Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 16 - Evidence - November 30, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 30, 2017
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:30 a.m, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Larry W. Campbell (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome to the Thursday meeting of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. My name is Larry Campbell and I’m a senator representing British Columbia.
I’d like to start with Item No. 1 on our agenda, adoption of the minutes. Has everybody had a chance to read them? Do you have any questions? Could I have a motion?
Senator Plett: I’ll move adoption.
The Chair: Thank you. Second? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Passed unanimously.
I have a housekeeping note. I’d like to advise all senators that to please ensure that you keep your earpieces away from the microphones on the table. Apparently the contact between the two is causing feedback for those listening to our deliberations and especially for our interpreters. Thank you for that.
Item 2, the Independent Senators Group funding 2017-18.
Senator Yuen Pau Woo and Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, thank you for coming.
Hon. Yuen Pau Woo, Facilitator, Independent Senators Group, Senate of Canada: Good morning, chair. Good morning, colleagues. Thank you for inserting our item into your agenda on short notice. I hope you have had a chance to see the letter that we sent to this committee under the previous leadership dated October 27. It has to do with a request on the part of the ISG to receive a top-up to our budget for the current fiscal year on the basis that the rules for allocation of funds for caucuses or groups above the size of 20 was increased, a decision made by CIBA on June 21.
I will not go through the calculations. I’m happy to do so if you wish. Based on the new amount agreed on by this committee, for groups larger than 20 our budget at ISG should be increased by a proportionate amount for the balance of the year 2017-18. That figure, on page 2 of our letter, is $262,066. That’s the prorated amount, I should say.
Let me stress that there is, of course, a principle related to why we are asking for this amount. It’s simply that that is the amount decided on for groups of that size. We clearly meet the definition since we are a caucus group of 39 and the threshold set by this committee was 20. We’re well above 20, obviously.
I want to further stress that it’s not simply a question of principle asking for money because it’s there. We need the money. We are looking to increase our resources at the secretariat to service an ever-larger group of independent senators. We have already begun a process of hiring additional individuals, and we are on the cusp of advertising for a few more positions if we are able to get the extra funds. Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Questions. Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: First of all, I note that the previous request that was made from the Independent Senators Group came to this committee less than a year ago, and that was for $722,000. That request listed several staff position salaries. The amount requested in that case was just for salaries, nothing else — office expenses and that sort of thing — and I actually remember specifically asking about it at that meeting. I was emphatically told no, nothing other than those salaries would be needed; individual senators’ budgets would cover those types of things.
Now an amount is being requested without a specified justification, simply on the basis that ISG has the biggest group. Unlike the previous request, this particular amount doesn’t say this is for X staff positions at X dollar amount salary ranges. It just says you want more money because this is the allotted amount that you are entitled to because you are a bigger group, and so you would like that.
What are the additional staff positions you’re requiring here to be filled, and why aren’t those particular expenses capable of being covered by individual senators’ budgets? That’s one of my questions.
Senator Woo: Thank you, senator, for your question.
On the first point concerning the allocation of funds in the previous allocation, I was not privy to that process, but the fact is that allocation of funds for staffing other than salaries, such as contract staff, is permitted and widely employed in the other groups. Perhaps we were not aware of that facility when we made the request, but it certainly is widely used by the other groups and we feel we should be entitled to it as well.
In fact, we do have needs for some human resource functions within our secretariat that are better suited through a contractual approach rather than long-term employment. It is just a practical, financial management matter.
Essentially we’re saying that all of the ways in which the other groups and caucuses in the Senate are allowed to spend their money should be the same for us as well. It’s a principle of equality, and we hope that you can accept that to be a valid argument.
Your other question on what exactly we want to use the money for, I tried to answer previously. In fact, we have a number of positions in mind: a director of communications, for example. We need more translation capacity within our secretariat. We will need more research capacity. We’ve said in the ISG that our top priority is legislation, and we want to strengthen the capability of our secretariat to provide collective assistance to independent senators who are doing their own research currently but who could use additional help to save time and to make better use of resources.
We very much have a plan for the additional $262,000 and would put that plan into effect as soon as we get the monies.
Senator Batters: I note that previously the request came to the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates, and they evaluated the specific details of the actual request and made a recommendation to this particular committee. On this occasion, it’s coming directly to this committee with just a page-and-a-half letter without any detail to it.
I’m struggling a bit. I still don’t understand why the Independent Senators Group, titled like that, needs so many coordinating staff positions. What are their particular roles? When you speak about research, one of the matters you may be thinking about is that you need researchers to help with the major marijuana bill that is before us. But you are independent senators, so how would you have joint policy researchers on that sort of thing? This is a government bill and is being sponsored by one of your senators, but you do have, of course, all the resources of the government Senate leader’s office to assist that sponsor of the bill. Each individual senator has their own staff and a considerable office budget. They can employ two or three different people to assist them at certain points and can also use contract services should that be required. So why the need for so many coordinating staff roles with a group that titles itself “Independent Senators Group”?
Senator Woo: Thank you, senator, for your question.
Senator Saint-Germain will supplement after I give an initial answer, but I do strongly disagree with you, first of all, on our ability to access resources from the government. We do not represent the government, and we don’t have any more access than you or any other senator in the chamber would have to those resources.
Second, there is an economy to using centralized resources for research, not to come up with a common position — and let me stress that independent senators do not take a common position on bills. However, to do the background research to find the facts, to get the arguments, to get the history, to look at international comparisons and other material would be helpful in the senators coming to their own decision.
I do not know, but I suspect this is a practice used in other groups and caucuses as well. I also suspect that you have your own unique ways of divvying up the work within your groups. So do we.
I would defend our way as one that is unique to our purposes and which requires the sorts of resources we’re asking for, and even more. While we are requesting this amount of $262,000 on the basis of the decision made by the committee that 20 or more senators should have this amount — this is already agreed by the committee — we in fact already have a group of 39, well in excess of the 20 threshold, but that will have to be a matter for a separate discussion.
The Chair: Senator Batters, could I put you on for another round? We have a lot of senators here.
Senator Batters: Yes. I have a few more questions.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: First, I find it hard to understand that in an institution where the rules would normally be fair, there was an amendment to our rules on June 21 that gives groups of senators amount X, if they meet certain conditions, and it is necessary to come back to this issue because the adjustment was not proportional and automatic. I’m having trouble explaining that.
Second, in September, there was a reorganization within the Independent Senators Group where changes were made to the way they operate. That is why we are making such a request today. If we are in an institution that has fair and universal rules for the whole — unless there are rules for certain groups and rules for other groups, which seems totally incoherent to me — I think that this request is justified and should have been automatically authorized, as on June 21, the committee amended sections 5 and 6 of the Senate Administrative Rules to allocate funds to other groups. Section 6 provides $1.5 million for caucuses with more than 20 members. To the best of my knowledge, on June 21, 2017, more than 20 members were in the Independent Senators Group, if we do the count.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, senator. For your information, we rarely solely authorize issues automatically. They almost always come here before us so we can have this fulsome debate. But thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I somewhat agree with Senator Forest’s comments, that when it is part of the rules, it is applied automatically.
I would like to emphasize one point. My concern is that I have never seen so many staff for as long as I have been here. It is incredible. We are constantly seeing new faces. I think part of it is because the Leader of the Government has a team that is added to the team of the Independent Senators Group. Previously, we were together. This creates another group of support staff.
Are there any discussions between you and the Leader of the Government? You do not have to tell me your secrets, but have there been any discussions with the Leader of the Government — since there are three or four of them coordinating the group — so that part of his budget is granted to the Independent Senators Group? At least we are giving the image that we are concerned about ensuring respectful management of public funds and that it is not an “open bar.”
I understand the needs. I am quite comfortable with the request, but perhaps there is a discrepancy in the means and an overlap because of the Leader of the Government.
I would also like to point out something important. Several independent senators have less seniority — many have just arrived — but the Library of Parliament has extraordinary resources that are paid for out of public funds. The researchers do an excellent job. We can give them a lot of work, which helps to optimize resources. I encourage you not to hesitate to go to the Library of Parliament. Its staff does an amazing job.
[English]
Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Carignan, for your question.
Let me clarify and be very clear about this. The Government Representative team in the Senate is separate, distinct and unconnected to the Independent Senators Group. As a result, there is no coordination; there is no pooling of resources; there is no exchange in terms of secretariat functions in any way, shape or form that I am aware of. I’m certainly a facilitator now. I can say that for a fact. I am not aware there has been any linkage or connection of the sort that you suggest. Therefore, the suggestion you put forward to share would be a reasonable suggestion if there were this kind of connection, but there is none.
I thank you for your suggestion on the use of the Library of Parliament. In fact, we’ve just appointed someone from our group to be on the Joint Committee of the Library of Parliament, so we will be learning more about that. I know I use the Library of Parliament and my colleagues do as well. We for sure will, as much as we can, use their resources so that we manage our entire portfolio of resources of public money in the best way, which combines independent senators’ offices budgets, the budgets provided to Parliament as a whole and shared by all of us. But very importantly — this is crucial — independent senators also need a centralized budget for the secretariat to provide functions and services that service all of us collectively.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Thank you, senator, for saying that we are not specifically connected to government representatives. I joined the Independent Senators Group quite recently, and I never understood that I was connected to the government team. As a new member of the internal economy committee, I understand from the letter you sent to members that — and in this regard, I echo the comments of my colleague Senator Forest — when there is a recognized group — and the rules have already been changed — there is a budget of about $1 million for each group. I understand that this is also the case for other groups affiliated with a political party.
Is it correct? It is correct. Do other groups affiliated with a political party have to submit an annual list of positions or duties of their employees? Is there any kind of annual report to Internal Economy to tell us what the various groups attached to the political parties do with the budgets they are given? Could someone give me an answer on this?
[English]
Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Verner. This committee should know the answer better than I do, but let me say two things.
First of all, the caucuses in the Senate — certainly the opposition in the Senate receives a designated budget which is even larger than the $1 million that you referred to, because it’s in a separate category that was predetermined. I invite somebody to put on the record what that number is, but it’s substantially larger than the $1,060,000, despite the different sizes of the groups. We are 39, as you know, and the Conservatives are at 34.
Second, on your question with respect to the way in which budgets are approved for the existing political caucuses, it is my understanding that there is no justification provided, that it’s simply a figure that’s put forward and that this committee, in its wisdom, decides to approve or not approve the figure. I’m quite happy to answer questions, but I’m not aware that the other groups have had to go through this kind of questioning.
Senator Saint-Germain will jump in.
Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain, Deputy Facilitator, Independent Senators Group, Senate of Canada: Mr. Chair, the question of the senator to be answered: What are the numbers for the two caucuses and the G3 for the current fiscal year?
The Chair: We have the overall budget figure, but we don’t have it broken down into positions. The only group that has it broken down into positions that I know of — and I stand to be corrected — is the ISG. I have no idea how many staff the Leader of the Government has, nor do I have any idea how many staff the leader of the loyal opposition has.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Still, can you provide the respective budgets of the caucus, the G3 and the independent senators?
[English]
The Chair: I’d have to meet with the respective leaders of both sides to get some sort of agreement on that. I don’t think I can, myself, order that up. But I will discuss it with the leaders of the other two groups and have an answer for you. I don’t have it right now.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I think we have to get it. These are public funds, so this information must be made public.
[English]
The Chair: I will take this up with the other two leaders and report back to you.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: I would like to end with a comment, if I may. In these circumstances, for the three groups present in the chamber, apart from the government group, I would like to know why the Independent Senators Group should have to make a presentation to justify each of the positions it wishes to fill or budget items, translation and others. Why would the rules be different for the group that is officially recognized in the same way as the other two groups affiliated with political parties? The difference between the Independent Senators Group and the groups affiliated with a political party is the fact that this first group is not affiliated with a political party. This issue has already been settled by the recognition of the group in the chamber. That’s the comment I wanted to make.
[English]
Senator Marshall: I appreciate the comments of my colleagues, but I’ve only just seen this this morning. I know people are looking at dollar amounts and things of that nature, but I’d like to have the opportunity to go back and look at the changes to the Senate Administrative Rules, because we’ve made a number of changes over the past couple of years. I would like to go back and refresh my memory.
Do we have to make a decision on this today? Could we make the decision next week? I’d like to have a couple of hours to go back.
The Chair: It’s my intention to put this over to next week once we have a discussion. I agree that everybody should have the opportunity to review history and all the rest of it. So it will be next week before we make a decision.
Senator Marshall: One question, though: There was a time when an additional $7,000 was given to individual independents, but that’s gone now; is it not? Could you confirm that?
The Chair: Yes, that’s gone.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Mitchell: It is interesting that the document was prepared and sent to the standing committee on October 27, so it’s not as though we couldn’t have had time to review it. I guess there was toing and froing between that.
I want to endorse strongly the principle of recognizing proportionality and equality. I think we have to be extremely careful about not leveraging organized caucus authority, if I can put it that way, over the independents.
I also want to underline the fact that this decision was made on June 21. It was a given set of bars, if you will. Interestingly, when the Liberals dropped below 20, they dropped from $760,000 to $460,000, and that was done automatically. It’s worthy of this discussion, but in the end it would seem to me it could be done automatically. It’s interesting that the automatic increase that’s considered or contemplated in this request is less than the automatic decrease accorded to the Liberals. So net we’re actually saving money in this regard, if that is of some consideration.
It’s extremely important that we maintain consistency and that we are fastidious about treating the independents and all senators fairly. Now that this rule is here to be applied, it’s odd that we simply wouldn’t apply it.
Senator Plett: I want to endorse what Senator Mitchell said. Let’s do proportionality. That gives your group about $21,000, Senator Mitchell. I would certainly endorse that.
Senator Mitchell: Careful about that, by the time your caucus is a little lower too.
Senator Plett: It won’t go down to three quickly.
Senator Marshall asked the question that I was going to ask about whether we would defer this to at least next week, and you assured me that we would, so I’m happy about that.
I’m not going to speak in favour or against this at this point. I’m a little hesitant about what I should or should not say, but as Senator Saint-Germain and Senator Woo know, we had discussions about this when we had other discussions about committees. Although those were not officially in camera meetings, I think to a degree they should be treated as such. But there were discussions then about where this money would come from, and I’m a little disappointed that none of that is stipulated in this request. Very clearly, some of us agreed at that time to support the request under certain conditions, and that isn’t stipulated in here. Of course, this was done October 27.
This has been copied to the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates, so my final question, chair, is this: Would it not be the practice of this committee to have a recommendation by the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates as to how this would be paid, and if it would be coming from other pools, that it should come from there? If that isn’t the normal practice, I would like to suggest that we maybe consider that. I would like to see a thorough discussion on this by the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and a recommendation from them.
The Chair: I agree with you and I think at some point it will have to go there. But I would note that this document was sent out in October, and somehow in the transition period we just got it today. I don’t think there’s any great urgency on it, but I think the discussion needs to be held here because of that. But certainly, as a matter of course, it would go to Estimates. We’re in the process of actually forming that committee. I get your point, senator.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
The Chair: Just for the record, I’m happy that you’re happy. That’s on the record.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I would like to provide a caution. The kind of discussion we are having this morning is very much like micromanagement. It may be because I do not know how the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration operates, but I think these issues are relatively clear. A budget of $1 million was approved, and an initial amount of $722,000 was requested. However, we must justify an additional amount, when this should be automatic. The rule exists and we should not be forced to revisit these issues or question how the money will be used.
I think we have a lot more important issues to look at in terms of governance. I am sure it will not happen next year because the budgets will be approved in advance. I do not know if there is a lot of micromanagement, but I think it may be useless and a little troubling for the people who have to come and make presentations and ask for things like that, which should be automatic.
[English]
The Chair: A couple of things. First of all, as Senator Plett pointed out, this would normally have gone to a subcommittee before it came here.
With regard to the importance, I think that this goes to the nature of CIBA. I believe we should be having these discussions. I believe they should be in the open and I believe everybody should have a chance to express their opinion.
With regard to micromanaging, I don’t know whether it’s micro or not, but it’s certainly managing. I would rather err on the side of open and being transparent than on the side of it sort of sneaks up on us. I like fulsome debate and discussion, and I’d like to see it continue.
But your point is made; we have a lot of things to discuss.
Senator Moncion: I will add to your comment that if we do the budgeting correctly, we will not have these kinds of questions coming to CIBA.
The Chair: Well, it isn’t whether we’re doing it correctly or incorrectly; it’s that we have been reconvening committees and subcommittees. You name it, we have been reconvening it. We are in a unique position here of major change within the Senate. So I agree with you: I don’t think we will be in this position next year. It will have gone through the committees that are already set up.
Senator Tkachuk: Maybe Senator Mitchell could help me on this, but as far as I know, there is Bill C-49, 46, 45, 25, 17 and 36. Could you tell me who the sponsors are of these bills? Do you know, Senator Mitchell? Would they will be all in the Independent Senators Group?
Senator Mitchell: Bill C-45 is independent; 46 is independent; 49 is me; 17 is independent; 36 is Liberal.
Senator Tkachuk: Bill C-25 is independent.
Senator Mitchell: Yes, 25 is independent; 46 is independent. Bill C-21 will be coming and that’s independent; 24 is us; 50 is Mercer; 51 is Jaffer.
There is a mix. There are no Conservatives at this point because the last Conservative —
Senator Tkachuk: What about opposition?
Senator Mitchell: — that sponsored was removed from the caucus.
Senator Tkachuk: I’m just saying that’s —
The Chair: Excuse me, Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: I just wanted to find out because I think it’s important. We’ve been told here that they don’t have a close relationship with the government. They obviously have a very close relationship with the government. They are sponsoring almost all of their bills.
Senator Mitchell: Can I answer that?
The Chair: No.
Senator Woo.
We have two people here as witnesses, so if we want to —
Senator Tkachuk: Well, I’ve got a comment on that.
The Chair: After Senator Woo.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you.
Senator Woo: I would just refer, Senator Tkachuk, to the experience of your chair sponsoring a government bill last year in which he proposed an amendment, which I think is a demonstration of the independents’ ability to sponsor bills and to improve them when they see fit or not to support them when they see fit.
Senator Tkachuk: I don’t have any more questions.
Senator Munson: I just have an observation. In the interests of openness and transparency, for our next discussion we should have the budgets of every group, including the government budget that they have for their facilitator or representative, and the numbers of people who work for the government, who are working for the ISG group, working for us or working for the opposition. I think those figures are very important for parity purposes and to see how the money is being well spent. I couldn’t make a decision today based on what I know or what I don’t know.
The Chair: As a matter of course, this would have gone to Estimates and it would be up to Estimates to decide how they want to do it, what it’s going to look like and all the rest of it. Then it would come to us here.
I recognize what you say and I believe that it’s entirely fair, but at the same time what we’re looking at here is not a budget but, rather, a look at the lack of a budget going forward, depending on your numbers as set out in the past.
This is out of the ordinary, but I believe that it would be up to the Estimates Committee to come to a conclusion on what you need to have in your estimates before they are brought to the full Internal Economy Committee.
Senator Batters: Dealing with that micromanagement issue, we are dealing with $300,000 of taxpayers’ dollars here. I wouldn’t personally call that micromanagement in any respect.
Also, this is a midyear request; this is not the normal course. In the normal course of budgeting, these types of things go through a normal yearly process. This is being asked for as a prorated amount, in a midyear request.
I would like to compare how many ISG senators, when that request was initially made less than a year ago, to now. But when I did ask for that information at that particular meeting, nobody would give me information as to what the number of ISG senators even was. In my quick look at this, since December 2016 there has only been one new senator appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau, and that senator joined the ISG. A few others joined in some capacity, but I think the numbers are similar to the numbers that existed at the time that the request was initially made more than a year ago and received $722,000.
Just a couple of other points. I note right in the first paragraph it says that part of the request is for operations and management and hospitality expenses. I want to point out that each individual senator has the ability to use a hospitality budget. Whether they choose to use it or use it to a major extent, that’s available to every individual senator.
Another question I have is why are even more translators needed by the ISG? The last request made for one of those staff positions to be filled was for a translator. The Senate already has translation services, and we struck a working group as part of CIBA to improve those services. Are the translation services that you are needing to hire more than one translator for your group?
Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Batters, for your questions. I’ll take them in reverse order.
On the issue of translation, the ISG puts top priority on the importance of official languages. We need to ensure that we have prompt, efficient and highly competent translation services so that all our members can receive the information in their preferred language.
On your second question about the use of office budgets — that is, individual senators’ office budgets for operations, management, hospitality — the same goes for all senators whether you are a Conservative or a Liberal. There is certainly nothing special to say there. If a senator from a political caucus has the ability to use his or her budget for hospitality, so do we. There is no differentiation in which group you belong to.
On the third point you make about numbers, let me stress that even if our numbers remain at 21 — they are not, they are at 39 — your rules, which you agreed on and which were amended in June 21, say clearly that any group other than a political caucus that has more than 20 should receive $1,060,000. So even if there was no change in our numbers, as long as we are over 20, we believe we deserve the amount that was already agreed to by this committee. We are simply asking for the prorated amount for the balance of the year 2017-18.
Senator Batters: I want to respond to your point about translation. The Conservative caucus also puts a high priority on bilingualism and having complete and full access to both official languages. We have one translator for a group that is very similar in size to yours, and we have had that same number of one translator since 1993, and that was at a time when we had a caucus as large as 60-some members.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Indeed, you are right; there has been only one new appointment since December. However, there have been transfers of senators who changed their affiliation. So, there is also this impact. But what is important to point out is that we started a process in which, since November of last year, a group of senators who do not have your experience have arrived in the Senate. They learned to function in this important institution and to get organized. The time limit is not long, but, as I pointed out at the beginning, we went through a learning process to master the basic rules and find out how to get organized. And, during the summer, we did some thinking; there was a change in the leadership. It is a different operational model from the traditional model of a party-affiliated caucus. We had to define a new model, and I think it is entirely healthy and normal that a group that wants to maintain an independence of thought, but who wants to be coherent in its action, can think and do so properly.
We gave ourselves a new group of leaders in September, we defined our priorities and how we operate. We can question the fact that one group has a translator, another has one and a half, and a third one has two, but I think it is legitimate for the Independent Senators Group to have its mode of operation. We are not asking here to get out of the rules authorized since June 21, but to respect them.
I agree with Senator Carignan; there may be new faces. I do not have your experience, but it is clear that, personally, and this is a fundamental value for me, I find it very hard to go to the group representing the government to support my thinking. As I have to think about the study of each bill, and as I do not need anyone to tell me what position to adopt, it is clear that I need support from my group of senators.
However, I think your suggestion is very relevant. But I maintain my independence, and I would feel very uncomfortable relying on government officials to form a point of view for me on the various bills.
Finally, Mr. Chair, I would like to ask a question of my colleague Senator Plett, who mentioned earlier that the rules would be applied under certain conditions. I would like you, senator, to give me this information: what are these conditions, which I am unaware of at the moment, for applying the rules?
[English]
The Chair: Again, I point out that we have two witnesses here to answer questions, and I don’t believe it’s appropriate that we start going across the table when we have two witnesses here. If we could hold that off until — there is another first. Senator Plett and I agree on something. He is happy and we’ve agreed on something.
Order. I think what we’ll do is that question can best be addressed next week when we look at this and we have time to think about it.
The last questioner for today on this issue will be Senator Carignan.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, do I understand correctly that you are going to think about the rules and send us the answer next week?
[English]
The Chair: You and Senator Plett will hopefully have a discussion between now and then.
Senator Plett: I think if you have a discussion with your leader, he will be able to answer that question.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I would like to go back to the spirit in which the fund was created because I took part in negotiations on the distribution of money. When the level is reached, the amounts should be available. As for the justification, it is not so much a question of going into detail, but rather of presenting things. For example, it could be “eight employees, two subcontractors and a translator.” This is so that there is a minimum justification, without going into the detail of who does what. I think we are getting into a dangerous game. Similarly, I would not want our people to start questioning which researcher is working on which project. It’s fair on both sides.
So I urge you to be very cautious when dealing with this kind of discussion, because it may catch up with us one day, and we never intended that. I do not think we should spend too much time on it; we respect the criteria, and we distribute the money.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. On that note, we will move this to next week for further discussion and a decision.
I would like to thank both Senator Woo and Senator Saint-Germain for coming today.
Senator Woo: Thank you, everyone.
The Chair: Item No. 3 is the report of the IIA. Further to our previous discussions, we moved it to this week so we would have an opportunity to review it.
We have with us Colette Labrecque-Riel and Danielle Labonté. Welcome.
Colette Labrecque-Riel, Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs: Good morning, senators. As noted by the chair, Danielle and I are back this morning to pick up where we left off last week to support this committee’s consideration of the JIC’s report on activities and expenditures for parliamentary associations for the last fiscal year. The purpose of this report is to provide information on the activities and expenditures of associations and to foster a better understanding of the work done by parliamentarians on the international level.
[Translation]
Before moving on to questions, I would like to come back to the issue of the distribution of the report last week. It was noted at the last meeting that the report had been distributed only the day before. I have since learned that, given the particular circumstances, namely the confirmation of the membership of this committee and the agenda from the day before, the report could not have been distributed earlier, even though the Joint Interparliamentary Council, through my intervention, had distributed it several weeks before. I hope that senators have had the opportunity to review the report and that we will be able to answer your questions this morning. Given the situation, I understand that the decision to postpone this week’s consideration of the report was a good one.
I am certainly not trying to repeat the presentation from last week, but rather to answer any questions you may have this morning.
I reiterate that, compared to previous fiscal years, 2016-17 was a very active year for parliamentary associations.
[English]
As I noted last week, 13 parliamentary associations carried out 83 missions, 71 of which were outside Canada in 35 different countries, and 12 were in Canada but outside the capital region. Also, associations hosted 41 incoming delegations. These activities amounted to a 98 per cent utilization of the funds available to associations with transportation being the most significant expenditure type.
Before going to questions, I would like to answer the question posed by Senator Tkachuk last week regarding the contributions or membership fees linked to the IPU and Canada’s participation to the IPU. A document was circulated to each of you showing a graph and the evolution or the developments with regard to these membership fees. As you can see, there has been a reduction in Swiss francs of approximately 20 per cent since 2010 of those membership fees. The blue lines show the cost in Canadian dollars. The discrepancy is due to the fluctuation in currency exchange rates.
That’s pretty much what I had to say in terms of opening remarks. I’m prepared to answer questions on the activities and expenditures of associations for the last fiscal year.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Is the budget for interparliamentary committees independent, or is it funded in part by the Senate and the House of Commons?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: The funds are managed by the Joint Interparliamentary Council. Parliamentary associations receive funding at a rate of 30 per cent from the Senate and 70 per cent from the House of Commons. This budget is allocated specifically for the activities of associations. It is managed by the council under the delegation of this committee and the house management.
Senator Moncion: In your annual report, could you tell us how much money was spent by the Senate and how much by the House of Commons?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: It would be impossible to demonstrate, in the sense that all the activities of parliamentary associations are joint. When delegations go on missions, senators and members of Parliament participate. For example, when a mission cost $100,000, we cannot say that $30,000 was spent on senators and $70,000 was spent on MPs. It is a whole. At the end of the year, when we count the expenditures, we make sure the envelope that has been set at the rate of 30 per cent and 70 per cent is respected.
Senator Moncion: For the sake of the Senate, can we know how many senators traveled compared to the number of MPs?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Yes, absolutely. The report gives this information. Page 6 provides the total number of senators who traveled. It provides a five-year summary and the number of MPs. I can tell you that, on average, the participation rate of senators relative to that of MPs is expected to fluctuate. During an election year, the participation of senators will be greater because MPs cannot travel. Senators then undertake missions on behalf of the Canadian Parliament.
In an ordinary year when there are no elections, the average turnout is 35 per cent of senators and 65 per cent of MPs. Participation is slightly higher than the funding formula provides.
[English]
Senator Mitchell: The breakdown of senators versus MPs is consistent with the funding. If you take the employee travellers on delegations out of the 349, you get about 32 per cent of parliamentarians being senators who are travelling.
I would be interested in knowing what percentage of that 32 per cent — those 87 senators — were independent senators or non-affiliated. I understand that while the JIC is making some progress toward accommodating the new reality in the Senate, that’s specific to each association and may not be being applied in a — I don’t want to use the words “a fair way,” but a representative way, if I can put it that way. What steps would we have to take to make sure that that began to occur?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: I don’t have those numbers with me today. We do have all the data with regard to every delegate, so we could get that information for you for the last fiscal year.
I know that going forward, many of the associations and the decision of the composition of a delegation — so deciding who is actually going to participate on a mission — belongs to the executive of each association. They have their constitution, and they have had discussions as to how to apply the concept of proportionality.
Whether they are a bilateral or multilateral association would have an effect in the sense that if a multilateral association undertakes a mission to participate at a conference, the Parliament of Canada may only have been allotted four seats at that conference; so they can’t take 10 delegates. The proportionality is difficult to apply when the numbers mean that you don’t actually get 10 people to take along; so you can’t take seven members from the house or three senators.
For some associations it makes sense to try and apply it on a cumulative formula over the fiscal year, and some associations attempt to do that currently. Other associations have tried to apply, quite strictly, the proportionality since the last series of annual general meetings, so since early this spring.
Other associations have been waiting for clearer directions from the JIC. Some have written to the JIC in terms of how we apply the proportionality, given the evolving context of the Senate. The JIC is also, in a sense, waiting for clearer direction because this committee itself mentioned that it wanted to have the discussion — this was last May and June — about this very question of proportionality and how delegates are selected for international missions. The question, unfortunately, is that it depends.
Senator Mitchell: Efforts are being made but may be inconsistent. They certainly are specific to each association, it would seem. It dawns on me that it’s reassuring to hear that some associations are trying to do proportionality on an accumulation basis. That raises the possibility that the accumulation could be done for the Senate as a whole over the range of parliamentary associations to establish fairness. The bottom line, you are saying, is that we need to look at it in more detail.
Perhaps, chair, we should be thinking of doing that because it’s complex, it’s not easy, and it’s not being applied completely representational, clearly, and we need to address that.
The Chair: Actually, as the witness said, last year we discussed how to go about that and whether we should be looking at how we do the proportionality. It’s not something we are not aware of. If we wish to get into that, we need to get the information, first of all, and put it together and take a look at it.
As you said, one of the difficulties is that within the JIC are a number of different entities, and each entity appears to have their own set of rules with regard to how they operate. Whether that’s something we want to get into or not, I don’t know; that’s up to the committee. But that’s one of the difficulties in making a uniform decision on who is going where. Each JIC member has a different way of going about it.
Senator Mitchell: I think there is a way through. We should study it, and I would encourage that we get on with doing that.
The Chair: Perhaps you could put that together and bring it to us as an opportunity to discuss what is going on here. I would appreciate that.
Senator Mitchell: Sure.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Mitchell.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much and welcome this morning.
I read through the report, and there was a reference there to a subcommittee that is conducting a five-year review of parliamentary associations. Who is on that subcommittee?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: That five-year review is a regular occurrence. The JIC does undertake a review of how it manages the governance of associations, the funding, et cetera, every five years.
The last one, the subcommittee has completed its work. It was chaired by Mr. Simms from the house. Also Mr. Stanton was a member of that committee from the house. Senator Plett and Senator Tannas took turns attending those meetings. It was composed of three parliamentarians, two members and one senator, who were members or substitute members from the JIC.
Senator Marshall: And what are they looking at? Is it the 12 parliamentary associations? Are they looking at the interparliamentary groups? What is being studied?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: I should have added Ms. Mathyssen from the New Democratic Party was also a member of that subcommittee.
They conducted several meetings over several weeks and invited a number of chairs, representatives from the interparliamentary groups and the friendship groups. They looked at the entire question of governance, whether or not, if you would like, the planet is appropriately covered from a parliamentary diplomacy perspective. Do we have the right associations? Should we have multilaterals or bilaterals?
I don’t know if Senator Tannas or Senator Plett, who participated in those discussions, would have anything to add.
They came back with some recommendations that the JIC is currently reviewing. They may decide to suggest changes to the structure of associations, or not. Those discussions are ongoing.
Senator Marshall: What was the impetus for the review? Because you’ve been before this committee a number of times. Was it at the impetus of this committee and the Board of Internal Economy on the other side, or is this an internal thing?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: It’s an internal thing for the council. Every five years, it undertakes a review of the administration, the governance, its funding levels, whatever they deem should be looked at.
Senator Marshall: So it’s going to report back early in the next fiscal year, but the decision was made in March of 2016 to do the review. Why would it take two years? Is it because of the breadth of the review? Could you comment on that?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Sorry. Following the last election, the JIC set itself up early in the following year, so 2016. It discussed its mandate, being a newly comprised council. It chose to undertake that five-year review in a particular fashion and create a subcommittee. It gave terms of reference to that subcommittee, allowing it to conduct its study over a year, as they did undertake a significant number of meetings to hear from many stakeholders. The report was presented only early this spring, and the Joint Interparliamentary Council has been considering those recommendations since.
Senator Marshall: This body will get a copy of that report?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
The Chair: Any other questions?
Senator Plett: As Colette mentioned, I was part of that review. I am on the JIC right now as one of the co-chairs. I want to support some of what Colette said, especially in reference to what Senator Mitchell was talking about and wanting us to, again, jump forward by leaps and bounds here as opposed to doing things in a very deliberate fashion.
Over the last year and a bit, many of the ISG members will agree that our travel policies have changed tremendously. We have had trips — and I think Senator Forest will agree — where only an ISG member travelled because he was that member. Typically, when there are three slots, those three slots go one Liberal, one ISG and one Conservative. That is fairly common already.
In reference to what Senator Marshall asked about some of the rule changes, there are very significant changes being made.
Chair, I don’t see any reason why this committee would do any study of this prior to the report Colette is saying we have drafted and will come to this body in due course, and indeed to the entire Senate, to pass. There is no reason to have parallel discussions on trying to change the rules of JIC when JIC is, in fact, working with that as we speak. They are going to make changes that I think will certainly be very satisfying to ISG — maybe not quite as satisfying to the Conservatives and the Liberals, because we’re giving up some spots. It’s easier to take them than to give them up.
Even on the funding formula, there is a recommendation that the funding formula be changed a bit, in light of the fact that there are more ISG members travelling, that the Senate possibly will pick up a little more of the funding. We have done everything to try to accommodate exactly that.
Chair, I would be very opposed to our doing any study of this prior to that report coming to this committee.
The Chair: The issue that I was addressing was Senator Mitchell’s question. I’ve given it to him to put it together. Whether we study it or not will be up to the committee, but he did have a question and I believe we should be taking a look at it. Whether we study it or not isn’t the decision. It’s that Senator Mitchell will take a look at this and see where we go on it. But your point is well taken.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: In the numbers section, on pages 27, 34, 43, 48 and 51, there are transportation costs, but no participants. I would like to understand why you have such accounting. On page 16 of the English version, there is a “Miscellaneous” category, which includes $50,000. Can you explain these entries, please?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: In the “Miscellaneous” category, as you say, half of the costs are associated with the technical support needed during meetings, such as interpreters, for example. The rest represents costs associated with the mechanisms we need, such as room logistics, when we receive guests. I have the details here. I will answer in English.
[English]
I do have $24,000 of those miscellaneous costs for captioning and interpretation services; $9,000 was spent on gifts, which is comparable to the previous, last fiscal years.
I know, senators, the question of gifts is a delicate one. The gift-giving policy is quite well established. When you do meet on the international level, there is an expectation, protocol to protocol, for a gift exchange. Those gifts are of nominal value. They range between $50 to a maximum of $150 allowed for association activities.
The other charges would be due to cellular charges. Given the security situation on the international level, it is often not advisable for staff and delegates to activate Wi-Fi connections on their devices, so we have to use more cellular data, bringing those charges significantly higher. Those are represented under miscellaneous charges.
Then we have external printing costs, medical evaluations and physicals, office supplies, flagpoles. Those things do add up to that miscellaneous charge.
[Translation]
As for the transportation costs, I did not manage to write down the page numbers.
Senator Moncion: Pages 27, 34, 43, 48 and 51 of the French version of the report.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Perhaps it has to do with the Canadian delegation of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the IPU, and I may have it on page 28. Is it transportation without delegates?
Senator Moncion: That’s right.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: It’s probably the $147 amount.
Senator Moncion: I have last week’s version. For example, on page 51, on April 10, 2017, there’s the fourty-fifth meeting in Paris and Marseille; there are zero participants. In the transportation column, it says 35,027, and there is a total, but absolutely nothing else. There are no participants. There are a number like that. That’s why I listed several page numbers. Why are there transportation costs without participants?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: For whatever reason, the page number does not match. I do not understand. In most of those cases, for example, we buy plane tickets as far in advance as possible. The more you buy in advance, the less expensive they are. Often, when you see transportation costs, the plane tickets were bought, but the activity is scheduled for the next fiscal year.
Senator Moncion: So, it is paid in advance?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: It’s paid in advance. However, I must point out that this is the last time you will see something like that. In discussions with our financial partners in the House of Commons and the Senate, we decided that, when we purchase plane tickets in March for activities that will take place in June, the expense will be transferred to the fiscal year related to the activity. It is possible to buy plane tickets in February for a trip in June, because it is cheaper.
Senator Moncion: I understand, but how are you going to reflect that amount in —
[English]
The Chair: We’re running rapidly out of time.
Senator Moncion: I understand. I thought today we had the time to ask all these questions. I have one more. Sorry.
[Translation]
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: When there is a significant delay between the time when we buy the plane tickets and the activity, we insert footnotes in the tables to indicate that we must carry the expenses over to the next fiscal year.
Senator Moncion: In this case, it was not indicated. That’s fine. I understand your explanation.
What is your threshold for reporting expenses? Earlier, you mentioned $29,000 for technical support. Do you have a materiality threshold that, at some point, becomes a catch-all where you do not detail spending that falls below it?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: That’s a good question. That’s the way we have been operating for many years when we prepare the annual report.
Senator Moncion: Very well, thank you.
[English]
Senator Mitchell: I appreciate your follow-up to Senator Plett’s comments and I will proceed. I’ll put together a group and maybe ask Senator Plett if he wants to sit on it. It will be fun. We’ll go for beers and you can chair it.
I do also accept and I encourage him and his point that we should be awaiting the report of JIC. I wonder, though, if it can be enhanced by putting in the percentage, the number of independent senators who have been on delegations compared to those of other groups, if we could have that made clear.
Maybe, as an appendix, if we could have it association by association, so we could get some idea of the variation and the application of what should be an equivalently applied rule and probably isn’t.
The Chair: I’m not sure how deep you want to dig here, but certainly that information can be supplied to you.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you. I think it should be supplied to all of us in the report.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Senator Moncion has already touched briefly on the issue of miscellaneous fees. You answered that over 50 per cent of expenditures are for technical equipment, translation, and so on. It’s still a big increase since 2012. It’s an increase of almost two and a half times in additional spending. Let me refer you to the French document on page 19. Without getting into micromanagement, I wanted to point this out. We went from $20,000 to almost $49,000. That seems like a big gap to me.
In an article published on the CBC website in November 2015, Conservative MP Bruce Stanton said that the increase in travel was the result of various factors, and I quote:
[English]
. . . and a need to engage with the U.S. on issues like NAFTA renegotiations.
[Translation]
Could you tell me where it is in the document? If I look at the percentage of expenditures, on page 22 of the document in French, I’m trying to see where that information is — perhaps it is somewhere else in the document.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Actually, that information is not in the report. Mr. Stanton was repeating the comments that the members of the House of Commons and the Senate shared with the council when they submitted the request for additional funding. The additional funding was authorized only on April 1, 2017. Mr. Stanton’s comments reflected those of his colleagues, members of Parliament and senators on executive committees or the 13 associations. They requested that the associations be able to better fulfill their mandate internationally and that Canada invest in its international presence through its associations by paying membership fees.
The cost of membership fees did not leave much room for participation. We actually paid to be part of the round table, but we could not participate because there was not enough money. That’s the gist of his argument. Mr. Stanton was saying that the fact that parliamentarians have a role to play in parliamentary diplomacy — not necessarily executive diplomacy — meant that Canada’s position abroad was strengthened. He was sharing his colleagues’ thoughts.
Senator Verner: Thank you.
Senator Carignan: I would like to ask a question about the management of documents. The discussion is public, but on the report, it says, “Restricted, not for distribution.” This is confusing. Is the report public or not, is it restricted or not? Perhaps there should be a policy on the release of documents. It has been a while since I sat on the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. The guidelines may need to be standardized to determine what is public and what is not.
[English]
The Chair: I will have that addressed.
The witness, please.
[Translation]
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Since this is the Joint Interparliamentary Council’s report, it must be submitted to the board of the House of Commons and the board of the Senate before it is made public. Therefore, as soon as the documentation is prepared, both meetings must take place before we can post the content of the report on the website. If both submissions have not taken place, the report is not made public.
Senator Carignan: It is public from now on.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Now, if this council agrees that this report be made public, we can do so this afternoon.
Senator Carignan: I think it is public. If people want to follow our discussions, they must have it in their hands.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: It will be made public after this meeting.
[English]
The Chair: It’s actually public right now.
I’d like to thank the witnesses for coming today.
Before we move on, I’d like to thank Senator Batters — it’s one of the reasons I’m so glad that she’s a deputy — for looking and seeing that the minutes of proceedings from November 22 were omitted from the English package distributed on Tuesday. They have been distributed now.
Again, are there any questions on those minutes? If not, could I have a motion, please? Senator Munson. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Again, thank you to Senator Batters.
Item No. 4 is the re-establishment of the membership of subcommittees. If you agree, we will need to defer this item to the next meeting because of committees having to get together. However, we do need to make two membership changes on the Senate Estimates Committee, and a motion is being distributed to you.
The motion basically replaces Senator Jaffer with Senator Dawson, and Senator McCoy replaces Senator Saint-Germain. Could I have a motion on that?
Senator Munson: I’d like to move that the Honourable Senator Dawson replace the Honourable Senator Jaffer on the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and that the Honourable Senator McCoy replace the Honourable Senator Saint-Germain on the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
The steering committee has reviewed the list of advisory working groups and is recommending that their membership remain the same since they will conclude their work soon. However, we will be making a recommendation to change the Advisory Working Group on the Review of Human Resources into a subcommittee, and we will be canvassing for members to sit on that new subcommittee.
We’ll be addressing that further, but when we looked at all of the working groups, most of them were almost finished. But we did believe that we should move the HR working group to a subcommittee.
Senator Marshall: What do you mean by “canvassing”? How do senators end up on working groups?
The Chair: That’s a good question. I ended up on two or three of them and I never did figure that out. I think it’s simply we have X number of members from each group on there and the group says, “These are the people we would like on that committee.” So the same thing will happen. Instead of having a working group, we’ll have a subcommittee, and we will do it exactly the same as any other subcommittee — five people.
Senator Marshall: How do we do the subcommittees?
The Chair: We have two, two, and one, basically is the rule. Two Conservatives, two ISG and one Liberal put forward by the various groups.
Any other questions on that? Thank you.
We will go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)