Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 11 - Evidence - April 6, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 6, 2017
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:03 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. I'd like to call the meeting to order and get right to the agenda. We have a very busy agenda, as usual. We have item 1, adoption of minutes of proceedings of March 30, 2017, the public portion of the agenda. Do you have any questions on it? Moved by Senator Jaffer. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you. Item 2 is the eleventh report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets. Senator Tannas, did we catch you with your mouth full?
Senator Tannas: With my favourite raisin croissant, yes, sir.
Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the eleventh report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, which includes recommended allocations for 10 committee budgets.
Before reviewing each, I'd like to provide some context. The total funds available for 2017-18 are $2.382 million, less a half a million, $500,000, for witness expenses. That leaves us with $1.882 million for release to individual committees for this year.
The subcommittee met this past Monday, after receiving budget applications from 10 committees, totalling just over $1 million.
As we mentioned several times last year, the subcommittee notes that, typically, committees request budgets that exceed their actual expenditures by an average of 60 per cent. This means that approximately $1.5 million last year was returned and clawed back to the main budget set aside for committee travel.
Part of the reason for this is because multiple committees planned their travel all at the same time, early in the fiscal year, and then could not do so because of conflicts with other committees or with business in the chamber or because budgets typically requested funds for all members to travel when, in reality, most committee trips occur with less than its full membership being able to participate.
Our response last fiscal year was to delay the release of funds until the committees provided confirmation that the travel would actually take place, often months later than initially planned. This led to significant funds being tied up for long period of times, and it's a situation we hope to avoid repeating in 2017-18.
Accordingly, the subcommittee initially requested to receive budget applications only for travel that is planned from April to the end of September 2017. Committees were asked to present budgets with a more realistic number of travellers. The committee felt that this would allow for a more equitable distribution of the available funds and help us to avoid tying up funds unnecessarily.
We received 10 committee budget applications for travel and other expenses expected to occur in the first half of this fiscal year, which I will review with you now.
The deputy chair of the Agriculture Committee presented a budget application that contained proposed expenditures of $94,781 for a fact-finding trip to Washington, D.C., in relation to their study on the acquisition of farmland in Canada.
Although the budget application was for 15 senators to travel, the deputy chair indicated to us that the committee expected that no more than eight senators would attend and agreed to adjust the request, reducing it to just under $60,000. Therefore, based on the revised budget application, we recommend the release of funds for activity 1 of $58,590, with the funds for eight senators to travel.
The chair and deputy chair of the Banking Committee presented a budget application that contained proposed expenditures of $100,158 for a fact-finding trip to Washington, D.C. and New York. This activity is in relation to their study on current and emerging issues in the banking sector and monetary policy of the United States. This budget application included funds for nine senators to travel.
Based on the information provided, we recommended the release of funds for activity 1 in the amount of $100,158, with the funds for the nine senators to travel.
The chair of the Energy Committee presented a budget application that contained proposed expenditures of $104,436 for one activity, fact-finding in Eastern Canada. This activity is in relation to their study on the effects of transitioning to a low-carbon economy. This budget application included funds for 12 senators to travel and includes a request for a sole source of a charter flight. Based on the information provided, we recommended the release of funds for activity 1 in the amount of $104,436.
The chair of the Fisheries Committee presented a budget application that contained proposed expenditures of $426,156 for three activities. The first activity was fact-finding and public hearings in Ontario, Quebec and Nunavut. The second activity was fact-finding to the U.K., Ireland, Norway and Denmark. Activity 3 was fact-finding to Australia and New Zealand.
This activity is in relation to their study on Maritime search and rescue activities. This budget application included funds for 15 senators to travel for activity 1 and five senators to travel for both activity 2 and activity 3.
Based on the information provided for this budget application, we recommend a partial release of funds, specifically in support of activity 1, the fact-finding hearings in Ontario, Quebec and Nunavut, in the amount of $165,526. Your subcommittee will revisit the committee's request for funds for activity 2 and activity 3 in June once the funds from other budgets have been clawed back.
The chair of the Human Rights Committee presented a budget application which contained proposed expenditures of $71,250 for one activity, which are fact-finding hearings in Brockville, Kingston and Montreal. This is in relation to their study on issues relating to the human rights of prisoners. This budget application included funds for eight senators to travel.
Based on the information provided, we recommend the release of funds for this activity in the amount of $71,250.
The chair and deputy chair of the National Finance Committee presented a budget application which contained a proposed expenditure of $18,900 for general expenses related to the hiring of consultant services. This activity is in relation to their study on the federal government infrastructure funding program. This budget application is to hire the services of a sole-source contractor to maintain the committee's infrastructure program analyzer database. Based on the information provided, we recommend the release, for general expenses, in the amount of $18,900.
The chair of the National Security and Defence Committee presented a budget application which contained a proposed expenditure of $98,430 for one activity, which is fact-finding to the East Coast. This activity is in relation to their study on Canada's national security and defence policies.
Although the budget application is for 12 senators to travel, the chair indicated to us that the committee expected no more than eight senators would attend and agreed to adjust their request. The budget contained a request for funds to include two senators' staff from the office and the chair and deputy chair. Given that the chair and the deputy chair have the ability to use their points to allow their staff to accompany them on the trips, the subcommittee will not approve this expense and we leave this in the hands of the larger committee to make a decision on.
Accordingly, we recommend a reduced release of funds for activity 1 in the amount of $72,810, with the funds for eight senators to travel, and further stipulate that the funds included for staff in this budget be used for the committee clerk, the Library of Parliament analyst, a communications officer and interpreters.
The chair of the Official Languages Committee presented a budget application which contained proposed expenditures of $21,440 for one activity — a press conference in Vancouver. This activity is in relation to a communications plan for the release of their report on access to French schools and French immersion in British Columbia. This budget application includes funds for three senators to travel.
After reviewing the budget, the chair agreed to reduce the number of hotel nights in the budget to more accurately reflect the expected number of nights of travel. Accordingly, we recommend a reduced release of funds for activity 1 in the amount of $17,440, with the funds for three senators to travel.
The deputy chair of the Social Affairs Committee presented a budget application which contained the proposed expenditures of $8,300 for general expenses, the hiring of a consultant, and one activity for fact-finding to Ottawa University and Ottawa Hospital. This activity is in relation to their study on robotics, artificial intelligence and 3D printing, and includes the funds for 15 senators to travel, and to hire a contractor to provide graphic design services.
Based on the information provided, we recommend the release of funds for general expenses and activity 1 in the amount of $8,300.
The Deputy Chair and another member of the Transport Committee presented a budget application which contained the proposed expenditures of $87,142 for three activities. This activity is in relation to their study on automated vehicles. This budget application included funds for six senators to travel for activity 1, a conference in Toronto; 10 senators to travel for activity 2, which is fact-finding in Waterloo; and 15 senators to travel for activity 3, which is fact-finding in Kanata.
Based on the information provided, we recommend the release of funds for activities 1, 2 and 3 in the amount of $87,142.
Colleagues, your subcommittee therefore recommends the release of $704,552 of the $1.882 million set aside for committee expenses in 2017-18.
The subcommittee would like to note that it appreciates the efforts the committees took to reduce their budgets to reflect a more realistic picture of their expected participation and expenses. In turn, the subcommittee will endeavour to provide a more equitable distribution of the available funds and will do its utmost to prevent tying up funds unnecessarily.
Further to that goal, the subcommittee would like to make the following recommendation: That in keeping with the clawback process that is already in effect, we recommend that any unexpended funds allocated today for specific travel before the end of June 2017 be returned to the central committees' budget at the end of June 2017 to ensure that funds are not tied up unnecessarily.
These funds would again be made available for redistribution to all committees for travel in the fall of 2017 upon application to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration.
Unless there are further questions, colleagues, I recommend the adoption of this report.
Senator Jaffer: I want to thank the committee. They do such good work on our behalf, and I can't thank you enough.
I do have angst about the reduction of members. I agree with the committee's decision to budget for less, but I would like that every time a letter is sent out saying to the committee that this amount has been allocated to you, that there be a paragraph sent out that all members have a right to travel, and no one can decide who will travel — not the whip, not the chair. All members have a right to travel.
For example, if one or two more members want to travel, that money will be made available. I do not want anybody deciding who will travel. We've had that before. When you have been here long enough, we have had the chair, whip decide who goes on committee travel. We decided that everybody has a right, and I think that paragraph should be there every time that money is approved so that there is not, at the whim of the chair, the whim of the whip, that someone is not allowed to travel.
The Chair: All senators are equal. That's important.
Senator Jaffer: Is that right? I didn't know that.
The Chair: Apparently.
Senator Jaffer: This is really important to me, that every member be allowed to travel. You can't say that only eight can travel.
Senator Tkachuk: I think we were told to survey our members. Everybody knows we all have a right to travel. We surveyed our members. That's how we arrived at the decision. We didn't arrive at the decision by just picking the number; we actually surveyed each member and said, "Are you coming on the trip?'' What's happened is we allocate for 15 and only 7 show up, and that money sits there tied up until it's freed.
The Chair: This committee has an idea of what to do with that money once it is tied up.
Senator Jaffer: Chair, I'm not disagreeing with the decision; I think it's a very good decision. I don't think we should assume that every member knows they have a right to travel. We should make sure that every member knows they have right to travel. Just because it says eight doesn't mean only eight will go.
Senator Wells: I note that Senator Jaffer suggested that the whips decide, or have decided?
Senator Jaffer: I'm talking about a hundred years ago.
Senator Wells: I wasn't here then.
Senator Smith: To the question of Senator Tannas, in the planning with the budgets, at the same time as people make their presentations, do you have a schedule that's set up before so that the bumping that potentially takes place and does take place could be managed effectively? So if you have two groups travelling in the same week, and we know there are time limitations, a number of committees versus the breaks and the sittings inside the Senate, do we have a pre-planned schedule of the events for travel? That would help you in your job and help you address maybe some of the questions that Senator Jaffer is asking. Just a thought.
Senator Tannas: Certainly, I just want to respond that we'll make sure, in every meeting that we have, that we emphasize the fact that, just because we're asking you to budget realistically, does not in my way mean that we would not support full travel.
With respect to your question, Senator Smith, at this point, my understanding is that we take our role to be more around the budget aspect, what the funds are being used for, and that it is not part of our mandate to pass judgment on whether or not there are too many people going at certain times. That's the role of the committee chairs, in conjunction with the whips and the leadership and that sort of thing.
I think that, for us, we don't want to get tangled up in trying to assess the merits, because that's what it would require. "Well, then this trip is more important than that trip, and that one is likely to go.'' We want that work to be done by committee chairs, deputy chairs, in consultation with leadership, who have control of the agenda in the chamber and are the best placed to kind of manage all of the groups that want to go.
Senator Smith: May I ask a question to the chair? Chair, in your experience, because you've been involved with this whole reorganization within the Senate Finance area concerning travel, if there is a situation with a whip and the whip's on a committee and travelling and making judgments on committees that have been given money to travel, is there a process by which we can avoid conflict of interest? I'm just learning all sorts of things as I come into my new role. I'm just asking an open-ended question. There's no agenda behind it, but, from an efficiency perspective, is there any method that we have in place to manage that?
The Chair: I really don't see, from my point of view, a conflict of interest, because, at the end of the day, the whip's role to be advised about committee travel is about management of the caucus operations and the chamber. It's not up to the whips to determine, ultimately, if a senator has a right to participate in a public hearing or a fact-finding mission of a committee. Every senator has a privilege and a right to do that. When committees travel to do work, for whatever reason, as Senator Tannas appropriately pointed out, that decision is taken by steering and the committee as a whole. As Senator Jaffer has pointed out, it's our constitutional and parliamentary privilege to participate if you're a standing member of that committee.
Senator Smith: I'm clear on that. What I was just trying to understand is, if a whip is on a committee and it's going to be travelling and they travel on May 1 and then there's another committee that is travelling on the same date and the whip makes a judgment that the committee that he or she is on gets — I'm just talking about practical issues here. I'm not trying to create any animosity. You know what I'm saying? I think this is an issue.
The Chair: I hear you. I think those decisions, again, would be taken collectively between the chairs of the two committees and would be a decision that the whip would probably discuss in conjunction with the chair. I don't see a conflict.
Senator Smith: It may be a tool, though, for Senator Tannas, as chair of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, not to take power away from people, but, in a case where he sees the agenda coming up of all of the committees and all of the travel and plans that they have and there's a reality that this person is on a committee where there could be a conflict, there might be a suggestion to have a mechanism that could be in place for that chair to be able to handle it. Maybe it's unrealistic, but it does cause, I think, in history, some form of frustration. Maybe the former whip of the Conservatives — I'm not sure if there's a whip from the — maybe Senator Marshall can answer that.
The Chair: Would you like to speak to this, Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: I raised my hand. I want to make a couple of comments.
Senator Smith raises a good point. I don't know how we're orchestrating things here now, but I'm so glad to see Senator Mitchell come in. I know that, when we were two caucuses, Senator Munson and I would discuss. We've had occasions where we've had three committees travelling the one week, and it's pretty slim pickings in the Senate, when we're trying to get business done, because you've got three committees travelling.
In my opinion, we would really want to avoid that. I don't know how it's going to work now with Senator Mitchell and with the Independent Senators Group. Just a caution, everybody, if you've got three committees travelling at the one time, it's a concern. Your numbers in the chamber are down.
Senator Tkachuk: All of the independents can go.
Senator Marshall: I was thinking of that, but I wasn't going to raise it. I was thinking that Senator Mitchell might twig to that himself.
I would also like to make another comment while I'm speaking, and then all my comments are done. I agree with Senator Jaffer, especially where we have new senators. I want to make sure that all senators know that they're entitled to travel. Because you see that we've just budgeted for six or seven, I don't want any senators to think, "Oh, my gosh, only seven can travel, and I'm number eight and won't go.'' Everybody is entitled to go.
The Chair: When we use the phrase "all senators are entitled to travel,'' what we're saying is that all senators are entitled to participate in the committee work when committees are travelling. I think there's a supplementary question from Senator Munson.
Senator Munson: Just an observation on that because, as whip for seven years and then the other days of the two- party system and a few independents, the whole idea of pairing was out there, and it did work when it was done above board. But, one of the most difficult things for a whip, with all of this travel, is the fact that you'd have individual senators in each group who would come to you and say "I've just made a deal. I am pairing with so and so who is on the same trip.'' Oh, you are? Well, you're not because that's the whip's role, and you have to be firm on that. As we move into a new era here, all votes are important, but votes will be extremely important as we move ahead. So coordination has to happen with the whips and with the heads of committee. I know that there is travel coming up in May. I think people have tried to balance that out, not having two at the same time week after week. I know that Fisheries and Human Rights are not in the same week now. So we're trying to work on that.
The gamesmanship that can sometimes go on here is astounding in terms of how people are saying, "It's okay. It's fine; I've worked this out.'' You can't do that that way. It's just not going to work because you'll have chaos and disappointment in individual caucuses over, "Where was she, or where was he?'' just a cautionary note, as Senator Marshall said, on pairing.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for that. I just noticed a problem, which is that — it's a mistake, my mistake. In the clawback process, one of the final paragraphs, I said "unexpended funds allocated today for specific travel before the end of June,'' I meant the end of October because we ask people to submit budgets to September 30, and a number of them are planning some travel in September. The idea was that, whatever we're allocating here, use it or lose it by the end of September, and we're going to recommend the end of October, in case there are coordination issues and whatever. After that, it goes back into the pot, and you can reapply in the context of others that are bringing new studies forward and new trips forward.
I need to correct where I said June, to say October.
The Chair: It's on the record.
Senator Cordy: Travel before the end of September, and the clawback will be the end of October.
Senator Tannas: I think we said we would give them that extra month even though their submissions were to the end of September, in case there was a travel coordination, timing issue.
The Chair: Good, so it has been noted.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Tannas, for the hard work that you and your subcommittee have done on this.
You mentioned that the chamber operations element is not part of your consideration. I understand that. Is the communications element part of your consideration? A lot of these committees are travelling various places in Canada, and an important element to that is letting Canadians know what the Senate is doing in committees and in our business. Was that part of the consideration?
Senator Tannas: It is indeed. We actually have incorporated that into the process, and, where we don't see it, if it gets missed, we ask about it. So there is communications, and, in fact, we're seeing that, in most cases, a communications person is included, to the point where, actually, the communications folks have helped us. They're in the process, and I think it's finished. We'll start using it for the next run, of a little bit of a template that every committee chair can go through to determine whether or not they need a communications person, kind of the top five reasons why you might consider whether you need it. That will get more formalized in the process.
Senator Wells: On the Fisheries and Oceans maritime search and rescue activities, I note the initial number requested was just below half a million dollars for some extensive travel.
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Senator Wells: Was the cost a consideration or necessity to travel in those four or five other countries that are obviously quite expensive? Did the committee have an opinion on that for the deferral?
Senator Tannas: It was less. I thought that Senator Manning provided good context as to why Australia and New Zealand was comparable to us, and obviously why the U.K. — the issue for us was, number one, we said it's 20 per cent of our entire year's budget for the entire Senate for travel.
Number two, it was quite ambitious. Early May, then followed by another trip at the end of May. I have to confess that even though we claim we don't think about or opine on coordination, it seemed awfully ambitious to us. We felt approving them one at a time upon the completion of one, get to the next, made sense, and also in context with the dollar amount.
The Chair: Senators, I want to remind everyone that we have a long list on this issue and on the agenda. Colleagues, if we can be cognizant not to be repetitive on some of the questions, but try to be thorough nonetheless.
Senator Lankin: Is there a reason you said that just before I spoke?
The Chair: Certainly not, senator. Just a coincidence.
Senator Lankin: I will be brief. There are at least two committees that have a dollar item for local travel in the NCR. This is my first time looking at a budget like this, and the number doesn't seem to equate to what it would cost to get a few cabs to one of the locations and back.
Could you speak to those items and the dollar amount, please? Social Affairs visiting the Ottawa University and the Ottawa Hospital and Transport visiting Kanata.
Senator Tannas: For Social Affairs, their actual costs of travelling around is not that much, although they are going to rent a tour bus, I think, for one or two days. But the vast majority, about $6,000 of their $8,300, relates to graphic design of their report.
Senator Lankin: There's $1,300 for travel to two local locations.
Senator Tannas: That's for tour buses. They felt that was a better way to bring people around than everyone jumping in cabs, to keep everyone together as they go through it.
I don't know whether they will be coming in lower or not, but the majority of the money is for a graphic designer.
Senator Lankin: And Transport and Communications to Kanata?
Senator Tannas: It is for buses and they are renting interpretation equipment.
Senator Cordy: To go back to Senator Jaffer's comment, we looked at it strictly from an accounting perspective. We made very clear at the meeting on Monday evening that it was just an accounting procedure. If somebody has said they can't attend and has told the chair or deputy chair or the clerk that they can attend, suddenly the week before they discover that their plans have fallen through and they can attend, simply get in touch with the chair of the subcommittee and we will definitely give the money to them to allow an additional person or two or three people to travel. It is not meant in any way to determine the number of people who are travelling or doing committee business. Because if everyone is on the committee and we feel, as a subcommittee, that it's important that they attend a conference or that if you're on the Defence Committee that you travel to the East Coast to look at the Navy or search and rescue, then that option is available to every member of the committee.
We don't look at the scheduling, but I do want you to know that the clerk, when she got all the submissions, noticed that four committees were planning to travel during the same week in May, so she did go back to them and suggest that maybe they could find another time.
While it's not under our bailiwick, we do keep an eye on it. Again, it's the whips who have to get together after we've made these decisions and say yes or no, not to the whole budget but to their own caucus.
Senator Mitchell: I'd like to underline a couple of things. I'm sorry I am late. I was getting a bill passed clause by clause in the Energy Committee so that took precedence. It's quite exciting. Then to come here and be welcomed back by Senator Marshall, it's been a great day already. Almost breathtaking.
I want to emphasize and reinforce Senator Marshall's other point, which is too much committee travel during sessions is an issue and can be an issue. To absolutely fundamentally cement my unbridled popularity, I should remind people there was a time when we used to travel on break weeks. It might be that we begin to do that.
Two other things I would say: This becomes particularly an issue as we get to this time of year or November/ December when votes tend to become more concentrated and intense.
It is a feature of the changes that have occurred that we need to be collaborative and those of us who are in the whip or whip-like function, I want to emphasize that I have nobody to whip and nothing with which to whip them, except my charm.
I would really appreciate the support of the new leader, Senator Smith, to build a collaborative group of four, me and other representatives from each group, where we could talk about these things and help to coordinate the business of the Senate in an efficient way.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Senator Tannas, I see that the applications you have received for most committees relate to activities that will be taking place in here, in Canada, except for Washington and New York, in the case of the Agriculture and Banking and Commerce Committees.
Regarding the Fisheries and Oceans Committee, my question is as follows. In your review of committee applications, do you consider using modern communication methods such as video conference to hold discussions and meetings with people all over the world?
[English]
Senator Tannas: We do not. We expect that the committees and chairs should be weighing those considerations before they come to us.
It's a good point and particularly with foreign travel, with big dollars. Until now, we have not had significant conflicts of available budget dollars and interest in in-person travel. If and when we get there, those things are going to have to be where consideration gets made.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Where could this discussion take place? I would have no objection to the Modernizations Committee requesting a trip to the United Kingdom on our behalf. Understanding the Westminster is important, but that is not what I want to do. We could use video conference to gather testimony from a lot of people regarding that kind of thing. I would like to know where we could have that discussion. As I understand it, it is left to the committees' discretion, but we do not know if the committees have considered the possibility.
I would like to know, at least, whether there has been a discussion of the dollar figures.
The Chair: The subcommittee is discussing the dollar figures at this time.
Senator Dupuis: The principle of committee spending means that each committee determines whether there are less expensive ways of doing the same thing. These are public funds and, obviously, some committees consider this while others do not. I would like to know how we can make sure they do this.
The Chair: Let us not forget that each committee is required to manage its affairs and present a report to the chamber at the outset. The committees then have to release a public report. It is ultimately the public who will judge the usefulness of a study, the expenditures and so forth.
Senator Dupuis: I am sorry, but I do not wish to discuss this this morning. Could we discuss this in committee? When I receive a Senate committee report, I am not in any position to determine whether a trip by a committee was warranted. I do not have any grounds upon which to make that judgment. I would like there to be a discussion first; I would like the responsible parties within committees to have a discussion to establish this principle and frame of reference.
In the same way as you encourage us, as individual senators, to choose the least expensive way of travelling, what do Senate committees do to apply this same principle?
[English]
The Chair: I will let Senator Tannas respond because this is clearly beyond the purview of this subcommittee.
Senator Tannas: We've kind of changed some of the questions that we want answered, specifically around communications. That's been a practice. I think it would be appropriate; it's a good suggestion. We could say that, for any foreign travel, there's an additional question, which is: Why can't this be accomplished through other means? If we can get an answer that is satisfactory, that would be good.
The Chair: I will also let Senator Tkachuk, who has the most experience around this committee, address this.
Senator Tkachuk: At least in the Banking Committee, we do consider that — video conferencing. We consider it not only for ourselves but also for witnesses because we pay for witness travel.
I think all committees go through this sort of process. How do we travel? We don't travel business class. We're taking a train from New York to Washington.
The people that we're meeting, though, are politicians, other politicians. I don't know how you feel about this, but I think it's better for us to meet them face to face than through video conferencing, especially on issues that are affecting Canada and the U.S. today.
The Chair: We've spent a considerable amount of time on this. I will give the final word to Senator Lankin.
Senator Lankin: This is just a follow-up to Senator Mitchell. It's not just about this time of year and the votes and that sort of thing. These are all responsibilities of senators — the committee, the chamber — but it's about availability to speak. I, in shepherding a bill, have had several occasions where people have committed travel coming up with committees and have said, "I can't speak for about a month now.''
There are issues like that that we should, sometime — maybe it happens at the leadership level or the scroll level — be able to speak about — the balance between right to speak, right to be here, your responsibility to do your job on committees and in the Senate Chamber. Where they conflict, how do we move business forward, either at a committee or in the chamber?
It's something that I put out there as a matter of consideration, at some point, for leadership discussions.
The Chair: Senator Tannas, would you like to move your motion, as amended?
Senator Tannas: I move the motion, as amended.
The Chair: Seconded by Senator Dupuis. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you, colleagues.
Item 3 on the agenda is an item that I think some of us remember was on the agenda last week. Senator Wells would like to revisit it. I will give the floor to Senator Wells on item 3.
Senator Wells: Thank you, colleagues. It's a partial revisit. You'll recall that, some time ago, this committee tasked a working group to look at the establishment of a sesquicentennial medals program, with a number of conditions attached. The working group looked at cost, design, quantity, schedule and other considerations as required for the implementation of the program. We brought that to CIBA last week. There was not consensus on it; in fact, the votes were, as I recall, six for, six against and three abstentions.
We were asked to take another look at this so that we could satisfy that initial request from CIBA because what we presented last week was the first report. I am presenting this as a motion because CIBA did not ask that the committee reconsider the initial directive.
This is a new proposal for the creation of a Senate medal program, different from the original one, which I just mentioned. So there's a reduced amount, a lower budget and different distribution program. Before I get to the motion, there was clear consensus among many members, not just of this committee but of the Senate, that this is an important initiative but that the cost was too high.
Your working group agreed with that. We went back and reworked not just the financial aspect but the quantity and the distribution aspect. There were some questions on where the allocated funds for this would come. Senator Marwah suggested that a portion could come from the senators' office budget.
That can still be the case. So we've adjusted the motion to remove the launch aspect, which obviously has a cost because, within our office budgets, we have a hospitality component, which we can use for a launch or for various commemorative ceremonies for possible recipients in provinces and across the country.
Senators also have the ability to travel in their regions, and indeed across Canada, for Senate-related business. This would be such Senate-related business. That expenditure would not come from this proposed budget but would be from the travel allowed from senators' offices.
The other couple of things to consider: Each senator would have to attest that the individual nominations still meet the established criteria, as was done for the Diamond Jubilee medal. Established criteria would be developed by the advisory committee, based on previous national medal programs. Then the allotment pool for the use of the Speaker and senators wishing to nominate above and beyond the 12 allotted.
You'll see, colleagues, if you go to the appendix A, before I get to the motion, that the renewed amounts in this motion are different from the first report.
The Speaker of the Senate was reduced from 150 down to 50. Members of the Senate went from 30 to 12. Symposium speakers remain the same. The allotted pool had a considerable reduction from 1,488 down to 43. The specimens for repository institutions, like museums across the country, went from 25 down to 4.
Colleagues, with that, I would like to move this motion:
That a Senate of Canada sesquicentennial medal be created, with a run of 1,500 medals to be struck.
That a budget of $225,000 be adopted for the production of these medals.
Colleagues, that's 40 per cent of the original proposal.
That the Advisory Working Group on a Senate 150th Anniversary Commemorative Medal be authorized to approve the design and oversee the production, distribution and administration of the medals; and
That the Advisory Working Group regularly report back to the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on the progress of the program.
Colleagues, I put that for discussion. I am happy to take any questions.
Senator Munson: Thank you, Senator Wells. I was one of those last week that abstained. One major reason was the cost. Number two, it seemed that it was going to go on for a long time.
I have a couple of questions. On the 1,500 medals, that's it? The reason I'm asking is that I recognize the importance of these medals and what it would mean to these communities, but this is the year, and if these medals are ready to go, and if they're representing in the communities this year and reflecting on what people have done in the past, then I may buy into this.
I have one concern about a committee struck to approve or disapprove what that medal stands for. If you have a senator who believes firmly in, for example, pro-life, and then has to go to a committee to say that I'm going to give this to a group of people who believe that, they have to make a decision based on a senator's individual principles.
What if you have a group on the other side who believes in a woman's right to choose? Then that committee has to make a decision otherwise.
When you have that debate going on, it's a personal thing, and it's what a senator believes what a person in the community has stood for. You either win or lose or you lose or win, no matter what, and then controversy ensues because somebody will say that the Senate of Canada has given a medal to this group, and we don't believe in that.
I would like to have clarification on how that process works, and I would like to know, because I would support it, if it was simply the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. I wish we would use the word "one hundred and fiftieth anniversary'' because that other word, nobody understands it.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Munson. It's a good question. It's a good point about the sesquicentennial, because I've practised that. I've been coached by Senator Joyal, who is firm on it.
Senator Munson, it's a good point you make about who might be of merit to get this medal, and it's an important medal, or it's an important recognition.
I wasn't here and involved when the discussion around the Diamond Jubilee medal distribution happened, but I can only assume that that was a consideration given.
I would like to leave that to the wisdom of the committee that establishes the criteria, and as you know, in the last bullet of my motion that the advisory committee would regularly report back. That would be something in the establishment of the criteria that we would report back and seek guidance from this committee, but it's an excellent point.
Senator Munson: On the number? That would be it? The number of medals.
Senator Wells: Of course, the Advisory Working Group could always come back, but it's not contemplated that this would go beyond 2017. That was one of the considerations we had given in the larger number in our first report last week, because the number has been cut down significantly from well over 5,000 to 1,500, with the allotments noted in annex 1, that it wouldn't be contemplated that this would go beyond 2017.
Senator Marshall: I had a couple comments. What happened to the silver medals? These are going to be all bronze, are they?
Senator Wells: Yes, I think it's bronze, but they are some alloy structure I'm not familiar with.
Senator Marshall: So the silver ones are gone?
Senator Wells: The silver ones are gone, yes. And there is consideration around that. Obviously, it was cost and was it necessary to do the additional. The whole idea of a medal, regardless of its construct, is the commemoration and recognition of those who may deserve it. We also didn't want to create two classes of recipients, one who would receive the silver and one who would receive the lesser alloy.
Senator Marshall: Two issues: First of all, we're the only ones, the Senate — the government and the House of Commons are not doing it — and the cost is still an issue for me.
I do think down the road we're going to have the same problem we had with the Diamond Jubilee medals. There will be questions as to whether the people who were awarded the medals were deserving. I know that became an issue with some of the Diamond Jubilee medals.
My inclination is not to support the proposal. I'd be interested in hearing what my colleagues around the table have to say.
Senator Wells: Of course, we tried to establish criteria that were fair and balanced, but you're right, in any decision made by anybody or any body to grant something, whether it's a medal, a certificate or a seat in the Senate, obviously, there will be a degree of conflict, so I can only address it that way.
Senator Marshall: At this point in our history, when we're subject to so much criticism, I would like to avoid criticism, if I can see it coming.
Senator Cordy: Thank you and your committee for all the work that you've done in looking at this on a number of occasions.
I find that if we can have a medal to honour those in our communities who have done wonderful work, and they might not get the Order of Canada, but they are people who work at the community food bank regularly, or I phoned the schizophrenic society during the last time we were giving out medals and asked them to give me volunteers. I phoned another local organization and said, "Could you give me some names?'' So they were names of good people who were recommended to me who worked within the community day in, day out helping those in need. I am fully behind it.
When we sent our lists to the Governor General, one of the points in doing that was that there would be no duplication. Senator Mercer and I are both from Nova Scotia so that we weren't giving them to the same people. Is that the kind of thing that would be happening?
Senator Wells: That's a really good point. I'll note my comments on that last week, should this go ahead, as someone from Newfoundland and Labrador I would work with my colleagues to make sure there is no overlap.
With respect to the possible recipients, obviously it would be up to the criteria established, but it would also be up to the good sense of the senator. In my consideration, obviously, prior to this being approved, but certainly it being considered, I would look at, as you mentioned, the unsung heroes of your region or of your community. When I say "community,'' I don't just mean geographic community. The unsung heroes, the people who would not necessarily get the Order of Canada. Obviously, veterans could fall into that category, who are certainly unsung heroes.
I would leave that up to the good sense of the established criteria but also senators' good judgment.
Senator Smith: What it comes down to is usually people act in a united way of trying to recognize important events. Everyone recognizes the importance of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary, so if the government is going to spend money on getting dignitaries to go around and promote the one hundred and fiftieth is possibly the idea of doing something different from giving out medals, right or wrong. The opposition looks like they're going to try to piece something together that is a recognition concept, whether it's a certificate or whatever, and then there's us. The issue is there's not an alignment amongst all of the players.
The decision boils down to whether we have the desire, as a group, to establish some form of a commemorative item that we can give to people. What it comes down to is the collective will of this group, and if we're going to be aligned, but I'm not sure there's any real alignment amongst all the players.
What it comes down to is decision makers —
[Translation]
Do you have an agreement to do something unique? At the same time, do we have the financial means to justify what we want to do?
[English]
So I think that's sort of the issue if you put it all together. Just a suggestion, sir.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I would like to point out the context in which the committee has worked. It was a last minute thing, and I recognize your tremendous efforts in response to the government's decision not to award a medal or other form of recognition for Canada's sesquicentennial.
At the same time, however, we must not underestimate the amount of work involved and the costs of managing the presentation of such a medal or other form of recognition. A secretariat is usually needed, along with pre-defined criteria. Each senator must ensure that the person or persons they wish to recommend will not diminish the medal. This requires a minimum of research and checking, which involves a lot of work.
I think your $225,000 budget for the production of the medals is very sound. In my opinion, however, there are many other related costs, such as for management, communications, distribution and the costs of the ceremony. Even if the funds come in part from the senators' budget and the main budget, it is still public money.
As to the deadline, we are very late in the sesquicentennial year. The deadline is approaching and it will be very difficult to meet our objective. Could we not consider a type of recognition that the Senate could award, beyond the sesquicentennial, to deserving Canadians, which would be more closely related to the Senate's mandate and which would complement the other types of medals, recognitions and honours awarded either by the Parliament of Canada or by the Governor General?
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain. You mentioned the necessity, or what I'll call the possible necessity, of setting up a structure to do this. As senators, we have staff. As the Senate, we have quite a competent administration. It is contemplated that this would be put to the Clerk of the Parliaments Office to administer. Of course, we have staff, as well, to assist senators with local ceremonies, so, for a lot of things that, it is suggested, might have to be established, the structure is there already, certainly within my office. If I were to give out 15 medals, I wouldn't need to go to some other, larger, structured program to do that. I would be able to do that within my own office, within my own existing office budget and with my own travel permissions that already exist. I wouldn't see the necessity to set up an unwieldy program to do this. Again, some might think that, and I recognize that.
With respect to the communications, we've already had discussions with our communications directorate, which could make, and should make, this bigger than what it is. That's what communications does well. That would be my response. I know, for mine, 15 medals is a modest amount to give out, and, other than the selection —
Senator Cordy: And 12 is really good.
Senator Wells: Is that what I have there, 12?
Senator Cordy: Yes.
Senator Wells: I'm going for some of the allotment. That wouldn't be a difficult task for me or my office to do. That would be the only way I can answer that, senator, but you make a good point.
The Chair: If I may also just briefly weigh in on this, colleagues, the one hundred and fiftieth is fundamentally important. I understand also the point of view from Senator Smith that the three essential elements of Parliament here are not aligned on this issue — the government, the House of Commons, and the Senate. Having said that, I also think the Senate has a fundamental role to participate in celebrating this important anniversary.
I want to remind colleagues that, even though the government has chosen different forms to celebrate the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary, let's not forget I remember recently that the government, to celebrate the three hundred and seventh-fifth anniversary of Montreal, spent $40 million to light up Jacques Cartier for a few months in the city of Montreal. We're talking about here a few hundred thousand dollars. I don't want to diminish the amount, but $250,000 to celebrate the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Canada, led by the upper chamber, I think is not a significant amount of money compared to what the government has been spending to celebrate other events. If we look at the advertising campaign that the previous government spent on celebrating the commemoration of the War of 1812, we're talking about millions of dollars. So I think that spending thousands of dollars to celebrate the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary, I personally wouldn't have any problem going in front of a microphone and justifying it. That's just my thought on it.
Senator Mitchell: I want to underline that I support this entirely and strongly. I appreciate that the subcommittee has responded to the input and concerns to make this, I think, an even stronger program.
We say we're recognizing Canada, but what Canada is is its people. There are so many people at the community level, where I think this will focus, who don't get the recognition that this medal will afford them. I had a wonderful experience — and I think most of us did — with the Diamond Jubilee awards. Maybe there were one or two that were controversial. Isn't controversy what Canada is about, too? Isn't debate, difference, diversity and discussion? If we had some, I say, "So what?'' The fact of the matter is that what I saw were people who contribute and toil and give and give and give to this country at levels, without recognition often, without any kind of recognition or reward, and they were delighted when we handed them that medal and did a bit of an awards ceremony. I see that this is recognizing not just Canada but the people who make up Canada. We need to focus on that, I think. I'm very supportive of it.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I do not want to repeat what Senator Marshall said because I support her comments. The same goes for Senator Saint-Germain. I will not reiterate the points they made.
I was struck by something Senator Cordy said. We want to recognize the contribution of certain people to their communities. In my opinion, what we have chosen here is not the best way to improve the Senate's image or to salute the people who work very hard in their communities and to whom a medal would be awarded in part to keep them in their communities. Rather than this kind of medal, why not recognize their contribution in a way that also fosters a better understanding of our work? We could help all those people who work hard in their communities gain a better understanding by inviting them to an event that would bring us together, for instance, and represent each of us, but that would take place in their community. That would be a way of distancing ourselves from what I see as a problem with these medals, namely, that in response to the government's decision to refuse to award medals, the Senate is saying that it will award its own medals. I really do not like the message this sends. I think that the sesquicentennial — and we can choose any date up to the end of the year — would be an opportunity to recognize their contribution.
I was very impressed during my meetings with the students. They came from right across the country to visit the Senate and the House of Commons. Among themselves, they discussed the realities of senators' work. I place greater stock in this kind of event than the awarding of medals.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Batters, you get the final word on this and then we'll have to come to a conclusion.
Senator Batters: First of all, something that the chair was saying earlier reminded me of one item that the Government of Canada is spending on for the one hundred fiftieth anniversary, and that's $155,000 to send a red couch across the country. That's not that different of an amount than what's being proposed here.
I have one quick question, and perhaps this was in the documents from last week, but I can't remember what it means exactly. The allotted pool of 43, is that the same as last week, and what is that for, if you could please explain?
Senator Wells: Sure. The allotment pool last week was in excess of 1,400. It was our consideration in the first report that because we're having so many celebrations in Canada this year celebrating the one hundred fiftieth birthday that there would be opportunity to award this to more than what we had allotted for the senators and the Speaker and the various events that we have. That was a consideration for that higher number.
For the lower number, the allotment pool would be for the use of the Speaker over and above the allotment now in this proposal of 50. There will be various heads of state or dignitaries or others coming, and we wanted to have some consideration for that. You also want to treat people fairly when they come. So if two presidents or prime ministers from other countries come and he's down to his last medal, there needs to be a place to dip in and obtain another medal. It's a very modest amount, not just the criteria for senators but the criteria for Speaker or other categories who might receive this. We wanted to give some overflow or flexibility in granting that.
On the special allotment, it's hard to say here is who it will be, but I can easily say here is the circumstance where there might need more. Also, it's very much self-regulating. If we know there's a small allotment pool, then you'll be more careful in who you choose to award this to.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Wells, would you like to move your motion?
Senator Wells: I move that the Senate of Canada sesquicentennial medal be created with a run of 1,500 medals to be struck and a budget of $225,000 be adopted for the production of the medals; that the Advisory Working Group on a Senate 150th Anniversary Commemorative Medal be authorized to approve the design and oversee the production, distribution and administration of the medals; and that advisory working group regularly report back to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration on the progress of the program.
Senator Marshall: I'd like a recorded vote.
The Chair: Can we have a recorded vote, please.
Nicole Proulx, Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and Chief Corporate Services Officer, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, I will call committee members' names beginning with the chair and then going in alphabetical order. Senators should verbally indicate whether they vote for, against or abstain.
The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: For.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: For.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Cordy?
Senator Cordy: Yes, for.
[Translation]
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Against.
[English]
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: For.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Lankin, P.C.?
Senator Lankin: For.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator McCoy?
Senator McCoy: For.
[Translation]
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Mégie?
Senator Mégie: For.
[English]
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Mitchell?
Senator Mitchell: For.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: For.
[Translation]
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Against.
[English]
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Smith?
Senator Smith: For.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: For.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: For.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: For.
The Chair: Thirteen for, three against, no abstentions, so accordingly the motion is carried. Thank you.
We'll take 30 seconds, colleagues, just to go in camera, please.
(The committee continued in camera.)