THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 14, 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, everyone. My name is Larry Campbell, and I’m the chair. We will open with adoption of the minutes of the proceedings of December 7.
Before I put the question to adopt the minutes, I would like to clarify some information from last week. A question was raised regarding the review of the Senate’s harassment policy, and this committee authorized an examination by the Advisory Working Group on the Review of Human Resources. Since we have now changed the working group into an actual subcommittee and not a working group, the new Subcommittee on Human Resources is tasked to complete this review. As a result, we will not have a separate group examining harassment issues, but it will become an important part of the new mandate of the Human Resources Subcommittee. It will be within that subcommittee group.
Can I have a motion to adopt the public portion of the minutes? Senator Plett. Thank you.
All in favour? Opposed?
Carried.
Item 2 is the seventh report of the Audit Subcommittee dealing with the financial statements for 2016-17. I will ask the chair of the subcommittee, Senator Moncion, to provide the committee with highlights from the report. We also have Mr. Andrew Newman with us.
We may have to make you part of this committee; you’re here so often.
Mr. Newman is from KPMG and he will answer any questions.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: You have received the documents. We have reviewed the financial statements. You have the copies before you. The auditor is giving us an honest opinion that the work and audits were sufficient. That information is provided in the document. I believe you have had the time to examine the financial statements. I do not know if you have questions about the work that was done on the whole. It is quite voluminous. This work was done before I became the chair of the subcommittee, and the work is well done. So, I do not know if you have questions for me or for Mr. Newman.
Senator Forest: Yes, it is an unqualified opinion. What I see is very clear. Out of curiosity though, looking at the charges on page 9 for fiscal year 2015-16, actual expenditures were $2.9 million, and in 2016-17, we budgeted $8.9 million, or $6 million more. I do not understand the reason for this decision and for such a large gap between actual expenditures in 2015-16 and the budget for 2016-17.
Senator Moncion: You are referring to professional services.
Senator Forest: Yes, professional services, hospitality and meals. There are 8 more senators, but I do not think we need $6 million.
Senator Moncion: I do not know if Mr. Newman can answer you.
[English]
The Chair: Let’s not put a price on whether senators are worth $6 million or not. Comments?
Andrew Newman, Partner, Audit Leader, Public Sector Audit, KPMG: I would respectfully pass that question over to your former CFO, Pascale.
[Translation]
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration: : Thank you for the question, senator. The budget of $8.9 million was the best estimate when the budgets were approved last year. Most of the surplus can be explained by two factors. The first is expenditures by senators’ offices. When we allocate budgets for senators’ offices, we estimate the expected expenditures for consultants’ fees and salaries. Senators have the flexibility they need to decide how to spend their money.
In 2016-17, as you can see, we spent less on consultants’ fees and more on salaries. That was also the case for the technology group. In view of the large undertaking to modernize corporate services, we had expected that consultants’ fees would be higher, but part of the work was done by employees on salary. Once again, this amount was overestimated when the budgets were drawn up. We continue to follow the trends, and for 2018-19, the anticipated expenditures on professional fees will be reduced to reflect the past trend. We saw that there was a difference last year.
Senator Forest: When I saw the gap, I thought there must be a major project, perhaps not the move, but a large enough project to account for such a large gap between actual and planned expenditures. Thank you.
Senator Saint-Germain: I have two questions along the same lines. First, on page 12, the total budget is $13 million in 2016 and $15 million in 2017, in spite of a significant surplus. The funds that are still available at the end of the year are returned to the consolidated revenue fund. So the actual amount of the budget that the Senate used is less than what is published. We provide details, but if we use the actual budget, the budget that is used should also be published. I completely agree with what Senator Plett said the other day. When we inform the public and we have current data, it is important to publish it. I recommend that.
Secondly, on page 12, as to the total budget, which is no longer the administration’s budget, but rather the budget for all senators, including office budgets and budgets for caucus groups and government representatives, these amounts are all lumped together in the way we present the budgets. For all senators, caucuses and groups, we had $74.572 million in 2016 and $80.678 million in 2017. Do we never provide a further breakdown of these expenditures in the data we publish?
Ms. Legault: In the financial statements, this information is always presented in this format, as in past years. The breakdown is the same.
Senator Saint-Germain: According to the best accounting practices, should this information not be much more detailed and show a substantial difference between salary budgets, operating budgets, other types of budgets, surpluses, if there are any, or deficits, as the case may be? I would like to hear from our external auditors on this.
[English]
Mr. Newman: Thank you, senator, for the question.
The Statement of Operations — and I apologize, chair, that I don’t have the same package, so I can’t do the page numbers that the senators have — shows the expenses of the Senate on an accrual basis. There is a breakdown of salaries, transportation et cetera. It shows that $77.9 million of expenses are under the Senate’s control, compared to the budget of $90 million. We’ve had questions around some of the differences there already today.
The other expenses of the $21.5 million are services received without charge -- accommodation, employees’ contribution to the health and dental insurance plans. For accommodation, the Senate does not pay rent to Public Services. That space is provided for free, but that $14.8 million is an estimate of the expenses incurred for that service. Similarly, the health and dental plans in the workers’ compensation is administered by Treasury Board. Then there is amortization of the tangible capital assets that you have.
The total expenses to run the Senate for the year ended March 31, 2017, all-in was $99.4 million. There was a bit of miscellaneous revenue, things like that, to get it to the $99.249 million that you see as the net cost of operations.
Regarding references to the Statement of Cash Flow, the government — all agencies, departments, the Senate and the House of Commons — have accounting in three different ways. This is the accrual that just went through. There is also cash; that is, how much cash was taken out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That is shown on page 4 of the Statement of Cash Flow, which fundamentally reconciles the $99.2 million of accrual expenses to the $80 million of cash that the Senate took out of the CRF to operate.
Why are there differences? Well, those services provided without charge are obviously included in expenses to run the Senate, but the Senate did not take cash out of the centre to incur those costs; PSPC did.
In addition, the other biggest one is acquisitions and tangible capital assets. Like any entity, when you purchase capital assets, you need cash to buy them, but they are set up as capital assets and not expensed until amortized.
The other accounting framework used is in note 3, and that is appropriations. That is what I believe the senator was referring to in the first part of the question. The appropriations used are $80.6 million. That is the amount charged against your appropriation — that is, against that budget of the $90 million. Again, what are those differences? It is those services provided without charge between the accrual basis and the appropriation. PSPC is using its appropriations to provide that service. In addition, with capital assets, you’re using appropriations to purchase the capital assets that are being incurred on an accrual basis.
From a crash-to-accrual change — and your difference is not that much — it’s fundamentally changed in accounts payable. You incur expenses at the end of March that you pay in April, May and June. So you have an expense, an appropriation used, but you haven’t taken the cash out of the bank, so to speak.
That is what it’s trying to show. With the level of detail of expenses for a general purpose financial statement, this is an appropriate level of detail. It is in accordance with public sector accounting standards, and it is consistent with Treasury Board accounting standards for financial statements of all government entities.
Senator Saint-Germain: I’m sorry, but that was not my question. I will again ask my question. I believe you have access to the translation.
[Translation]
My question is as follows: in the interest of following the best audit practices, do you think the administration’s expenditures should be broken down with all the necessary details, while those of senators, senators’ offices and groups and caucuses should be lumped together without any breakdown of salaries, operating expenses, hospitality expenses, and any deficits or surpluses? Is our approach to senators’ expenditures consistent with best practices? If not, do you have any recommendations for us?
[English]
Mr. Newman: I would say that, yes, it does reflect best practices for a general purpose financial statement under Canadian public sector accounting standards. It is an interesting question whether you would want to break out the $77.9 million between what was incurred by the centre of the Senate versus what was incurred in senators’ offices. That would not be required, but additional disclosure, whether or not it would be useful, I would leave to the Audit Subcommittee and this committee to decide.
I would suggest that this committee and the Audit Subcommittee probably take that suggestion under advisement for the 2017-18 year, as these are the financial statements for March 31, 2017, and we are sitting in December 2017. So we do need, I believe, to get these published in the public domain.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you so much for your answer.
Senator Mitchell: Thanks very much, Mr. Newman. I would like to reinforce the point made by Senator Saint-Germain.
We have begun to establish a principle in the discussion of the oversight body that we would be ensuring that all information was made available. That would be our de facto audit function or audit offer, if you like, so that people have confidence that they were seeing everything. This is a pretty big chunk of money. It’s spent by 105 different offices. I think it would be worthwhile to provide more detail if we can. That should be the subject of discussion of the ethics subcommittee. That’s not a question actually.
My point concerns pension note 8. I think that is the one that is quite different than the one I first addressed. It seems to me to reflect more directly the reality of that situation, although it still uses the word two “accounts.” They are in fact notional accounts. I don’t know whether that would be more appropriate; I only suggest that.
I have two other questions. Based on fiscal year 2017 — I’m right at the last two lines — plan members contribute at a rate of 15.8 per cent of their salary and at 19.5 per cent of their salary for the last three months of 2017. Essentially, 20 per cent of salary is being paid by senators for their obligation to the pension plan. I’m saying that absolutely without any kind of value-based judgment, but is that true?
Mr. Newman: That is true and factual.
If I may, senator, on note 8, upon the request of this committee, management and my team went back and looked at the pension note. We compared the information provided here compared to that issue included in the Public Accounts of Canada. As well, we compared this disclosure to other entities that have their own pension plan, defined pension plan, to make sure that it was reasonably consistent. It is factual that the percentages you mentioned are indeed what senators are paying into that plan.
On the word “accounts,” that’s actually their legal name in the legislation, so we can’t really remove that word. However, I take the point that it’s not the greatest description of what is going on, but it is the legal name in the legislation.
Senator Mitchell: But you could add “notional” before it without changing the legal name because in fact it’s true. It is notional. There is no money as normal people would consider it.
Mr. Newman: As we discussed, there are no investments as a normal pension plan would be. The money gets deposited into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and is intermixed with all of the cash of the federal government itself. So regarding the use of the word “notional,” yes, we could do it in the non-capitalized word “accounts” if you wish. That would be an easy change to make. It would be factual, but in the capitalized accounts, that is the legal name.
Senator Mitchell: That’s fine. If this is that far down the line of being approved, I wouldn’t necessarily see that “notional” needs to be in there right now, but maybe next time around it could be; or if it’s easy to change, I would do that.
My final question is one of clarification. On page 40, which is different than your pages, it reads:
The Senate contributions, expressed as a multiple of plan members contributions, are on average as follows: 1.5 for the Retirement Allowances Account and 1.6 for the Compensation Arrangement Account.
Could you explain the 1.5 and the 1.6?
Mr. Newman: In the simplest terms, for every dollar that a senator contributes to the Retirement Allowances Account, the Senate puts in $1.50.
Senator Mitchell: Do they actually put that in or do they put it in when they need to do so?
Mr. Newman: No, it is put in and recorded in the account.
Senator Mitchell: Into these two notional accounts?
Mr. Newman: Into the two. It is $1.50, and $1.60 for the Compensation Arrangements Account. That is what the $3.25 million disclosed earlier in the note is. It’s the amount the Senate is paying into the account.
Senator Mitchell: Not to over-noodle this — although I am on the precipice of doing exactly that — I thought it was going to be 50-50. However, 1.5 isn’t 50-50.
Mr. Newman: That I can’t comment on because I do not know what the intent is, or was.
Senator Mitchell: Okay.
We need to talk about that.
Senator Tannas: Further to Senator Saint-Germain’s question, in the corporate world, there is a companion piece that goes with financial statements called management discussion and analysis, where they do exactly what I think Senator Saint-Germain is suggesting. You take numbers that would be of interest to stakeholders — in the corporate world it’s generally shareholders, analysts and so on. You would slice and dice them and break them out in larger or smaller bites, and they all tie back to the audited financial statements.
Clearly, that’s not something that has been done with other governments, so it’s not best practice. However, could you envision that kind of a document, a companion piece that you would actually have to audit or you would have to read it to make sure that all the numbers tie back? Is that something that you think the Audit and Oversight Committee ought to think about to address this issue that Senator Saint-Germain has surfaced?
Mr. Newman: Thank you, Senator Tannas, for the question. That is one way to do it.
Should the Audit Subcommittee think about that? Quite frankly, as your external auditor, with the new structure I think everything should be on the table with regard to financial reporting. You could do that sort of MD&A style. For this particular question, you could also do it within the financial statements in a note or a schedule disclosure.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
The Chair: Do I have a motion to adopt the report?
Senator Forest: I so move.
The Chair: All in favour? Opposed?
Carried.
We will move now to the item on our revised agenda that deals with an appeal of the decision taken by the steering committee with respect to international travel to Iceland. I would like to welcome Senator McPhedran and Senator Pate to the committee and thank them for appearing this morning. Before we hear from our witnesses, I will provide the committee and our viewers with a brief overview of the appeal.
On November 21, 2017, the steering committee received a joint request from Senators Pate, Moncion, Lankin, P.C., and McPhedran to attend the Women Political Leaders Annual Global Summit in Iceland, from November 27 to December 1, 2017. Senator Pate was invited to speak at the summit while the other three senators were participants at the conference.
Based on the request, steering approved an exception for Senator Pate to attend this summit. The other requesting senators were not approved and were advised accordingly.
On the evening of November 27, 2017, Senator McPhedran requested to appeal the decision from steering. Senator McPhedran also made a request to have her appeal heard by the Internal Economy Committee in advance of the trip to Iceland, which was not possible given the short notice received.
Late that evening, she submitted additional documentation to the steering committee to support her appeal. We have included a copy of the international travel policy provisions under Appendix 9, which state that international travel is only permitted to New York City for United Nations-related business and Washington, D.C.
I remind colleagues that this committee recently decided that senators wishing to travel internationally to other than New York City and Washington, D.C., must publicly appear and seek authorization from our full committee.
Senators are also informed of their right to appeal to this committee when steering communicates its decisions to them. They, of course, have the right to further appeal decisions of this committee, if they so choose, to the Senate as a whole.
In keeping with the previous practice, the documents related to this appeal should be made publicly available. Is it agreed that the background material related to the appeal be filed as an exhibit with the clerk of the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator McPhedran and Senator Pate, welcome. I invite you to make a brief statement and then we’ll proceed with questions. The floor is yours.
Hon. Marilou McPhedran, Senator, Senate of Canada: Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I have a number of comments I would like to make, but I think it might be most helpful if I were to ask my colleague Senator Kim Pate to summarize from her particular situation, because it was treated as a separate particular situation, with some communication and information going to Senator Pate, that in fact was not communicated to the other women senators that had applied to participate in the Women Political Leaders Global Summit from November 28 to 30 in Iceland.
If I may, I would like to ask Senator Pate to go through that chronology and then I would like to make my remarks.
The Chair: Of course.
Senator Pate.
Hon. Kim Pate, Senator, Senate of Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much to the committee. As I have been here a year, I’m realizing that I’m learning something new all the time, and one of them is how things move along. This was no exception.
I had a meeting with someone in August from the women political leaders group asking if I would be interested in being an ambassador for the group because there had been no response from the Senate about that issue. So I indicated that if there has been no response, I would be happy to. That may have been my first mistake, realizing that maybe there was no response because it was August and I’m the only one here in Ottawa, so guess what? Sure, I would be happy to do something.
I then submitted an application, which was denied with the indication that there was a process for review. I had some discussions with other senators who were also interested. Independent of my interaction, others had been approached as well. I felt that rather than be unfair — in that I was the only one who applied because I happened to be here in August — I had some discussions to put in a joint application for a number of senators.
In the meantime, I had also been sponsoring an event that happened here, the Day of the Girl Child in the Senate. They asked me to speak as well about that if I was coming to Iceland.
The time chronology you have in front of you is that those things sort of crossed. I was asked to speak, then I was denied. Then I put in the appeal on behalf of all of the senators. Then I was approved on the basis that I would be speaking.
Since then, I’ve been trying to figure out if there are ways that we could develop a process to be involved in that. That is separate from this appeal, but I want to be completely transparent. I haven’t done my report back to CIBA yet. But it was such a useful process and I met so many really quite amazing international women parliamentarians that I would be interested in any others who would be interested in participating, men and women. It was predominantly women, but there were also men involved in that organization.
I am interested in that process. I realize that’s not part of the appeal, but in the interest of complete transparency, that’s something I am trying to figure out. Someone said to me recently, “You can’t call yourself new anymore,” but it sure feels like I’m still in kindergarten in the Senate. So whatever advice I can have on how we proceed, I would be happy to have it, whether as part of this process or separate.
Thank you very much again and thank you for the support that I did receive to go. Whatever I can do to assist this in moving forward, I’m happy to do.
Senator McPhedran: Let me begin by indicating my very genuine appreciation to the CIBA committee for your announcement last week that you now have a policy that international travel applications will occur in public before this committee. I commend that. It’s most welcome.
A number of the comments that I will be making are really in the line of asking for your consideration not only today but on an ongoing basis as members of this very powerful and influential committee.
I would like to situate my comments for this particular appeal in an observation. My observation comes from some of what I have done in my life prior to becoming a senator, along with Senator Pate. We were sworn in on the same day about a year ago, and I certainly feel, as she has expressed this morning, that this is very much still a time of learning. I can tell you with no reservations that my interactions with the small, private processes of the CIBA steering committee have been a large part of my learning experience thus far.
I want to situate my comments with the fact that I have served as an administrative quasi-judicial decision maker in a number of capacities over the years, certainly within a university setting, but also for a period of time I was a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal with responsibility for implementing the Canadian Human Rights Act. Also for a period of time I was the Chief Commissioner of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. That commission is different from a number of the other commissions in Canada because the chief commissioner is the decision maker and holds the quasi-judicial authority for making decisions on the investigations of complaints that have come to the commission.
The responsibilities that you each have as members of Internal Economy are fairly familiar to me in terms of the quasi-judicial, the administrative decision making that we have entrusted in you. It will come as, I’m sure, not new information for anyone that it seems to me to be a reasonable expectation that we, as senators being governed by you as senators, would be able to anticipate that the principles of natural justice, including consistency, as well as leadership of members of CIBA, particularly executive members of CIBA, for modelling of behaviour reasonably expected of you as decision makers here in the committee, in the Senate Chamber, and as our colleagues.
I look forward to returning before you, given this new policy, when I apply to travel to New York during the Senate break in March 2018, where I’ll be, once again, as I have for 20 years, facilitating students and other civil society leaders to participate as NGO delegates. I’m doing this in cooperation with the minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women.
Indeed, if a decision is made to deny my application, I want to be clear that, as I have done consistently since I became a senator, when my applications for international travel — because I believe what is being done as a global citizen and as a senator is entirely in keeping with our parliamentary role — I will, as I have been doing, go anyway and, in the other aspect of my identity, continue to do the work with civil society leaders and students, as very important civil society leaders.
Let me say, for a moment, regarding the aspect of the principles of natural justice, that I want to commend to CIBA to give greater consideration, to look more closely at your processes to see if indeed there is an opportunity, as I believe there is, for your processes to become more compatible with the principles of natural justice. I say this because, of course, as many of you know, the principles of natural justice apply irrespective of any rules a committee may choose to create, including, I would argue, this august committee of decision makers.
They are principles of law that have been applied over centuries by courts to the conduct of administrative decision making. The application and interpretation of rules by an adjudicative committee should be guided by these principles. When we’re talking about them, what are we talking about?
The Supreme Court of Canada has said that the simplest description is “fair play in action.” In one reference, the Supreme Court judges relied on Lord Denning. He said that people need to know the case which is made against them. So, of course, I’m saying this in the context of appeals. They must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting them, and then they must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict the evidence and statements, which is what we’re doing here this morning and I know we both appreciate. Whoever is to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of the other side. That, indeed, is fair play in action. It includes three key principles of fairness or justice that guide the administrative processes and decisions.
Part of my appeal today is to indicate that I think there are some gaps in the processes and decisions that I would like you to take into consideration as part of my appeal.
So what are we talking about? We are talking about three key principles. The first is the right to be heard. We’re here today. Thank you. That is definitely being offered.
And to be given the fair opportunity to present our case whenever interest might be adversely affected by a decision that you have made.
And that the ruling must be made by you as adjudicators, and it must be made free of bias, and that it must be evidence-based decision making, not based on speculation or suspicion or personal dislike, for example.
And this is a very key part of what I’m raising with you this morning — the decision needs to be communicated in a way that makes clear what evidence was used in making the decision.
Another aspect of the rules of natural justice is consistency. Consistency exists where like facts should produce like results. A key aspect of my appeal today is that is not what happened here.
Only on one occasion, only to one senator of those of us who applied, was there a clear communication that the steering committee was saying yes to Senator Pate, and in that letter — I believe it was November 22. Sorry. It was earlier than that because Senator Pate first asked in August. That letter went only to Senator Pate. In that letter it explained the exception to the international travel ban that is put in place. An aspect of my appeal for your consideration, again not a decision for today, is, please, let’s move beyond this parochial view of who we are as senators, which would actually have an international travel ban, which is your existing policy, and then treat every application as some sort of questionable exception.
We’re global citizens. Canada has re-entered a time as a country where we are looked to. We have a great deal to contribute internationally in the seeking of peace, human rights and justice. As senators, part of our parliamentary function, certainly with many of us who have already been working internationally, is that we have a great deal to give to those processes as global citizens, part of a sophisticated, modern Senate.
I do urge you, please, to come take another look at this. Now that you’ve instituted a policy where you’re going to be making these decisions in public, then let’s revisit a travel ban on international travel. Let’s set clear standards. Let’s be consistent in articulating those standards. When senators meet the standards set, clearly articulated, please apply them consistently. That didn’t happen in this particular case.
I will say more about it, although I want to go back for a moment to this notion of consistency. In adjudicative decision making, consistency is a precondition of equality before the law and a prerequisite to the rule of law. Balancing the various aspects of a decision maker — and I need to be very clear here. I respect the authority that we have given to you, that we have entrusted to you, to make these decisions. That’s the nature of CIBA. That’s the situation as it is now. However, I am asking you to please pay more attention to this notion of balancing, and pay more attention to consistency so that you’re not treating one senator one way and the rest of us who applied a different way and not telling us why. There’s nothing in the written communications that we received that told us why. Why did you make that decision to turn us down?
In Quebec, we have an act respecting administrative justice. The act deals with procedural fairness and lists the measures that a government must implement to comply with its duty to act fairly. Section 4 of that act sets minimum standards for administrative decision making, and paragraphs 1 and 2 essentially reaffirm the principles of natural justice that I’ve outlined briefly here.
You can find a version of the Quebec legislation in every one of the provinces and territories. This is a very important principle.
On the matter of my particular appeal today, I am asking for consistency. What I found out — not from this committee because you never told us — is the reason that the steering committee said yes to Senator Pate and said no to the rest of the women senators was because Senator Pate had been asked to speak. This was articulated in a letter that I didn’t have any knowledge of until preparing for this appeal today. What I knew, I knew because that was information shared by the women senators who were turned down along with me. My understanding, based on what I was told by someone else, not anyone from this committee or anything in writing from this committee telling me that the missing piece in my application, along with other women senators, was being asked to speak.
I had been told that before, when I had come before the committee previously and been turned down for international travel that I believed was appropriate as a parliamentary function as a senator. However, my point here — and the reason that I took the time to read all of this into the record — is that you are remiss as a steering group. You’re remiss in not consistently communicating to senators about what it is that prompts you to make a decision that one senator can go and other women senators cannot.
On that understanding — again, not communicated by you — that the magic element was an invitation to speak, I’m in my office working with my team on Monday, November 27, and we get a phone call from Iceland. The phone call from Iceland is very late at night. It’s from the organizers of the Women Political Leaders Global Summit. I’m going into some detail with the title of this conference because I want to pause with you for a moment and look at this. This is not a junket.
The Chair: Senator, I’m not trying to interrupt you, but there are time constraints on us here. I don’t want to interrupt you or stop you, but just so you know that we have to be out of here at 10:15 and we have business to do.
Senator McPhedran: Can you tell me how much time I’ve taken to this point?
The Chair: Twenty minutes.
Senator McPhedran: Okay. Then that’s the time that we were allocated as an option for a witness as well.
The Chair: I’m not putting a time limit on it. I just want you to know that we do have other business that we have to have done today also because of urgent issues.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The emphasis on the Women Political Leaders Global Summit is because women senators in this place are still at a relatively new position, certainly in terms of our numbers. The world is not the same for women parliamentarians as it is for men parliamentarians. The opportunity for a group of women senators to go together to represent Canada at the Women Political Leaders Global Summit, where a hundred countries were represented, is an opportunity for the Senate of Canada to be well represented globally and an opportunity for women senators, because we’re not the same as men senators.
This place has been dominated by White male senators for 150 years. We are in a time of major change and major shift.
This was an opportunity lost by the steering committee of CIBA to have a group of women senators represent Canada and enhance their opportunities to become more effective parliamentarians in the modern world, in the global world.
Regarding the fact that we weren’t asked to speak, we didn’t know we needed to have an invitation to speak. So on Monday, November 27, my phone rings and it’s organizers from Iceland. They are reordering their agenda, and they have realized that they need a moderator and a speaker for their panel on the sustainable development goals. I’m an international human rights lawyer. I am a professor. I teach international human rights and human security, and I’m relatively well known outside of this place. They chose me as someone to call and ask if I would run this panel and speak.
So I have an invitation to speak. Instantly, we wrote to the steering committee. We wrote to Mr. Charbonneau as the clerk. On Monday, November 27 — on one day — we started at 5:40 p.m. with an invitation from the phone call, and at 5:58 p.m. we communicated that a request had come in and there was a request to the committee to reconsider. That was an email at 6:11 p.m.
At 6:27 p.m. — credit to Mr. Charbonneau — the clerk answers, and he forwarded the request for the steering committee the next day, November 28. We’re still on Monday.
At 6:51 p.m., we get the official invitation because I said to them, “A phone call won’t do it; please send a letter.” The letter immediately goes to Mr. Charbonneau at 7:19 p.m.
At 7:28 p.m., we request permission from CIBA to accept the invitation to speak and moderate. At 8:08 p.m., I hear back from Ms. Legault confirmation that the steering committee will finalize the agenda on November 28. At 8:13, I acknowledge and thank Ms. Legault.
At 9:53 p.m., I write to Mr. Charbonneau, Ms. Legault and you, Senator Campbell, as the chair, and I request to send additional information to members of CIBA for appeal for the next day. I receive a reply back from Ms. Legault acknowledging that the information has been sent to the subcommittee meeting for the meeting the next day. We’re still on Monday.
At 10:39 p.m., I write back acknowledging her response, and then we move to the next day.
My point here is that I very much appreciate the fact that the steering committee reconsidered with additional information. I met the standard that you added in — it’s not in the rules anywhere — and you turned me down with no reason. That is the core of my appeal. I’m appealing for the rules of natural justice to be followed and, in particular, I’m appealing for consistency in the decision making of this committee.
Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you.
We have a number of people who have questions. Again, I remind all senators that we have other business that has to be conducted today.
Senator Batters: Senator McPhedran, you said in your opening statement today that you wanted this committee to be more compatible with the principles of natural justice, fair play and action —
Senator McPhedran: Senator Batters, I am sorry for interrupting, but I have a hearing limitation and I can’t hear you. I’m going to put the hearing aid in and I’m sure I’ll be able to hear you.
Senator Carignan: Just a point of order beforehand, please.
The Chair: Senator Carignan, point of order.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: The senator seems to be a real expert on the rules of natural justice. It has been a long time since I have heard mention of Lord Denning, the greatest jurist of the last century. One of the principles of natural justice is that we cannot appeal a decision that we have made. Three members of the steering committee were present when the initial decision was made. I want to make sure, senator, that you agree that the three senators from the steering committee can participate in the discussion of the appeal of your decision and that you will not say later on that there has been another violation of the rules of natural justice. Do you agree to the three members of the steering committee attending the current meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to hear your appeal?
[English]
Senator McPhedran: I just want to seek clarification to make sure that I understood your point, senator. Let me ask the question, and you can answer it so that I know I understand. Thank you very much. I’m going to ask the question to indicate my understanding.
My understanding of what you’re asking me is whether I am content to have the three members of the steering committee, or however many made the decision to turn me down, to not be part of the decision or to be part of the decision. Are they going to recuse themselves or not?
Senator Carignan: I just want to make sure that you agree that those members from the steering committee will participate, and you’re not asking for a recusal of those three. Natural justice rules are such that you cannot sit in appeal of your own decision.
Senator McPhedran: Yes. Well, this is part of my invitation to you, as members of CIBA, with a number of new members, to pay more attention to the rules of natural justice. So I would welcome it if the original decision makers recuse themselves from this appeal today. I would welcome that.
The Chair: On the point of order, senators are only asked to recuse themselves if they have a private interest or as a result of an ethics report. While I would love to recuse myself, we won’t be doing that.
Continue, please, Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Senator McPhedran, as I was saying, you said in your opening statement today that you wanted this committee to be more compatible with the principles of natural justice, fair play and action and fair opportunity to correct evidence or statements. Those are all things you said this morning.
Last Thursday morning, you were here again as a witness before the full committee, appealing another one of your travel expense claims. That morning, in public, on television, you said in your opening statement:
So 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, had lived through an audit process, which I hadn’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 consideration that occurred was that there was a phone call. It’s not unusual between offices for this kind of checking in to occur by phone call. So we went ahead . . . .
And you went on.
Yesterday, The Hill Times wrote an article about your expense claim appeal, for which you did an interview. That article states:
Sen. McPhedran said when planning the trip, she relied on an experienced staff member—who no longer works for the Senate—who gave her the OK to accept the invitation.
After that appeal was heard last week, I heard about a letter that the chair of this committee received from your former staff person, in which I understand that staff person alleges that you have misrepresented those facts. I have not seen this letter, but if those allegations are true, then, Senator McPhedran, those facts would lead us to the conclusion that you may have misled this committee.
Mr. Chair, I view this as a very serious and troubling concern that has to be addressed immediately, and, Mr. Chair, I ask you to table that letter with the members of this committee before Senator McPhedran’s appeal can go further ahead today.
Senator McPhedran: Let me respond to that by suggesting that this is an ideal opportunity for the rules of natural justice to apply.
The Chair: Order.
I actually do have an email, and I haven’t tabled it because the person who sent me the email does not wish to appear. I am loathe to present something where I do not have the witness to come here. So that’s where the matter sits. If the person had said, “Yes, I will appear,” then I would table it, but since I don’t have that and there is no way of testing it, I will not be producing that letter.
We will continue on here.
Senator McPhedran: May I ask how it is considered to be fair procedure to allow your deputy chair to read into the record an allegation that you are now providing no evidence to support?
The Chair: Well, Senator McPhedran —
Senator McPhedran: Let me finish. In relation to a matter that has been settled, that occurred last week.
So if what we’re doing here, Senator Batters, is attempting to smear my reputation as the lead comment on this appeal, go ahead. Just try it. It’s not going to work.
The Chair: Senator McPhedran, I have no —
Senator McPhedran: Senator Campbell.
The Chair: Senator McPhedran, I have no control over what other senators may or may not say, and I have answered the question. Please.
Senator McPhedran: Senator Campbell, I have a question on this. This is very important.
The Chair: No, Senator McPhedran —
Senator McPhedran: This is about my reputation. I insist. This is a point of order. I insist on being heard on this.
How is it that Senator Batters knows about an email that you received, Senator Campbell? How is it that, as your deputy chair, she asked the lead question —
The Chair: I told her.
Senator McPhedran: Yes, you told her.
The Chair: I told the steering committee, yes.
Senator McPhedran: Did you discuss the fact that she would then lead with this question, in a completely separate appeal on different facts?
The Chair: No.
Senator McPhedran: Really? No discussion between you and the deputy chair?
The Chair: Are you accusing me of lying, Senator McPhedran? Because if you are, you’d better be very careful where you’re going.
Senator McPhedran: I am asking for clarification, Senator Campbell.
The Chair: The clarification is “no.”
Senator McPhedran: You had no private discussion with Senator Batters about the email in your possession, about using it as the question that she was going to lead with?
The Chair: No, never.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. That’s reassuring.
The Chair: I’m glad I can reassure you on something.
Senator McPhedran: Not much.
The Chair: Senator Batters, please continue.
Senator Batters: The reason I brought it up — and no I did not discuss that aspect with Senator Campbell before — is because I viewed it as imperative to assess some level of credibility here if that was a letter that was apt to be tabled and able to be tabled.
Senator McPhedran: Then table the evidence.
Senator Batters: I don’t have it.
Senator McPhedran: Then don’t bring up something for which you don’t have evidence. That’s part of the rules of natural justice. You are illustrating part of what is wrong with this.
The Chair: Senators, order! This isn’t a debating society; this is a committee meeting. I expect order from everybody in here.
Senator McPhedran: And I expect there not to be smears.
The Chair: I don’t expect to hear from you every time I make a statement, Senator McPhedran. We’re here to listen to your appeal. We listened to what you had to say, politely, without interruptions, and now we are going to ask you questions.
Senator McPhedran: I don’t know what is polite about a personal smear.
The Chair: I am not getting into it. I’ve told you that I did not table the document because the witness would not appear because, quite frankly, she was concerned about appearing here with you in the room. That’s all I can say to you on this. I didn’t bring it up. I didn’t put it forward. I had no knowledge that anybody else was going to put it forward, and that’s the end of that.
Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Senator McPhedran, a review of my general Senate emails showed me that invitations to this Iceland conference were coming fast and furious all year. I alone, who had shown no interest in attending this conference, received five invitations to it, starting last February. Yet isn’t it the case that, as you have said, you didn’t receive a speaking invitation to the conference until the night of November 27? That was the night before the conference started and only after the steering committee had rejected your attendance-only request. Is that correct?
Senator McPhedran: That's correct.
Senator Batters: The invitation you received was for the session entitled “Action: How to turn the sustainable development goals into reality.” It was scheduled to take place on the afternoon of the very last day of the conference in Iceland, right?
Senator McPhedran: Correct.
Senator Batters: Your November 21 request to steering one week before the overseas conference started only stated that Senator Pate was invited to speak and the actual letter of request that you signed detailed Senator Pate’s involvement. Correct?
Senator McPhedran: I don’t understand that question. I think you characterized the letter of application quite incorrectly. Maybe you could try again and restate your question more clearly.
Senator Batters: My reading of the letter of November 21, which everyone has a copy of, indicated Senator Pate was invited to speak. That letter itself, the body of the letter, detailed Senator Pate’s involvement. Then in the materials that I have — which was what I saw at steering and what we see before us today — the only thing that was additional in that request package about you and the other senators was some CV excerpts showing how the conference may be relevant to you, and the cost that each of you would incur to go to that conference of $5,500. Is that correct?
Senator McPhedran: Can you restate your question, Senator Batters, within that description? What is the question?
Senator Batters: The question I’m asking you to confirm is that the November 21 request letter, which I think you’re looking right now —
Senator McPhedran: I am now.
Senator Batters: — is a request that Senator Pate was invited to speak at that conference. Regarding the references to you and the other ISG senators who were asked to attend, the only thing specific to those particular people, including you in that request package, is some CV excerpts which indicate how you may be interested, given your background, in that particular conference and the $5,500 cost for each of you to attend. Correct?
Senator McPhedran: In the letter to which you’re referring, the statement to which you’re referring is in the second paragraph, which states that:
Senator Pate was invited by the WPL to speak at the summit as a member of Canada’s delegation. Discussion amongst Independent Senators Group members of the merits of attending this summit as a group of women Senators has resulted in great interest in attending and participating in the forum. The WPL summit will be co-hosted by the Parliament and Government of Iceland and will bring together several hundred women heads of state and government, ministers, parliamentarians and mayors from around the world to discuss women’s role in government and best practices regarding legislation and political agenda-setting for improving the lives of women. This is an opportunity for women representatives of the Senate of Canada to dialogue with other women political leaders, and to bring their unique and diverse backgrounds to the international discussion.
Are you asking me did I sign this letter? Yes, I did. Are you asking me whether part of the application of the letter was for travel funds? Yes, they were.
Senator Batters: Okay; thank you.
The Chair: Senator Batters, I have a number of people on this list. I’ll give you one more question.
Senator Batters: Senator McPhedran, after this $5,500 overseas travel request was denied by steering, you sent an email to the members of steering which stated in part:
. . . the value and legitimacy of women’s full political participation -- something denied by the members of Internal Economy Subcommittee, (whether male or female) who made this decision, which in my opinion is obstructive and sexist at its core, inconsistent with support and facilitation of Canadian women senators being able to represent Canada well and to enjoy their rights to full political participation.
It is of course too late to appeal again, but it is never too late to call out decision-making that is obstructive and discriminatory.
The members of the steering committee are Senator Campbell, Senator Munson and me. I don’t think I’ve ever had a decision that I’ve made previously being called sexist by another woman before. Upon reflection, wouldn’t you concede that our steering committee made our decision based on a clear Senate travel policy, with proper stewardship of taxpayers’ money squarely in our sights?
Senator McPhedran: Actually, no I don’t. That’s part of the nature of my appeal today. With all due respect to the three of you, I think you missed a very key point around the difference between women senators and men senators and what this opportunity could be for us as a Senate. The decision making gave no reasons whatsoever for your decision. You never told us that the basis of the decision was because the rest of us were not invited to speak. That I heard about only from others.
The Chair: We will take 10 more minutes of questions here. If we haven’t finished, I will ask for a motion to adjourn this to the next committee meeting because we have some items here that have to be dealt with before we leave.
Senator Tannas: I had a question and then a very fast statement for folks that I’m sure will watch this over and over again at some point in the future.
The original application as I see it went in six days before this conference. Is that when you decided to go, six days before, or was there a period prior to that where you didn’t realize you had to apply? Why was it six days before the conference?
Senator McPhedran: I had had a previous personal meeting with the Speaker about this and had indicated a strong interest in going. I had shared with him that when I was seconded to the UN that I worked in Iceland for a period, also that I had previously been invited as a speaker to a conference the previous year and that I felt I had a great deal to give to this particular conference as a senator.
The Speaker explained that there was not going to be a Speaker’s response. It would be up to individual senators to decide whether or not to pursue this. I had a very strong interest in going, but I also have other international responsibilities that I was anticipating that I may well be requesting.
It was the point at which I learned of interest for a delegation of women senators to go together that I indicated a very strong interest in being part of that because I guess I would say there was an opportunity beyond just going as an individual. So I indicated to Senator Pate that I would like to join with that joint presentation because it took on a different nature for me at that point: the opportunity to have representation from Canada from a delegation of women senators.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
In your comments, you mentioned a travel ban and us, as a Senate, not being particularly involved in international events. I just wanted to point out something. Parliament here in Canada spends roughly $10 million a year to have parliamentarians involved in international travel and international exchange. Of that, the Senate chips in 30 per cent. Around $3 million this year will be spent on senators participating in international travel and exchange through the Joint Interparliamentary Council.
To put that into perspective, the entire travel budget for all committees doing work across the country is $1.8 million. We’re spending almost double on international travel and exchange today. I didn’t want anybody watching this to think that we were hunkered down here in Canada and not paying attention. In fact we’re spending double internationally than we are in our own country.
I just wanted to put that on the record, chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Tkachuk.
Senator McPhedran: Excuse me, I think I have a right of reply to that statement.
The Chair: That wasn’t a question; it was a statement.
Senator Tkachuk, please.
Senator McPhedran: I would like to respond to the statement because —
The Chair: No.
Senator Tkachuk, please.
Senator McPhedran: It’s responding to a point that I made.
The Chair: Senator McPhedran, you’re out of order.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator McPhedran, the Senate a has a clear policy on international travel which expressly does not allow international travel other than to Washington or New York for the UN. Everything else would be for exceptional circumstances. How often do you think you should have an international travel request for exceptional circumstances granted?
Senator McPhedran: What I believe, senator, is that the policy should be revisited, restated and clarified.
This picks up on how I tried to respond to Senator Tannas’s statement by saying that the kind of international travel described by Senator Tannas is controlled by the parliamentary associations. I think that’s a very good thing.
The kind of travel that we’re applying for and our travel policy for CIBA is different. It is a travel ban with exceptions, without a clear articulation of what evidence is required for the exceptions to be made.
My suggestion, my request to CIBA is to revisit the CIBA travel policy, articulate it more clearly. Don’t make it a travel ban with exceptions. Lay out the kind of acceptable international travel that can be initiated, as was the attempt here, by a group of senators or individual senators for reasons and purposes that still fit within our responsibilities, our parliamentary functions but don’t necessarily fit within the parliamentary associations. They are two different kinds of international travel.
Senator Tkachuk: It seems you have a very clear idea of what the travel policy is, yet you still went on a trip without making the request.
Senator McPhedran: I did make the request. That’s an incorrect statement, senator.
Senator Tkachuk: No, it was turned down.
Senator McPhedran: That’s different.
Senator Tkachuk: And then you went ahead and did it anyway, so you do have a clear understanding of what the international travel policy is because you’re asking that we revisit it. Then you just go ahead and make the trip, come back afterwards and then blame us for the fact that you didn’t get your travel expenses paid.
Senator McPhedran: No, I’m not blaming you. What I’m saying is that I made the decision, as a senator —
Senator Tkachuk: Then you pay for it.
Senator McPhedran: Don’t interrupt me, please. I made the decision — let me finish please.
I made the decision as a senator that I’m a grown-up. We’re all grown-ups around here. And the work that I do as a senator needs to include the fact that we’re global citizens. And just as happened in my appeal last week around the Youth Parliament of Manitoba and what I still believe is a right of return for health care, I made the decision that if I had to fund it personally, I would fund it personally.
But I met this requirement of a speaking invitation, fully documented, and so I don’t know what possible evidence-based reasoning went into the steering committee turning me down again. I don’t know. No reasons are given.
Senator Tkachuk: I clearly understand it. So I’m —
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Pate, do you have a comment on this?
Senator Pate: Sort of. It was a response to Senator Tannas. I put the appeal in. It was my fault that it was as late as it was because I was trying to figure out what the process was. At one point, some others who were giving me advice thought that we might be able to characterize this as a parliamentary association. That proved to be incorrect, and so in the process of trying to figure all of that out, I was gathering the information and so it’s my fault. I apologize for it being so late, which is part of the reason we didn’t end up knowing the reason until very late in the day.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: For the purpose of the minutes, since I was part of the group that requested funds, I prefer not to be mentioned as part of the discussion this morning.
[English]
Senator Plett: I’ll be very brief and only make one or two comments — I really have no questions — after which I will suggest that I think we have enough information here to make a decision today. We shouldn’t drag this over the Christmas holidays. That’s an opinion, not a motion.
I travel internationally quite often with organizations that I’m involved with. I have never come to this committee nor will I as long as the rules are what they are. I either pay for that travel myself or the organization I travel with pays for me to travel.
I unfortunately — and it has gotten me into trouble many times — think it’s easier to ask for forgiveness rather than permission. But in this particular case, even the permission was asked for and it was denied.
We have spent a lot of time here on something that should have taken a couple of minutes. There is no reason for us to spend a great deal more time here. And what I find the most offensive is that Senator McPhedran has made this about women. I suspect every woman and probably every man in this chamber got an invitation to that conference. And the fact we’re not here in August doesn’t preclude us from getting emails and getting invitations. We all get them; we just don’t all go.
Senator McPhedran was turned down, absolutely ignored what was said and went anyway.
Those are my comments. I’m not going to belabour it. I think chair that we should make a decision on this as quickly as possible.
Senator Mitchell: Thanks Senators McPhedran and Pate. I am not offended at all by your presentation. I think it raises issues that are fair to be raised. I do agree with your stated principle of the two kinds of travel that we should consider, the parliamentary associations and individual travel. In fact, that’s been established as legitimate because it has been approved by this committee.
To the extent that there is a lack of clarification and you have concerns about that, I think that’s worthy of us considering. I think to some extent perhaps we do have to explore a clarification of exceptions. I don’t think the use of exceptions came from a bad place. I think it came from an effort to say, “Well, let’s give the possibility of other travel for other reasons.” The Senate and senators do distinguish themselves and have historically played a very important diplomatic role with consistency and longer term involvement. We can mention many cases.
The one issue in this process that hasn’t been discussed — and I would just ask for your direction, and I do not mean to be aggressive about this — is that the trip to Iceland was during the period of time that the Senate was sitting and Senate committees were sitting. The trip you are talking about for March isn’t; it’s in a break. How do we prioritize, how do you prioritize the demand to travel to Iceland with the importance and priority that I would argue faces us all in being here for Senate deliberation and for committee deliberation? How do we do that? Particularly the Senate because you can get a replacement for a committee. But there are votes in the Senate. What happens if it’s lost by one vote?
Senator McPhedran: May I ask, Senator Mitchell, whether you have travelled for a speaking engagement or a parliamentary function when the Senate was sitting at any time, if you have gone back to Alberta, for example, which you represent? My understanding of the rules is that we are indeed allowed to do that if we have something happening where we can bring specific added value because we’re senators.
My understanding of the rule on that is that we notify administration of what it is we will be doing, returning to give a speech, for example, to participate in a conference, and that is part of our record of attendance. That is set out for the public to see.
Since I was able to be full time in the Senate earlier this year, in 2017, I haven’t had a single absence from the Senate that was not within the rules of a parliamentary function, if I was absent. In Iceland, I was away for 36 hours. I flew overnight. I went to the conference. I moderated for the better part of two and a half hours, spoke at the conference, participated fully in the conference, and flew back to Canada the next day.
I am away, in that period of time, from the Senate, as many senators are within the rules, to go back to their home province to speak or bring added value as a senator.
Senator Mitchell: I —
The Chair: Senator Mitchell, unless it’s a deep question, I would really like to move on here.
Senator Mitchell: I’ll let you go. That’s fine.
The Chair: Not that your questions aren’t deep.
Senator Forest, do you need to ask a question or can we move forward?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: That is along the same lines as what Senator Mitchell proposed. The first responsibility is to take part in Senate activities. I have received a number of requests to participate in activities. I then checked with the administration and was informed if a trip was not authorized.
What makes me uncomfortable is that an enquiry was made and you were not authorized to make that trip. So then it is your responsibility, and you decided to go even though the decision had been made. That makes me very uncomfortable because, when we are sworn in, we are clearly told that our first responsibility… It is clear that if I were to give priority to all the networks… I worked at the municipal level for a long time and I encouraged women to get into politics, so I am often called upon in this regard. I have to admit, senator, that I am very uncomfortable questioning the decision, in light of this reality.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Let me invite anyone who has never been outside of our chamber, and has always been in the chamber and never missed a day in the chamber, to declare that. That’s not what the rules allow, senator. As you, yourself, have said, and certainly as I have seen, there are days when I’ve been in the chamber and you haven’t been in the chamber, and I’m sure there are days when you’ve been in the chamber and I haven’t been.
All I can say about my absence is that I have made the decision about what is appropriate as a senator, when I can bring added value as a senator to something else that is happening, and I include the Iceland summit as one of those examples.
I have already stated very clearly that if the decision is to uphold what the steering committee decided, as I have done previously, I will pay for that personally. I have paid for that personally. That’s not the real issue that I’m bringing here today. The issue that I’m bringing is that the rules are not clear and that decisions are being made in secret that are arbitrary with no reasons given. A decision was made for one senator who did a fabulous job at the conference, Senator Pate, who could go because she could speak, and when I received an invitation and therefore met exactly the same threshold, I was turned down.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator McPhedran: That’s arbitrary and I want to invite the committee to revisit that.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Could I have a motion? Senator Carignan?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I move that the senator’s appeal be denied.
[English]
Senator Plett: Seconded.
Senator Tannas: I would like to see a recorded vote, please.
The Chair: The motion reads that Senator McPhedran’s appeal to overturn the decision of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure regarding her travel to Iceland be approved.
Senator Plett: No.
The Chair: The appeal to overturn — so, Senator McPhedran’s appeal to overturn the decision of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure regarding her travel to Iceland.
How about this: That Senator McPhedran’s appeal to overturn the decision of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be denied.
We’ll have a voice vote.
Senator Moncion. On the motion.
Senator Moncion: No, not the motion. I abstain.
The Chair: We will go through a voice vote.
Ms. Legault: Honourable senators, I will call members’ names, beginning with the chair, and then going in alphabetical order. Senators should verbally indicate whether they vote for, against or abstain.
The Honourable Senator Campbell?
The Chair: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: For.
[Translation]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: For.
[English]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: For.
[Translation]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: For.
[English]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator McCoy?
Senator McCoy: Against — on the grounds that I think the claim for natural justice rules has been made, and I agree with it.
The Chair: Are you abstaining?
Senator McCoy: No, I am voting against the motion.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dawson: Should we all explain our vote?
The Chair: No. Thank you.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Mitchell?
Senator Mitchell: I am ex officio, and I don’t have a vote under the new regime.
Ms. Legault: You have a vote. You can abstain —
Senator Mitchell: No, I don’t. It has been established that as ex officio — there has been an agreement that that is not the case.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Mitchell.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: Abstain.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: For.
[Translation]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: For.
[English]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: For.
[Translation]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Verner, P.C.?
Senator Verner: For.
[English]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: As an ex officio member, I do not have a vote.
Ms. Legault: For, 12; against, 1; abstentions, 3. The motion is defeated — is carried.
The Chair: Carried. The motion is carried.
Senator Plett: The recording isn’t correct. Senators Mitchell and Woo did not abstain; they don’t have a vote. It’s one abstention.
Ms. Legault: We will reflect that on the record.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Number 3, the report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: You have the report before you and we ask that you approve it. We also gave you a much lengthier document about the budget. If you have any questions -- unless you would like to me clarify something -- you may consult the information provided in the documents.
[English]
Senator Woo: I move that my letter to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates, dated December 2017, on funding for the ISG, fiscal year 2018-19, be filed as an exhibit with the clerk of the committee.
The Chair: Does anybody have any problems with that? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Passed, on division.
The Chair: Do I have a motion to adopt the report?
Moved by Senator Moncion and Senator Munson.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Carried, on division.
Senator Woo: I would like to make a comment with respect to the letter that was just tabled and the budget that has just been approved, with your permission and the permission of the committee.
The Chair: If it’s short, Senator Woo, because we are jammed. I will allow a short statement.
Senator Woo: I’ll be as brief as I can be.
This committee is determining the budgets for house officers. That’s why I wanted to make sure that all committee members received the letter that was sent to the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates.
The letter sets our position on the allocation of funds for house officers. We believe that proportionality should be a key factor in the distribution of funds. At the same time, we feel strongly that the overall budget for house officers under a proportionality formula should not be higher than the budget under the current formula. The Senate should not behave as if it has access to unlimited funds from the public purse.
If we were to take as a baseline the budget assigned to the Conservatives, who will receive $1.3 million in 2018-19 for a caucus of 34 members, then the ISG, with 39 members, would on a proportionate basis be entitled to $1.5 million.
However, we do not need $1.5 million. We are not asking for $1.5 million. The ISG has used a zero-based budgeting process to determine that our current needs are closer to $1.2 million, which is the amount we have requested in the letter.
We have stated in our letter that our request is subject to proportionality in the allocation of the overall budget, excluding the G3, and subject to no increase in the overall budget. However, based on what has just been approved, it would appear that the Senate is not only rejecting proportionality but pushing for an increase in the overall house officer budget.
We in the ISG believe it is entirely possible for the caucuses and groups to manage their affairs within the current budget envelope.
Although ISG is the largest group in the Senate and is expected to grow even larger in the months ahead, our budget is smaller — let me stress that again — our budget is smaller than that of the government and the Conservatives. We could insist on a larger budget to be consistent with our numbers, but that would be fiscally irresponsible.
Colleagues, the real question is the way in which budgets are developed in the Senate and how funds are allocated amongst the different groups. I have found the process to be opaque and unfair. How is it that a group with 39 senators gets less than another with 34 when we do the same work, in the same place and at the same time?
I believe this is an issue that CIBA needs to address urgently so that we can come up with a fair and responsible way of developing budgets in the next round and justify to Canadians our prudent use of public funds.
The Chair: Next item Item No. 4, “Report from the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets.” I will recognize the chair from the subcommittee, Senator Verner.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the 15th report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, which includes the recommended amounts for the budgets of two committees.
Before we discuss them, I would like to provide some context. The total amount of funding in the 2017-18 budget was $2.382 million. We set aside $500,000 to cover the cost of witness travel to Ottawa, which leaves $1.882 million for the committees’ budgets.
This year to date, the subcommittee has recommended that you release $1,359,501 to fund committee activities. Since the start of the current fiscal year, the subcommittee has approved 16 budget requests, which include funds for committee travel. We are pleased to report that the committees have already made 12 trips.
The subcommittee met yesterday to study two budgets. First, we met with the chair and deputy chair of the Official Languages Committee, who presented a budget request including proposed expenditures of $68,000 for an activity, activity 1, which is a fact-finding mission with public hearings in Winnipeg. This mission is related to the study on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act. These funds were requested to cover the travel costs for seven senators.
The committee is also requesting the necessary funding to include one member of the deputy chair’s office staff in her budget. The subcommittee wishes to remind the committee that all senators may now be accompanied by their staff by using their points and their parliamentary travel funds if they wish. Under the policy on the management of senators’ offices, however, the staff of committee chairs and deputy chairs may now be included in their budget requests. The subcommittee had already indicated that it would decide on requests included in budget requests on a case-by-case basis.
[English]
Having carefully considered this particular request, the subcommittee feels that the interests of the committee will be best served by including the deputy chairs' staff in their budget. Based on the information provided, the subcommittee therefore recommends the release of funds for Activity 1 in the amount of $68,000.
The subcommittee also considered a legislative budget request for the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, who presented a budget application which contained proposal expenditures of $6,000 for general expenses.
[Translation]
These funds will be used to allow the committee to buy copies of the Criminal Code for committee members and staff. The committee is also requesting an amount for hospitality, to purchase refreshments, if necessary, and to host the many delegations that would like to meet them.
Based on the information received, the subcommittee therefore recommends that $6,000 be released for general expenses.
Your subcommittee therefore recommends that $74,000 be released today, of the $1.882 million set aside, which brings us to a total of $1,433,501 released to date.
I would point out that, of the total amount released, the committees have actually spent $450,000 on 10 trips to date. By our estimates, there is approximately $800,000 remaining in uncommitted funds for travel until the end of the fiscal year.
[English]
Unless there are further questions, colleagues, I recommend the adoption of the report.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Carried.
Next is Item 5, the extension of the mandate of the Subcommittee on Diversity. I will entertain a motion.
It was moved by Senator Munson:
That, the mandate of the Subcommittee on Diversity be extended from December 14, 2017, to March 29, 2018.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Carried.
No. 6 is the extension of the mandate advisory working group on parliamentary translation services. I will entertain a motion. This is to extend it from January 31 to March 15.
Senator Munson: I so move.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Colleagues we’re now at Item 6, a presentation from Public Services and Procurement Canada. I’m very sorry that it took us so long to get here. We have approximately 10 minutes.
We have with us, from Public Services and Procurement Canada, Robert Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister; Nathalie Laliberté, Director General, and Ezio DiMillo, Director General, Parliamentary Precinct Branch.
These officials are here to provide the committee with a progress update on the Senate Long Term Vision and Plan as it relates to our upcoming move to the Government Conference Centre. The presentation has been distributed to all committee members. If you do not have one, the page will bring one. I remind senators this presentation is for information only.
Mr. Wright, I believe you will begin.
[Translation]
Robert Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister, Parliamentary Precinct Branch, Public Services and Procurement Canada: I am very pleased to be here today to report to the committee on the long term vision and plan for the parliamentary precinct. We will focus today on the renovation and modernization of the old train station, now known as the Government Conference Centre, which will be occupied by the Senate while the Centre Block is being renovated.
[English]
I know we have limited time, so I will move through the presentation quickly and try to guide the slides that we are on.
The first point I’d like to make to members of the committee is the tremendous partnership in collaboration that we have between our ministry and the Senate of Canada in carrying out these important and historic projects. That’s a critical element of success as we move forward.
What we’ll unpack through this presentation is an overview of the context of the Long Term Vision and Plan to restore and modernize Canada’s parliamentary precinct; the progress and achievements to date; the current status of the major projects with a focus certainly on the Senate projects; and where we’re going from here, that is, the next steps.
If we move to slide 4, this is really the context.
[Translation]
Approved in 2001, the long term vision and plan is a multi-decade strategy. More specifically, this strategy seeks to address the deterioration of the Parliament Buildings. It also seeks to meet the accommodations needs of a 21st century parliament, to find ways of improving security, sustainability and accessibility of the parliamentary precinct, and to preserve built heritage in Canada.
[English]
If we move to slide 5, you can really see a bit of the Long Term Vision and Plan in action. From this, you can see that it is a fairly complex web of move sequences that cascade. The Centre Block is the apex project. The key driver is getting to the Centre Block, which we are approaching now. In green on this slide, you can see the projects that have been completed. A number of projects have been completed. In blue you see the projects that are currently under way. Outlined in red are the projects that are priorities moving forward. There are a fair number of Senate projects there.
If you flip the page to slide 6, you’ll see the Senate portion of the Long Term Vision and Plan. So this really starts to articulate the move sequence from the Centre Block to the Government Conference Centre, where the chamber and rooms will be located, as well as offices; 40 Elgin, the Chambers Building, where offices will be located; the Rideau committee rooms, which already exist, where committees will be located. There is an existing tunnel connecting the Rideau committee rooms and the Government Conference Centre. Of course, the East Block and the Victoria Building remain operational, the East Block becoming a Senate-only facility as part of this as well.
If you move to slide 7, there’s a lot here. There are really three points to make. There’s a strong track record to this point. Since the completion of the Library of Parliament in 2006, we’ve completed 21 major projects, on time and on budget, in a row.
The quality is high. For the Library of Parliament and the recently completed 180 Wellington and Sir John A. Macdonald buildings, we received 25 international and national awards for those projects.
These projects are creating thousands of jobs. On any given day, there are 1,400 people working on site, and that does not include the manufacturing and architectural and engineering jobs that are also being created. There is lots of innovation, engagement, partnerships with universities, youth employment, and a large, significant focus on sustainability and improvements to accessibility.
If we move to slide 8, this is really the core question today. Where are we? You can see there a bit of a chart that I will unpack because it can be a bit confusing. If you look at this chart in isolation, it would look like the Government Conference Centre is behind the West Block, for example, which is really not the case. These projects are running neck and neck, and it’s really a matter of the scope and scale difference between these two projects. The West Block is an order of magnitude of four times as large as the Government Conference Centre.
To give an analogy, if you’re running a marathon race and have completed 90 per cent, you still have four kilometres to go. If you have completed 75 per cent of a 10-kilometre run, you have 2.5 kilometres to go. So you can see that when you compare the scope and scale that the projects are really at an equivalent stage.
Although there is work to be completed, to be sure, there are a couple of points to really focus on. One is that most of the major work is completed. The high-risk work is behind us. There is not a lot of high-risk work ahead of us. We’re down to finishing touches — painting, millwork, woodwork, et cetera — and really the finishing of the IT and security connections so that this facility will work to meet Senate requirements.
Given the time constraints, we have created a video that I think will give you a good view of where we are.
The Chair: With that video, I’m going to give the site to all of the members of the committee, and they can go onto their own computers and take a look at it.
Mr. Wright: Okay.
Given the time, there are two points that I’ll make before questions. We’re at the point of doing advanced testing of all of the equipment to make sure that this will work for the Senate of Canada. There’s a very robust governance, quality-assurance program in place, such as the use of mockup facilities to make sure things are pre-tested and then replicated so that we can have a high confidence that this facility will be delivered on time, on budget and meet the quality requirements so that the building will be fully operational for the fall 2018 parliamentary session.
Senator Tannas: Mr. Wright, let me just say, on behalf of this committee and the subcommittee, that it’s been a pleasure working with you and your team. You’re to be congratulated on the progress that you’ve made at the West Block and the Government Conference Centre.
I just want to ask a question and point out the significance of the concern. It’s around 40 Elgin, the Chambers Building, which we toured recently. While the site is prepared, there has been no construction, and there is some significant work to be done in order to achieve 18 senators moving in there with proper security. My own view is that where the risk now lies is in this particular project.
Could you give us some reassurance that you believe that this can all be done and that you’re confident it will be done? In the context of this, our subcommittee will strongly recommend that the Senate not move, not leave Centre Block, unless that particular project is done and we can have all senators properly housed securely. So it impinges on the large project if this tiny little project, in the scheme of things, does not get done. Can you give us that assurance, please?
Mr. Wright: Absolutely. This is about delivering for the Senate not only the Government Conference Centre, which, as you point out, is the largest piece, but the interconnected Rideau committee rooms, which will provide four additional committee rooms. You will have, as a result, an increased number of committee rooms and greater broadcast capacity.
You point out the Senate offices at 40 Elgin. Active construction has begun on that. You saw it at a stripped-down stage. That has begun. That is about a four- to five-month project. You’ll see construction really coming to the completion stage at the Government Conference Centre and 40 Elgin at about the same time. If you visit that site in May, you will see finished products. I’m equally confident that all of those projects will come together at the same time.
Senator Munson: Very briefly, what is the Centre Block going to look like during this time? This is important in terms of the question of the tarpaulin. In Europe, they have created visual virtual buildings that are under construction. I think it’s important for tourism, for the city. Are you committed to showcasing Parliament for the 10 years that it won’t be sitting in the Centre Block?
Mr. Wright: The first point I would make is that there will be no scaffolding or tarping required on the Centre Block until at least 2020. This is not something that will be happening in the next year or so. So that’s an important point.
We are committed and actively working to ensure that the visitor experience remains a wonderful experience for individuals that visit our nation’s capital. So the tarp, yes, we are working on that as well as things such as Canada Day, the Sound and Light Show, the changing of the guard, the changing of the flag on the Peace Tower, the Dominion Carillon. There is a whole suite of activities that are critical to the Parliamentary Precinct and our nation’s capital, the continuity through these important works, and the tarp is one important issue that we continue to study.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I would like some reassurance that the entrance to the Department of Agriculture offices, located on the southeast of the East Block, will indeed be functional and ready for the move. Perhaps it is because I use a cane, but that will save us a good many steps.
Mr. Wright: All the buildings will be ready for the Senate’s activities. Something I would like to point out is that accessibility will be improved. In the past, there were accessibility challenges with this building, but these problems have been corrected and there will now be ease of access for everyone.
Senate Forest: If I may, I would like to ask the Senate administration a question.
[English]
The Chair: I’m sorry, but we have another committee coming in. You will have to wait or speak to them off the record.
Senator McCoy: I raised this offline with Senator Tannas.
The Chair: If you could do it offline, I would appreciate it.
Senator McCoy: In equipping the chamber in the new premises, since we are all now operating on iPads and iPhones or BlackBerrys, that there are plug-ins accessible at our desks so we can work for the next 10 years in a manner that is consistent with contemporary conditions.
Thank you.
The Chair: I know that you will take that into consideration.
I know it’s hard to believe it’s the holiday season after today’s session, but it is the holiday season, so I wish everyone all of the best, a safe holiday, peace. We’ll see you in January.
(The committee adjourned.)