that would be signed by the Speaker and by the presenting senator.
It's an opportunity to give the Senate, one of Canada's founding institutions, a place in the communities of Canada.
Senator Tkachuk: I know that during the Diamond Jubilee we had events with the members, and they were very successful. The presentations with the Lieutenant Governor involved were very successful events and were really appreciated by the communities that we were in. There is a way to do it.
Senator Joyal: You're totally right, Senator Tkachuk. I had the same preoccupation — and the rest of the members of the committee.
The fact is that we can benefit from the experience of Mr. Chris McCreery who is the acting agent of the program of the Diamond Jubilee Medal. So we will develop the criteria on the basis of the other initiative that was taken some years ago to mark the jubilee and to make sure that the criteria that are developed bring some kind of objectivity into the evaluation in the way of sponsorship by an NGO, a city council, a charity, a church — some agency — that can testify that the person has made some contribution that needs to be marked.
I think there is a way to develop some criteria that makes it objective and doesn't turn out, as I mentioned, that a medal is given too easily among the friends and family of the senators, which would discredit the initiative in the long run. We have to be very attentive on the determination of the criteria. The senator will have input on the basis of that but also in sync with a number of objective criteria that would maintain the credibility of the program.
Senator McCoy: I shall support the initiative, and I'm happy we are doing something to mark this event, but I do have a couple of questions.
One is basically pursuing a supplementary to Senator Tkachuk. I'm hearkening back to the QE II medals. We got 30 each for that experience. There was a very simple process in that regard. As I recall with the criteria, there was a vetting process. There was a due diligence exercise by the central authority, whoever that was — and I don't recall who that was. It must have been the Governor General.
Senator Joyal: It was under the Governor General.
Senator McCoy: But it was not intrusive and it didn't second-guess the senators. At least, I don't believe it did. I myself put together a community-based peer group who made the recommendations.
I would want further assurances, as Senator Tkachuk was asking for, that this nomination committee or whatever you're calling it here is indeed doing due diligence and not substituting their opinion for the senator's opinion.
Senator Joyal: I totally agree, senator. That's why I say the development of criteria on the basis of what we had as an experience at the Diamond Jubilee, which worked relatively well. We can testify, each one of us, on our own experience.
I think you will notice that the fact, as Senator Wells has mentioned, that your name would appear on the certificate. You would not sign a certificate where you would not agree with the decision to give it to a person in particular.
That could be done easily by the fact that once we'll have developed the criteria. We will inform the senators of the program and the criteria, and invite the senators, as you just said, to form a group of advisers in their community to be sure that the names would come forward and be agreeable to the senators so that we're not finding ourselves giving medals in a situation that would be difficult to handle.
Senator McCoy: My point is I don't think the criteria were particularly specific in the QE II example. But I think there was a due diligence function to make sure no untoward individuals by happenstance or simple error received such an auspicious commemorative medal.
I have another question, and I may have missed it in your previous answers. If I did, I apologize. The allotted pool, which is almost 1,500 — I've quickly read through the document given to us this morning. It would appear that I can apply and all the senators can apply to have more than 30 if we wish? Is that what the allotted rule is for it?
Senator Wells: There are circumstances that we have not yet considered. We've tried to think of everything, but of course we may not have, and that's what this pool is for. It may be for other circumstances where it would be appropriate to give a gift. If the senator or the Speaker is travelling to another country, that might be a suitable gift to give.
Again, as we mentioned, this also has a life that can go beyond the sesquicentennial year. It gives us an allowance to do more than what we've already considered, not just in the numbers but in time as well.
Senator McCoy: Are you contemplating bringing that back to the committee to share and have a collaborative approach as to what these allotted designations would be?
Senator Wells: One of the recommendations we have is we would report back to this committee on the progress of this.
Senator McCoy: On that particular pool? Do you agree to that?
Senator Wells: I would agree with that, yes.
Senator Joyal: If I can give an example, many of us are members of parliamentary associations, and we travel with our counterparts in various countries. There are specific circumstances through which the Canadian delegation might want to honour their counterpart in the other country. So the medal could be used for that, because as you know, there is a tradition sometimes that we bring a little gift. It's usually a little something from an Inuit artist. I'm not against that, of course. I have given some in the back of the room here.
I think that for the Senate to be in a position in such particular circumstances to hand out the medal, there is a symbol that is meaningful. The medal is of particular use this year because of the one-hundred and fiftieth anniversary, but in the years to come, the medal could become a trademark for the Senate to mark a specific group or event.
As Senator Wells has mentioned, that medal would have a life on its own and remain an important mark of recognition and gratitude of the Senate in some circumstances. That's why the allotted pool, as Senator Wells has mentioned, has been put aside — to be sure that we would continue to use those medals in the years to come.
Senator McCoy: I'm not objecting to the pool, but at the moment, it's like a black hole. I was just wondering, and then you're going to tell us. I'm satisfied. Thank you.
Senator Marshall: I have a few comments, mostly clarification.
First of all, it's a lot of money. It's $100 each for the bronze and $325 for the silver. I notice in the briefing note that the 5,000 medals is a reference to an initial run. For Advisory Committee, is there any reference to who is going to be on the Advisory Committee?
Senator Wells: We haven't considered what membership might be. It might include senators, and it might include people who have been on similar advisory committees in the past.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Do I understand right that the 5,000 that's allocated to each senator that —
Senator Wells: Thirty would be allocated to each senator.
Senator Marshall: — each one of those has to go before this advisory committee? I as a senator could put forward 30 names. Is it going to be done like so many per senator?
Senator Wells: It will be 30 per senator, as is outlined in annex B, I believe it was, Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Okay.
Senator Wells: The criteria would be established. Each senator would have those criteria for the 30. The proposal for 150 for the Speaker, for instance, obviously would not fit in that category. So if there is a visiting dignitary, the Speaker would have his allotment to give one, which would be outside of the criteria established by —
Senator Marshall: So just over half would be given to the senators, and there would be about 2,000 that would be in a general pool that could be used for some other purpose.
What about the silver medals? Are there so many designated? Would there be one per senator? How will the silver medals be allocated?
Senator Joyal: The silver one has been proposed for the Speaker's use only. For instance, when Senator Kinsella hosted Barack Obama in his office, he wanted to give him something at the reception. The Speaker receives prime ministers, presidents, dignitaries of all sorts, and the Speaker, in his or her wisdom, would determine the circumstances under which he or she sees fit to grant the silver medal to a special dignitary.
That was proposed because it's tradition that when a medal has been struck, there is always a small quantity that are in gold, silver and bronze. For instance, with the Diamond Jubilee medal, there were a certain number of medals that were cast in silver, and two in gold, to be sure that the Governor General would have one in gold because it remains, of course, in Rideau Hall in a showcase. It is the same with the Speaker. It will be the Speaker's initiative to determine what dignitaries, and under what circumstances, she or she feels is justified to give the silver medal of the Senate.
Senator Marshall: This is along the lines of what Senator Tkachuk was speaking about. Would the $48,000 for the 150 medals be more appropriately charged to the Speaker's office? I will follow up with something to do with senators.
Senator Joyal: We can always send the bill to the Speaker and say here is what you owe to the Senate. We have not discussed that with the Speaker, per se. There is no bar to do it. We could invite the Speaker to do it.
But with the concept of a medal, as I said, depending on the metal used, gold, silver or bronze, there is an initiative that takes place in a specific context. And since it is the Senate medal, and the Speaker is there on behalf of the Senate. He speaks in his rank in the protocol as the fourth person in the protocol, and there are circumstances in which the giving of the medal would be totally welcome.
It is up to us to determine, of course, if we want him to take that money from the budget.
Senator Marshall: Is it guaranteed that each individual senator will be able to distribute 30 medals? It's not, is it?
Senator Wells: That's our proposal.
Senator Marshall: So you would leave it up to the individual senators to make sure they identify 30 worthy people.
If I had 30 medals and they're $100 each, that would be $3,000 and I could pay for that out of my budget, so everyone could use their own budgets to pay for the medals.
If there are 30 medals for senators, that's 3,000. So there are still 2,000 medals that are really up for grabs; we don't know who is going to get them. They're not by senator. They're just in a pool.
Senator Wells: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Who would have access to that pool of 2,000 medals?
Senator Wells: That would be determined, but if there were other meritorious possible recipients, then perhaps an application could be made. Those criteria haven't been developed yet.
Senator Joyal: Among those medals, senator, there are some that we have to give to institutions for the sake of memory of the initiative. There are at least 17 medals we would have to give institutions like the Museum of History, National Archives. There are a certain number of agencies that normally receive the medal for the sake of keeping it for testimony of the initiative. There are another 25 that would be needed to grant to the various speakers who will be attending the symposium that will take place in the Senate on the 25 and 26. The Speaker will make an announcement in the forthcoming days.
There is another group of medals that will be kept for the Speaker also, which he might want to give without giving the silver medal. He might develop a classification for when he will give the silver medal and when he would give the bronze. That will be part of the pool.
We can't take it that no one would be interested in those 2,000.
Senator Marshall: It is a lot of money, and given the allocation to each individual senator and the reference to the initial run of 5,000 medals, I want to make sure that we have a good handle on how these medals are going to be distributed. If we have a second run of 5,000 medals, and there are quite a few assigned to this general pot that the regular senators don't have access to, I think you're going to have a lot of unhappy senators. That's my point. And it is a lot of money. It is $558,000, and we're the only ones doing it.
I did see an article in the paper within the last couple of days where there was some criticism of our budget at this point in time. I do want to point out that there is a risk to that.
The Chair: Colleagues, before we go to Senator Tannas for a supplementary, I want to remind you that there are other items on the agenda. For the benefit of time, we could be a little more succinct in the questions and answers, because if we keep this up we'll be ready to distribute medals for the two-hundredth anniversary.
Senator Tannas: With the extra 2,000 — and maybe I missed this as well — we're giving this to humans, and there are some realities in the makeup of the Senate and the number of people in the Senate and where they come from. We're going to give 180 medals in Newfoundland, 120 in P.E.I. and 180 in British Columbia. With the extra 2,000 medals, could some of that be reserved for the reality that these are going to people and people are not distributed in the same way that senators are distributed?
Senator Wells: It's a good suggestion, senator.
Senator Joyal: What we could do, of course, is once we know how many senators have used their allotment and how many senators have come forward and said "I would need 10 or 20 more,'' then we can report to the steering with the number of requests we've received, would you approve that? I think that's the best way to approach this.
What you said is totally right. When you are in a city like Montreal and Toronto and you have, say, 100 medals for the whole of the town for sports, the military, volunteers, culture, the economy, it's a short number. I think it makes sense if we had a second run of re-allotment on the basis of needs and, of course, with the approval of steering, I think that's the way to go forward with that.
Senator Marwah: I like this initiative. I think it has merit at many levels, but it is also quite expensive. I like Senator Tkachuk's idea that this should be charged to senators' budgets. That would significantly limit the incremental expense involved since we have our budgets anyway. I think we should make it mandatory for the senators paying for the medals that they hand out.
The Chair: The only issue I have with that, of course, is certain senators at the end of the fiscal year have more leftover resources in their budget than others. Some senators are overloaded with responsibilities and have larger staff. As a result, what will you do in the instance where you have a senator who doesn't have room in his budget for those? It is an issue that will occur in a handful of cases. I'll leave that query for the committee to deal with.
Senator Joyal: We can invite individual senators to contribute to the program if we feel that they want to do it. But if we restrict the program only to those who will have the money to pay, I don't think we will create the kind of common approach to it that we want to support.
I don't want to use myself as an example, but I use the money to pay employees. However, I seldom use the hospitality budget part of the overall budget. Anyway, the $5,000 will go back to the Senate; I don't use it. It's no big deal. But there are other senators who I totally recognize need that hospitality budget for all kinds of initiatives they have a part of. I think it is up to us to invite the senators to use that money to pay back the Senate for that. At the end of the year, however, you don't cash the money. It stays in the general consolidated fund. That's why I think it's a good suggestion, but I don't think we should make it compulsory, because it might disturb the initiatives that many senators have taken on the basis of that budget.
The Chair: If I may add to that, at the end of the day, Senate budgets or other budgets are still taxpayers' money. We have to be prudent with it, regardless of where it comes from.
Senator Downe: I'd like to thank the committee and the members for all of the work they did. They certainly gave a detailed overview. Given the history of medals in Canada, obviously the government is making a mistake of historical proportions. However, I'm not convinced the Senate in isolation should be doing this. I'm particularly concerned about the price and the cost. I don't know how the Senate could defend this initiative in the eyes of the public. I'm not sure of the principle that senators would be giving medals in the absence of anyone else. If we had the House of Commons doing the same thing, I would certainly reconsider it.
Where I come from, for example, it would be like some type of half a million dollar vanity project of senators. The government has decided, for I think erroneous reasons, not to proceed. If we go with this we have come to a different conclusion, namely, spending taxpayers' money so we can distribute medals to Canadians who obviously are worthy of recognition. We saw this with the diamond jubilee, which I participated in fully and there were wonderful events and ceremonies. People were very appreciative. They know the question about the impact of people receiving the medals, but I question the impact on the Senate. We've gone through very difficult years. We have made substantial progress and then events seem to push us either to the side or back and we become a target again. I think proceeding with this at this time, in isolation of anyone else doing it, would make us a target again. So I don't currently support this initiative.
Senator Munson: Briefly, for the diamond jubilee medals there was a limited run, wasn't there? I could support it if there was a limited run of these medals that would add to the significance of what we're trying to do here to appreciate the lives of those Canadians in our communities. I see in the briefing note there's an initial run of 5,000 medals and they can be handed out to anybody and everybody. I would like to take a look at the idea, if it's for the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary, that there are a total of 1,500 medals distributed equally to senators across the country and let us do this. I just want to throw that into the mix of the debate.
Senator Mitchell: I'm very much in favour of this program and I appreciate the work of the committee and supporters in developing it. I won't say that I don't find Senator Downe's argument compelling, but this isn't about worrying about the image of the Senate. This is about establishing a presence for Canada and recognition of contributions to Canada. We in the Senate get all kinds of recognition, some good and some bad, but it's easy to forget Canadians who toil away to make this country remarkable — more remarkable tomorrow than it was today — get absolutely no recognition for it. This may seem like a bit of a public relations issue to us on the one hand but, on the other hand, to somebody in northern Alberta who was instrumental in fighting the fire and bringing Fort McMurray back, imagine what that means to that person and to that person's community to have this kind of recognition of tremendous contribution to this remarkably beautiful, wonderful country? I don't think it's too much to ask that we should do that. I think it's perfectly and utterly responsible and a great contribution that the Senate can make to Canadians who deserve to be recognized.
Senator Wells: Of course, one hundred and fifty years is a convenient and suitable mark in time. This is a program that would give credit where credit is due. So often in society we don't give credit where credit is due.
To Senator Downe's point that if the House of Commons were doing this he might give different consideration to it, I would say if the House of Commons were doing this, we may not have to do this; it wouldn't be necessary.
Finally, the easiest thing to do is to do nothing and the least costly thing to do is to do nothing. I think we're recommending a different path.
The Chair: Colleagues, I have a motion from Senator Wells, who is a member of the committee. Do I have a seconder? I don't have a seconder? I don't need a seconder.
All in favour?
Senator Marshall: No.
An Hon. Senator: Agreed.
The Chair: Do we want a recorded vote? I see fingers going up. We will have a recorded vote. Senator Marwah?
Senator Marwah: I support it with my condition that it comes out of senators' budgets.
The Chair: Are you moving an amendment to the motion?
Senator Marwah: Yes.
The Chair: Senator Marwah is moving an amendment to the motion, basically saying that he would support it on the condition that the medals would be coming out of senators' budgets. Is everyone in favour of that motion?
Senator Wells: If I may go on debate on that motion.
The Chair: On debate, Senator Wells, you're absolutely right.
Senator Wells: I'd like to point out, Senator Marwah — and I understand the concept behind that — two things. First, the initial comment was made that senators have planned — certainly, in my case, I've planned out my budget for the coming year with staff and with other activities. Finally, in a case such as this, as we say back in Newfoundland, the money is coming out of the same pair of pants, just a different pocket. I'd like that consideration to be made.
First of all, I don't think it's appropriate or fair, as senators' budgets in many cases have been established for the year. In the final analysis, it's the taxpayers' money that we're spending, the same taxpayer, whether it's out of my office budget, out of a different allocation or out of a new allocation. I'd just like to put that consideration to the floor.
The Chair: On debate, Senator Mitchell.
Senator Mitchell: I am sympathetic to the argument, but it does differentiate between the resources and the allocation of resources amongst different senators. I don't want to sound in any way, shape or form condescending, but when you've been here as long as Senator Jaffer — and you've built many issues and committed staff resources to developing and working those issues — compared to somebody who hasn't been here as long and who hasn't yet found the issues and deployed the resources to build those issues and work on behalf of Canadians that way, you will find that different senators have different resources left over to do this.
Second, I would say the argument follows that if I can buy it out of my budget, why shouldn't I be able to buy 50, 60 or 70? Unless we restricted that, but on the one hand you're allocating the responsibility to my budget, and on the other hand, you are telling me I can only use my budget in certain ways. It starts a slippery slope. If we go down that slope, there's no guarantee we won't spend more money. This way we have a limit.
Senator Marshall: It's in the briefing note.
Senator Munson: I have another motion.
The Chair: Another motion. We're still on the amendment of Senator Marwah. We'll wait for the other motion.
Senator Marwah: If I could respond to that question. The two points I would make is we just had a substantial increase in our budgets for this year, so I think we all have more money than we had planned the previous year.
Second, I don't buy the premise that it's coming out of the same pair of pockets. This limits the incremental expense. We have our budgets allocated to us, which we're going to use, and hence we are limiting the incremental expense to Canada. I don't believe in the premise that it comes out of the same pants. No, it doesn't.
The Chair: Colleagues, we're still on the amendment of Senator Marwah. If there's no more debate, is everyone in favour of that amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: We'll have a vote on the amendment.
Senator Tkachuk: Why do we need a vote? There's only two.
The Chair: How many of you are in favour of Senator Marwah's amendment? How many are against the amendment?
It looks like those against the amendment have won the day, Senator Marwah, so it is defeated.
Senator Munson: I have an amendment that there be a limited run of medals to commemorate the significance of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Canada. The number would be 1,500 or 500. You're making me think rather quickly so early in the morning.
The Chair: I know you former journalists are quick on your feet.
Senator Munson: Five hundred.
The Chair: Five hundred medals in total?
Senator Munson: Total.
The Chair: We have an amendment now on the floor that there would be a limit on the number of medals, that being 500. On debate, Senator Wells.
Senator Wells: Of course, we're here to seek funds for this program. We haven't done the calculation for 500 medals. That's one point.
Some cost is in the design, the dye, setting up the modest infrastructure for the criteria, distribution and the system and infrastructure. That's part of the initial cost that we have. That cost won't significantly increase based on a greater number of medals.
I would say, Senator Munson, if your costs are set at 500, making more medals is not going to significantly increase that cost.
The Chair: Any further debate on this amendment, colleagues?
Senator Munson: I would argue that the significance of having a minimum amount of medals for senators and others to give to Canadians in our communities would really add to the significance of the year. I worry about subsequent years. I think it dilutes the importance of what we're trying to do.
The Chair: Colleagues, all those in favour of the motion of Senator Munson? Actually, the motion is moved by Senator Munson. You're moving the motion?
Senator Munson: Yes.
The Chair: All in favour of Senator Munson's amendment? There's overwhelming silence on that motion. All those against the motion? The motion in amendment is defeated.
Colleagues, now I'm starting to get a greater sense of respect for the Fathers of Confederation and their negotiations in 1867.
We'll go to the original motion from Senator Wells.
Senator Wells: That the recommendations be adopted.
The Chair: All those in favour of adopting this recommendation? All those against the recommendation?
Can we have a recorded vote to get clarity, please? If the committee agrees, we'll have a recorded vote.
[Translation]
Nicole Proulx, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, I will call the members of the committee by name, in alphabetical order, starting with the chair. The senators will have to state whether they are for, against or abstain.
[English]
The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: For.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: For.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: Against.
[Translation]
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: I abstain.
[English]
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Lankin, P.C.?
The Chair: She has left.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Marwah?
Senator Marwah: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator McCoy?
Senator McCoy: For.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Mitchell?
Senator Mitchell: For.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Abstain.
[Translation]
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Against.
[English]
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Smith?
Senator Smith: Abstain.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: For.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: For.
The Chair: There are 6 for, 6 against, 3 abstentions. Accordingly, the motion is defeated. Thank you, colleagues.
Thank you, Senator Joyal and Senator Wells, for your good work. The remaining issues we're dealing with are HR issues and a review of the rules and policies. We will be doing that in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)