Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 3 - Evidence for May 3, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 3, 2007
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:38 a.m. in public to consider administrative and other matters.
Senator George J. Furey (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning. As a courtesy to senators who have appeared with respect to international travel, may I suggest that the committee defer Item No.1 and move to Item Nos. 2 to 5 so that they can make their presentations and be on their way if they so choose.
Senator Jaffer: I would like to add two more items to our agenda. I agree with what the chair has said.
The Chairman: You can raise them under ``Other Matters'' on the agenda, if you so wish.
Are senators in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: We will move to Senator Nolin and his application for international travel. I remind senators that we are in public for these applications.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: If you read closely the invitation sent to me by one of our Argentine colleagues, you will understand why I am very honoured and excited to make this request.
On several occasions between 2001 and 2002, Senator Kenny and I examined the question of psychoactive substance use in Canada.
The more senior members of the committee will recall that we often requested funding to complete the study which was released in September 2002.
This study received a great deal of media coverage both here in Canada and abroad and attracted considerable interest, especially from governments in Belgium, France, Italy and Spain. Several South American countries also expressed an interest in our research and findings.
Since then, I have met on several occasions with public administrators and ministers from other jurisdictions who have had to make some important decisions. And here is the reason: In 2008-2009, the international community will gather to discuss the status quo on international government policies for controlling psychoactive substances and to consider alternative courses of action. Several countries, including Argentina, have already moved in this direction. And for that reason, I am very honoured to have received this invitation.
Parliamentarians, judges and public administrators will gather for this meeting. I ask you to consider my request and I am prepared to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there questions? The usual practice after the presentation is for the committee to consider the application of the senator in his or her absence. I would suggest that in order to be a little more efficient this morning, we hear all three presentations while the senators are present, after which I would ask that they leave so the committee can deliberate each application.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I want to go to New York in June to a conference on the United Nations system. As you all know, the United Nations is Canada's most important international link. We may talk about multilateral and bilateral trade agreements, but in the end the UN is extremely important to us. Those of us who sat on the Human Rights Committee are well aware that Canada is in flagrant violation of almost all of its United Nations treaties, and I am most interested in hearing more. I would like to hear what people from other parts of the world are saying about their models for the implementation of treaties and any new directions that might arise. It would be an opportunity to talk to other Canadians who will be there, such as representatives of the Secretariat for Wilfred Laurier University in Ontario. It will be a neat chance to hang with these people who are concerned about these issues, and it would have a positive effect on my time on the Senate Human Rights Committee.
The Chairman: Senators, are there questions for Senator Nancy Ruth?
Senator Nancy Ruth: As well, I want a couple hundred dollars more for cabs.
The Chairman: Would buses be okay?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Yes, they will be fine, on occasion. Thank you.
Senator Munson: As you know, the Special Olympics is my passion. I want to clarify right off the top that the distinction between Special Olympians and Paralympians. Paralympians are physically disabled and Special Olympians are intellectually disabled. They are two distinct organizations. In Canada, I act as an ambassador for our Special Olympians. My application is to travel to Shanghai in October. I travelled with our Special Olympians to Nagano two years ago. There, I helped to facilitate and represent my country, and to work with the children and families. There will be 169 countries represented at the Shanghai games by some 7,000 athletes. Canada will have about 75 athletes from every province across the country.
These games are so important for me. I would love to go to Shanghai to participate in the opening ceremonies and be part of facilitating the events for our athletes. I write reports for newspapers and put a face on the Senate that needs to be shown in terms of what we do outside the chamber. I am driven by this cause because of a son we lost some time ago who had Down Syndrome. Timmy drives everything that I do for children, whether it is for the Special Olympics, human rights issues, rights of the child or families with autistic children. You have more of the facts before you, and I would be pleased to answer questions. The application is for travel to Shanghai.
The Chairman: Are there questions for Senator Munson?
The Chairman: Thank you, senators.
There is a fourth application to be presented by Senator Adams, who is at another committee. He plans to be here at nine o'clock, so we will hear from him when he arrives.
Senator Jaffer: Do we need to hear from Senator Adams? His application is clear. Perhaps we could look at all four together.
The Chairman: Is that the wish of the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Downe: I have a question about the committee status after the senators leave. Will the committee go in camera?
The Chairman: Yes.
The committee continued in camera.
The committee resumed in public.
The Chairman: We now go to Senator Stratton for the report of the Subcommittee for the Review of Committee Budgets.
Senator Stratton: First, I would like to thank the two other senators on the committee with me, Senator Downe and Senator Stollery. We worked over the last two Tuesdays, going through the submissions and presentations from the various chairs of committees. I would also very much like to thank our supportive staff, particularly Heather Lank, who presented things in a clear and concise way.
The chairs were well briefed and their presentations were quite excellent. With respect to how committees spend Canadian taxpayers' money, I believe that the subcommittee's role is to ensure good value for money. In the minds of members of the subcommittee, the committee chairs made excellent presentations. I have reservations personally with respect to certain budgets that I will talk about, but believe me, when I heard their presentations, I thought that the justification for spending Canadian taxpayers' money was well argued and presented. I congratulate the chairs in that respect.
Your subcommittee is pleased to present its seventh report concerning the allocation of funds to committees for 2007-08. To date, the subcommittee has received budgets requesting some $4 million in funding. As was the case last year, $3.35 million are available for distribution, with $400,000 having been set aside for witness expenses for appearance at committees for the most part.
In its sixth report, the subcommittee recommended the release of $684,016 to enable committees to undertake their work in April and May, as well as to approve budget requests for under $15,000. However, your subcommittee felt it was important that chairs be invited to appear to present their budget requests and to answer questions before making decisions regarding funding for the larger budgets, especially those including travel both here and abroad. Having heard those presentations, your subcommittee is now prepared to make its recommendations with respect to the allocation of funds for 2007-08.
In its seventh report, your subcommittee is recommending the release of — I will modify the original presentation. The original amount was for $2,840,335, but late yesterday afternoon a problem was brought to our attention concerning the Fisheries Committee budget and a trip to northern Canada — Northern Quebec and Nunavik particularly. The request was for $117,980. It would appear that legal problems or court cases are evolving from this, and I would like therefore to recommend to you that this portion not be approved. I will ask Senator Downe to make a motion to that effect.
Perhaps I could ask Senator Comeau, a member of that committee, to provide a little more information with respect to this withdrawal of funding.
Senator Comeau: The trip was to go to Northern Quebec in the area of Nunavik, Senator Watts' region. I should say at the outset that both Senator Watt and Senator Adams have been doing tremendous work on behalf of the communities they represent. I have watched the work of these two individuals over the years, and they have always been tremendous representatives on behalf of their people.
At the present time, there is a beluga harvest. The beluga whale is divided into various genetic species, some being quite plentiful, but a few are on the list of extremely endangered species. During certain harvest times of the year, these beluga whales migrate together. If a fishery is directed toward the migrating species at certain times of the year, there is a danger that we might eliminate the endangered species. That is the story from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, of course, and the species at risk people. They are putting controls on certain harvesting times. The problem is that a certain number of individuals have directed a fishery toward the beluga. As I understand it, there are three charges right now and a number of pending charges toward individuals in the area. The situation is turning into quite a legal issue, which would bring in the Species at Risk Act, endangered species issues, Aboriginal issues and so on.
Yesterday, Senator Stratton's subcommittee was made aware that the Senate, through one of its committees, might be getting itself involved in legal issues that it may not want to be involved in if the committee travels up there and the focus of the work in Nunavik becomes the charges laid before certain individuals and the pending charges and how the committee members waltz around that one and deal with such issues. It may be best for this committee to review those legal issues rather than going ahead with this funding at the moment.
Senator Stratton: This is an agreement on both sides. Senator Cowan approached me yesterday afternoon and said, on his recommendation, that this be done. It is not as though we are doing this in isolation. I did not have the opportunity to explain it to Senator Stollery, but I did explain it to Senator Downe.
Senator Robichaud: I want to make something clear.
[Translation]
When committee members discussed the possibility of embarking on this trip, there was some question of first sending a letter to the minister so that he could be certain that the accused could defend themselves in court, because we had been told that they did not have the means to do so. The committee ultimately decided against this trip. I think we did not want to get involved in this particular case. However, we wanted to see what was happening in the communities with respect to the whale hunt. I believe this was a legitimate travel request.
I propose that we invite the committee chair before us to further clarify the situation, so that we have a clear understanding of matters.
[English]
Senator Stratton: I would agree, but at this stage, because there is a question, I would still recommend that we not approve this budget until that clarification is made and the Fisheries Committee has reviewed the matter.
Senator Downe: The subcommittee can meet any time next week and approve this budget. It would not be a two- month or three-month delay.
Senator Cook: What was the purpose of the trip?
Senator Comeau: The purpose was to see the communities and look at the issues facing the communities in terms of allocation of their adjacent stocks. It was meant to be a general briefing on a whole range of issues. I think what Senator Robichaud just brought up is a question that this should not be rejected, and I agree entirely. We are only facing a delay so that we can have more information from the chair about whether this matter becomes the main focus of the committee's travel. If this issue is raised during the committee's travel, how do we handle it? It is a legal issue in which we do not want to become embroiled.
Senator Kenny: This seems to be an irregular way of going about things. You would expect the chair of the committee to have an opportunity to talk about it. As well, every committee deals with issues that could have ongoing legal issues. It is the job of the committee to say whether the testimony is veering toward it and say that the matter is before the courts and we are not going to deal with it here.
The Chairman: It is a little unusual, but I cannot agree with Senator Kenny that we ought to have the chair of the committee here because I cannot think for a second that we would have agreement on both sides without the consent of the committee. I just cannot imagine that happening.
Before we go back to Senator Stratton to continue with the report, I understand that we have a motion for an amendment to the seventh report from Senator Downe.
Senator Robichaud: Before that motion is put, Mr. Chairman, from what I hear, we do not want to approve this before there is another meeting. I would say that we approve it with the proviso that matters are cleared up so that we do not have to come back to committee.
Senator Stratton: Until this item it clarified, I do not recommend that we do that. Once having granted approval, then you are there.
Senator Kenny: Further to what Senator Robichaud said, this committee can delegate the authority to give final approval to the subcommittee. Then, when the subcommittee reviews it, they can go forward.
The Chairman: Actually, when it comes to matters of committee budgets, only in extreme circumstances would I be comfortable with the steering committee making that decision. I would much prefer that it come to the full committee for debate. With due respect to Senator Robichaud's comment, the logical way to proceed is to accept a proposed amendment to the seventh report that would take this budget out altogether, I presume, and we will deal with it after the committee reviews it.
Senator Downe: I move that the budget of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for its trip to Northern Quebec and Nunavut not be approved at this time — I refer, of course, to the budget total of $117,980 — but that it be reconsidered by the Internal Economy Committee at a later date.
The Chairman: It is seconded by Senator Stollery.
Senator Robichaud: I do not think we should say ``not be approved,'' but rather ``not be considered.''
Senator Downe: We could say, ``not be considered at this time.''
The Chairman: If you want to use the word ``considered,'' that is fine.
Senator Stollery: I just learned of this matter now. Senator Stratton was unable to contact me yesterday afternoon. No one is saying that the committee should not make the trip, but that there seems to be new information that requires clarification. That can be done quickly. No one is suggesting that the committee should not go; we simply want to clarify the information. We do not want to hold up all of the other budgets because of this problem, which will be resolved as soon as we can get more information. That is all. I do not know anything about it.
The Chairman: Senator Downe, would you be satisfied that your motion read, ``That the committee not consider at this time'' or ``consider at a future date,'' the proposed budget of the Fisheries and Oceans Committee amounting to $117,980?
Senator Downe: Yes.
The Chairman: It is seconded by Senator Stollery. All in favour? Contra minded? Carried.
Senator Prud'homme: Could we try to say, ``unless approved by both sides''? There are many sides to this committee.
The Chairman: That is already done.
Senator Prud'homme: I would ask for future discussion that multiple sides be considered.
The Chairman: Okay.
Heather Lank, Principal Clerk, Committees Directorate: As Clerk of the Subcommittee on Budgets, perhaps could we make it clear whether Senator Rompkey will be invited to appear before the Subcommittee on Budgets?
The Chairman: That is the normal process.
Ms. Lank: Perfect.
Senator Stratton: I will talk to the subcommittee with respect to a convenient time to meet again.
With respect to the seventh report, the initial request for approval of the budget that we are recommending today was $2,840,335 less $117,980, which equals $2,722,355.
Further, the legislative budget of the Fisheries and Oceans Committee, was submitted for $398,575. Senator Rompkey indicated that since the committee is not certain when it will receive proposed legislation for which travel might be undertaken, the committee needs only $4,600 for working meals at this time. He would come back to the Subcommittee on Budgets at the appropriate time and submit that budget. Should the subcommittee approve it, it would be placed before this committee for review and approval.
In the case of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for its study on rural poverty, a change from the use of a charter aircraft to a bus for one of its trips has resulted in the committee not needing $23,000 found in its budget submission.
Other than these two exceptions, the recommendation for all committees is to receive full funding. That was agreed to on division because I have concern with certain budgets.
The subcommittee is confident that there are sufficient funds in the budget to cover these requests, given historical spending patterns. In 2006-07, $3.84 million was released to committees. While a few invoices remain to be processed, committees spent approximately $1.9 million, which is about a 50 per cent expenditure rate. Given that $3.35 million were available, this means that some $1.4 million were not spent. Given this pattern, your subcommittee is comfortable recommending the release to committees of full funding as requested, with reservations expressed by me. This recommendation is possible in part because of the existence of the clawback policy, which ensures that surplus funds remaining at the conclusion of an activity are returned to the envelope for redistribution.
We have been consistent with that policy. For example, should a committee of 12 members submit a proposal for a trip that budgets for 12 members to travel and only eight or nine travel, then the remaining funds for those who do not travel are returned to the Senate. I have asked, and I think I have been consistent in asking, all chairs whether they would agree to this policy, and they have.
We continue to encourage committees to be vigilant in their spending and to ensure that Canadians are receiving value for money. As I have said before, the presentations by the committee chairs were excellent.
Despite the fact I might disagree, I think the Canadian taxpayer is receiving value for money, especially when you look at some of the technical questions being studied. The work that is being done is quite amazing.
Therefore, I request the adoption of the seventh report, as amended.
The Chairman: It is seconded by Senator Stollery.
Before we debate the motion, Senator Stratton, are you making that motion with the proviso that it is on division?
Senator Stratton: Let me put it this way: I have concerns about a particular budget.
The Chairman: Will you debate that now?
Senator Stratton: Yes, as we go through.
The Chairman: Is it your recommendation that we adopt the report?
Senator Stratton: Yes.
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Stratton, seconded by Senator Stollery, that the seventh report of the subcommittee be adopted now. All those in favour? Do you want to go to discussion?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: My question ties in with Senator Stratton's remarks and his reservations about his report. I think we should know what his concerns are, because I have some as well. In particular, if we look at the budget of the National Security and Defence Committee, you will see that we will be approving expenditures of $743,478, when we have already approved $213,800. That is a total of almost one million dollars for a single committee. The Chair assures me that we can afford it.
I would also like to know what additional Senate resources are being allocated to these committees, and in what proportion. I understand that people are putting in a great deal of overtime and working beyond a point that I would consider reasonable. I would like further clarification of that issue as well.
[English]
The Chairman: For the first part of your question, we will go to Senator Stratton, and for the second part, we will go to the chair of the committee, Senator Kenny.
To recap for colleagues — and Senator Stratton can confirm this, if he would — Senator Robichaud is saying that the budget we are looking at right now for $743,478 for the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence is not the full budget that has been approved for the committee. As the figure of $213,800 has previously been approved, the total would be somewhere in the vicinity of $950,000 to $1 million; is that correct, Senator Stratton?
Senator Stratton: Yes, the exact number is $957,360 for both requests, one having been approved earlier for $213,882. In addition to the $957,360, the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs received approval earlier for $42,420, which takes the total budget for the National Security and Defence Committee to well over $1 million.
The Chairman: In fairness, the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs is almost a separate entity.
Senator Stratton: I am not disagreeing. I am sorry if I misspoke; it is not quite $1 million, but we may as well call it that.
The Chairman: The first part of Senator Robichaud's question concerns your reservations, Senator Stratton; the second part concerns other matters relating to the committee, to which Senator Kenny will respond.
What are your reservations, Senator Stratton?
Senator Stratton: My concerns with the budget are consistent in that while the committee does excellent work, I do have concern about the number of staff employed by this committee. There were seven staff employed — outside sources — to work on this committee, plus the request for $60,000 for a new position for a national security adviser.
With respect, we did not really hear an appropriate definition for that position. That may have been an omission on the part of the subcommittee; nevertheless, I have a great deal of trouble with that proposal.
My concern is that when I asked, for example, in the past why the National Security and Defence Committee did four reports in a short period of time, I was assured by the chair that the work had to be done. I asked whether the work could be spread out over a longer period of time? The answer — and I am giving you my view of the answer — was that it was urgent that the work be done now.
The problem that we see with this committee — which leads to something that the chair can respond to — is that it puts a tremendous amount of stress on the administration of the Senate, as we all know. We have had examples of staff leaving the committee because of the stress imposed.
The other situation I think everyone should be aware of is that in addition to the eight staff from outside sources being employed on the committee, there are four Senate staff at work full time on this committee. That takes us to 12 people working on this committee.
It is rather astonishing. Yes, you can justify it, but I really question four reports. Are they original reports? Are these people going back to check the original reports?
Aside from the $957,360 that is requested, of which a part has been approved, the real concern is the stress that is being imposed on the Senate administration.
As I said before, we are all aware of those problems. We need to examine why we have to go through this consistently, year after year, with this stress being imposed and not having any accountability.
The Chairman: Senator Stratton's comments lead into the second part and address some of the concerns raised by Senator Robichaud, so we will go to Senator Kenny.
Senator Kenny: I do not agree with anything Senator Stratton has said so far. First, in terms of accountability, I have accounted in great detail in the chamber when he has raised these issues. He chairs the subcommittee, and we come at his pleasure and answer any questions he asks.
I am here before you in this committee accounting now, and I do not think it is fair or reasonable for him to say there is no accountability. Every year I get up in the chamber and speak to the questions that anyone in the chamber has to ask about the work of the committee. I would like to simply say that it is not correct to suggest that there is no accountability.
Second, the work that we do is very transparent. People are aware of our meeting schedules. The work plan of the committee is something that has been adopted unanimously. The members of the committee collectively decide what they want, and we have never had a dissenting voice on the committee as to the committee's work plan.
Regarding the four reports, they were all designed to see whether this government and previous governments had been implementing recommendations that had been put forward in relation to coasts, ports, airports and border crossings. It is very much part of the tradition of the Senate that you do not just make a report and let it disappear. You have an obligation to go back to the government and have it account for whether or not it is taking action on recommendations coming forward from Parliament.
In this case, over the past year and two months, we have been writing the government, and the government took a great deal of time responding. They actually set up a procedure where each question went to each department, each department then forwarded it to the Privy Council Office, and the Privy Council Office reviewed all of the answers coming to us and then sent them back to the departments for further review.
The committee took a look at the answers that came from the government to us and published a commentary on each one. That is the job of Parliament, namely to call government into account.
The recommendation for the four reports did not come from the chair; it came from the committee. The concern was that we were probably facing an election and that if we did not go ahead and get the reports out prior to the March recess, there was every likelihood that we would lose the work that had gone on.
The burden of releasing the reports, frankly, falls heavily on the chair. If anyone here thinks that it is fun or easy to deal with four reports over the course of nine days, it is not.
As far as stress is concerned —
Senator Nolin: If we are to discuss Senate personnel, we should go in camera.
The Chairman: Are colleagues in agreement?
Senator Kenny: Yes. I am about to go to the questions concerning personnel.
The committee continued in camera.