Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 3 - Evidence for March 20, 2003
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 20, 2003
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:05 a.m. to consider administrative and other matters.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: The first item on our agenda is the election of a new deputy chair. Senator Atkins has resigned and Senator Stratton has been replacing him temporarily.
Senator Stratton: Am I correct that we are replacing the deputy chair with Senator Robertson?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Stratton: I will act as interim deputy chair.
The Chairman: Yes, Senator Stratton will act as interim deputy chair until Senator Robertson's return to the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Is Senator Robertson a member of the committee?
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, Senator Robertson is replacing Senator Angus.
Is there a motion for the adoption of the minutes of the meeting of February 13?
Senator Robichaud: I so move.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: With regard to committee budgets, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration will present its sixth report on the current travel policy for Senate committees, which includes the following: Members of a travelling committee and their staff are entitled, for travel within and outside Canada, to a per diem equivalent to the Treasury Board rate or actual expenses accompanied by original receipts.
This policy was proposed in the thirtieth report of the Internal Economy Committee on March 29, 1990, and was adopted by the Senate on May 1, 1990. The current policy has no upper limit or restrictions, seriously compromising accountability. Your subcommittee recommends that the policy be amended as follows to bring it in line with Treasury Board policy: Where a traveller incurs meal costs that are higher than the established meal allowances in situations outside the traveller's control, the actual and reasonable expenses incurred shall be reimbursed based on original receipts.
Such a change would improve the policy by allowing a reasonable level of flexibility while increasing accountability.
Mr. Paul C. Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Committee: If honourable senators are looking for it, it is the sixth report.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: Does this cover travel costs?
Mr. Bélisle: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: But is does not cover accommodation costs? What happens if accommodation expenses are higher?
The Chairman: Then receipts must be submitted.
Mr. Bélisle: Accommodation expenses can already be claimed provided receipts are submitted. A year or two ago, this committee looked into this matter because at certain times of the year, accommodation is more expensive in places like Quebec City and Vancouver. Senate policy provides for the possibility of paying more when accommodation charges are higher. Senators are reimbursed provided they submit receipts.
The Chairman: A senator has no control over these kinds of situations and can get reimbursed provided receipts are submitted.
[English]
The Chairman: It that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: In the seventh report, your subcommittee recommends the following release of funds with respect to committee budgets for the fiscal year 2003-04. As you know, the Banking Committee is travelling to the United States from March 30 until April 2, 2003. They are doing a special study on financial systems.
The fact that the trip straddles two fiscal years creates an administrative and procedural challenge. The committee was previously granted funding for ten senators and two staff to undertake this trip. Since expenses incurred on April 1 and 2 must be charged to the new fiscal year, the committee is asking for $20,000 to cover these charges. We recommend the release of these funds. The remainder of the budget will be taken into consideration along with all the other committee budgets.
Therefore, I request the adoption of the seventh report.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Madam Chairman, will the trip go ahead as scheduled under the circumstances?
The Chairman: I have not heard that it will be canceled. Since the plans have already been made and the necessary funding approved for the month of March, not for April, we need to approve this $20,000 advance which will be deducted from next year's budget.
Senator De Bané: I understand full well this recommendation. However, if a senator wished to use his points for this year, because he spent more for this trip than the amount set by Treasury Board rules, then in my view, there is nothing in the rules to prevent him from using his points, just because his exceeded the $20,000 allowance.
The Chairman: We are discussing a decision having to do with the Banking Committee.
Senator De Bané: I apologize.
The Chairman: The $20,000 for the Banking Committee has no effect on senators as such.
Senator De Bané: I apologize.
The Chairman: You also have the eighth report. Examining committee budgets is one of the important jobs carried out by the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. The Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure has yet to hear from the committee chairmen, but it has met nevertheless to discuss the principles to be applied to the consideration of requests for this year. We have not yet received all of the budget requests. Those received to date total $2.2 million. With the remaining $1 million, requests will total $3.2 million. We have a total of $1.8 million to work with for committees. Therefore, we will be forced to make some difficult decisions.
[English]
In the fiscal year 2003-04, the guidelines used by your subcommittee included restricting funding for fact-finding trips inside Canada to nine senators and two staff, and to six senators and two staff outside Canada. While this level of funding was adequate for most committees, some senators expressed a desire for funding to be at a level that would allow all committee members to travel, whether to attend public hearings or to participate in fact-finding.
Your committee wishes to facilitate and support the work of committees while being fiscally responsible. In order to meet these objectives, we should consider for the next fiscal year the possibility of allowing the level of funding requested by the committee in its budget. In such cases, surplus funds remaining after the trip is completed would have to be returned for redistribution.
While the requirement to return surplus funds has been in place for some time, there has been no active enforcement of it. If committees are to be given the level of funding they request, a strict adherence to this policy will be required. This will enable the Internal Economy Committee to release the funds to support other committee activities later in the fiscal year.
[Translation]
The subcommittee will scrutinize each budget request carefully. Committee chairmen will be called up to justify the amounts requested and to identify respective priorities. This does not mean that all requests for travel funds will be automatically approved. Valid reasons will need to be given for holding hearings outside Ottawa. A cost-benefit analysis may also prove useful. Sound reasons must be given for requesting professional services and for asking to send senators to conferences.
The subcommittee wants to facilitate the work of committees, but it also mindful of budgetary constraints. You have to understand that when we receive requests exceeding $3 million and when our actual budget is only $1.8 million, we have no choice but to set limits. We are confident that we can make responsible decisions based on the information available to us. We know that we can count on the cooperation of all senators in this regard.
Senator Gauthier: I am somewhat misinformed. I do not travel as a rule and I have not gone on a trip since I have been here. Is there some kind of table we can consult showing which committees in particular traveled and who participated? Is that document available for consultation? It would be important to look at that.
The Chairman: Ms. Lank says that she will look into this matter and provide all committee members with this information. I think they would also be interested in having that information.
[English]
Senator Stratton: We have a request for $3.2 million, yet we have $1.8 million. Thus far, we are over budget by $1.4 million. While this is what should be done, does it build expectation and hope on the part of those who apply for funding that they will receive the full amount?
In the first part of this letter, it seems that you are offering hope that they will receive full funding when you know that you have to cut $1.4 million from the budget. I do not think we should release this report until we have been through the process of listening to the chairs make their case. We will then know how brutal we have to be. My concern is that this will build hope. They will all expect to get full funding. We know we cannot do that. In fact, we cannot come close to it.
The Chairman: It states, in part, in one paragraph, ``It should not be assumed that all trips...''
Senator Stratton: However, if they read the first part, it will be like a light being turned on. They will say, ``That is it. I am getting full funding.'' I am concerned about doing that until we have been through the process. I would like you to think about delaying this until we have at least had the meetings with the chairs. How else will we be able to cut $1.4 million?
Senator Robichaud: As we did last year.
The Chairman: We were more restricted in the number of people and staff travelling. As well, we reduced the number of conferences we attend. People do not seem to know they can use videoconferencing for meetings. They do not have to travel every time they have a meeting.
Senator Stratton: I am new to this committee. If you feel comfortable with it, I will accept it.
The Chairman: I think that is a good idea, Senator Stratton. Next Wednesday we will meet with committee chairs, who will present their budgets. We will have to know their priorities. When they meet with us next week, they will know for sure that we do not have that kind of money.
Therefore, we can study the eighth report next Thursday.
Senator Stratton: In my view, when you meet with committee chairs and they make their case, the first thing you should say to them is, ``We have $3.2 million in requests. We have $1.8 million. What can you do to reduce your budget considerably?'' That is the obvious question that comes to mind. In the meantime, they will have read this document and say, ``I am going for full funding.''
[Translation]
Senator Gill: The purpose of our discussions to date was to show that we were considering changing the rules limiting the number of senators authorized to travel. Now our position is: You submit the budget for your committee. That is the point we should be emphasizing. The point was to highlight the change in the rules that applied last year and to make it clear that budgets are finite. In the past, we were criticized for interfering in the internal affairs of committees.
[English]
Senator Maheu: I would like to bring up a point on paragraph 3, where you talk about fact-finding trips in Canada. Is the number of senators allowed being reduced from nine to six, with three staff?
The Chairman: It is six senators and two staff outside Canada and nine senators with three staff inside Canada.
Senator Maheu: Travel in Canada is often more expensive than travel outside the country. When we do fact-finding trips inside Canada, we save on the cost of translation.
[Translation]
Francophones are not able to attend committee meetings or make presentations because no interpretation is provided.
[English]
Frankly, it insults me a little and I think the committee should look at that. If you cannot do it for this year, perhaps you can for the next budget.
The Chairman: There is a tendency to conduct fact-finding missions instead of public hearings. In public hearings there is translation, so that if people do not understand a language, they can still have a proper discussion with the witnesses.
I have already told the chairs that I am concerned that we are seeing more fact-finding missions than public hearings. There is a cost for translation, but that is the nature of our country.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: To follow up on what you were saying, I am beginning to have problems with fact-finding missions because it is not the Senate committees that are traveling, but rather a handful of senators. Without wishing to minimize the importance of these trips or the work that is done, the fact remains that we are not providing all of the services that a committee should have when it travels to certain regions of the country.
For example, if we embarked on a fact-finding mission to England, and no interpretation was provided, francophones would more or less be excluded from this trip. If, however, our destination was France, anglophones would then be at a disadvantage.
I would not go so far as to say that we are violating the rules, but we would be pushing things. Therefore, I have some reservations as far as this matter is concerned.
When Senator Stratton stated earlier that we were going to set some limits, I wanted to say that last year, the committee did some exceptional work in that it was called upon to make some very difficult decisions. Our job will not be any easier this year. When you consider the requests submitted, will you take into account (and I believe you will) the amounts already allocated this year, given that committees operate in cycles? Some years, certain committees stay put in Ottawa, while other years, the same committees may be doing a study or examining a bill and their activities will take them on the road to hear testimony, which means they incur more expenditures.
I would like us to take into consideration the respective missions and responsibilities of the various committees, not base ourselves solely on their activities during the previous year. One of the documents distributed at the last meeting attempted to quantify committee work according to the number of meetings held, witnesses heard or articles published in the newspapers. In my opinion, we should reject this approach. Each committee does important work. If some committees stay in Ottawa to examine legislation, we should not think that members are not working just because they are not traveling or not generating any media coverage. That worries me a little, although I am certain that you will bear this in mind.
The Chairman: The fact that this document did not factor into our discussion answers your question.
Senator Poulin: As you set about making some difficult choices, will you be able to discuss criteria? As Senator Robichaud pointed out, which criteria does the steering committee weigh when making difficult decisions? Does it base itself strictly on economic considerations or, as noted earlier, do Senate priorities factor into the equation? Last year, for instance, after legislation, preferential consideration was given to health and safety. According to the polls, these were very important issues in the minds of all Canadians.
The Chairman: These criteria do factor into the decision but the fact remains that studies cannot go on indefinitely. We cannot go on studying the same thing for 10 years. All of these considerations must be weighed because otherwise, the same committees would always receive the same budgets.
Senator Poulin: Could committee officials draft some kind of document that we could consider when discussing criteria?
The Chairman: That is possible. It is important to weigh priorities. Often, a committee will submit a budget proposal for a number of activities over the course of the year. However, we can only travel at certain times of the year. We cannot always be on the road. We are not a travel agency!
Senator Poulin: I will not deny that I have heard some comments and been a party to discussions in other forums where people have called into question our reasons for conducting a study at a particular point in time. That is why I raise the question of criteria.
Senator Gauthier: Getting back to Senator Robichaud's suggestion, my first observation would be that the document circulated at the last meeting is not a committee document per se, but rather one drawn up by one or two senators to provide an overview of the issue.
The Chairman: That is correct. The other committees were at a distinct disadvantage.
Senator Gauthier: It was not a very objective paper, but rather a subjective one. My second observation is that many committees travel and hire experts in a particular field. Ultimately we end up with an expert report, not a Senate report. If committees and fact-finding missions set out to hire experts, for example, to study the sex lives of tsetse flies in Africa, then I would object to the practice of hiring experts in such cases. I may be exaggerating somewhat, but the final report would be the work of experts, not of the Senate. That is not what we are here to do.
The Chairman: There is also the fact that we travel. In countries in which Canada has an embassy, at the very least we should use the services of embassy personnel instead of hiring people to attend to all the details.
Senator Gauthier: We should also emphasize the fact that we are Canadians and that we have two official languages. That would facilitate contacts with the embassies.
Senator De Bané: Madam Chairman, could I say something about the sixth report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure?
The Chairman: By all means.
Senator De Bané: The sixth report focuses on the expenses of committee members.
The Chairman: I remind you that this report has been adopted.
Senator De Bané: If I might revisit the subject, I understand full well this report. All I am asking for is some assurances that nothing in the report can prevent a committee member who has traveled across Canada to request that points be deducted to cover extra expenses incurred while traveling on committee business. I have often had occasion in the past to travel on business in Canada and to receive from the committee the allowance to which I was entitled pursuant to Treasury Board regulations. When I spent more than the amount authorized, I contacted Financial Services and asked them to deduct points to cover surplus expenses. Such requests on my part have always been approved.
In other words, if I travel with a committee, I am entitled to a smaller allowance than if I were traveling and using my own personal points.
The Chairman: The allowance you receive from the committee?
Senator De Bané: Correct. For example, if I travel to Vancouver using my points, I should not be penalized simply because I am traveling with the committee.
The Chairman: When members travel on committee business, they receive a specific travel allowance.
Senator De Bané: Precisely and there is no need to touch our points. However, if during the course of this trip, I spend more than the allowance I received in accordance with Treasury Board regulations, I want to be certain that this report does not prevent a senator from contacting Financial Services and requesting that his personal points be used to make up the difference.
The Chairman: You cannot do that.
Senator De Bané: In the past, I have made the decision to use my personal travel points to cover any excess expenses. We are in the process of saying that this is possible when a senator travels with a committee, unless he is using his points to travel.
The Chairman: Let me relate to you my personal experience. I have traveled with committees and my expenses have exceeded the allowance given. I have always picked up the tab for any extra expenses. I have never claimed any kind of reimbursement either from the committee or from the Senate.
Senator De Bané: For the past 15 years, I have always submitted a report stating that I traveled with committee x, spent x dollars, received x amount from the committee and requesting that my travel points be used to cover an extra expenses.
The Chairman: I have never requested anything of the kind.
Mr. Bélisle: Senators can request this only in the case of international trips. They can use their points to upgrade their seats. That is allowed. You say that you have submitted receipts to Financial Services and that you have been reimbursed. Perhaps you submitted a claim for a trip made to Vancouver and you were reimbursed. Financial Services may not have been aware that you were traveling on Senate committee business.
Senator De Bané: No, I specifically mentioned that I traveled with a particular committee, that I received a travel allowance and that I wanted my points to be deducted to cover outstanding expenses.
Mr. Bélisle: That is against the rules.
Senator De Bané: If I go by what you are saying, it means that I have more rights when I travel using my points than I do when I travel on committee business.
The Chairman: Basically, yes, it does. I have traveled on several occasions on committee business and I have never put in a claim for the difference in spending. I receive an allowance and cover any extra expenses out of pocket. The only way we can use our points is if we travel business class. We cannot use points to cover meals or other expenses. I covered any extra expenses myself. You were fortunate to be reimbursed.
Senator De Bané: I find it rather odd that if I use my points to travel, I am entitled to a larger allowance.
The Chairman: You still receive an allowance, Senator De Bané. You are entitled to a specific allowance when you travel on your own to Vancouver. If you do not spend the full amount, you receive a refund. If you spend more than your entitlement, you do not receive a refund for the difference.
Senator De Bané: Consider the following example. Approximately two weeks ago, the committee on which I serve embarked on a one-week trip out west. Had I traveled using my points, my per diem would have been approximately $240 for seven days, for a total of $1,500. If the hotel rate is more than $150, then the allowance increases to $240. Since the trip lasted seven days, I would have been entitled to approximately $1,400. However, since senators were traveling on committee business, we received a travel advance of $250 per day, pursuant to Treasury Board rules, and the committee paid for the air fare and the hotel room. I kept all of my receipts and subsequently sent a note to Financial Services informing them that my air fare and hotel expenses had been covered, that I had received an advance of $250 per day, that my receipts totalled x amount and that I incurred extra expenses of $200 or $300. I told them to deduct this from my points. If my request is denied, that would mean that had I not been traveling as a committee member, I could have made the trip using my points and all of my travel expenses would have been covered.
The Chairman: You would have been subject to certain restrictions.
Senator De Bané: Had I paid for my hotel room and for all of my meals, I would not have spent $1,400.
The Chairman: We are not reimbursed in such cases.
Senator Gauthier: It boils down to what Senator De Bané was saying, namely that as things now stand, senators cannot use their travel points when they travel on committee business. That is not the case in the House of Commons. I was surprised when I was appointed to the Senate to find out that I could not use my points. When senators travel with a committee, expenses are paid out of the committee budget. I was told that that was how it worked at the Senate. I would like to know if there are any plans afoot to change this policy.
Senator De Bané: I respectfully suggest that we use the example of the trip I recently made out West and that we ask Mr. Bélisle and his associates to consider both scenarios I described. You will discover that had I traveled using my points, I would not have had to pay for anything out of my own budget.
Mr. Bélisle: Different policies apply. You have described both scenarios to us and presented us with some facts. We will review the matter and report back to the subcommittee next week.
Senator De Bané: That is all I am asking for.
Mr. Bélisle: For the moment, we abide by current policy.
Senator De Bané: I understand that, but I am anxious for you to examine my claim.
Mr. Bélisle: The Banking Committee budget has been adopted.
The Chairman: The eighth report will be deferred until next week. At this time, we will move on to Item No. 4 on the agenda.
[English]
Mr. Bélisle: Honourable senators, I would recommend that on Item No. 4, pursuant to the Rules of the Senate, you may wish to proceed in camera since you will be dealing with wages, labour relations and personnel matters.
The committee continued in camera.