Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 3 - Evidence
Ottawa, Thursday, May 16, 1996
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 10:30 a.m.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Senators, on the last page of the agenda is our draft fifth report, which I put to you for consideration. It reflects the emergency funding which I, as your chairman, and Senator Di Nino, as your co-chairman, have been approving for committee funding until we can develop budgets. I need the support and approval of this committee to report this to the Senate later today.
Senator Forrestall: So moved.
The Chairman: Is everyone in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee adjourned.
Ottawa, Thursday, May 30, 1996
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 10:00. a.m. to consider its agenda.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: We have the report of the twenty-eighth meeting on the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. You have it before you, and it includes three items: I would like to deal with them seriatim, if you are agreeable. Are there any comments on item A, committee budgets?
Senator Wood: I have a comment. Under Special Joint Committee on Code of Conduct I would like to have an explanation for the entry "senators requested to speak", $5,000.
The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien is getting information on that and we'll come back to it. Are there any other points that people would like to raise under item A?
Senator Wood: I am not finished. I would also like an explanation for the "Transport and Communications" entry of $110,757 under the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Transport and Communications Committee entries.
Senator Corbin: With regard to the National Finance Committee under item A on page two, some months ago when I was still a member of that committee, I asked the clerk to produce the total payments made for professional and other services, mostly professional, over a period of some three years, and I was astounded to find that what we pay out to that professional person is tantamount to a pay-out to a permanent staffer. When I compared the pay out to actual sittings of the committee, I was rather scandalized. It is a rather large outlay of money and for what we get in return, I do not think the committee, or the Senate for that matter, can justify such an expenditure. The clerk, Mr. Bélisle, produced a paper for me, but I do not have it with me. I am not a permanent member of this committee. At the opportune moment, I would like someone to revisit that item. To resolve the situation, we should either have a permanent person on staff within the walls of Parliament or contract on the basis of need. Right now the cost for professional services for that committee is equivalent to the cost for a full time position, and, indeed, the committee has not met very often particularly during election years when there were two or three committee meetings.
The Chairman: Senator Corbin, I must confess that I have some difficulty with telling a committee how to manage its affairs. The budget came forward having been passed by the committee. I think it is within our prerogative to set policies that the committees collectively must follow, but when we get to the point where we are going in and managing an individual committee, that is another matter. I am wondering whether you are asking us to do that?
Senator Corbin: No, I am not asking that you manage it. I am just asking that, at some point, somebody -- and maybe I should have been aware of that meeting and gone to it -- ask the questions that have to be asked, but it seems that they are never asked.
The Chairman: If you would like to give us the questions, the next time the committee appears before us, we will ask them. I suggest that they be asked in the committee as well.
Senator Corbin: I will produce the clerk's paper for you and you can deal with it the way you want.
The Chairman: Do we have answers for Senator Wood now?
Mr. Gary O'Brien, Clerk of the Committee: With respect to the Code of Conduct, you are requesting information on the item "Senators requested to speak", which is part of the guidelines within our budget application. In this case, Senator Oliver is responding to a request from the Parliament of Poland to speak on the work of the committee at a conference in June 1996.
Senator Wood: What does this $5,000 cover? Transportation?
Mr. O'Brien: Yes, to Poland and hotels.
Senator Di Nino: All committees have components like that in their travel budgets.
Senator Wood: I have never seen it written that way.
The Chairman: I have never seen it written that way either.
Mr. O'Brien: It is in our rule book. With respect to the Banking Committee entry, it is a part of their overall study on the financial system in Canada. It is for this fiscal year. It includes the cost of holding hearings across the country and the expenses for all the paraphernalia that that type of excursion entails.
With respect to the Transport Committee it has two budgets, one for legislation in general and the other for a subcommittee that Senator Poulin chairs on Canada's international competitive position in communications.
Senator Wood: I find that to be a large amount of money.
The Chairman: It is.
Mr. O'Brien: They will have power to hire expert consultants. I do not know whether the parliamentary centre is being considered as a candidate to assist in the study.
The Chairman: Senator Poulin, the question has to do with the budget of Canada's international competitive position, and the amount of money that is being allocated for it. Senator Wood was looking for more of an explanation.
Senator Poulin: Thank you. I think it is an excellent question. Because of the complexity of the question regarding the competitiveness of Canada's position in communications and because of the fact that there are so many different issues, one from the other, we have forecast research money of a certain amount to cover the different fields. We have tried to forecast what we feel, according to our pre-research at this time, would be an appropriate amount of money to do that study over 18 months.
Senator Wood: Research is in your education budget here, not in the professional budget, where it is usually found.
Mr. O'Brien: It is a separate budget because the subcommittee has a separate order of reference.
Senator Wood: I would like to see more details. I guess we cannot have them today; can we?
The Chairman: It was presented in some detail at a public meeting on Tuesday. We will provide you with the documentation.
Senator Wood: Fine, thank you.
Senator Forrestall: Also one of those studies got caught up in prorogation. I am sure the committee would not like to lose the money it invested in over ten months of committee hearings for witnesses, travel, and everything else that was involved. It was wise to continue the study, particularly because it offers a tangible potential reward for Canadian technology and industrial benefit.
Mr. O'Brien: This total budget for the Transport Committee will be printed in our Senate minutes as part of the record when the committee presents its budget, because they are asking for special powers to hire staff.
The Chairman: Are there any other questions in relation to item A of the second report of the subcommittee? I take it there is a agreement that the report go forward.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Are there any comments in relation to item B of the report?
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, I think that the guidelines in both items B and C are very good. From time to time we will need to take a look at them. These are operational issues over which this committee should have the authority as they affect only senators.
With regard to the use of the foyer and the Reading Room, I move that we adopt the two suggested guidelines. I do not believe that we need to include them in the report to the Senate in that, for one reason or another, changes may be necessary, and obviously it would create an unnecessary step to have to go through the chamber again.
The Chairman: I am happy with your suggestion. In other words, you see no need to report it to the chamber. Do the other members of the committee like the substance of the guidelines and support the substance?
Senator Carstairs: I very much support the guidelines. I think they are very positive.
I have a question with regard to item A and perhaps Gary can answer it a little later. Why have we not separated the expense for witnesses. In my budget for the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the "Transportation and Communications" entry of $26,000 is almost entirely witness' expenses. I think it would be much clearer to senators reviewing the report because, in previous budgets, witness' expenditures did not come out of the individual Senate committee budgets.
Mr. O'Brien: We are just following the rules of the Senate which state that those expenses come under transportation. At present we do not specifically identify those expenses but that is not to say that it cannot be done.
The Chairman: Do senators get copies of the committee budgets? Is there some mechanism whereby senators are able to see the budgets in the detail in which we see them?
Senator Forrestall: I do not think so.
The Chairman: Is there a feeling in the committee that we take a look at how we describe items for future budgets?
Senator Carstairs: I just think that this format will create the kind of questions that Senator Wood asked. I think they are logical questions. Last year the Legal Affairs Committee had a budget of $14,000. We had to up it this year to the amount shown because witness expenses are no longer paid out of other funds. It looks as though that entry of "Transport and Communications" is for members of the committee, when in fact a large chunk of that money is for witnesses.
The Chairman: Senator Carstairs, do you feel you want something changed now in this report or would you like us to look at how we designate expenses in future reports?
Senator Carstairs: I would like some reference to witnesses.
The Chairman: Before we table this report?
Senator Carstairs: Before we table this report.
The Chairman: We can accommodate that.
Senator Corbin: I endorse the general approach in the guidelines in items B and C. In terms of the use of the Senate foyer, the purpose of the guidelines is to get away from the practice of senators putting in their requests to use the foyer and then having secretaries host the activities, and I think that is excellent.
The Reading Room guidelines are fine, in light of two recent experiences. Even though there was a constable at the door, I walked in to find strangers in the room, and on both occasions I wanted to discuss private matters with a colleague. I have always supported that approach, and I think that the second paragraph on page 4 is extremely important:
From September to June and beyond, when the Senate is sitting, only Senators will be permitted access to the Reading Room.
I think that is fundamental, even during lunch breaks. There have been instances in the past when employees have just gone in there, in twos or threes, sat down and chewed the rag thinking senators were not around. They have no business there. It is our home or it is not our home.
The Chairman: The intention is to put signs on the doors. The signs would go on the washrooms, ladies' and men's, on the Reading Room and on the work room.
Senator Forrestall: I do not want signs.
The Chairman: There is no sign now. It does not even say "men".
Senator Di Nino: I agree, but I would not necessarily say a staff member could not use the washroom.
The Chairman: I think the concept was to have a senators' area, that that back hall would be a senators' area. Is that not what we were trying to do?
Senator Corbin: The reason we have a constable there is to ensure that it is in fact used by senators. They do not do their job very well.
The Chairman: We do not have the guideline in place yet. Until we tell them what to do, we can not blame them if they let people in.
Senator Corbin: There is an important omission in the guidelines for the Reading Room. That room has to be a no smoking room. Some of our colleagues become offended when they go in there and see puffs of blue air.
The Chairman: With respect, I want to stop that conversation right here, because we have a law on smoking, passed by Parliament, which supersedes the power of this committee. What this committee can and will do is put in no smoking signs, but please do not ask me to go around and police people for smoking.
Senator Corbin: I am not asking you to; I am just pointing out that the law is not being respected.
The Chairman: I understand that there is a mechanism and it is the Department of Labour. You can call them, and they have smoking cops who will come to your place of business.
Senator Poulin: Off the record. We are asking you to eat the ashtrays.
Senator Di Nino: Put it on the record.
Senator Wood: I agree wholeheartedly with items B and C. I would like to have a copy of the criteria.
The Chairman: What criteria?
Senator Wood: Guidelines for the Use of the Senate Foyer.
The Chairman: I thought these were the criteria. I am not sure I am following you.
Senator Wood: The second paragraph.
The Chairman: It reads:
All requests for the use of the Senate Foyer for a non-parliamentary function shall be submitted for approval to the Chair and Vice-Chair of Internal Economy...
The criterion is the next paragraph:
Applications... should be for functions respectful of the dignity and image of Parliament.
Senator Wood: Is that all it is?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: It is referring to non-parliamentary functions.
Senator Wood: Coming back to item A, there must be some other way with regard to the Transport and Communications entries. Maybe in the future we could have some kind of explanation. Either it is communications or it is transport.
Mr. O'Brien: As I said about Senator Poulin's subcommittee, if a committee asks for special powers to travel or to hire staff, their entire budget will be printed on the public record. Attached to it will be an appendix signed by the Chairman of Internal Economy saying the committee has approved it. However, those are special studies. Banking and Transport are requesting funds for special studies. Senator Carstairs committee budget is for a legislation budget. She already has the power to hire staff and therefore her budget is reported by Internal. We will identify the items before we table the budget.
Senator Forrestall: My colleague has a good point. It may be something that falls in Mr. O'Brien's area, in the secretariat area. Perhaps we should have a standard format, because I see that some committees list, for example, witnesses and how much it costs for witnesses and others do not. Perhaps if we had a standard format.
The Chairman: We do have a standard format.
Mr. O'Brien: It falls off when we come to joint committees. That is a problem. That is where the format breaks down there.
Senator Forrestall: Why would it break down because it is a joint committee or a special committee?
Mr. O'Brien: They do not list the items as we do. They have different standard reporting objects. It is a real mess when we try to translate their reporting objects and our reporting objects.
Senator Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, when we print we should be adhering to a standard format.
The Chairman: I think Senator Forrestall has a good point there. We will let them try and figure out our budgets, and we will explain our budgets the way we understand them.
Mr. O'Brien: It makes it difficult for reporting, what goes in one category or another.
The Chairman: I understand that. I think what we are saying is we would like you to take your best shot at putting it in "Senatese" and let the Commoners handle it as they will.
Let me tell you, folks, that Gary does a terrific job. Day after day he deals with problems with patience, good humour, and we are very lucky to have him with the committee.
What I understand is that, with the changes noted, I have authority to table the budgets. Item B and item C will be circulated to senators informally rather than tabled in the chamber.
Senator Cohen: Right.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, colleagues. It was a very productive and useful meeting. Special thanks to Senator Poulin and Senator Nolin.
Senator Poulin: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure with regard to a portion of the discussion during the in camera meeting, that we will develop the operational framework for the model we discussed which will then be further discussed at the next opportunity. I take for granted that there was agreement as a group. That is what I heard.
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Cohen: Yes.
The committee adjourned.