Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 3 - Evidence for April 3, 2003
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 3, 2003
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:03 a.m. to consider administrative and other matters.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please. You have the agenda in front of you. We are in public this morning.
[Translation]
The subcommittee is pleased to present its Ninth Report, which deals with committee funding for fiscal 2003-2004. The amounts which have already been requested by committees total close to $3 million. In light of the nature of parliamentary business, other requests will probably be received subsequently in the course of the year. The Senate budget for committees is $2.2 million, and out of this an amount of $400,000 has been reserved for witnesses' expenses and video conferences.
Your subcommittee invited committee chairs to appear to defend their budget. We also asked for the assistance of committees' input to find ways of curtailing their budget submissions, in particular as concerns travel. They were also invited to indicate whether cuts could be made or activities postponed.
I would like to thank the committees who replied in a serious manner and made suggestions which made the subcommittee's work easier. I wish in particular to thank the following committees: the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. Each of these committees had submitted budget requests of more than $200,000. They all readily agreed to reduce or postpone their submissions. Their cooperation was greatly appreciated.
[English]
In reviewing the budget, your subcommittee was faced with a difficult task to facilitate the work of committees while treating them equitably and respecting the fiscal framework. Some difficult decisions had to be made, and I wish to assure colleagues that your subcommittee listened attentively to the presentations made, including the priorities identified by chairs.
Consideration was also given to the timing of planned activities. Your subcommittee reviewed every line of every budget to determine which demands could be funded at this time, in what amount. Particular attention was paid to requests for travel since it is by far the largest budget item.
Your subcommittee based its decision on funding for travel on the following principles: Public hearings should be funded to allow all members of the committee to participate. Fact-finding trips, whether within Canada or the United States, should be funded to allow up to nine senators to travel; historical data as well as input from chairs indicate that this level of funding will be sufficient to cover the needs of committees. Funds should be released to allow the required staff identified by the committee to travel. This does not include political staff.
To accommodate these principles, it is necessary that there be a clawback process to ensure that funds that were allocated for a particular activity, but not used, are returned from redistribution. Given that demand far exceeds supply, committees will not be permitted to hold on to surplus funds for one activity and use them for another. Your subcommittee believes that this approach strikes a reasonable balance between giving committees flexibility to manage their own affairs and ensuring fairness and fiscal responsibility.
Other principles used by the subcommittee include: Funds for communication consultants are not to be granted for legislative budget; a reasonable level of funding for communications consultants for special studies is recommended. Conferences should be funded on a selective basis, taking into account whether the committee identified particular conferences and the priorities brought to the subcommittee's attention.
By adopting the ninth report, legislative budgets will be funded through the end of the fiscal year. It should be noted that legislative budgets received did not request funds for either fact-finding or public hearings.
With respect to special study budgets, your subcommittee recommends the release of funds, which will allow committees to undertake their activities at least through the early fall. If the report is adopted, a total of $1,691,812 will have been recommended for release by Internal Economy, including an earlier $20,000 released to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. I want to remind you that the total budget for committees is $1.8 million. After the summer adjournment, your subcommittee will consider a further release depending on express needs and the availability of funds.
I would like to thank my colleagues on the Steering Committee as well as senators who assisted us in this difficult endeavour. I request the adoption of the ninth report.
Senator Bryden: So moved.
The Chairman: Senator Bryden has so moved.
Senator Stratton: I have been reviewing the list of the final numbers for each committee. My understanding was that Transport and Communications with respect to the media study would be under $200,000 and it is now sitting at $234,450. Can someone explain how we added it back? It was my understanding when we went through it the other night that it would be cut to be below $200,000.
The Chairman: Transport and Communications requested a budget of $435,250. We took out $64,450 for Ontario and Quebec trips, and we took out $136,350 for an Atlantic Canada trip. That was a voluntary reduction. We still have $234,450.
Senator Stratton: Why the discrepancy between the $198,000, to which I thought we had agreed, and the $234,000 number we have now?
Ms. Heather Lank, Principal Clerk, Committees and Private Legislation, Senate of Canada: Senator Stratton, the reason for that is that looking at the letter from the committee, its request was actually for a deferral of the Atlantic trip, not the western trip. There was a discrepancy between what we originally knew and the letter that we received. The numbers are different based on that difference, the western trip versus the eastern trip.
Senator Stratton: The committee will defer the eastern trip and take the western trip.
Ms Lank: Exactly. That is where the number difference is.
The Chairman: The eastern trip was $136,350. The committee is spreading the study over two years, as we asked it to do.
Senator Stratton: I appreciate all that. However, we did not get in the beginning the kind of cooperation from that committee that we thought. I am rather concerned about the number that we are currently at, simply because it was our efforts that cut that and took it to where it was, and not their efforts. I am concerned about the figure $234,000. I still express concern.
Senator Robichaud: If I understand correctly, the difference between what we thought we had approved is between the two, either the eastern or the western trip. That is all.
The Chairman: How much was the western trip?
Senator Stratton: I am not questioning the dollar difference. I appreciate that the difference is simply because of distance.
However, I still think that it should be under $200,000. I believe there should be a message sent that it should be under $200,000.
Senator Kroft: What is the message?
Senator Stratton: We have dramatically cut the budgets of other committees when they have not acted voluntarily. Some of the committees have been wonderfully good at cutting. Some have not. This was one that was not.
I think there must be a message sent with respect to that. We must be consistent. We cut other committees dramatically that did not voluntarily cut. As well as sending the message to defer trips elsewhere, there should be an additional message sent that they did not do their job in voluntarily cutting as we expected them to do.
Senator Robichaud: Did that committee not agree to do it over two years rather than over one year?
Senator Stratton: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: They came partially, after they were invited.
Senator Stratton: ``Coerced'' is the word.
The Chairman: We could replace the western trip, $140,450, by the eastern trip, $103,850. That would then be less than $200,000.
Senator Stratton: If they want to take the western trip, that is their choice. I am not opposed to that. I am asking whether we can find something in addition that will knock it down to under $200,000.
The Chairman: That is about it.
Senator Stratton: Is there nothing in there with respect to other issues that could be cut or deferred?
The Chairman: No. This was examined closely. We could switch the two trips.
Senator Stratton: I do not like to do that. If they want to take the trip out west, that is their choice. I do not want to meddle in that decision. However, I would like to see it below $200,000.
Senator Robichaud: I understand what you are saying. This is a committee that comes forward. It has not been doing much travelling.
The Chairman: I suggest that we can still allow $103,000 for the western trip. They can reduce the number of places they visit or some of their expenses, and we can allow the same amount of money they would have spent.
Senator Stratton: I would appreciate that. I have to carry that message. You appreciate where I am coming from.
The Chairman: Do you agree, senators?
Senator Bryden: I agree. That may mean an amendment.
The Chairman: Some people will be sensitive to this matter. You are totally right. I agree with you fully. I always do. Others do not have $200,000.
Senator Stratton: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: I have some concerns about the budget of the Foreign Affairs Committee. In the Speech from the Throne, the government announced a review of Canada's foreign policy. Minister Graham is travelling at this time; he is in Kingston and Eastern Ontario today. I wonder what we are doing in Washington during this very tense period? What is happening to Canada's foreign policy? Are we participating in this review? Are we absent, in Russia or elsewhere?
The Chairman: I do not think we are in Russia. I will have a look at the situation.
[English]
Senator Austin: I am on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Perhaps I could respond.
The Foreign Affairs Committee at the moment is involved in a study on Canada-U.S. trade relations and Canada- Mexico trade relations. It is an appraisal of 15 years of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the 10-year anniversary of NAFTA.
Particularly, the Foreign Affairs Committee is focused on issues such as how to deal with dispute settlement mechanisms and how they are working, and questions relating to the chapter 11 entitlement of foreign corporations to sue in our courts at a level that is not available to Canadians.
Similar questions relate to Mexico, where our trade has jumped from a very small number by 500 per cent since the NAFTA has started. Therefore, visits to Mexico City and Washington for discussions with counterparts are essential. This one does not fund a trip to Mexico City. There is no request for that in this budget. It is Washington and some policy conferences that are being held on trade issues.
There has been a debate in the committee as to whether we should as a committee deal with Minister Graham's round of discussions on a sort of summary top-up on our foreign policy assessments. The feeling of the committee is that we do not have a special role to play. He is moving around the country. He is asking questions. Our role will be when he comes to conclusions and he puts his conclusions to the Canadian public. Then, as a committee, we would be prepared to hold hearings on those conclusions.
Finally, there has been a request for us to take up the Iraq issue, and, again, we feel the committee cannot add anything to the contemporary political debate about Iraq. Our role is essentially one of review after the event rather than participation in the political issue of the day. I hope that is a satisfactory answer to Senator Gauthier.
The Chairman: I must add that the committee requested a budget $238,050, and they voluntarily cut down $72,600.
Senator Austin: We took Mexico off the agenda.
The Chairman: May I come back to the Transport and Communications Committee? The new figures would be $197,850. That would mean we have a budget now of $1,635,212.
The Chairman: I have a motion by Senator Bryden with the new number. Any seconder?
Senator Austin: Seconded.
The Chairman: Adopted.
Senator Kroft: Thank you. I want to make a general comment that is consistent with others I have made over the last several years in this committee. I am particularly concerned now.
I appreciate the difficulty of fitting the budgets into the amount we have, and I commend all those who have been involved in the subcommittee and the Steering Committee and the chairs to make things fit within what we have. It is always difficult, and it requires a spirit of cooperation. That is what I see at work here.
I would like to make a more forward-looking comment. We must be very careful that we do not slip from having to make do with what we have to an attitude to seeing how little we can spend. My view has been that we should spend as much as we can if it furthers effective work of the Senate generally and, specifically, of the committees. It is the task of this committee and of the leadership to try to expand the envelope. It is very easy when the numbers are tight to get into a mindset to see where we can save money.
We know that proportionately in every other way, we are miles behind the other place in terms of the resources we have because our bases are different. Even though we are working within the numbers, it is important that we never lose sight of the fact that we have to dedicate efforts and press our leadership wherever we can to expand our available budgets.
I was back late last night from three days in New York and Washington with the Banking Committee. This is fresh in my mind. It was an extraordinary trip. However, we know what we are living in in the context of Canada-U.S. relationships, specifically both in the immediate term and broadly. Whether it is Fishery, Agriculture or Energy — the work that our committees can do at a number of levels can be enhanced by being able to have more capacity — I am talking specifically U.S. at this time — to be able to work in that broader form in the Senate's interest and the Canadian interest. That is just one example where I think having more resources available to us would be extraordinarily important.
Therefore, I am addressing the mindset. Let us not let this committee become a place to see how little money we can spend. Let us make it be a place where we can decide how much effective activity we can support.
One thing that I would like to put back on the table for further consideration is the use of our travel points in terms of the U.S., in terms of committee business, because it may be a way of helping to assist with this problem. I know Senator Austin put a very cautiously and narrowly defined proposal forward. I am not sure I would be even that careful.
We had several committees in Washington in the week, and believe me, what a week to be there. It could not have been more important to what is going on overall.
That is a general plea. Thank you for your patience.
The Chairman: I must say that in this year's budget we had an increase of 4.9 per cent. We started preparing the budget with 27 per cent and we had to cut it down to 4.9. The House had a 3.9 per cent increase in their budget. Many of the departments had zero increase. This was this year's budget. It does not mean it will be like that every year. We had to work within that.
Senator Kroft: Having been through the process, as long as we are matching our percentage to the House, we lose because their base is bigger, and a percentage point for them is hugely different from percentage point for us.
I believe we have to look outside that reality to find other ways. It may be that things on which we are now spending or proposing to spend money — whether they relate to television, committee rooms or other things — we have to see if through Public Works or other sources, that there is not, in fact, a capital budget. We are only dealing with an operating budget. We have to find another way of bringing money into the system or we will be caught forever in the game of percentage point to percentage point.
The Chairman: I can appreciate how you feel. It does not make my job easy. I am trying to do my best with what we have. I am not apologizing for anything. We have to work with what we have. Using the points, we will work with that on the Steering Committee and come back to you.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I am not claiming that the leadership has some rigid attitude with regard to the funds available to it. Nevertheless I believe that at this time it is difficult to function within the government's current budget constraints. In certain cases we try to ask for more funds than the other place in order to catch up, and we do not do that as often as we wish. There are certainly times when it is easier to catch up than others.
The fact that we are working with smaller budgets pushes us to make difficult decisions — which are necessary — to ensure that the funds at our disposal are used appropriately and distributed equitably among all of the committees.
Currently, in the agricultural area, there is a great deal of trade with the United States. And on the east coast, coastal Atlantic communities will soon be affected by the closure of the ground fish fishery. There is very little hope of seeing that fishery reopen. This will result in a major problem which must be addressed immediately.
I do not want to diminish the importance of travel to the United States for certain committees. I simply want to put all of this in context. We all have our problems and each is as important as the next.
Senator Prud'homme: That is a strange theory, saying we must ``spend as much as possible to show that we are very active.'' That seems bizarre to me.
I will give you an example. In one of the budgets submitted by the Banking Committee — this is not where I am going to solve the problem, but I will solve it — it says: ``travel to New York and Washington for ten senators and two staff members.'' There are 12 senators who sit on this committee. The decision was taken arbitrarily without consulting the members of the committee. The chairman of the committee stated that six senators would be going on the trip: three Liberals and three Conservatives. I found that very diplomatic. Bang! The decision was made. I would at least have liked to have been consulted. Finally, the committee received additional funds, when it was decided that ten senators might possibly be travelling. Once again, members of the committee were not consulted: the steering committee decided that there would be eight senators: four Conservatives and four Liberals.
I am waiting to see how many actually went on the trip. I do not want to ask the senators who sit on the Banking Committee and who are here. I find it cavalier to ask for funds for ten senators and finally decide that six senators will travel, and then to increase their number to eight. There was a private discussion within the committee.
All of this is related to the suggestion made by those who think that we should have plane tickets to go to the United States whenever we feel like it, even if we do so with our travel points. I want to advise you that the minute you open that door, everyone has good causes and I am surprised to note that some of the older senators are involved. You are familiar with the abuse that occurred in the past. I was the beneficiary of one of these trips abroad. When I saw that the least bit of controversy was being stirred up, I refused the money. I was named an honourary citizen of Lebanon, something which does not happen often. I decided to pay for my own expenses. I did not touch the $5,000. Having heard Senator Robichaud's comments, even though I was directly affected by his suggestion, I thought that his comments were indeed reasonable.
In the past, there was abominable abuse. If you open the door to that, it will be difficult for you to decide which cause is more noble, more deserving than another. It seems that you will be discussing this during the adjournment. I am not a member of the steering subcommittee, but we are going to have to be parsimonious.
Madam Chair, I trust your judgment. You ran the Province of Quebec during Mr. Robert Bourassa's illness. I think it is detestable that certain senators think that you are incapable of chairing a committee that spends a few million dollars. I find that odious and unacceptable.
I trust that you will arrive at a good decision. You will submit it. I do not have the right to vote on this committee but I find it bizarre that among those who do not have the right to vote I am probably the one who is most often present here. But that is the way things go in the beautiful Senate of Canada in Ottawa!
The Chairman: The number of senators who are allowed to go on fact-finding missions to the United States is nine.
Senator Prud'homme: The first text I received contained a budget submission to fund travel for ten senators.
The Chairman: I would advise you to discuss it internally at the Banking Committee.
Senator Prud'homme: Obviously, I will be doing that.
Senator Poulin: When we see a seven-page document like the one we have before us it looks so easy, so simple. A great deal of work was done by the members of the subcommittee and by the staff to draft these seven pages of text. I would like to point out that being able to announce budgets to committees on April 3 is extraordinary. We are at the beginning of the fiscal year. Committees will be able to plan their year and this will facilitate things for all of the steering committees.
The Chairman: I must say that many committees tightened their belt. We asked them to prepare their own budget. The last time we had set standards and guidelines. This time we returned their budgets to them, saying that we all had to do some belt-tightening and reduce our budgets. Several did, but others did not, not at all. There are different ways of seeing things. We must say that our colleagues did excellent work, as well as the staff.
Senator Gauthier: We need information. I would like to see a brief history of the famous points. These points are a statutory matter. They do not come from your budget, nor from mine.
I do not understand this restriction which has been imposed upon senators. Members do not have a similar restriction as to the use of their travel points with committees, or to go to some professional meeting where they will have discussions with other parliamentarians. How long has this been in existence? Why was it done? Why restrict the use of points? Why not broaden their use, as Senator Austin suggested, to allow two trips per year to the United States? That is not such a big deal. It would not cost the committee a penny more.
The Chairman: The Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration will examine that. We were preparing budgets and we did not have time to delve into that aspect. This suggestion had been submitted by Senator Austin some time ago and I had said that we would come back to it. The time we had was devoted to budgets and to preparing our fiscal year. As soon as we can we will examine the possibilities as to the use of our travel points.
Senator Robichaud also mentioned the Francophonie at the time. This will have to be taken into account. We will also have to discuss the countries of the Francophonie, not only the United States, as a possibility, since we do have two official languages in Canada.
Senator Prud'homme: The Commonwealth also, while you are at it; it is the equivalent of the countries that make up the Francophonie.
The Chairman: The Commonwealth and the United States.
Senator Prud'homme: The United States are not championing the Commonwealth.
The Chairman: In any case, we will have a look at all of that.
Senator De Bané: I listened carefully to what you had to say concerning travel points. When we talked about this the last time in committee I promised to send a memorandum to the clerk, Mr. Bélisle, and I am going to do so today. I wrote down my thoughts and you will be able to discuss this with financial services.
The Chairman: Normally, when constraints are imposed upon what you might call a right, or the possibilities of using points, it is because there was probably abuse somewhere and this has to be looked at. We have to prevent abuse, also, and that is what is behind this type of decision.
Senator Prud'homme: When you define Senator Austin's request, it will have to be detailed. It is all well and good to say that you are using your points to go to a conference in Washington, for instance, but conference means registration fees, rental fees, accommodation fees, expenditures, miscellaneous expenses; is all of that included? It is not just a matter of taking a little trip. If the decision you arrive at is to authorize two trips, I am going to ask you for all the details.
The Chairman: Since the beginning of our mandate, you have gotten used to guidelines. There will have to be more, I think, if we open the floodgates. We cannot, however, open the floodgates indefinitely, even if the funds are not coming from the committee's budgets.
Senator Prud'homme: I wish to point out that I was not the one who asked that the floodgates be opened.
The Chairman: Yes. We are now going to adjourn.
The committee adjourned.