Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 9, 1999
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 10:10 a.m.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I would call the meeting to order.
The first item on the agenda is the approval of committee budgets. Senator Kroft's subcommittee has a report to make. I would ask him to make that report now, please.
Senator Kroft: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We met earlier this morning with the Chairs of six of the committees to discuss committee budgets. There are more to come.
I would present to you the following report:
Your Committee is presently undertaking a review of the budgetary situation pertaining to Senate Committees.
Your Committee therefore recommends that, notwithstanding the Procedural Guidelines for the Financial Operations of Senate Committees, for any committee budget for the financial year 1999-2000 submitted to and approved by the Internal Economy Committee, your committee be authorized to release no more than 6/12 of those approved funds until February 10, 2000.
The two exceptions to this recommendation are: i) the budget submitted by the Transport and Communications Committee concerning its review of the order under section 47(5) of the Canada Transportation Act for the amount of $19,900; and ii) the budget submitted by the Aboriginal Peoples Committee concerning its study on Aboriginal Self Governance, for the amount of $14,750.
That amount would finish off the report that is substantially completed. The review of section 47(5) by the Transport and Communications Committee has, in fact, been done. Therefore, we recommend that the total funds requested for those two committees be approved.
I would so move, if a motion is called for.
Mr. Paul Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate: Perhaps Mr. O'Brien, who was the clerk of the subcommittee, could provide us with the budgets.
The Chairman: We have no documentation.
Mr. Bélisle: The Subcommittee on Budgets and Finance considered six committee budgets this morning and they have reported, but before the budgets can be approved, this committee must have copies of the budgets.
Senator Kenny: I have a question of Senator Kroft. In the past it has been the practice of a committee to release parts of its budget. That usually happens at the start of a fiscal year when the committee is unclear about how the year will unfold. Often the budgets were not available to the committee at the time. However, we are in a situation now where there are, effectively, two working months left in this fiscal year, so I cannot understand that rationale being applicable.
Could Senator Kroft explain the rationale for only part of the committee budgets being released when committees, in my view, should have, either by now or in the next few weeks, a very clear picture of how they will finish the fiscal year? If, by the last quarter of the year, the chair of a committee is not in a position to tell this committee what budget is required for the remainder of that fiscal year, then I would suggest that the chair is not managing the committee very well.
I do not understand why there is a partial release. Holding half of the budget in abeyance sends the message to committees that they cannot plan, with certainty, for the last two months of the fiscal year. I would certainly understand the rationale if this report were made on April 1, but I do not understand why it is being now when there are only two working months left.
Senator Kroft: You have the advantage over me in terms of experience, senator. However, in terms of logic, let me say that we met with each of the committee chairs earlier this morning. I do not think the position we are taking will interfere with the effective planning through to the end of the year of the work of any of those committees. It is true that we did not have the benefit of all of the budgets. You can draw whatever conclusions you wish from that. I do not know why we have not received them, or what consequences should flow from that. We are asking to be empowered to withhold the final decision until immediately after our return in February, presuming that those who did not bring budgets do not have an immediate problem that they were anxious to address this morning; and that those who did have a problem have the comfort of knowing that they can do what they must.
I am not sure that we have put any committee at a disadvantage in this process.
The Chairman: The unique feature this year was the prorogation along with the fact that there was a hiatus during which committees did not meet and did not work.
Senator Kroft: We are, in a sense, at the beginning of the year.
Senator Kenny: I understand that, but committees need only plan for February and March. If, by the time committee members leave for Christmas, they have not figured out what they will do in February or March, I have doubts about whether they will ever be able to do that, because they will not be recalled until February.
The Chairman: You met with the committee chairs this morning, Senator Kroft.
Senator Kroft: Yes, several of them.
The Chairman: This has been discussed. It has been accepted.
Senator Kroft: I believe we achieved a certain level of comfort.
Senator Milne: I was one of the committee chairs who presented a budget this morning. I am quite comfortable with my budget being cut in half for February and March. I have no problems with that and we cannot foresee any problems arising as a result of that. The same proposition was put to every other committee Chair who presented a budget. Any budget reductions that were made, were agreed upon.
Senator Nolin: Does the sheet of paper I have in front of me show the full amount, or are these figures the portion that will be authorized?
Senator Kroft: That shows the full amount.
Senator Nolin: Will the authorized amount be different?
Senator Kroft: I am not sure what document you are relying on.
Senator Nolin: I have a copy of the first report.
Senator Kroft: Originally, $400,000 was available, with $66,000 being previously approved. As you know, $96,000 was approved this morning. That leaves $238,000.
I would ask honourable senators to bear in mind that we have only dealt with a certain number of committees this morning. An equal number of committees will be dealt with immediately upon our return.
I should add, in response to Senator Kenny's question, that we are proceeding in accordance with precedent.
Senator Kenny: Does the motion call for one-half of the budgets being approved now?
Senator Kroft: With the two exceptions noted.
Senator Kenny: Yes. Would the other one-half be the first item of business in February?
Senator Kroft: Yes.
Senator DeWare: I hope the other committee chairs who did not present a budget today will be prepared to come before us at that time.
Senator Nolin: I have a few specific questions.
Is the approval of the $14,000 for the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples so that they can finish their report?
Senator Kroft: Yes.
Senator Nolin: They asked for no money for legislative work?
Senator Kroft: That is right.
Senator Nolin: What about the Nisga'a treaty?
Senator DeWare: That will be dealt with next year.
Senator Nolin: The Energy Committee has requested approval of $39,000 for two months. What is that for?
Senator Kroft: The Energy Committee budget came in a two parts. $25,000 of the $39,000 item is to allow them to attend two conferences: the Expo 2000 gas conference in Calgary, and the Globe 2000 conference in Vancouver. The practice has been for the committee to attend those types of conferences. They have submitted a budget to send two delegates from the committee; one and three for the other.
It is substantially a travel cost.
Senator Nolin: Did the committee Chair ask for money to examine communications specifically?
Senator Kroft: Yes. They understand the committee mandate on that.
Senator Nolin: Are you convinced they will spend that money?
Senator DeWare: Most requests were for $5,000. One was for $6,900.
Senator Nolin: Has the director of communications indicated what plans are in place respecting communications, and have the committees included that in their budgets?
Senator Kroft: No, not yet.
Senator Nolin: Are they planning to do that? Do they know how they will spend that money?
Senator Kroft: Yes. I have been pursuing this area. I am aware of the fact that we have a central communications capacity in place. What is not clear to me is how Ms Clément will coordinate the communication of the various committee hearings. That is a high priority item. We must ensure we are maximizing our capacity.
The Chairman: I should note for the record that our Internal Economy Committee has had a policy that there must be a communications plan with every committee budget. That has been given a high priority.
Senator Kroft: I understand that policy. I hope this committee will satisfy itself that the new central capacity will ensure that that policy is effective. I am not sure how they will integrate, or what the capacity of the central resource will be relative to the needs of the committee.
Senator Comeau: Without going into detail, I am chair of one of the committees that has not yet submitted its budget. We are to look at it this coming Tuesday. As I understand it, the 6/12ths requirement may impact on my committee's plans, if the budget should be approved. We may wish to discuss that at the point I present the budget.
Senator Maheu: On the subject of the $39,700 allocation for the Energy Committee special study, has any consideration been given to senators using points? As a result of prorogation, I am certain that many senators must have accumulated travel points. Perhaps Senator Kroft could tell us whether we have a policy in that regard.
Senator Kroft: I am advised that the present policy is that the committee's travel budgets will be independent of senators' points.
Senator Maheu: Last night the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications approved $10,000. I do not see that item in the documents.
Senator Poulin: It was not submitted this morning. It was only spoken to.
Senator Maheu: I did not see an item for $10,000. I saw the item for $19,900 and I was concerned because that is almost double the amount that was approved.
Senator Stollery: The problem, of course, is that we have unexpected expenditures. For example, we have no idea what expenses may be incurred in our study of the Nisga'a treaty or in our study of the referendum bill we discussed at the subcommittee. We are quite aware of the fact that the referendum bill may require another referendum. These studies may require unexpected expenditures, and there will be others. We all understand that.
However, the subcommittee is trying to keep the budget increase within a certain percentage, a figure with which the committee can live. In regard to the communications strategy, for example, if you ask me, I think Senator Kroft did as well as he could do, given the constraints of the budget.
I do not think the decisions made by the central communications structure will be as effective as those of the individual committee chairmen. As we know from experience, some are more vigorous than others in this regard, and they will probably continue in that vein.
The Senate must continue to face the difficulty of running its committees on only 5 per cent of the total budget of the Senate. Effectively, that is the same as saying that only 5 per cent of our budget goes to actually running the Senate. There is no way around that. Senators have expressed concerns about unexpected expenditures and how they will affect committee budgets. No one has answers to the questions that have been asked. I can say, however, that the budget will be more than 7.7 per cent.
Senator Kenny: I wish to follow up on Senator Nolin's comment on communications. My understanding of the communications policy is that there was an obligation on chairs of committees, when coming forward with their budgets, to present evidence of the work the committee had done regarding communications, and that the central role of the Senate communications director was to coordinate that and to assist in the evaluation of that for the benefit of this committee.
Essentially, when a request for approval of a budget would come forward, this committee would receive a score-card prepared by the director of communications so that this committee would have some sense of what effort the committee had made regarding communications.
When this proposal was introduced, no one had a track record of what any committee was doing. No evidence of what communications efforts had been made was required in the first year. However, it is required for subsequent years. When we are approving budgets for the next fiscal year, I hope that the committee chairs will come forward and demonstrate in some tangible way what efforts they have made to communicate the work of the committee. Failing that, I trust that Senator Kroft's committee will be hesitant to grant funds. Our purpose is not just to do the work, but to ensure that the public knows that the work has been done.
I hope there is a consensus, Mr. Chairman, that we ask committee chairpersons to bring forward evidence of their communications efforts. It is only when we put them on the spot like that that chairs will realize that it is their responsibility.
There is insufficient capacity in the Senate and in the director of communication's office to provide communications assistance directly to each committee. They will all be reporting at virtually the same time. They meet at the same time and they will be making demands on that individual at the same time. We have seen a previous director of communications being driven to distraction, and be subject to a damaged reputation I might add, because a series of committee chairs suggested that she was useless because, when asked for help, she was unavailable. That person was not available because another chair had requested her assistance first. Eventually, I think that person just gave up. She could not deal with all the requests because they were all made at the same time.
If two committees decide to hold a press conference or to report on the same day, perhaps they can be done at different times of the day or even on different days. However, the responsibility for that must rest with each individual committee chairman, and not with the director of communications. No matter how good that person may be at her job, she cannot possibly deal with requests from a number of committees at once. Let the record show that Senator Poulin is nodding.
Senator Poulin: I think that this committee should strongly support this intervention by Senator Kenny because he spoke of an objective. However, he is also speaking of a management approach and that would make each of our chairs responsible for the visibility of the work of the institution, because our best work is done through committees.
Senator Kenny: There should also be a periodic evaluation of the work by this committee. If committees request money, they should be obliged to demonstrate how it was spent the last time.
The Chairman: That has been the policy until now, and we should reaffirm it this morning. I am hearing a consensus that we should continue that policy because, in politics, perception is everything. You can do a lot of good work, but if that work is not seen to be done, the Senate, as an institution, suffers.
Let us reaffirm the policy that there must be a communications plan with committee budgets and that the onus must be on chairs.
Senator Kenny: The second part of my intervention, Mr. Chairman, is also brief. I wish we would stop offloading central expenses on to individual senators' budgets. This is a retrograde step and has the effect of eroding the capacity of senators to carry on their tasks. We took a significant step forward at one point when the Library of Parliament was funding periodicals. That is now coming out of senators' budgets and reducing their capacity accordingly.
The idea of committee travel being funded by senators' points also erodes senators' budgets. As well, it will make senators on active committees appear as big-time travellers. If the committee has made a collective decision to travel, that expense should be carried by that committee and not offloaded on to senators. I would hope that we will not continue down a path of eroding senators' budgets for work that should properly be funded centrally.
The Chairman: As I understood Senator Kroft, he agrees that it should be centrally funded.
Senator Kroft: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: Would it be retroactive? I have invested a good proportion of my travel points in airplane tickets for members of my committee so that we could travel to do the work of the committee. There was no money in the budget to do it, so I used my own points.
Sooner or later, you run out of points.
Senator Comeau: On this policy of not using our points for travel, I could not agree more in an ideal world. However, in an "unideal" world where we cannot do our work as committee members, we might have to resort to using our points.
My committee is proposing to do that this year. Given that we have not been able to do our work in the past, we have decided that, in order to be able to respond to the industry that is asking us to see them, we are prepared to contribute some of our points. I hate the idea, but it comes down to deciding between not responding to our industry and responding by using our points. I ask colleagues to consider very seriously whether we want to stipulate that senators should not use their points to travel to do the work of a committee.
The Chairman: I hope that question can be dealt with in the preparation of the budget. Senator Kroft has a finite amount of money. He has to decide on a number of matters such as supplementary budgets, future budgets, and so on.
Senator Cohen: We talk about communication and the effect that it will have on the public, to our advantage. If we could create a balance between using points and having some expenses paid, I think that would be a very credible move for this body. I would be comfortable with that.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Admittedly, we must endeavour to see to it that every committee adopts a communications policy. It would be practical for this policy to be incorporated into a strategy, rather than have to rely solely on timely interventions. This policy must be included in our communications strategy and we must work together with our communications director to ensure that we benefit as much as we can from the opportunities that present themselves to us.
[English]
The Chairman: On that point, Ms Clément will be bringing a communications plan to us shortly and we will be discussing that.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Some senators may have suggested at some point that they be allowed to use their travel points when attending committee meetings in the regions and if they did, it was likely because the committee budget was not adequate. In some ways, this was an attempt on their part to do our work. The Fisheries Committee plans to designate only a few of its members to travel to the various regions for hearings. Not all members will be accompanying the committee. First, this decision will keep costs down and second, if the resources are lacking in the committee budget, we could opt for this solution. However, I would prefer to see sufficient resources allocated in the budget so that each committee can do its job. Whether senators use their points or whether the money comes out of the committee budget, the money still comes out of the Senate's overall budget.
Regarding a comment made by one senator to the effect that central expenses should not be off loaded on individual senators' budgets, I agree to a certain extent. However, we still need to establish a reasonable spending framework, whether it be expenditures for subscriptions or other such things. If a senator wants to spend more, then he should use funds from his own budget.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. I am sure Senator Kroft has listened to the discussion.
Senator Prud'homme: For future reflection, I think the best way to improve on the Senate's stature is for senators to be present at various major events across the country. I have never been turned down anywhere in Canada, including Quebec. People are delighted to see us, and that does not correspond with the impression the press gives of us.
When I was chairman of the National Liberal Caucus and chairman of the Quebec caucus, seven times -- elected in a secret ballot, I must say, not in an open ballot -- we had a program of activities. We asked every member: "What is going on in your province?" We put all of that information together. Nationally, we did the same thing. Senator Maheu participated in that. We asked ourselves the question: "What is going on in Canada and where would our presence be felt?" Invitations to attend various functions are often extended to senators. Even if a senator is not invited, there is always a friend within an organization who would be more than happy to suggest to his colleagues that they should invite a senator to be an observer. There will be three major events taking place in Canada very soon: One in Calgary in June; one in Toronto in June; and one in Toronto in March. The Ontario Legislature will be hosting an event on January 14. These are major events which we would be more than welcome to attend.
I will not say more today on the subject of communications, but I would ask honourable senators to reflect on what I have said.
Senator Cohen's work on poverty was very well-received in the country. There are all kinds of national meetings she could attend. That does not mean she should be assigned to attend certain meetings. We could circulate attendance schedules among ourselves so that we can attend all of the activities where our presence would be appreciated for the next six months. I would be more than happy to contribute, even though I am not a member of a committee. We can pay out of our budgets. We can be seen, and we need not involve our colleagues. The Senate would be represented. That, to me, is a better way to improve our image than any other suggestion that has been put forward in the six years that I have been here. It is our presence that is important.
When Senator Pitfield's beloved wife passed away, I was shocked at the attendance. I will not say who was there, but the attendance was quite miserable. When Mr. Macnaughton, a great gentleman and a former speaker of the House of Commons, passed away, again, the attendance was not what it should have been. Yet, there were the people who count, those who have influence here and there.
I differ with my friend Senator Kenny, in that I agree that these expenditures should be passed to the senators' budgets. I think we must be careful in our subscriptions to magazines. We can exercise some discretion in our budget. I used to do that in the other place with the committee on members' services. We put it on members' budgets so there was a little more temperate buying.
Senator Kenny: I have a small observation to make regarding Senator Robichaud's comments. I agree with what he had to say in a general sense. I would simply observe that, in terms of the Senate's communications policy, it is important that it relate to the institution and to institutional matters, which probably amount to 5 or 10 per cent of the overall communications. To expect to have a coordinated policy between all of the committees' work is, I think, too ambitious. This is a legislature, not a business, and the committees have a life of their own and they move according to the tempo of the legislation and the work of the house. I think that an effort to have a coordinated communications plan that encompasses every committee is asking too much. People cannot fit into a coordinated plan.
The best we can hope is that each committee will have a plan which makes sense. If there are obvious conflicts, we hope that the central organization will flag those conflicts and that the chairs of the various committees could then try to resolve them, but I am reluctant to move away from the responsibility being with the chair and steering committee of each individual committee and, instead, to pass it back to some central point.
Senator Robichaud: I did not mean to say that.
Senator Kenny: I know. I was just adding to what you were saying.
Senator Poulin: I am worried because Senator Kenny speaks as though he is reading my mind.
Each committee has a specificity and a history and, very often, a good track record. It would be very important to leave Senator Kroft, if possible, a small amount in each committee budget to do specialized communications, just as we recognize specialized research, because communications is not a one-line approach to every issue, whether it be domestic or international.
I thank Senator Kroft for the really good work, and I have to admit I like the approach of having a reserve for the work of the winter: January, February, and March. I agree with that.
I would like to add that, while we do manage communications in a coordinated and an evaluative fashion, there is an event that occurred that shows that, yes, we can be better coordinated. Last week, my office received a call from the French television show with Liza Frulla. My office called Ms Clément's office to let her know we had received this call. In the information my office received, I found out which senators would be invited, so we simply called Ms Clément and said, "Senator Poulin does not want to attend, but perhaps you should ensure that there is gender balance, political balance, and even age balance." Because of Ms Clément's intervention, and because of the fact that she provided each senator with information, the show was a very good one because it was extremely well-balanced and it gave a positive image of the Senate. That is where the coordination can work to produce positive results.
The Chairman: I am sure Senator Kroft has listened intently to the interventions.
Honourable senators, I would now like you to approve the report of the subcommittee on budgets. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Thank you very much.
We will now continue in camera.
The committee proceeded in camera.