THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 3, 2018
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:30 a.m., in camera and in public, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Larry W. Campbell (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome to the Thursday morning Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. My name is Larry Campbell and I’m a senator from Galiano Island, British Columbia. I will ask honourable senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Tkachuk: David Tkachuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Plett: Donald Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator McCoy: Elaine McCoy, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson from Quebec.
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Mitchell: Grant Mitchell, Alberta.
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’re going to go in camera at the start of today’s meeting and go out of camera after. And so I ask that we go in camera, please.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: We’re now back in public. I would direct you to Item No. 4, the minutes. You have a copy of the minutes. As well, there is an addition of a comparison of service levels that, it’s my understanding, we just received, so I’m not going to address that this week. I think we need to have time to look at it, so we will just be dealing with the minutes.
Are there any questions or changes to the minutes?
Senator McCoy: Thank you, chair. I would like to propose a motion adding to the motion that we made last time. I’m sure our Audit Subcommittee and our soon-to-be audit and oversight functions would be in agreement with this approach from a governance point of view. It’s very rare when setting out decision authorities to create pockets of autonomy, especially in dealing with items that can be fairly expensive.
On the other hand, one wants to be fairly practical. One doesn’t want to slow everything down waiting for a committee meeting. So what I’m suggesting for your consideration is that we add the words, after “works of art” in the first paragraph of the original motion, that the “advisory working group report to the committee” — that would be CIBA, of course — “for ratification of any recommendation it makes involving any expenditures over $5,000 for the purchase, disposal, repairs and restorations of heritage assets and works of art,” and then have “quarterly reports” added, as well, to general reports. I think this would be a workable approach to maintaining a responsible governance system.
So I would make this motion and ask people to support it. I’m happy to answer any questions.
The Chair: Do we have a seconder for the motion?
Senator McCoy: You don’t need a seconder.
The Chair: Senator Marshall. Any discussion on this motion? Do I sense that everybody is okay with this motion? Nobody has any problems? This motion, then, is passed.
Senator McCoy: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Could I have someone move the minutes as amended? Senator Jaffer. Thank you, Senator Batters, second. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Carried. Item No. 5 is the report from the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates. I turn to floor over to the chair of that subcommittee, Senator Moncion.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: You’ve got the seventh report. The committee has considered the request by Senator Woo and Senator Saint-Germain to increase funding for the Independent Senators Group. The current funding is fixed by regulation at $1,060,000. The request represents an increase of an additional $140,000, which will increase the funding to $1.2 million. The members of the subcommittee have studied the matter and propose that the Committee on Internal Economy accept this request. It is important to note that the subcommittee members’ recommendation for funding is a majority, but not a unanimous one.
The subcommittee members also considered funding for different groups, caucuses and officers. Given the political aspect that is associated with this component, the subcommittee makes the following three comments: the funding of groups, caucuses and government officers has doubled over the last five years, and this is a responsibility that belongs to the leaders and should be carried out on the basis of consensus.
You have the seventh report in hand; if you have any questions, I’ll be happy to answer them. In closing, I recommend the adoption of the report.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Moncion.
[English]
Senator Batters: The chart that was attached to the report that was filed shows how expensive the Trudeau Senate experiment has become. Since the Trudeau government took office in 2015, we’ve gone from two caucuses to four and as a result, the Senate caucus and house officers’ budget amounts have doubled, from $2.7 million to $5.4 million per year. This is all for an institution that’s doing the same work with the same number of senators. So it seems like Mr. Trudeau’s Senate is quite expensive.
When Senator Carignan was the Opposition Senate Leader, five of his leader’s office staff were policy staffers, and that was a sizeable percentage of his total staff in the leader’s office. That would be similar for Senator Smith’s office now. That is also the norm for the government leader’s offices in the past, as well.
So given this, I’m not sure why the Independent Senators Group would need so many staff for their caucus when the Independent Senators Group doesn’t have joint policy as such, because how can they? They’re independent. The caucus funding amounts that are based on 20 or more senators and others announced, depending on numbers, were designed and came into effect when all of the current circumstances were foreseen at this point: Prime Minister Trudeau was appointing independent senators, the ISG had formed, et cetera.
The Conservative opposition caucus did not come to the committee asking for sizeable additional funding because our caucus numbers were in the past substantially more than 20 and they remain so now. For this particular request, it’s my view that no rationale is being given for the sizeable increase to the Independent Senators Group budget other than they want it, and right now their numbers more than 20 senators.
Last time the ISG came to this committee asking for more money, in December, they managed to get themselves a sizeable chunk of retroactive funding for their group, and even though they said here this amount was to primarily hire more staff, which obviously can’t happen several months retroactively, entitled was the key phrase they used that day.
One week after that request, ISG came back here with the initial indication that they would be asking for an increase from $1.06 million as their group budget to $1.2 million. I don’t think that’s any way to budget or to handle taxpayers’ money and as a result, I won’t be supporting this particular request.
Senator Marshall: I’m a member of the subcommittee, and my concerns centred around the fact that there is a formula that approves the funding levels and is outlined in our rules. The additional funding that was requested, even though it wasn’t material in relation to the overall funding, is outside the formula in that it’s an arbitrary amount. So I was really concerned about that.
My secondary concern, when you look at the amount of funding that has been approved, in the last few years there has been quite a significant increase. I was here during the audit process, and when I look at the increase in the budget over especially the last five or six years, it’s very concerning. But my primary concern is we have a formula and we’ve now strayed outside the formula.
Senator Tkachuk: So I’m clear about this, right now the government gets, I think, $1.5 million for their office. The ISG is now looking at $1.2 million. The Liberals get around $750,000. Basically all three do the same thing. They all move government bills. They all basically vote the same. Sometimes there are a few others, but they all basically support the government. I don’t understand why you need all that money.
We have to oppose every bill from the Conservative side. The opposition used to get more money than the government in the past because the government also used to get staff from the PMO because they did government business; i.e., they moved government bills. Now we have a situation where the same job is being done. Way fewer bills, as far as I can tell, by the government. It takes that kind of money and three groups to do exactly the same job that the government used to do, both with Liberal administrations and in Conservative administrations.
I can’t believe that we’re doing this, but right now I’d like to know what these people do. Did you ask the question: What do these people do?
Senator Moncion: No, we didn’t ask the question because it was not part of the mandate that we were looking at.
Senator Tkachuk: Well, I’m going to ask it. I want to know what they do.
Senator Tkachuk: Does anyone know what they do?
The Chair: I know what they do.
Senator Tkachuk: Tell me.
The Chair: They give support for a caucus which I realize many senators don’t believe should be there, that we as independents shouldn’t be there.
Basically our staff helps us to look at bills in a non-partisan way so that we can make arguments within the Senate against the partisan ways that we seem to always be addressing. It’s no different than us asking, for instance, what your staff does.
Senator Tkachuk: We can tell you.
The Chair: I understand there are fewer bills, but I think there are many reasons for that. For instance, the government has chosen not to use time restraints, which means we don’t have the same ongoing bills we saw coming through as we saw in the previous session. Basically, they do for us what your staff does for you. That’s what we do.
Senator Tkachuk: Well, I kind of get —
The Chair: On an individual basis, I can’t give you the individual basis of what they do. But I know they do essentially the same thing your staff does and the same thing that the government staff does.
Senator Tkachuk: I want to clarify that. I have no problem with there being independent senators, chair. The Prime Minister can do what he wants. If he wants to appoint independent senators, that’s fine.
What I don’t like is the ruse. I don’t like the phony story that there are independent senators when they all vote the same, they all do government bills.
The Chair: Senator —
Senator Tkachuk: No, just let me —
The Chair: We hear this song and dance all the time.
Senator Tkachuk: Well, the facts bear it up.
The Chair: He asked me a question. I was trying to answer it, and he decided to go off on a Conservative ruse.
Senator Tkachuk: Well, it is. You can say it all you want, but you can’t make facts do what you want. The facts are that all three caucuses move government bills. They, almost all the time, vote with the government, and you call yourselves an independent caucus. To me that’s a fact that does not qualify for independent senators. That’s what I’m getting at. It takes three times as much money as it used to.
The Chair: That’s your opinion. You’re welcome to it.
Senator Tkachuk: That is my opinion.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Perhaps we should also check what the people working in the government leader’s office are doing. I saw so many new people. In the past, I liked learning the names of people. Now, I’ve stopped doing it because there are so many people that I try to focus on something else.
Without going into the substance of the application, we have a regulation that provides for an amount. Do we have the power to override the regulations? I may be speaking to the clerk. Our regulation establishes an amount and financial rules. Now we are putting the rules aside to pay more than they allow. Do we have the power to override the rules? If so, what is the formula for counting the majority? When it is done in the Senate, it is unanimous. Should we have unanimity to override the rules?
[English]
The Chair: CIBA has the power to make decisions. That’s what we do.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: But there are rules. What purpose do they serve?
[English]
The Chair: That’s up to this committee. If they want to make a change, they make a change. That’s what we do.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: No, but the rules are being changed.
[English]
Senator McCoy: Could I make a clarification, please? Finance rule 2017-18, which I think is attached here, is the rule that you’re referring to, Senator Carignan?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Yes, because it’s in schedule. It says “Finance Rule 2017-18”. Because if we have a rule that we can change for whatever reason … We should agree on the process for changing the rule.
[English]
Senator McCoy: This rule was made by this committee, right?
The Chair: That’s correct.
[Translation]
Senator Saint- Germain: As my neighbour, who has had a career in the public sector and is familiar with the auditing and budgeting rules, says, the worst thing you can do when you manage public money is to manage it by partisan politics. I have never done it, and I won’t start. I want to emphasize that if you say we have to look at bills and oppose them, because their role is to oppose, it must be an extremely easy job.
I also wonder why we have so many clerical staff, especially when we have the cooperation of two caucuses, but I’ll stop my comments there.
What I want to say is that we have noted some extremely important things here, factual arguments of a budgetary nature that were presented by the coordinator, Senator Woo, who said that in an ideal world, given change and transformation of the Senate, we should do an exercise on a zero budget basis to reflect the new configuration.
The Senator also pointed out that there were issues of fairness and budgetary logic in an application that included both a principle that is linked to the basis of compliance with the regulations, and therefore a minimum budget, with a surplus budget linked to proportionality.
It’s a formula we have proposed to allow fairness, particularly for the group of independent Liberal senators, and also to allow the opposition caucus to maintain a reasonable budget, regardless of proportionality. This was refused.
Today, we are being told that we have to adapt to a regulation that is outdated and has been devised without taking into account the fact that the Independent Senators Group will expand, given the seats that will become vacant and appointments that will be made.
I believe the public interest today is to respond to this request from the Independent Senators Group which, incidentally, is less than what we could have required on the basis of comparing each of the groups and caucuses in terms of the number of senators, which is an important criterion.
I don’t think the public would be very proud to hear a conversation like this today. The public wants senators to take an independent and objective look at the bills, and I’m not saying that the ISG is the only one to do it. I’m saying that all senators must do this. I think a majority of senators in all groups do.
So, please consider this request on a logical basis. I think we have some leeway in the application of a regulation that will eventually have to be reviewed. Therefore, I strongly recommend that we examine this budgetary matter on the basis of its reasonableness and on the basis of our decision-making latitude. Thank you.
Senator Moncion: I would like to respond to part of your comment when you talked about fairness and proportionality. The committee wasn’t able to make that assessment. That’s why our recommendation states that the budget has doubled in the last five years. It is also noted that changing rules is a responsibility of the leaders. As for the request, it is implied that this work needs to be done under leadership.
Our role as a committee was either to recommend or not to recommend $140,000. We didn’t discuss the political aspects or the analysis of all the stories of the past. That’s why I’m not answering questions or comments. I can’t do it, and I don’t want to move on. On the basis of consensus, there is a call for a renewal of rules and for leaders to look at budgets together.
[English]
Senator Marshall: I would like to support what Senator Moncion said. The request was for $140,000. That’s all we were asked to do, and that’s what we looked at. I had concerns because it was outside the formula. All the past increases, even though they were very significant, have been approved by CIBA. We didn’t go back and look at that; we just looked at the $140,000.
The increase in the budget is concerning because in 2012-13, it was $1.8 million and now over six years it’s $5.4 million, so it has tripled. I don’t know what’s happening in the Senate and who is doing what. But the fact that it has tripled — if you put this schedule on Hill Times — doesn’t reflect favourably on the Senate. I am very concerned over the increase in the cost. As I said, we were asked to look at the $140,000 and it’s approved on division but it’s not in accordance with the formula that’s in our rules.
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair. I want to make a few comments on things that have been already said, possibly. But chair, you made a comment that there are those people who don’t believe independents should be there. I don’t know of one person who doesn’t believe that independents should be there. You talk about a Conservative ruse. The ruse is to have 60 people as independents in a group.
The Chair: I didn’t say it was a Conservative ruse.
Senator Plett: Yes, you did.
The Chair: You said it was a ruse.
Senator Plett: Mr. Chair, I don’t interrupt you when you’re speaking.
The Chair: I was only trying to clarify, senator.
Senator Plett: In reference to what Senator Tkachuk said, you said it was a Conservative ruse. The ruse here is to have a group of 40 more calling themselves independents. That’s the ruse. They have been appointed by one Prime Minister, 96 per cent of the time they vote along with the government; what Senator Tkachuk said is absolutely correct, chair. We have three groups — if you want to call them groups or caucuses — that are basically doing the same thing.
The chair of the subcommittee says it’s not in their mandate to ask what staff does, what the money is for. The entire Senate has come under disrepute for the way we conduct ourselves. Here we triple our budget in a matter of a year or two and the only answer I get is that we have the right to do that. I don’t think we have the right to do that. I think we have an obligation to spend the taxpayers’ money in a responsible manner. We do not have the right to frivolously fritter away taxpayers’ dollars. We have never been given that right.
Mr. Chair, I was part of this at Christmas time, or whenever it was when we were setting up committees again and setting up chairs of committees and so on and so forth, with the leadership of the Liberal caucus and leadership of the independent — I find this strange, independent caucus, independent group. If you’re independent, you’re independent. Nevertheless.
We discussed and had absolute agreement that when the independents would ask for more money, it would come from a massive budget that three senators have; $1.5 million dollars for a caucus of three. That is where the money would come from, and that has been thrown out the window. That is not the fault of the chair of the subcommittee. But that is an arrangement we had and that is not being discussed. I think if we want to discuss what rights we have and what responsibilities we have, it is a right and a responsibility to follow through with a commitment that we made.
For Senator Harder and a caucus of three to get $1.5 million dollars is absolutely insane and so, chair, I’m sorry. I think we should somewhere get to the point where we just simply stop all of this BS about groups and caucuses and simply allot an amount of money for every senator, whatever that would be, and if nine senators want to form a group, they get that, whatever it is — $20,000 times nine, $20,000 times three — and we wouldn’t have this.
Number one, we would have another three or four more groups starting; I know that would happen really quickly. But nevertheless that, of course, would be the prerogative of the people at that point to do that. But we don’t have the right to do this. Unless we get some more information, chair, I would really appreciate that we do not vote on this today and that we at least give this some sober second thought and think through what we’re doing here instead of simply having something presented to us here at the meeting and voting on it within five minutes because we have the right to do that.
The Chair: We will be addressing this today and it I’d like to point out to you that under Senate Administrative Rules 6(2) the Internal Economy Committee may vary any amount set by the Senate in a finance rule that is not an amount determined by law.
That’s just for information purposes.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, chair. I’m a member of the committee and I think it’s fair to say that we all had some degree of discomfort with this assignment that you gave us.
The committee reluctantly agreed, on division, to pass this exception of $140,000, which is as much about keeping peace in the valley, which has not been accomplished. So I think there are two ways to go here. Number one is that the subcommittee be tasked to review every single group, all of the jobs, what everyone does, how much they get paid. And do that review transparently, and up front. That's the first choice.
The second choice is that we ask the leaders to be leaders and to actually sit down, do the work and come up with a consensus amongst themselves that we can say yes to. But I don’t see any other way out of this, other than that. I will participate, if necessary, and spend the time to do option one, if that’s what is ultimately decided. But to me, this is an issue of leadership, and we should challenge our leaders to deal with this.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I would like to follow up on Senator Saint-Germain’s comments on the proposal for a zero-based budget. The Senate existed before the arrival of some independent senators. In 2015, we did a complete zero-budget exercise to start on a solid foundation.
As for the financial regulations, Senator, you say that it is obsolete. I’m looking at the changes, and they go back to about April 1, 2017. It’s been 13 months. If the regulation is obsolete after 13 months, even if we move quickly, we still have to adopt a certain logic. Perhaps the leaders should sit back and see if there are any things that have changed from what was done in April 2017. Otherwise, I think we should stick to what we adopted.
[English]
Senator Pratte: On independents, Bills C-6, C-7, C-14, C-29, C-44, C-49, and S-3, just a short list of bills on which members of the ISG and Conservatives and Liberal senators have played a major role in bringing important amendments to these bills. So I don’t know what the 96 per cent means, but I know that these are some of the bills that were amended following efforts by independent senators and Conservative senators and Liberal senators. I think that’s the meaning of independence.
As far as budget is concerned, is my understanding correct that the Conservative Opposition budget is something like 1.5 million or something like that — 1.3? So the ISG’s budget, according to the rules that we have right now, is 1 million and 60,000, and there are 43 ISG senators and 33 Conservative senators.
Senator Tkachuk: Forty-three independents.
Senator Pratte: Forty-three independents. My understanding of this proposal is that it is simply meant to bring the budget up to the level that it should be according to the numbers.
[Translation]
According to the committee’s report, we should look at the issue as a whole. It is in this context that we must consider today’s proposal. We need to make the reality more equitable, despite rules that clearly do not achieve equity.
[English]
Senator Mitchell: I want to begin with a general thing saying I agree with Senator Tannas. I think that’s probably the way to go, but I want to clarify a couple of things because this has been a very interesting discussion. I’m going to make this debating point, so please bear with me.
The point has been made that it seems as though the independents vote always with government, and yet they call themselves independents. How could they do that? I say it seems as though the Conservatives always vote with the opposition, ergo how can they say they are independent? And I’m told all the time that you’re independent. Let’s set that aside.
There are many reasons that drive votes, and one of them is that, since 1945, the Senate has only defeated six bills. We understand that we don’t defeat bills because we’re not elected, and they are. It’s a very important value. But, when everybody knows exactly how the “independent” Conservatives are going to vote — they’re always going to vote against it — it kind of limits the options of those senators in the three other groups who are determined not to necessarily be the seventh, eighth, ninth or tenth defeat of government legislation.
So, if we had voice votes, like we used to more frequently, that wouldn’t be drawn into stark relief and people could be true to their values of independence and not be forced to do something that makes them very uncomfortable.
When I was in the Alberta legislature, we had a very clear rule that we don’t impugn other members’ motives, but what I see us doing here today — and I see it over and over again — is the impugning of independents’ motives. I know because I am the liason, and I deal with independents and others. I’m not the Whip. There you go; you’re impugning my motives. I cannot whip anybody. As I say, I have nobody to whip and nothing with which to whip them. I am a three-member caucus in a perpetual minority government. Would it be that I could count on independents for votes, I would sleep nights, but I don’t.
So I want to make it very clear that the independents are, in fact, independent. That does not mean that they don’t have a right to collaborate, and the list of successes in their collaboration just listed by Senator Pratte is unprecedented, in my experience here. I have been here two years under this regime and under this structure and 10 years under the structure before. If we want to get into the detailed differences in what has been accomplished, let’s do that because it’s very relevant.
The final point is that we long ago divorced the amount of workload, ergo the required budget, from the number of people in caucuses. In fact, immediately after the election, when all of that was restructured, there was no direct relationship between the amount of money that the opposition Conservatives got and the number that they had. If we want to start drawing a straight line, you have dropped 75 per cent in people. So, if we want to start drawing a straight line between how much work you have to do and the role you play, I think that’s not a place that you particularly want to go.
I’ll say along that line — and Senator Carignan will know this — that the fact of the matter is that, whether you have three people representing government or 93 people representing government, the leader or the representative’s office still has a great number of things to do. I would argue it’s much more complicated and much more difficult to do those things if, in fact, you don’t have a majority caucus, and, by the way, you don’t sleep when you don’t have a majority caucus and you have 33 people you know are going to vote against every bill. I just give you some context for that.
I’m getting tired of these kinds of attacks because I think they’re ad hominem, and I don’t think they’re coming from a place that says, “This is how we’re going to make this place work better.” I don’t like to see, over and over again, fine senators impugning the motives of other very fine senators.
The Chair: This is really going to raise our poll numbers and our visibility out there. People will be tuning into this committee.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Briefly, if we consider that the Senate’s budget increases with the arrival of independent senators, it is because the other groups refuse to redistribute the amount so that their budget remains the same. The committee’s recommendation is really in the direction of revisiting this approach. I support what Senator Tannas has proposed, because it follows the same logic. There are fairness and weighting criteria that we can all look at to take into account the different statutes.
I want to make it clear to Senator Carignan that on April 1, 2017, there weren’t 43 ISG senators, but at that time there were budget groups with a ceiling of 20 people, which effectively makes this regulation obsolete if it isn’t adapted to the situation. So I think it’s quite logical and even fair to say that the regulation needs to be updated. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: Just a couple of points. First, I did not impugn the motives of the independents. I impugned the motives of the government. I think the independent members who are appointed by the Prime Minister claim they’re independents. They probably were told to be independents, but, at the same time, they follow the wishes of the government.
The other thing I’d like to point out to Senator Mitchell is that the Official Opposition gets their budget on the basis that they have a role to play, i.e. the role of the Official Opposition.
Let me finish. We have a role to play as the official opposition to oppose the bills. Our role is that if we feel we have to, we have to oppose the bills of the government. They get $1.5 million for three people, we get a certain amount as the official opposition, but not because of our numbers — we could have 10, we’ve had six members of the official opposition in the past — and they got a budget.
So it is a good point but the independent senators, that’s a new role to play of which they are assisting the government in almost every facet. And you’re still increasing their budget after you’ve already received $1.5 million, the Liberals received $750,000, just so the public knows, and you want the independent senators to get $1.2 million, all doing exactly the same work as the government used to do before. That’s the point.
So if you want them to have more money because they are assisting you, you should pay it out of your budget.
The Chair: This is not a debate going on here.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you, I’m done.
The Chair: I’d like to keep you happy.
Senator Tkachuk: I know you would.
Senator Dawson: Being a member of the disappearing breed of Independent Liberals, I know my colleagues on the other side doubted we were Independent Liberals, but we were turned out of our caucus, so take it for granted I was offended by that.
I want this experiment, as Senator Batters called it, to work and I think part of working it is what Senator Tannas said. There are two issues. There is $140,000, and I think it’s well deserved, and then there’s the big picture, which has to be addressed. I think if this experiment is to work, we have to readjust.
The numbers changed. The independents, because I recognize them as being an independent caucus, collectively need resources. They’re asking for $140,000 to adjust to the fact that they were 30, they’re 43, they’re going to 45 and then 48 and it will change as it goes up, so recognizing that and giving the $140,000 is one thing.
Trying to find a balance between my friend Senator Mitchell and the Independent Liberals being a disappearing species and the arrival of more and more independents is something that’s big-picture. It has nothing to do with the $140,000. I think the $140,000 that’s recommended is a good idea.
I also agree with the chair that it’s a little bit embarrassing to have this type of debate. There is the $140,000 issue and there is the big principle of whether they are really independent. Trust me, I know I’m an Independent Liberal. I’m not happy with it but I have learned to live with it. I think, to a certain degree, you should learn to live with the fact that the independents are going to be more numerous than we are and you are, and as such they deserve the support.
As you know, they’re not being paid while your leadership is being paid. I think that should be addressed at the same time as we’re addressing the big picture. I think there’s an injustice there. But again, it’s the big picture. It’s not the $140,000. I think that’s one issue. Let’s deal with that one and then deal with the bigger one by giving the mandate to the subcommittee to study who is doing what.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Two things: We will have a hard stop at 10:15 but you should know there are going to be some loud guns going off at 10 so I don’t want us to head out the back door in a rush. There’s a 21-gun salute for the Prime Minister of Portugal, I believe.
Senator McCoy: I am going to avoid the political conversation and suggest that really what is happening is we’re caught in a time warp of what has been happening with financial rule 6 over the last three years, since the new government was formed. We have moved from two groups and then we had three groups and one Government Representative, and now we have four groups with some loose fish still. We haven’t caught up with that new configuration or come up with an approach that would be fair and all-encompassing.
I do remember, when I was facilitator two years ago, going to the Estimates Subcommittee and suggesting that we do, in fact, take a different approach to how we calculate our funding for caucuses and parliamentary groups. And I think the time is very much here now.
I would therefore suggest that we encourage, if not instruct, our Subcommittee on Estimates to look at different funding approaches and to see what might be concocted that would allow all of us to be properly supported in our functioning and undertake our constitutional responsibilities, of which probably 90 per cent are the same for each and every one of us regardless of what label we wear. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: I would like to add some comments. When we look at the numbers, the budget has more than doubled since 2015. I think it is important to tell those who are listening to us and the Canadian taxpayers that this increase in costs reflects a new reality. The Prime Minister of Canada was democratically elected and he chose to transform the Senate, whether we agree with it or not. This is the main reason why budgets have increased. The reality inside the Senate is no longer the same and, in the near future, I don’t see how it could return to its previous state. I don’t think I’ll see it in my lifetime.
I very much appreciate my colleague Senator Dawson’s comment that the coordinators and the deputy coordinator of the Independent Senators Group are not paid, unlike the other two political groups.
In addition, I would like to come back to a comment made by Senator Carignan. You said that you don’t know the names of the various employees in the group representing the government. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard you say that. For you, the justification for a budget is knowing people by their first name, or something like that? Really? I don’t think that’s the case.
If we have to go in that direction, I will approve Senator Tannas’ suggestion to determine who does what in each group, and to balance the budget according to the tasks that will be assigned within each group. That said, I think, like my colleague Senator Dawson, the $140,000 is warranted at this time.
Now, in order to avoid another discussion about the fact that there is a group of independent senators who are not thought to be as independent as it claims... We will have to get to the bottom of this question to avoid going back to it constantly.
Senator Carignan: I have a lot of respect for you, Senator Verner. You’ve known me long enough to know that I really like using figures of speech to convey messages. It comes from my educational past. So I used a figure of speech to express what we’re seeing that there are many more employees than before, with the same number of senators.
I agree with Senator Saint-Germain. Perhaps the distribution of funds should be reviewed. I will therefore propose an amendment to the recommendation to have the $140,000 taken from the budget of the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
[English]
The Chair: If we could finish off with the questions on this and then move to that. Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: I like that amendment. The Conservative senators’ voting average is actually 25 per cent with the Trudeau government, so that is not at zero; it is 25 per cent. That is five times as often as independent senators’ voting average —
The Chair: If we can deal with the issue that’s at hand here, which is $140,000, please?
Senator Batters: I am. That is five times as often as independent senators’ voting average is against the government.
Also, there have been a couple of points where the government leader’s office, plus the government deputy leader’s office and the government whip’s office — the total of those office budgets is actually $1.8 million in total. It’s only Senator Harder’s leader’s office budget that’s $1.5 million.
The leadership positions in the ISG and the Senate Liberals could actually be getting compensation if the Trudeau government changed the Parliament of Canada Act, which they didn’t, which is a bill that is now before the Senate. Thank you.
The Chair: We have an amendment to this motion. Could you please read it out, Senator Carignan?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I move that we amend the main motion so that the amount of $140,000 is taken from the budget of the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
[English]
The Chair: Any discussion on this? I’d like to call a vote on it, then, please. Starting on the left, Senator Jaffer. Alphabetical? Okay. I’ll stay with tradition. Of course I went off script.
Before we proceed to the roll call vote, I would like to remind honourable senators that the rules indicate that ex officio members enjoy the same status as other members of the committee, including the right to vote. There is currently a convention that ex officio members do not vote in committee by mutual agreement. I ask that any ex officio committee members who wish not to vote please indicate it now. Senator Mitchell. Thank you.
Senator Mitchell: I wish to vote; I’m not going to.
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, Senate of Canada: 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?
Senator Campbell: No.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C.?
Senator Carignan: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: No.
[English]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: No.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator McCoy?
Senator McCoy: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: No.
[English]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Pratte?
Senator Pratte: No.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: No.
[English]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: No.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Verner, P.C.?
Senator Verner: No.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Yeas, 5; nays, 9. The amendment is defeated.
On the motion: It is moved by Senator Moncion that the report be adopted.
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you very much. On division?
Senator Tkachuk: I’d like a recorded vote on that.
The Chair: That’s fine. Before proceeding to the roll call vote, I’d like to remind senators that the rules indicate that ex officio members enjoy the same status as members —
Senator Tkachuk: Dispense.
The Chair: Dispense?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senator Mitchell, are you abstaining?
Senator Mitchell: No, I’m not even abstaining; I’m not voting.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Legault: Honourable senators, I will call members’ names, beginning with the chair again and then going in alphabetical order. Senators should verbally indicate whether they vote for, against or abstain.
The Honourable Senator Campbell?
Senator Campbell: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C.?
Senator Carignan: No.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: I support the report.
[English]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator McCoy?
Senator McCoy: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Pratte?
Senator Pratte: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Verner, P.C.?
Senator Verner: Yes.
[English]
The Chair: Yeas, 10; nays, 4. The motion is adopted. Thank you.
Moving on to Item No. 6 —
Senator McCoy: May I ask a question?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator McCoy: Do we need to go for supplementary estimates? Is this $140,000 on top of the amount that’s in the budgetary —
The Chair: I’m given to understand that we have the funding. We don’t have to go outside.
Senator McCoy: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator McCoy.
Next is Item No. 6, the report from the Subcommittee on Communications.
Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the third report of the Subcommittee on Communications. Before I open the floor for questions and debate, I need to make two clarifications related to the briefing note.
First, the open caucus is organized by the Senate Liberals, the ISG and the Office of the Government Representative. Unfortunately, the Government Representative was not mentioned in the briefing note, and I apologize for that. They actually contribute and work with the open caucus.
Second, I also need to advise committee members of a correction in the English version. On page 13 of your English package, under the heading “Background” in the third paragraph, the following sentence was removed: “The subcommittee was asked for further consultation on the issue.”
Senator Batters raised this, and I would ask you to disregard this sentence. The French version is correct: “Consultations were held, and the subcommittee subsequently did not approve the request in 2016. The subcommittee revisited the request and is now recommending its approval.”
I have two people who want to ask questions, Senators Batters and Tannas.
Senator Batters: Thank you. Yes, I would point out further to the chair’s remarks that the decision at the subcommittee was not unanimous; it was a majority vote. I think that might have been the first time we’ve had a vote at the Communications Subcommittee in the four years I’ve been on it.
There are a few points to note. The briefing note says the words “open caucus” 10 times. This is not a Senate committee or chamber hearing. It’s a caucus meeting. It’s held at the same time as the Conservative national caucus meetings, which has been the case for probably decades.
Also, I want to reiterate that for two years, our Subcommittee on Communications, which I was a part of at that time, turned down this same request. Now that the combined government-side caucuses, the Independent Liberals, the government representative group and the Independent Senators Group — have the majority, it’s been brought back to our subcommittee.
Also, another point to note is that, right now, this open caucus is broadcast on YouTube. I have pointed out in the past that they could also broadcast this using Facebook Live, Periscope and many other social media tools that, frankly, might help to get more viewers using those types of channels.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Batters.
Senator Tannas: I don’t support this motion. To me, there is a difference between sanctioned Senate committees and the work that we do as individuals and as groups, where we engage the Senate communications department and have access to certain resources.
But the idea that we would actually sanctify the broadcast through our resources, the same resources that official committee meetings go through, a group that excludes somebody — and it excludes the Conservatives. That is the time at which we have our national caucus meeting. It’s that simple.
So I don’t see anything wrong with the current policy, with the idea that the group in the open caucus has broadcast channels that they can use, like YouTube and Facebook live and so on, that go to a different audience than those that are meeting and having committee meetings and other Senate-sanctioned full participation activities.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tannas. We have about four minutes.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I would just like to set the record straight. There is no intention to exclude the Conservative caucus. Senator Eggleton, who has been in the caucus for a number of years, made an offer to the Conservative caucus. This offer has been reiterated since I began working with Senator Eggleton. We are even prepared to change the time and the specific moment to ensure that issues of public interest, which we are discussing with independent experts, can be discussed with the Conservatives. So, if this objection is the most fundamental, I am reiterating this offer to adapt to the needs of the Conservative caucus.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Plett, we have three minutes.
Senator Plett: I will only take 20 seconds. I would strongly suggest, then, that this not be moved forward until we get what Senator Saint-Germain just offered and see if we can come to a consensus on that first. If I might, I would like to suggest that we table this motion for a future meeting.
The Chair: Is everybody agreed with that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: This is the first I’ve heard of it and I’m very happy to hear this.
That would be it for today. I want to thank everybody for the scintillating conversation and debate.
(The committee adjourned.)