Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 3 - Evidence for March 29, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 29, 2007
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:51 a.m. to consider administrative and other matters.
Senator George J. Furey (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the first item on our agenda is the report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets.
Senator Stratton: Members of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets met yesterday at lunch. We conducted an overview of the budgets received to date and wish to present the subcommittee's sixth report.
The subcommittee has received budgets requesting some $3.4 million in funding. As was the case last year, $3.35 million are available for work by committees after removing $400,000 for witness expenses.
We are aware that certain committees are still in the process of finalizing their work plans for the coming fiscal year, so we expect a number of other budgets will be received in the near future. Given that the subcommittee does not want to impede the work of the committees, we decided to proceed with a preliminary allocation to ensure that funds will be available for committees to undertake their work schedule early in the fiscal year.
In reviewing the budget submissions, your subcommittee was guided by the following principles: Budgets amounting to less than $15,000 would be approved immediately and in full since they include no travel or other major expenditures. To give you further assurance, Senator Downe insisted on going through each one individually, which was a very appropriate thing to do. It assured members of the subcommittee that those applications were for committee expenses here in Ottawa.
More substantial budgets will require more detailed consideration including asking chairs to appear before the subcommittee to answer questions. Therefore, funds will only be released for activities scheduled in April and May, giving the subcommittee an opportunity to review the budgets more fully upon our return after the Easter break.
Last year we had a problem in that we tried to approve budgets under a very tight time frame, and the subcommittee was criticized. We felt, therefore, that we had to react in an appropriate fashion. We took it upon ourselves to do a breakdown and approve those budgets that required approval for April and May. This procedure allowed us to do a more complete review of the full budgets of each committee at a more steady pace rather than rushing through them.
Using these guidelines, the subcommittee has agreed to recommend the release of a total of $684,016. This amount includes seven legislative budgets for which full funding is recommended. It also includes allocations for 13 special studies. Of those, nine are for full funding, with only one exceeding the $15,000 threshold. This more substantial budget is for the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications for the study of freight traffic, which includes public hearings in Montreal in April and Halifax in May. The recommended allocation is for $141,040.
Partial interim funding is being recommended for four budget requests. The first is for the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and its special study on rural poverty. Funding is being recommended for public hearings in Kapuskasing, Ontario, and Chibougamau, Quebec. These committee hearings were scheduled for earlier in the fiscal year. The subcommittee also recommended that the sole sourcing of chartered aircraft be permitted as requested by the committee. The recommended release is $101,428.
The second budget is for the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and its special study on emerging policy framework. The release of funds would enable the committee to conduct fact finding in May. The recommended release is $75,656.
The third budget is for the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence and will enable the committee to continue its work and to conduct a fact-finding trip to Newark and Washington. In addition, members of the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee plan to go to Paris and Vimy in early April. The recommended release of funds for the first budget is $213,882, and it is $42,420 for the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
With respect to the national security and defence budgets, I note that funding is not being recommended at this time for a national security adviser — a new position that is being posted — since the subcommittee would like to learn more about this position before making a recommendation. In addition, with respect to their request for funding for the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee to go to Paris and Vimy, the subcommittee recommends funding for three senators to attend. The request had been for four senators and two staff.
The budgets for which partial funding is being recommended at this time will be revisited when the subcommittee conducts a more complete review and hears from all the committee chairs who have substantial budgets to propose. Those budgets where no urgent needs were identified will be reviewed at the same time.
The subcommittee plans to begin its more detailed review on return from the Easter adjournment, which I believe is planned for the first week we are back. In the meantime, I request adoption of the sixth report.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Thank you for your report, Mr. Chairman. I notice that in some places, it says ``professional services'' and other services. Can you tell me what these services include? Are new people being hired to be consultants to these committees?
[English]
Senator Stratton: For the most part, ``Professional and Other Services'' is the normal course of events; there is nothing unusual if a committee puts a budgetary allowance in there should it require professional or other services. I do not think they are often used, but they are used on occasion if a committee needs special advice.
The only exception is the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, which has a fairly substantial list of special advisers. You can ask for and receive a breakdown of those positions from Heather Lank, Principal Clerk of Committees Directorate. I would recommend that you take a look at that.
Approval of that funding is being requested now because we are ending one fiscal year and moving into the next, and that committee deems it necessary to have those people on staff. Perhaps, since the chair of the committee is here at this time, you could ask him the reasons for the additional staff.
Senator Robichaud: Are these people hired by the Senate? Are they under the direction of the person who is responsible for committees?
Senator Stratton: No, the committee and its chair hire those individuals. I would ask that you address those questions to the chair, Senator Kenny.
Senator Robichaud: You are talking about the Defence Committee, but there are other committees. Perhaps Senator Kenny can enlighten me as to how those people are paid and who is responsible for their direction.
Senator Kenny: I would be happy to, senator. They are hired by the steering committee, and the direction of them is delegated by the committee to the chair of the committee. They represent expertise that is not available to the committee through the Library of Parliament. They are specialists in defence and security matters.
Senator Stratton: I can give you the breakdown of those special advisers. There is a senior military adviser, 12 months at $3,308 a month, for a total of $39,700; a military adviser — enlisted personnel — three months at $500 a month, for a total of $1,500; a full-time national security adviser for $60,000, and we are not recommending that allocation at this time until we have heard from the chair; a senior intelligence and national security adviser, 12 months at $3,308 a month, for a total of $39,700; a writer-editor-researcher for 67 days at $800 a day, for a total of $53,600; a communications consultant for 25 hours at $200 an hour, for a total of $5,000; clerical assistance for 12 months at $3,085 a month, for $37,000; and $10,000 for miscellaneous items. That looks after the professional services that the committee deems necessary to do its work.
Senator Robichaud: These are services that cannot be provided by the Senate.
Senator Kenny: Yes. The military and the intelligence individuals have been with me now for five years. One is a retired major-general and the other is the former head of counterintelligence for CSIS. The committee has found them to be invaluable in terms of assisting us in understanding how both the military and the intelligence community function. They have experience that simply does not come in off the street.
Senator Robichaud: I am not questioning the experience.
Senator Kenny: The point I am trying to make is that we do not have that experience.
Senator Robichaud: How are they hired? Is a request for proposals put out?
Senator Kenny: Five years ago, when they were originally hired, the committee interviewed a group of individuals and selected these two. They are our principal advisers.
The adviser on enlisted people actually came to us at the recommendation of the general. He is the former RSM of the Vandoos; then he was the RSM of the army. His final job was RSM of the Canadian Forces. He is highly qualified and is very useful in advising the committee on issues and problems relating to enlisted people.
Senator Robichaud: I am curious as to how it works. Is it the same for other committees? Do they have special advisers?
Senator Kenny: If I can add a footnote, many other committees can go to inside expertise. We have farmers in the Senate who know more about farming than most. We have businessmen in the Senate who sit on the Banking Committee and understand banking issues as well as anyone in the Department of Finance. We do not have people in the Senate or on the committee who are experts on the military or on intelligence issues. For the committee to be able to comment in an appropriate way, we needed someone to decode the way both the intelligence community and the military talk so we could translate it into a language that the population would understand.
It was also a matter of assisting the committee in essentially a tutorial that started five years ago, describing how one part of the military relates to the other, how CSIS relates to the RCMP, how the RCMP relates to the communications security agency, and how SIRC, the oversight body, relates to them. If you ask any member of the committee, they will tell you that they started off knowing very little about the topic and gradually, as a result of having this professional assistance, got to the point where they understood much better.
These advisers brief the committee before each witness; then after each witness, they comment on what they heard. They will tell us whether they thought the individual was giving us an accurate or inaccurate picture of what was going on. Frequently, the answer is that it is not an accurate picture.
Senator Robichaud: I have problems with that. I would think that senators on the committee should be able to make up their own minds on what they hear and not be told that these people in front of them are either telling the truth or not reflecting reality.
Senator Kenny: Often they will say, ``They told you the truth but left out a part of the story. Why not call this other witness and they will tell you the other part of the story?''
I would invite you to come and spend a day with us and see how our advisers function.
Senator Robichaud: If I did not have other committees, I probably would go.
This budget is for two months.
Senator Stratton: Yes, until the end of May.
Senator Robichaud: We are allocating almost $700,000 out of a total budget of $3.5 million.
Senator Stratton: Yes. Normally, we are well under. Mind you, in 2006, there was an election. There will be a large surplus left over.
Senator Robichaud: Do you think there will be an election this year?
Senator Stratton: Only one guy knows that and he is not sitting around this table.
The Chairman: Could we move to the adoption of the report, Senator Stratton?
Senator Day spoke to me earlier with respect to the budget for the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. Is there an agreement to increase it to $54,560 and include one other person?
Senator Stratton: No. I had a discussion with both Senator Day and Senator Downe, because Senator Downe is on the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets and Senator Day is on the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. The request for an additional person to go to Vimy was for Senator Hays to travel as a member of the committee. Yesterday and this morning, I had the Minister of Veterans Affairs, Greg Thompson, invite Senator Hays. Senator Hays has been in discussion with my office and with the minister's office this morning, and he will receive an official invitation from the minister today. He has been booked on a flight to travel with the minister to Vimy. It saves us money.
Senator Downe: I thank Senator Stratton for his intervention because at the subcommittee meeting yesterday it became clear that there was an oversight. Given the traditional role that the Senate has played with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the department would normally take senators from both sides of the chamber along with MPs. There appeared to have been an oversight in that regard, and Senator Stratton intervened to have it corrected.
Senator Day: I would like to confirm those comments. I thank Senator Stratton and members of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets for their understanding on this matter. There was a combination of factors. One is that representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs will be leaving next week, so this issue had to be dealt with quickly. Second, the clerk of our committee has not been well and has been not able to communicate some of the things that have been happening. Third, historically, the Department of Veterans Affairs has invited parliamentarians to go on these pilgrimages. It was vitally important that we be in attendance at Vimy. The House of Commons was in the same boat. They sorted their matter out a week ago and decided they would pay through their own budget rather than wait for the Department of Veterans Affairs to invite them. We started moving in the same direction.
We wanted to send four senators. We felt that was reasonable because the subcommittee is made up of four senators. It has now been sorted out by virtue of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the minister inviting two senators. You are about to approve, hopefully, three. I think everything has been sorted out.
The lesson learned is that it is better to have our independence and do this within our own budget rather than waiting for the Department of Veterans Affairs to do something they have done in the past.
Senator Stratton: Senator Dallaire was invited by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, but he could not attend. I was aware that he was invited, but until yesterday I was not aware that he could not go. When we made that discovery, we then, in discussions with the Liberal side, said that this situation was inappropriate, which is when I was informed that Senator Hays would like to go and I contacted the minister's office.
Senator Day: I confirm those remarks as well. Senator Dallaire informed the minister weeks ago that he was not going, but Senator Stratton just learned yesterday because I told him yesterday.
Senator Robichaud: Is there just a place for one more senator? What about other senators who would like to be there? Listening to what happened in the house yesterday, many people have some connection because their grandparents lived and died on that ridge. I did not see any invitation going around to attend the events at Vimy . Perhaps I missed it. I think Senator Cook would very much like to attend, and she is not the only one.
People indicated one time or another, and then they got to pick. I am not talking about the subcommittee.
Senator Kenny: What are you proposing, Senator Robichaud? I am sympathetic to your concerns. I heard the speeches in the chamber, and a great many people have relatives and have a strong connection to Vimy. I am raising it now because this is the time we are talking money. We know exactly what it costs to get someone there. It was worked out with Senator Day's subcommittee. Are you proposing that we set aside further funds to address your concerns? How do we go about dealing with them?
Senator Robichaud: My question was in relation to the minister inviting some senators to go. Did everyone get a chance to put their name in, or did it just happen like that?
Senator Kenny: He usually asks the chair and deputy chair of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs to do those things. For the past five years, they are the two who have been selected. There has been one from each side. It has been very arbitrary, just like that; but, in fairness, they are the ones who do work on veteran's issues.
Senator Stratton: How do you put a fence around it? If you open the gate, everyone can go.
Senator Robichaud: It is not a matter of opening the gate. It is a matter of who knows that the gate is open.
Senator Stratton: I do not disagree with that point. We look at the Department of Veterans Affairs naming three people and think that perhaps others from the Senate with a connection to Vimy should go rather than the three members of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. That would be the debate. If we expand the numbers, we get into huge dollars. As well, how do we justify that I should go? I have roots there. That becomes the issue and then the gates are open.
The Chairman: This is an interesting discussion, probably meant for some other forum. It is not related to what we are trying to accomplish here this morning, but it is interesting, nevertheless. I would ask that we save that topic either for another meeting when we can put it on the agenda or for another forum.
Senator Comeau: Given that there is no government member on the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, does a government member of the Senate form part the delegation travelling to Vimy?
Senator Day: My request was for four, which included Senator Meighen. I was then informed that Senator Meighen has been invited by the minister to go. I then asked which Liberal was going, and I was told none. That is when I started my investigation.
Senator Comeau: That is a different issue.
Senator Day: It is not a different issue because Senator Meighen was to be part of the delegation of four that I initially requested attend the events at Vimy.
Senator Stratton: That is not quite true.
Senator Comeau: My question was straightforward. Does the delegation consist of any member of the government side, or is it composed only of members from the opposition side? I think I got my answer. I do not even need an explanation.
Senator Day: One of the three is Senator Norm Atkins. His father fought at Vimy Ridge.
Senator Comeau: He is not a member of the government side. It was a straightforward question.
The Chairman: Can I have a motion to adopt the report?
Senator Stratton: On a point of clarification for Senator Robichaud, four of the budgets for which we are requesting approval are for April and May. The balance of the monies requested is for the full fiscal year.
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Nolin, seconded by Senator Robichaud, that we adopt the sixth report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets. All in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chairman: Carried, on division.
Senator Stratton, in order for us to deal with this item today in the chamber, it will require unanimous consent. Can I assume that your side is prepared to give unanimous consent?
Senator Stratton: As far as our side is concerned, I have not talked to all our senators, but I have talked to the leadership. Unanimous consent will be granted and the report will be dealt with ``later this day,'' likely on division.
The Chairman: Thank you, senator.
The committee continued in camera.