THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 7, 2017
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:30 a.m., in public and in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Larry Campbell (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome to the regular Thursday morning meeting of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
The first item on our agenda is the adoption of the minutes of proceedings of November 30. Has everyone had an opportunity to read them? Thank you.
Number two is Senator McPhedran, who is appealing a decision from the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure with regard to a Winnipeg travel claim. Senator McPhedran has two witnesses here. I’ll begin by explaining the process for this morning, which was agreed to by the steering committee, and then I will say a few words to provide context for senators and our audience.
We’ll begin with a short opening statement from Senator McPhedran as part of the introduction to her appeal. We will then hear from her two witnesses in support of her case. They are appearing by video conference from Winnipeg, and I thank them very much for showing up as it’s a little early there. Then, senators will have an opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses.
Since, as you can see by the agenda, we have a full morning here, after the initial presentations and the questioning of the Winnipeg witnesses, we will proceed with our regular items, briefly going in camera. Afterwards, we will return to public to continue hearing the appeal. Senator McPhedran, of course, may remain with the committee for the duration of the meeting.
I want to ensure that Senator McPhedran has all the time she needs to present and I think it flows better if we do that rather than get into it, chop it up and go back.
I’m hoping that Senator McPhedran’s presentation can then be done in order to give her ample time and an uninterrupted opportunity to present her case. In the event we run out of time, the hearing will continue next week.
Since the appeal is being heard in public, the documentation that was provided to you should be tabled with the committee. A motion has been distributed to you.
Is it agreed that the background material distributed to the committee related to the appeal by the Honourable Senator McPhedran be filed as an exhibit with the clerk of the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
We will now start with statements from Senator McPhedran, followed by Mr. Melamedoff and Shania Pruden.
You have the floor, Senator McPhedran.
Hon. Marilou McPhedran, Senator: Thank you so much. First of all, let me express appreciation to the Senate and to every member of the committee for making the time to come into a public venue like this to listen to my presentation, and let me especially thank Ariel and Shania. It’s a dark, cold Winnipeg morning and they travelled a considerable distance to get into the teleconference studio.
Ariel and Shania, I’ve asked you to be here with us today because I don’t want to speak in your voices about the importance of the Youth Parliament, not only the Speaker’s Night that I attended as your guest speaker, but more about the work of you and your colleagues as youth leaders in Manitoba and the role of the Youth Parliament.
I do want to say to you, though, that this appeal is my responsibility, so you don’t have to answer any questions from senators who may question you closely about what you understand about the Senate rules, et cetera. That’s off-limits. Those questions come to me.
You’re here as witnesses to raise the level of awareness and understanding of what you, as youth leaders, were doing in creating this annual Speaker’s Night and the nature of that activity.
The principal question that is before us is a very important one for the public and for everybody in Canada: What is it that senators should be doing with our privilege and our resources? And, particularly for this appeal, when is travel appropriate?
I will go into the more technical aspects of the nature of my appeal because of the honourable senators that are here this morning to make a final decision. I really wanted to assure you that I have no expectation that you will answer any of those kinds of questions in relation to the appeal itself.
I’m going to begin by setting out the context for the work of this committee and of the Senate writ whole and the idea behind there having to be a specific travel policy.
Much of what goes into the work of a senator, as I’ve come to understand it in my first year here, is very much here in Ottawa, on Parliament Hill, in committees and in the chamber. But another big part of what we do as senators — part of our parliamentary function — is to connect people to the Senate and the Senate to people.
The travel policy is quite clear, I think, in terms of the overall context for my appeal. The policy recognizes that travel is a necessary component of senators’ parliamentary functions. Parliamentary functions are regularly carried out in Ottawa, and senators must travel between their provincial-territorial residences and the National Capital Region to attend Senate sittings, committee meetings and caucus meetings. From time to time, senators may also be required to travel to other locations in order to fulfil their parliamentary functions.
However, the nature of the appeal today is the fact that I was travelling back to Winnipeg, Manitoba, which has been my home since 2008 and is where I was born and raised. So this is not about travel that is unusual; this is about travel back to my home.
The principles that are guiding the decision here today include trust and flexibility, that senators have sufficient discretion and latitude to act in a fair and reasonable manner in determining travel arrangements that best respond to the requirements of senators’ parliamentary functions.
We’re also in a process here today that has dedicated itself to transparency. We’re doing this on public television for anybody who wishes to watch and to hear, and to be honest, this was a very big part of the reason that I made the decision to appeal. The transparency is something that is part of being a modern form of governance.
Another principle is accountability for what we do and what this committee does, the members of this committee. There’s a need for the decision making to be consistent, to be fair, and that there’s equitable application of policy and practices. That means that certain members of this committee, for example, or the previous committee before this committee was formed, should not be receiving special dispensation as members of the committee. There are times when there are exceptions, and exceptions also need to be made consistently, fairly, with an equitable application.
Another principle regarding what we’re here today to discuss is about valuing people. Travel policies are fair when they support the health, safety and well-being, and in a travel context, of senators and their families.
Another principle stated here is modern travel practices. The objectives that are outlined are that the primary aim of this travel policy is to ensure the fair treatment of persons required to travel for parliamentary functions.
Another aspect of this — and this is really the essence of my appeal — is my respectful presentation to this committee and to all members of the committee who are here today to decide on this appeal on travelling back to one’s home to receive care, health care and in my case, dental care.
I won’t go into the gruesome details, but I think it’s important to let you know that a couple of years ago, through a number of highly specialized consultations, it was determined that I suffer from a very significant and unusual amount of bone loss in my jaws. There’s a risk because some embedded infections likely caused that, and it was actually determined that one of the very best surgeons in North America for my particular condition is a surgeon in Winnipeg, which is fabulous because Winnipeg is my home.
So I am in the midst of a two-year dental surgery process. It takes several months to recover from each one of the surgeries and then we go back at it. There is one dental surgeon in charge of that care. It requires regular checkups and then the next stage of the surgery is scheduled.
In this particular case, very early on in my time as a senator, the Youth Parliament of Manitoba was one of the very early invitations I received to be a keynote speaker. The person who was working in my office at the time was a very experienced person who had worked for a senator who had just retired, had been working for that senator for four years or more, and had lived through an audit process, which I haven’t lived through but I’m told by many senators is an extraordinarily difficult experience. I was told by this person that she had checked and that the authorization from administration had been given and, yes, I could accept your invitation.
Now, that person is no longer here on Parliament Hill. We no longer have access to any of the communications on her end. The administration on the other side has looked to see if there was any email that they received, and it appears that there was not. But I’m submitting to you in truth that the conversation that occurred was that there was a phone call. It is not unusual between offices for this kind of checking in to occur by phone call. So we went ahead.
And at the same time we were in the process of making the commitment to you — because you needed to know to go ahead with your plans for the event — then to build in the time that I was able to spend in my home city, to be able to get the dental care that I needed earlier in the day and then to be able to come to speak and to be with you in the evening, and then to be able to fly back to Ottawa that night. So that’s how that happened.
To members of the committee, what I would like to submit to you is that this is actually a very simple matter. It isn’t within the necessary terms of your interpretation of the rules to subject your colleague senators to a test on what was the “primary purpose” when we return to our home. I believe in a reading of the documents made available that we have a right as grown-ups, as senators, to make a decision about when we need to return to our homes and whether we need to seek particular kinds of care.
So in the course of this particular day, when I was back in Winnipeg, I want to submit to you that determining what I did in every hour of that day and where I went or what I did is really not your job. It’s really not appropriate. I made a decision to return to my home. I think the policy clearly gives me the right to do that. I made a decision to do a number of things in my home city while I was there. To try and parse out any one aspect of what I did in my home during that period of time and then label that as my primary purpose I think is not a helpful interpretation of the discretion of this committee.
The fact that on this particular day I had an important dental consultation for my ongoing surgery, and I also was the keynote speaker and spent time with youth parliamentarians, I would not put “primary”; I would not create a hierarchy for those hours that I was back in my home city. I would say that there was importance to everything that I chose to do, but the key point is that I was home, that I had the right to travel home and I had the right to balance between what I needed to do here on the Hill and what I felt was necessary to do in the period of time that I was home. And I was home as much to be with you as I was to take care of other matters. That really is, from my point of view, quite a simple issue to have addressed.
However, in previous review of this particular case there have been a lot of questions raised and I’ve tried to provide information. Ariel, you have provided additional information. I thank you so much for the time you’ve taken previous to this. Now you’re both here today, so I’d like to stop talking and say that, as a senator, I have the right to balance what I need to do with my parliamentary responsibilities, and that includes deciding when it’s important to go home.
I’d like to turn it over to you and invite you to share with the senators your experiences with the Youth Parliament and also whether there was any particular about you inviting me to be your keynote speaker and the time we spent together, the nature of that evening, what was involved for you as youth parliamentarians.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Which witness would like to start?
Ariel Melamedoff, as an individual: I’ll start.
The Chair: Please continue.
Mr. Melamedoff: Thank you, senators.
[Translation]
Thank you. Meegwetch. It is a real honour to be here.
[English]
My name is Ariel Melamedoff and I am the chairperson of the Youth Parliament of Manitoba. We are a 96-year-old charity, and we run a model Parliament for Manitobans aged 16 to 20 every year in December. These young people are interested in politics. They get to meet other young people interested in politics and they get to meet with politicians, all in the purpose of finding their place and their voice in our political system, a political system which unfortunately many young people feel disenchanted by.
Our organization is run entirely by youth. I am 22 years old, and I am the chairperson. We are also run entirely by volunteers. I do not receive any compensation for the hundreds of hours of work I put into this organization every year. In fact, I actually have to pay fees to attend all of our events, just like any other member.
This means that we can keep our overhead costs extremely low. We spend only about 15 per cent of our annual budget on administrative costs. We do this so that we can direct the vast majority of donations from community members toward making our event affordable. By the way, I say “donations from community members” because we do not receive any government funding, federal or provincial. As a result, we are by far the most affordable anglophone youth parliament in Western Canada. We are about half as expensive to attend as the next-most-affordable option.
We also have by far the most robust program of financial aid of any youth parliament in Western Canada. We have it built into our bylaws that any young person aged 16 to 20 who wants to attend our event will be allowed and encouraged to do so, regardless of financial background. We will cover any costs they can’t afford, if that is the case.
We can do this largely because of Speaker’s Night. It started about 10 years ago. Speaker’s Night is a gala dinner in which community members come together to support our organization and listen to a keynote speaker who shares our organization’s values. Speaker’s Night pays for a large part of the cost of running our winter session. More important, the security of having the financial backing that comes from the revenues from Speaker’s Night allows us to focus our energy on getting donations specifically targeted to fund underprivileged youth to come to our event. We can also spend our time on outreach for these communities.
Speaker’s Night this year, in large part thanks to Senator McPhedran, was incredibly successful and energizing for our members and our community. We have managed to increase our profile this year, and I’m incredibly proud to say that for the first time in decades, Youth Parliament of Manitoba is completely sold out. We are at capacity and have started to put people on a wait list because so many young Manitobans are interested in politics and want to attend our event.
We have also more than doubled the number of members able to attend free of charge due to financial hardship. Last year was a record number of members attending for free; this year, we have more than doubled that number. This year, 26 per cent of members of Youth Parliament of Manitoba are not paying anything to attend our event thanks to our fundraising efforts and, in large part, thanks to Speaker’s Night.
I’m incredibly proud of the service we are doing for these young people in our community.
It cannot possibly be the intention of the rules established by the Senate of Canada to discourage its members from helping organizations like ours, an organization that is entirely youth-run by volunteers, which receives no government funding, is non-denomination and non-partisan, and which, for nearly a century, has worked year after year to help young people learn about their place in our political institutions.
On a personal note, when I was 19 years old, I was extremely cynical about the ability of individuals, and especially young people, to make a difference in our political system. My mind was changed permanently when I saw a guest lecture by Senator McPhedran, who was not then a senator, in my Canadian Politics class. I was inspired and energized by her message, and perhaps for the first time in my life, I actually thought that I, as an individual, had the capacity to make a difference in our political system.
As Chairperson of Youth Parliament of Manitoba this year, I felt it was my obligation to invite Senator McPhedran to speak to our members and our communities, to inspire them and to show them the power that individuals can have in our political system, just like she inspired me three years prior.
Thank you for your time, senators. I’m happy to answer any questions that you might have.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We will go to our next witness.
Shania Pruden, as an individual: Thank you, senators. Good morning. My name is Shania Pruden, and I am the Minister of Reconciliation for this year’s session of Youth Parliament of Manitoba. This time last year, I was sitting at home with my computer open, contemplating whether to attend the ninety-fifth winter session of Youth Parliament. I closed it, but a couple weeks later, my mother and I had a discussion, and she strongly encouraged me to go for it. That day, I signed up.
It was really nerve-wracking the first day, and I thought maybe it was a bad idea, so I hid in the corner. But as the day went on, I soon realized that the people who were there were just as eager as I was to get involved with politics.
Since then I’ve only had phenomenal, wonderful memories from my time with Youth Parliament of Manitoba. I’ve met so many phenomenal people. I’m super excited to say that, this year, I am attending Youth Parliament again as the Minister of Reconciliation, helping to bring more indigenous youth to participate in the Youth Parliament of Manitoba and to hopefully inspire them to strive for a future in politics.
When I heard that Senator Marilou McPhedran would be attending the Youth Parliament of Manitoba’s Speaker’s Night as our keynote speaker, I was beyond excited, as were my friends. I first learned about Senator McPhedran from the Canadian Museum for Human Rights and her work around women’s rights. Senator McPhedran spoke about the importance of supporting youth organizations such as the Youth Parliament of Manitoba, a youth organization run by youth. She also encouraged us to keep being politically involved and reminded us that we do have a voice, and we have the right to use it in any form we wish to.
After hearing Senator McPhedran speak, she inspired me to continue my path with the Youth Parliament of Manitoba, to strive and continue with my political activism, but also to always remember that my voice is important and to never let anyone stop me from using my voice to make the changes that I wish to see in the world.
Senator McPhedran’s speech is something I will always remember, because it showed me the true value of encouragement. She encouraged each and every one of us to keep doing what we’re doing. Hearing that I’m doing the right thing from a senator herself is something I will never forget. It meant so much to me, and I’m super honoured to say that I have such an influential political leader in my life. She continues to inspire me to always reach for my fullest potential.
To end, I would like to say that I really hope one day a young person looks up to me the same way I look up to Senator McPhedran. I would also like to say meegwetch to the senator for all of the incredible opportunities she has provided me. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, both of you, for presenting today. It goes without saying that the Youth Parliament of Manitoba is an important function for young people. This isn’t about whether you or your organization is important. I hope you understand that. From everyone at this table, there’s great respect for what you do, and we hope that in the future that you’ll be here and not me with a white beard. I thank you very much.
Does anyone have questions for these witnesses?
Senator Batters: Thank you to our two witnesses. I want to say, first, what a noble effort youth parliaments are. My husband is a very proud alumnus of the Saskatchewan Youth Parliament. He always referenced that.
I have a few questions about your particular event. You’ve indicated today what an important fundraising event this is for your organization to take care of all your noble causes. I note that the post about your May 4 event, which continues to be on your website, says that Speaker’s Night is fundraising event in support of Youth Parliament of Manitoba, with Senator Marilou McPhedran’s name and photo being predominantly displayed. Above her photo, the $100 ticket price is noted.
You also have a Facebook post up about this particular event on May 4. It says that Speaker’s Night is the Youth Parliament of Manitoba’s premier fundraising event. I’m happy to hear you were pleased with the results of with the fundraising.
The ticket price is $100. It isn’t just a cost-recovery event. You’ve talked about how important this fundraising event is for you. How much of the $100 ticket price was used for the actual cost of the event?
Mr. Melamedoff: Thank you for the question, senator.
We were very lucky to be hosted for Speaker’s Night by the Winter Club in Winnipeg. They give us a generous deal in which we pay $40 a plate and no cost for renting the room in which we hold the event. So our margins are $40 per plate for attendance at the event and $60 of every ticket comes to the organization.
However, we also have lots of tickets that are comped by organizations. For example, Senator McPhedran did not pay to attend the event and we have a few other dignitaries who did not pay. As part of our sponsorship package for individuals and organizations that sponsor the organization for the rest of the year, we include some benefits such as seats at Speaker’s Night. We had a large number of -- I think about 15 per cent of -- attendees at Speaker’s Night who did not pay for their tickets at all. That messes up the margins of our revenues a bit, but it’s more or less $40 that goes to paying for the event and $60 that comes to us.
Senator Batters: That’s amazing. A 60 per cent fundraising profit for your event is incredible. Given my many years of organizing fundraising events, I can tell you that’s a very good profit.
Ariel, you delivered a speech at that event. I think a fair portion of your speech discussed two of the really noble purposes of your event: the alumni scholarship and your reconciliation fund. Can you briefly talk about that? Is it correct that both of those noble purposes are made possible by the organization’s fundraising efforts?
Mr. Melamedoff: First, just a quick note. The alumni scholarship recently changed its name to the Manitoba Emerging Leaders Award. It’s a scholarship organized by some alumni of our organization who raise money within their circles of other alumni in order to pay the attendance costs of underprivileged youth, who go through an organization called Youth Agencies Alliance to recruit young people who are interested and who are associated with agencies in Manitoba for youth.
Importantly, as I mentioned in the speech, the Manitoba Emerging Leaders Award not only pays the registration cost for these youths to attend, which is $120, but it also gives them a fairly large stipend for all food costs they incur during the event and for purchasing formal clothing if they don’t have clothes they can wear to our event. They get to keep those clothes at the end of the day, which is an incredible service our alumni started a few years ago.
Based on that effort of our alumni, we started our own reconciliation fund, which Shania is in charge of this year, in which we essentially do the same task but specifically target it toward young indigenous people in Manitoba who can’t afford to come to our event. We also pay their registration and travel fees and give them a stipend for food and formal clothing that they get to keep after the event is over.
As I mentioned in my speech today, the ability to focus on these particular fundraising efforts would not be possible if we did not have the financial backing of an event like Speaker’s Night.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much and best of luck in the future. We hope to see you sitting in the halls of Parliament with us one day.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for Senator McPhedran. I do not think you provided enough facts. The request was first presented for fundraising, which was refused. You then appealed to the committee.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Carignan, if it’s specifically a question for Senator McPhedran, can we hold off until we go through our process and then come back to it?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Yes, I thought the senator was a witness. Okay, I can ask my question later on.
[English]
The Chair: It’s dark in Winnipeg.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: As long as she is available to answer other questions, because I have a number of questions.
[English]
The Chair: I want to thank you for coming today and, as Senator Batters said, good luck with your organization. Thank you very much.
We will now go to Item 3 on our agenda, which is the funding for the Independent Senators Group.
Senator McPhedran: Excuse me for interrupting, but I would like some clarification on timing for this due to other commitments I have this morning. The way this is organized, if I understand, is that if I wish to be present to respond to questions, that will not happen now that you’ve made the decision to have me sit and wait while you go through more of your program before questions can be directed to me.
The Chair: You don’t have to sit and wait. We can call you back. We’re going forward because we have a time-sensitive agenda and yours, quite frankly, isn’t time sensitive. It’s a matter of either yes or no.
Senator McPhedran: Quite frankly, sir, my day is time-sensitive. I have many other commitments this morning. With all due respect, I can’t promise to walk out of the events where I’m speaking in order to come back to answer your questions, so if you can give me a sense of how that will work, I would appreciate knowing.
The Chair: Senator, I would have hoped you would have cleared at least two hours this morning for this. We’re all here to listen to you.
Senator McPhedran: And I’m here to answer questions, but I’m not sure how much longer you would like me to sit and listen to other items.
The Chair: I suppose, then, the answer is that if you’re not here and you can’t make it, we’ll be back next Thursday and we’ll continue then.
Senator McPhedran: Will there be a call to my office?
The Chair: We’ll have your office called, yes.
Senator McPhedran: All right. Thank you.
The Chair: Item 3 is Independent Senators Group funding.
Honourable senators, we’re continuing our debate from the last meeting on the funding request from the Independent Senators Group for the current fiscal year. Is there any further debate?
Senator Plett: I don’t see Senator Woo in the room. If we’re going to be discussing this, I’m surprised he’s not here because I have some questions for him.
The Chair: Senator Woo isn’t here.
Senator Plett: Chair, that is problematic, then. As I said last week when Senator Woo was here, there were certain criteria around the agreement that we made with him, as a group, with regard to this funding and, as a matter of fact, he nodded when I suggested that. I think that before we can have a vote on this, Senator Woo needs to be here to explain whether what I’m going to suggest is, in fact, correct.
The Chair: Senator Saint-Germain is the deputy and she is here. I see her hand.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, chair. I just want to say that Senator Woo was told he was to be heard at 9:15. He’s on his way here.
The Chair: Okay, fine. I wish I had known that before.
We’ll move on to Item 4 and come back to Item 3.
Number 4 relates to the subcommittees. It’s the re-establishment of the membership of the subcommittees, and the draft motion has been distributed. The motion has three parts. The first part names the members of each subcommittee, except for estimates, which was previously done. All subcommittees will be composed of five members, except for the diversity subcommittee, which will have three.
The second part makes a membership adjustment to the estimates subcommittee.
Finally, the third part delegates to the whips and facilitator the ability to make substitutions on all subcommittees, just like on full committees. Motions will no longer be necessary here for each membership change.
Does anyone have any questions on this? Do you see a necessity for me to read out all of the names on all the committees? Dispense? Fine.
Could I have somebody move the motion?
It is moved by Senator Munson, seconded by Senator Forest.
All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Honourable senators, Item 5 is the motion to change the Advisory Working Group on the Review of Human Resources into the subcommittee on human resources. Are there any questions on this one?
[Translation]
Senator Verner: I understood that a working group was created to review the effectiveness of our policy on sexual harassment. Does this new subcommittee include that working group or will the work that the sub-group has begun be separate?
[English]
The Chair: There will be a working group on sexual harassment, and I believe there is a group already involved in that. My hope is that there will be somebody from the HR subcommittee also sitting on the working group for sexual harassment, but it will be ongoing. In fact, within this is that the subcommittee is authorized to conduct a review of the Senate policy on prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace. It’s going to be an ongoing thing. I think there are actually going to be two groups. One will be a subcommittee and one will be a working group looking at sexual harassment in particular.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Okay. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Can I have someone move the motion?
You’re popular today, Senator Munson. Senator Munson, seconded by Senator McCoy.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Thank you.
I see Senator Woo. Welcome. We have some questions with regard to the budget. Thank you for coming. I believe it was Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Senator Woo, you’ve made your request -- I don’t have it in front of me -- for an additional $700,000 or whatever it is. It’s kind of irrelevant what the amount is. In any event, you made a request to increase your funding based on your complement of senators.
As you recall, Senator Woo, when we were discussing the composition of the committees, this was an item discussed during those meetings. There was some agreement, off the record, that we would be supporting this.
We raised a concern. You suggest that you have that coming to you because of your numbers; probably no argument there. We further talked about the fact that, however, the Leader of the Government in the Senate was receiving well in excess of $1 million and has only three members. You agreed, Senator Woo, that a good portion of your extra money should be coming from Senator Harder’s budget. As a matter of fact, you did.
Now, I do not see in your request anywhere as to where this money is supposed to come from. Have you changed your mind on that, or could you explain that?
Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Plett, for your question.
I think we’re referring to the budget for the current year and the additional amount that would be for expenses in 2017-18, rather than 2018-19. It’s not correct to say that we are asking for an increase in our budget. Technically, we’re asking for what is due to us that’s already written into the rules. So I remind you that Division 6 states very clearly, based on the agreement made by this committee on June the whatever, that caucuses and parliamentary groups with 20 or more members should be entitled to $1,060,000. We currently only get $722,000, the difference being $338,000.
However, we recognize that this new figure was only put in place on June 21, and, therefore, we’re asking for only the prorated amount of $262,066.
To reiterate, we’re not technically asking for an increase in the sense of wanting more money than is due to us. We’re asking for the amount that is due to us that has already been agreed to by the Senate.
Secondly, it is also incorrect to say that we are asking for these monies because of an increase in our parliamentary group. There has been an increase in our parliamentary group, and that in itself might be a reason to consider increasing our funds and certainly should be a reason for increasing our funds for next year’s budget, but that’s a different topic. We would be entitled to this increase in budget, the $262,066, even if there were no change in our numbers because we were already above 20 as of June 21, 2017. As it turns out, we’re at 39. But even if we had received no more members in the last four or five months, we would be entitled, I believe, to the increase on a prorated basis simply because we were over 20 on June 21.
Senator Plett: I don’t think that at any point in my comments to you did I dispute what you’re entitled to or, in fact, the amounts that you’re asking for or whether they’re prorated. The discussion we had and where we agreed to support you was because you did agree with us that Senator Harder does not have the same numbers you do and thereby is probably getting more than he’s entitled to.
We did have an unofficial agreement that that’s where the money would be coming from.
Senator Woo: I don’t think that’s correct. In any case, I believe the basis on which — if I may be so bold — this committee should make its decision is on the rules that you have established. The rules in Division 6 stipulate an amount for the government for the current year. Presumably that’s the amount that they get.
The same rules, as of June 21, stipulate that parliamentary groups 20 and over should get $1,060,000. That should be the amount that groups with 20 members and over should get. So I’m simply stating the rules and asking for them to be applied to us.
Presumably you want to apply the same rules to the government as well, but that’s not for me to defend.
Senator Batters: Following up on your remarks, Senator Woo, you contend that this should be an automatic increase, yet you didn’t make your request last June 21. You didn’t make your request last September when ISG elected its new leadership, including you. You instead made this unbudgeted, mid-year request; I think it was one day after you came to an agreement in principle on Senate committee restructuring. Is that right?
Senator Woo: Thank you for your question, Senator Batters.
First of all, I do not characterize this as an automatic increase. I characterize it as following the Rules of the Senate. The rules have been established by this committee and agreed to by the Senate. Again, I reiterate that the rules state very clearly that groups with 20 or more, as of June 21, get $1,060,000. When we discovered that this was the fact, we put in our request, after some consideration, of course.
This meeting that approved the increase to $1,060,000 was in June. That was during the break. It’s quite reasonable, I think, that we did not act on it until we got back. The request put in on October 27 has no particular significance, except that that’s the date we put the request in. I would note, however, that it was not acted upon until today, I guess, or until last week, when I first presented this request. So there has been a delay of six weeks now. That’s why we’re urging to put this matter to rest.
Senator Batters: I do note that those of us on the steering committee only received this request one day before you appeared last week.
Also, the amount that you’re requesting is an amount from this past June 21 up until March 31, 2018, which is the end of the Senate’s fiscal year. But the amount you’re requesting is for an increase to your office budget. None of those amounts have been spent yet. Normally, in an office budget the vast majority would be based on salaries, and you indicated last week that you intend to hire additional people in your coordinated Independent Senators Group office. But you haven’t hired those people yet. When salaries would constitute by far the largest component of a group office budget, why would you need retroactive money for the last six months if you haven’t hired those people yet?
In any scenario that this committee looks at for this particular case, I think that it should start January 1, not last June.
Senator Woo: Thank you very much for your question. There are two answers to that.
The first is, again, we should be entitled to the amount that has been set out in the rules. We wish we had received this money even sooner, perhaps soon after October 27 when we requested it. It’s unfortunate we’re still discussing it at this late stage.
My second answer is that we do not spend money until we have assurance of it. It’s simply a matter of good financial management and prudence. If we do get the money, we will put in action the plan we have to hire additional people. If we’re not able to spend it all, we will, of course, give it back to the Senate. But the principle of obtaining the funds that has been set out in the rules for groups such as ours, in the amounts that are designated, I believe should be followed. I can assure you that if we get approval today, our staff will immediately put into action the plan to hire the people and do the things we need to do for an effective ISG secretariat.
Senator Batters: For the record, Senator Harder’s amount for the Senate government leader’s budget is $1.5 million. And along with his deputy government leader and government whip’s office, the total for those three functions is $1.7 million for their office budgets.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Woo, last week I asked about government legislation. It seems to me the budgets are given to the government for work they have to do on the government’s agenda. Money is given to the opposition for the work they do on opposing the government’s agenda, as well as their own senators who have needs from time to time that they use the money for.
I think I asked Senator Mitchell about this, but the majority of the government business is done by the Independent Senators Group. Is that not right? The majority of the bills are introduced by members from your group.
Senator Woo: The bills are introduced by the Speaker, technically speaking. You are referring to the sponsorship of bills.
Senator Tkachuk: The majority of the bills are introduced by the Independent Senators Group. That’s what I was told last week.
Senator Woo: That’s correct.
I think the question you have is best addressed to the Internal Committee as a whole, because it is this committee that decided, before I arrived here, that the government’s budget should be the $1.5 million-plus that Senator Batters referred to. That was the decision made by this committee, not by the independent senators, so I’m not able to answer your question.
Senator Tkachuk: I understand all that fully.
There was an election. The Prime Minister ran on appointing independent senators. It was a new experiment. We tried to assist the process along. But now we’re in the middle of it and seeing how the process is going. We have a government budget, which we used to have, of $1.5 million. We did all the government’s work out of that $1.5 million. Now we have $1.5 million from the government to introduce barely any legislation at all. There’s not much coming, but they still don’t introduce a lot of legislation. You basically introduce the rest of it. Now they don’t pay you anything for introducing that legislation, which I think, in the end, is Senator Plett’s point; they should be paying you to do this. It should be coming out of their budget. Why do we need $2.5 million to pass eight pieces of legislation?
The Chair: I believe you’re wandering just a bit, senator.
Senator Tkachuk: I’m not wandering too far, I don't think. I’m just trying to get to the point of it all.
Senator Woo: I am unable to answer the question about why this committee decided to allocate that amount to the government. I will reiterate for the record, as I said last week, that the Independent Senators Group is not part of the government. We do not coordinate positions with the government. We sponsor bills but we take the bills, and our perspective and views on the bills, in an independent direction unrelated to the work of the government and its position.
Senator Tkachuk: I’ll leave it at that. You do admit you do sponsor a majority of the government bills.
Senator Woo: I think I have answered that question. It’s on the record.
The Chair: You’re not suggesting that the government actually pay the independents to introduce bills, are you?
Senator Tkachuk: I’m suggesting that they could use part of their budget or, if they need assistance in research, which is what the money goes to, they could use the government’s. It’s half a million dollars per member. They have three members. They get $1.5 million. I think that’s outrageous.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: There are two specific issues here. The first is following the rules that we have set as an institution and organization. On June 21, our rules were amended. We decided that a group of more than 20 senators is entitled to a budget of $1.06 million. We can ask how that money will be used and look at the budget items. We can ask to see our friends’ budget to make sure that each item for the Conservative Party is used advisedly. Nonetheless, there is a rule providing that, as of June 21, a group of more than 20 senators is entitled to a budget of $1.06 million. To my mind, this is an issue.
The other issue — and we can discuss this — is whether the budget for the government’s representative is too high in view of his responsibilities. That is an entirely legitimate question. These are actually two separate issues. For example — and my fellow senator will agree — when we decided in the fall to change the rules regarding the authorization of travel expenses for fundraising activities, we did not wait until the end of March to bring this rule into force. The rule has been in effect since it was changed.
The rule was changed on June 21. It says that, regardless of the group, if it has more than 20 senators, the operating budget that is provided and allowed is $1.06 million. It is awkward having to defend the fact that, as an organization, we have to follow the rules that we have set for ourselves. The other issue is one thing, I agree, but there is something we have to agree on. We can play the “my father is stronger than your father” game. Nonetheless, we set the rules, so let’s follow them. If there are other issues to improve the operation of the institution, I am willing to discuss them, but let’s not mix up all the issues. We have to follow the rules that we set for ourselves. We have to realize that no one imposed this rule. It was voted on and agreed to by everyone. As a result, let’s be consistent and follow these rules. We can decide on the other issue later, namely, how to allocate budgets to the senators based on their duties. Otherwise, we will be fiddling with the budgets. I will be asking the Conservative Party for its budget and we will be looking at each expense to make sure it is relevant, but we are not at that point.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: I would be happy to do that; a lot cheaper than yours.
Senator Mitchell: I’m quite interested in this debate. There are two principles that have been outlined by some. One is the question of proportionality driving funding, and the other is the relationship between the government group and the ISG, specifically with respect to sponsorship. It seems to me that there are two competing sets of precedents with respect to proportional funding, and you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Immediately after the election when the Conservatives and the Liberals in the Senate negotiated agreements about their funding, that wasn’t proportional at all. The Conservatives had twice as many members as the Liberals. The Liberals at that time got about $1 million and the Conservatives I think got $1.2 million, so already proportionality wasn’t a principle that was being established.
Secondly, even now, the proportionality isn’t established. The Conservative opposition gets $1.3 million with 34 members. So the $1,060,000 being requested and annualized by ISG wouldn’t even be proportional because they would be getting less still than the opposition, even though they have five more members. They’re on the way, perhaps, for even more.
Having said that, on the other hand, it isn’t proportional to that degree at all. Actually, a whole chunk of spending is proportional, because if you take the office allocations, the ISG has about $8.5 million in office allocations, because they have 30 members. The Conservatives also have about $7.5 million because of their office allocations, and the G3 — the three of us — have $660,000.
The whole question of proportionality is not clear, and we’ve been getting competing arguments from the Conservatives on that issue and competing precedence. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
The second case is about sponsorship. We asked members in every corner of this house to sponsor. We did get a Conservative member who sponsored. Subsequently, that Conservative member was removed from that caucus.
Senator Plett: That’s not on the record. Don’t say things that aren’t true.
Senator Mitchell: I have the floor here. I don’t think it was a coincidence.
The Chair: Everybody will have their chance here.
Senator Mitchell: The fact of the matter is that while we are very grateful for the sponsorship from ISG and Senator Greene as well, it’s not as though that establishes a direct and continuing link in support of what the government does.
I’ll give you an example. The chair was the sponsor of Bill C-7, and Bill C-7 went back, in whole. It was rejected and went back to the other side. Frequently, we’ve negotiated changes to legislation and accepted amendments because the ISG has driven it.
People worry about the question of official opposition in this house. It is an important question. As the person responsible for getting this government legislation through, I’ve got nothing but opposition. That’s not the problem. Just every once in a while we’d like to get some support.
As for time, the opposition has one critical role, among others: to appoint sponsors. It took four weeks to appoint a sponsor to Bill C-49, so I don’t know how long that has to take.
In any event, my point is that there is proportionality in some funding and direct disproportionality in other funding, and the latter point recognizes that there is not a direct relationship between the number of people you have and the amount of work you have to do. In fact, sometimes it’s quite the contrary in that the fewer the people you have facing significant work — and we do in the G3 — requires that disproportionality. Opposition funding reflects that and has for a long time, as did Liberal funding right after the election.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Mitchell.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Since Senator Plett has referred to negotiations with our colleagues in the Conservative caucus, I would like to provide a few facts.
I am the senator chosen by the facilitator, Senator Woo, to conduct these preliminary negotiations, which I conducted with Senator David Wells, who was chair of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates at the time. Our discussions did not in any way link the budget for the current year to next year’s budget. It is also entirely true that we agreed on certain premises, including the equitable redistribution of the budgets allocated to all the groups so that taxpayers, who we are all concerned about — at least the Independent Senators Group is — do not have to cover an additional budget for the Senate next year.
The second issue is transparency. I expressed a wish, which Senator Wells seems to have accepted and that will be put forward, namely, that the budgets should be reviewed next year in a public meeting of this committee. This is in contrast to what happened in previous years, where the two political caucuses had budgets without a detailed breakdown. It is 2017 and it will soon be 2018. That does not meet the current transparency criteria.
Third, it was stated in this room that we are seeking proportional budgets. That is not correct. We are asking for the principle of proportionality to be applied to the extent that is reasonable. The Independent Senators Group will not request a proportional budget. The amount appears much too high for our needs. That said, since some figures have been mentioned, I would like to point out that we now have 39 senators and we are seeking the $1.06 million budget to which we are entitled pursuant to the Rules. The Independent Senators Group has 34 senators and a budget of $1.297 million. I recognize that the government leader also has a budget of $1.678 million, for reasons that the government representative has to explain.
Another principle that is important to us is equity. I am asking for the rule to apply as of June 21 as voted on, that this rule apply to the Independent Senators Group.
I would also like to respond to Senator Batters. I think your comment is very unfair. You said that we took a long time to make this request. Senator Woo and I were elected on September 25 and, less than a month later, we presented this request, which was the subject of a preliminary discussion. That comment is particularly unfair since two new senators have been appointed who, in addition to their duties as senators, also have to take over the transition files and coordinate their work with their colleagues. I have to say that I find your remark very regrettable.
Senator Carignan: The Rules are clear. It has been debated and adopted. Amounts are provided for caucuses or groups based on their size. The request can nonetheless be justified on the basis of the new rules that were debated and that everyone agreed on. We should move on to another matter and approve the request. If there is an issue regarding the budget for the government leader, since the amounts are not in proportion to what he actually does, we could always review that funding when we consider the estimates. For the time being, the request complies with the rules. We cannot start challenging the rules every time there is a request regarding the application of the rules. That is a decision that has already been made. We shall apply the decision that was made regarding the rule. Let’s move on to another request.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Carignan.
Do I have a motion that the ISG be allotted $262,066 for the current financial year of 2017-18?
Senator Moncion, seconded by Senator Dawson.
All those in favour of that motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All those opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: The motion passes. Thank you, senators.
We’ll move on to Item No. 6.
Honourable senators, the committee received a budget request from the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. However, the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, which usually reviews budget applications, has not been re-established yet. Since this request is time-sensitive, the steering committee reviewed the budget request and is making a recommendation to release the funds for the committee to send three senators and the Library of Parliament analysts to a cybersecurity conference in New York City. The amount budgeted is $19,064.
The steering committee met this week with the deputy chair, the Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen, during its review of the budget. As such, it is my honour to present the seventh report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, which recommends the release of funds in the amount of $19,064 to the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee.
Can I please have a motion to approve?
Senator Munson: So moved.
The Chair: Second Senator Tannas.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Carried.
Next is Item No. 7.
Honourable senators, pursuant to the order of this committee, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure is authorized to make decisions when the committee is not able to meet. It has an obligation to report its decision at the first available time.
It is my honour to table the eighth report of the subcommittee, which deals with a membership change on the Joint Interparliamentary Council. The report is placed before you for information.
Are there any questions? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Passed. Thank you.
Now we’re at Part A. Last week Senator Plett had a question on this. It deals with staff attendance during the in camera sessions of CIBA. This is a continued discussion from last week.
You will recall, colleagues, that prior to 2017, CIBA met primarily in camera. At that time, only the recording secretary and her administrative assistant were permitted in the room. When we began meeting in public more routinely, it eventually evolved and extended to more people, by decision of this committee.
This committee continues to abide by those decisions. You were provided with a copy of the decisions in your package of documents. I turn to the committee for guidance on whether or not there is a need to amend these decisions.
Senator Plett: Well, as we discussed last week, when we look around the room during the in camera portion, there are some staff that need to leave, but certainly the entire steering committee, their staff stays. The Speaker has staff in here. There are a number of administrative staff.
The fact of the matter is that every steering committee member could have an intern in here, not even a permanent staffer. They would be entitled to have an intern in here: my staff or the staff of any of my colleagues, who are running our offices, running all of our affairs, who really assist us in everything. Because the steering committee changed last week, members who had been sitting here for a number of years for the in camera portion needed to leave.
I would like for us, as we do in most other committees — at least all the committees I’ve been involved in — we allow each senator to have a staffer in the in camera portion. It would make sense that this committee do the same thing.
Either we go back to an in camera meeting where only senators and the absolute minimum of staff meet, or we go to a situation where every senator should be allowed to have a staffer.
I’m prepared to make a motion to that effect, chair, unless other people want to debate it first.
The Chair: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this?
Senator Plett: If not, then I would make a motion. I would move that each committee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings, unless there is a decision for a particular meeting to exclude all staff.
The Chair: Any questions on this? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Carried.
Thank you, Senator Plett.
We will now move in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: We’re now back in full committee. Senator McCoy, you have the floor.
Senator McCoy: Thank you.
For my first request, let me put this on the record and indicate that you’ve already agreed that we would put the full rules in front of us so we’re aware of the basis on which we’re deciding. Senator McPhedran was good enough to include in her presentation what she called an excerpt from the rules. I don’t think it’s a complete record of what the rules are, or at least were in May 2017, so I think we should have those in front of us.
Second, I think we need to ensure we’re on a formal basis and that we deal with this matter going forward and, even though we’re running out of time today, to bring it back.
I would like to make a motion at this time. I move that the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration approve Senator McPhedran’s expense claim for May 4 and 5, 2017, thereby overturning the previous decisions by the subcommittee on planning and priorities, commonly known as the steering committee, after further consideration by this committee at one or more future convenings of the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I am not sure I understand Senator McCoy’s position correctly, but, in my opinion, her request is completely impertinent. We have wasted time today listening to people explain the role of senators. We know very well what their role is. The rules we have adopted are clear; the steering committee refused that request. Then there was a new reason, which the steering committee refused. This request is not consistent with the rules as they were adopted.
I think some people do not understand that we changed the rules because an attitude of “I am owed everything” does not fly here anymore. We have changed; the Senate has changed, and these requests tarnish our reputation. I think this should be refused because we have to send a clear message. When we make a request, it has to be consistent with the rules. If it is not, it is refused, and that is the end of it. Having people to testify about their good cause was interesting, but it does not in any way change the fact that this request has been out of order from the start. Now, there is a desperate attempt to have it approved. It has to be refused to send a clear message that that is over. It is 2017; we had the expense scandal which tarnished the reputation of the Senate and of all senators. It seems that some people did not experience that or cannot remember it, but we have to send a clear message that that nonsense is over.
[English]
The Chair: We are out of time, but before we go, I would like to call the question on this motion.
All in favour of Senator McCoy’s motion? All opposed?
The motion is defeated.
We will reconvene next Thursday. I will invite Senator McPhedran back. Thank you very much for coming today.
(The committee adjourned.)