Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence - May 29, 2008
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 29, 2008
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:05 a.m. in camera to consider administrative and other matters.
Senator George J. Furey (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The committee resumed in public.
The Chair: Honourable senators, the steering committee will recommend to the full committee that an advisory subcommittee be formed this morning to look into matters of international travel and report back to the full committee. There are two applications before us now, one from Senator Downe and one from Senator St. Germain. Senator St. Germain was unable to be here this morning because of medical appointments, so we will keep his application in abeyance and entertain it at our next meeting. However, the recommendation will be that any further applications beyond these two be frozen until we hear back from the advisory group with respect to a recommendation to the full committee as who to how proceed with international travel in the future. Are colleagues in favour of that approach?
Senator Prud'homme: I think we should consider fixing a date for the return of the report of that subcommittee. It could go until November or December. You never know with subcommittees.
The Chair: We will discuss that when we deal with the next agenda item, Senator Prud'homme. It is a good point.
Senator Downe: I have a brief opening comment and will be prepared to try to answer any questions committee members may have.
This application is to attend a summit organized by the International Ocean Institute on coastal cities and climate change, sea level rise and issues pertaining to those matters.
My involvement in this file goes back a number of years. In 2001, the Government of Canada released a report indicating the impact of sea level rise on Prince Edward Island. I was in correspondence with the federal Minister of the Environment in 2007 requesting that the report be updated. The Government of Canada announced recently $85.9 million for adaptation to the impacts of climate change and released a further report on the impact on Atlantic Canada, which also has a section on Prince Edward Island. Recently, the provincial government started a LIDAR project, which I have been urging them to do for some time, to digitally map the impacts of climate change eventually.
This conference is in November. There is a reduction in the registration fee if I pay it early, hence the application at this date.
The Chair: Are there any questions?
As is the normal process, we would ask Senator Downe to recuse himself for a brief discussion, and we will go in camera.
The committee continued in camera.
The committee resumed in public.
The Chair: The next item on our agenda is the eighth report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: At the beginning of the fiscal year, the committees' budget stood at $3.35 million. To date, some $3.4 million have been allocated. Given that committees do not tend in general to spend more than 70 per cent of their allocated funds, the subcommittee is willing to release somewhat more money than was provided for in the budget.
However, we must be responsible and must ensure that expenditures do not exceed available funds.
[English]
We also want to be sure that funds are available for requests that we expect will be submitted later in the fiscal year. We are aware of at least three committees that still have budgets pending.
In reviewing the budgets from the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, your subcommittee was guided by the same principles that it applied to other budgets. In terms of the legislative budget, the request for $8,250 is modest, and your subcommittee recommends full funding knowing that funds will only be spent if legislation is referred to the committee.
With respect to the budget for the committee's study on national security policy, a preliminary release of $165,000 was made in March to fund activities through the end of June. The recommendation before you today is to fund this study through the remainder of the fiscal year through a supplementary release of $328,580.
I am very pleased that all members of the subcommittee agreed with the recommended allocations for this budget, with the exception of two items: those related to research/administrative assistance and the promotion of reports. In all other areas, the recommended amounts were unanimously agreed to and in keeping with the principles that guided us in reviewing all budgets.
[Translation]
For example, the miscellaneous fees category has been reduced to a more modest level, similar to that of the other committees, and the amount dedicated to conferences has been brought down to $20,000, which reflects the priority that the subcommittee has attached to funding committee's basic activities. As we indicated to the other committees whose conferences budget has been decreased, if any further funds become necessary, committees can always request supplementary funds from the subcommittee.
Regarding the budget of the Veterans Subcommittee, our subcommittee unanimously agreed on recommending decreased allocations for hospitality, courrier services, paper, supplies and miscellaneous expenditures, but we recommended full funding for the three fact-finding activities.
The amount recommended for the Veterans Subcommittee is $34,601.
[English]
If your subcommittee's recommendations are adopted, a total of $3.7 million will have been released to committees. Of course, as activities are completed, surplus funds will be clawed back and available for redistribution.
I therefore move the adoption of the eighth report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets in the name of all subcommittee members, Senator Downe, Senator Nancy Ruth and myself.
The Chair: Are there any questions?
Senator Kenny: I am concerned about the process here. I understand that Senator Robichaud has released more money than he has allocated based on the assumption that it will not all be spent. How much money was lapsed last year in this account?
Senator Robichaud: It is difficult to say. Depending on the year, we look at the figures on how much has been used. The highest figure we have is about 70 per cent.
Senator Kenny: Is that 70 per cent lapsed?
Senator Robichaud: No, it is the percentage used. There is a margin and that is why we went over. Our total budget is $3.35 million and we are now over $3.7 million. As I mentioned, if some activities are not completed or do not use all of the funds allocated for committees, the money comes back and can be redistributed.
Senator Kenny: I understand that, Senator Robichaud, but there is a timing issue: By the time finance is aware of a claw-back, it is too late for other committees to take advantage of it. The money comes back and it is usually around Christmas time when senators figure out there is money available for claw-backs. In January there is no Senate activity, and February and March make it impossible to take advantage of the activities. Year after year we have lapsed significant amounts of money. Do you have figures on how much of the claw-back has been utilized?
Senator Robichaud: We are just getting into that exercise now that we have received activity reports. We will then know what amounts are not being used.
In our first exercise of reviewing the budgets, we looked at releasing funds for the Defence Committee, first to accommodate a trip to Washington, which did not happen. You had funds until the end of June. We reviewed the rest of the budget.
In the case of the Defence Committee, funds are allocated for the whole year. For most of the committees, their activities are front-loaded, if I may put it that way, in that they will happen before the end of the year.
Senator Kenny: My point is that for senators to plan ahead for a trip, and given how calendars fill up, unless a committee is aware that it will have access to funds in September or October, the claw-back does not work in terms of a full distribution. The reality is that there is no certainty until we get into November and December when we know that funds are available, which is of no value to the committees. That is why you have not had any pick-up on the claw-back amounts. That is why year after year we have lapsed 30 per cent or some other significant figure.
Senator Robichaud: I would disagree with that. Next week, six committees will be on the road, travelling. Other committee activities will occur before October. Early in the year, we will find out just what has been used.
When you say that some committees will not be able to benefit from the claw-back, in the case of the Committee on National Security and Defence, we have agreed to all activities except the conferences, which has been reduced to $20,000. We did that for other committees as well. As you will remember, in a former report we said that we were looking to ensure that we would have funds for the core activities of committees. Conferences would be one area where we would tend not to allow the full amounts, with the understanding that if later in the year committees were to request more and there was money in the budgets, we would consider another allocation.
Senator Kenny: Mr. Chair, I am not in a position to discuss my budget because I just received this documentation now. That is also one of my concerns about the process we are going through.
First, committee chairs did not get an opportunity to come and speak for the second tranche. We had an opportunity to speak initially, but we did not have an opportunity to speak on the second tranche and to discuss things that had changed. An example would be the cancellation of the Washington trip and why there were problems associated with it.
Second, in terms of miscellaneous items in our budgets, we put in a large miscellaneous line item with our travel because we anticipated major fuel expenses. We were guessing at the time, but since then we have now seen huge appreciations in the cost of airline tickets and we will see more later on. It seemed to be appropriate to take that into account.
I am not in a position to comment in an intelligent way on your recommendations, Senator Robichaud, until I analyze them. I think there needs to be some process where there can be a dialogue, rather than just say here is what you have and there is no discussion about it.
Speaking in gross terms, we brought in a budget that was reduced 60 per cent from the previous year. We had gone through a process of making huge cuts and we can demonstrate that. The idea of cutting back on promotional reports seems to me to fly in the face of having reports. The value of them is getting out and convincing Canadians they are good ideas.
Committee chairs should have an opportunity for some form of discussion when you are considering making major changes to a budget. It leaves us in a very difficult position if we are flying blind on these things. Frankly, even with the information I see here, I find it hard to understand everything without someone walking me through some of the figures.
The Chair: I have a couple of quick comments.
There are two fora for debating exactly what you are talking about, and you are engaging in one now here at the full committee. The second is the full Senate chamber, where there is an opportunity to debate the budget again.
However, I understand that you are concerned more about having a second chance if your budget is not fully dealt with at your first appearance before the subcommittee. Perhaps that is something Senator Robichaud can comment on. Are you suggesting this morning that because you have not had this opportunity to appear a second time, that we postpone the adoption of the report?
Senator Kenny: I am, Mr. Chair.
Here is the issue: This committee is held in very high regard by the Senate and the Senate is loath to reject any proposal that this committee makes. It is a fool's mission to get up in the Senate chamber and say that I do not like something that the Internal Economy Committee has done. It is not an effective forum.
Frankly, where there is an opportunity for dialogue and discussion is first with the subcommittee, which has an opportunity to sit down and devote time and consideration to these matters, and to a lesser extent, before this committee. However, this committee historically takes its subcommittees pretty much at their proposal. It is fairly rare for a subcommittee of the Internal Economy Committee to have their proposals or their recommendations significantly challenged.
Therefore, the real decision is being made by three people. That is fine if that is the system, but to not have an opportunity to review the thing with them makes it —
The Chair: I will ask Senator Robichaud to comment on your request that we postpone adoption of the report and, of course, any other colleagues who wish to comment may do so.
On the issue of a miscellaneous allocation in your budgets, we are deliberately moving away from large miscellaneous categories for good accounting practices and auditing reasons. If you or any other chair anticipates that there will be increase in travel, that should be built into your budgets. When it comes to actual large miscellaneous allocations, the subcommittee will not abide by that, nor should it, for good accounting reasons.
Senator Kenny: Chair, we specifically said when we brought in the budget initially that there were high miscellaneous figures associated with it. Where we saw higher risks, we put in higher miscellaneous amounts. When you know that you are travelling from point A to point B and you have done it 20 times, you put in a low miscellaneous amount. However, if you are travelling to a place you do not know that much about, you put in a higher one.
In this case, we had seen press reports that there would be higher fuel prices coming and that, inevitably, there would be higher airline ticket prices.
The Chair: But the purpose, Senator Kenny, is not to cut down on requests from committees for budgets. We all believe in the good work that committees do and we all endorse it fully. We want to make funds as accessible to committees as possible. If that means increasing committee budgets, we will review that and review the amount of money allocated to the overall committee budget envelope.
However, when it comes to accounting for the expenditures, we are saying that large miscellaneous categories will not be entertained. If any chair feels that a larger amount is needed for any of the categories within their budget, then ask for them and I am sure they will be given them. That is not an issue with the committee. The issue with the committee with respect to miscellaneous items is just the accounting of the money.
As well, Senator Kenny, there is nothing stopping any committee from coming back to Internal Economy if it finds that it has misjudged additional costs for any category within its budget. The subcommittee and the full committee will be ready to endorse that. That happens all the time in terms of people planning budgets; there are unforeseen expenses that none of us can guard against.
We are saying you cannot use a large miscellaneous category to guard against unforeseen expenses because it is not good auditing or accounting practice.
Senator Kenny: In fairness, we put in the price of the tickets at the time and then we said the reason the high miscellaneous expense is there is because we think the price of tickets will go up. We could have put in an inflated ticket price, but we could not support that.
Basically, all I am asking for is an opportunity to meet with Senator Robichaud's subcommittee, review the budget and have a chance to go through it and better understand it.
The Chair: The more important issue you are raising this morning is the one of process.
Senator Robichaud: You say that your committee is held in high regard; I think all committees of the Senate are held in high regard.
Senator Kenny: I said this committee.
Senator Robichaud: Then I take my words back. All committees are held in high regard.
Senator Kenny: I said Internal Economy.
Senator Robichaud: Every chair had a chance to meet with the subcommittee for the original budgets. You came and we accommodated you in the first meeting with funds until the end of June. I did not check with the two other subcommittee members as to whether we should call chairs back. However, I felt that we had had a meeting, a full discussion of what was before us, and with this information we were in a position to take a decision.
On the matter of miscellaneous expenses, when they relate to travel, we are quite open to look at them. If there are extra charges, I do not think any member of the committee would refuse to hold a meeting.
In your case, the miscellaneous item, which was $10,000, was in general expenses; it was not for travel. We reduced it to the same amount that we had done with other committees.
In a report that we presented here, we said that we would be looking at miscellaneous items in an effort to come to a reasonable amount. All other committees are happy with that $2,000 allocation for miscellaneous items. However, when it comes to travel, Mr. Chair and honourable senators, if need be, chairs can make the case and we will look at it.
Senator Kenny: My point is very simple.
Senator Robichaud: Here you use the miscellaneous category in general expenses and then you say you have to use it for travel. You cannot use the miscellaneous category in general expenses and apply it to an activity.
The Chair: I will move away from that issue for now. I think Senator Kenny's more germane point this morning is with respect to the process in terms of whether or not he had a second opportunity to come back after the budget was not dealt with fully the first time around. I will ask now if other colleagues would like to comment on the issue of process.
Senator Massicotte: Talking about the process, all the points are valid. You are 100 per cent correct that we have confidence in our subcommittee, and this committee in particular. I would say the process forces that confidence, because for 15 people to debate the details of a particular committee budget would be very sensitive personally. Egos and pride are involved, and it is very detailed. We have no choice. The only decision we have to make every time we present a report is whether we lynch them today or wait for the next meeting. Today they have my confidence, so we will wait for the next meeting. However, it is not possible for us to argue with a lot of detail.
Senator Kenny: I agree absolutely, but may I make a comment?
The Chair: We will hear from Senator Moore and then anyone else who wishes to comment. I will not cut you off. You will have time to comment.
Senator Moore: I am on the National Security and Defence Committee. I would ask the chair, Senator Kenny, if this is the first time he has seen this document. The subcommittee can call in a chairman to go over his or her budget and then subsequently make cuts or other changes. We are all equal here. This subcommittee has a duty, I believe, to call a chair in to go over the subsequent budget allocations for his or her committee. I do not think it should be done without that input. If that had happened, we would not be having this discussion here this morning.
Senator Massicotte: I do not share that opinion. I appreciate that it is a valid opinion. It is a tough enough job for that committee, and we should allow the committee the discretion to decide if they have heard enough.
Senator Moore: He did not hear anything. He did not get a second turn.
Senator Massicotte: It is their choice. They have to decide.
Senator Moore: You missed my point. We are all equal here.
The Chair: Can we have some order, please? Senator Moore, if you want to respond, we will give you time, but please do it in turn.
Senator Massicotte: I do not think we should impose a process upon a subcommittee to say that they must meet once and then meet twice or three times. The proper judgment is to say that we trust the subcommittee members to decide whether they need to meet again to gather more information or whether they understand the issue and have adequate information. If they do not, do they need to meet? For us to impose a mechanical process on a subcommittee would be unusual and harsh. I think you have to ask, does the subcommittee decide? We should not second-guess a subcommittee as to whether they have adequate information, would they have learned more, or would it have been another bitching session. I am not in agreement with imposing something. Maybe they should have met two more times, but for us to impose a process on them would be harsh. It falls to the judgment of the subcommittee members. If they think they have adequate information, they should decide.
Senator Robichaud: It is not the purpose of this subcommittee to deprive committees of funds to do what they have to do. All through our reports, we have made it quite clear that if committees are in need of extra funds for certain purposes, they can come back to the subcommittee, which is almost the same as saying that they get a second kick at the can.
We are simply trying to develop a uniform way of looking at the budgets and treating all the committees fairly, but you cannot treat them the same way because they have different activities. If you look at all the budgets, they all have different activities, and we agree with that; we do not question the activities.
In the case of the Defence Committee, all the activities that were brought forward were approved, except for conferences, as I mentioned earlier. That is not to say that you are limited to that amount.
We are still expecting three committee budgets, and from what I hear one might be considerable. We are trying to establish a standard way of looking at budgets with the understanding that if there are extra needs or even if what we approved is not enough for other needs, they can come back to the subcommittee so that we can review their request, depending on the available funds. It is as simple as that.
Senator Kenny: First of all, I would like to underline that I have great respect for this committee. My point was that the chamber has great respect for the Internal Economy Committee. I was not talking about my committee at all.
Senator Massicotte has underlined the point that this committee has great respect for the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets and believes essentially in adopting whatever report comes forward from the subcommittee because this is too large a forum to debate details of a budget. I agree with Senator Massicotte in that regard that it is properly done with the subcommittee.
As for the process, the way the process is driven is that committees debate the budgets. In our committee, there was a huge fight about how large or small it should be. In fact, the deputy chair made a speech in the chamber about the size of the budget even though there was a 60 per cent cut in it. We had a large and dynamic discussion. It was not a bunch of people debating how to cut up a pie. It was a debate about whether you spend a lot or whether you spend a little.
When you appear before the subcommittee, you make a presentation. You receive no indication as to whether the subcommittee feels the budget is too high or not. It is essentially a one-way communication from the chair of the committee to the subcommittee.
All I am asking for is what I consider to be natural justice. When a judgment is made removing in the neighbourhood of $130,000 from a budget, there should be a dialogue afterwards. The chair of the subcommittee says, 'Here is what we are thinking of doing. Did we hear you right? Did we understand the argument properly in the first place, because we are thinking of making changes to your budget?' You then have an opportunity to say, 'If you do that, these are the consequences.' The first process is to help understand the changes they are making and the rationale for them. The second process is that if you have concerns about why they are doing it, you have a chance to persuade the members of the subcommittee to consider another course.
This way seems very much like a one-way dialogue.
Senator Robichaud: You say that we give no indication. I disagree with that because when the chairs present their budgets, we question some of the miscellaneous costs. We do not question the activities because they relate to decisions taken by the committee on the whole budget, but there might be some things we think are perhaps a little bit over the general average of all committees.
We frequently ask chairs if there is a place where we can make reductions. Some chairs say, yes, they can make adjustments, and other chairs say, no, they want the whole amount. When chairs agree to adjust, there is no job for us; it is automatic. We have to give the same treatment to all committees and use our best judgment when looking at miscellaneous items and other activities that are not clearly defined.
I want to make the point clearly that we always look at these requests with an open mind. If there are special requests with respect to areas where committee members feel they cannot properly do their job, then they should come back to the subcommittee. Our door is open; we are not closed. We hold meetings to accommodate committees as much as we can.
Senator Kenny: I am asking for an opportunity to come back and discuss this. Had we seen this, we would have come back. This is the first time that I have seen it, and if I had not come to the meeting, I would not have seen it for two or three more days. It is not a question of your integrity or judgment; it is simply a question of natural justice. Once committees have the opinion of the subcommittee, it is a question of affording them the opportunity to talk to the members of the subcommittee about their judgments, and that does not exist at this time.
The Chair: In fairness, Senator Robichaud was saying that even if you have not had an opportunity, when you do not agree with anything, it does not preclude you from coming back another time to the subcommittee.
Senator Kenny: Then I misunderstood and I apologize. If you are saying it is all right to come back and talk about it, then I am happy.
Senator Stratton: He said that in the beginning.
Senator Robichaud: I want to make it clear that any report presented is not final in the sense that that is it and you go way because there is nothing more for you. We have been saying all along that if there are special requests, committees can come back. We will be in a better position later in the year when we know what percentage of monies were used for activities and where we can redistribute.
Senator Kenny: Can we come back now before this committee adopts the report and is then adopted by the chamber?
The Chair: Before the last intervention, Senator Robichaud was saying that even if this report were to be adopted — and I will not say it will be — and your committee perceived that it did not fulfil its needs for the year, nothings precludes you from going back to the subcommittee looking for additional funds in any of the categories that you have outlined in your budget.
Senator Robichaud: That goes for all chairs.
The Chair: That is correct.
Senator Kenny: Given the fact that we expect the house to rise within a matter of weeks, the process of going back to the subcommittee and then having this committee deal with and sending it to the house takes time.
The Chair: In fairness, that is why a significant amount of your budget has been approved to ensure that you are not impeded in your work over a recess.
Senator Kenny: The rules do not allow us to transfer money from one area to another. If funds are low in one area, the problem cannot be resolved readily.
Senator Downe: I would suggest that the Chair of the National Security and Defence Committee might want to have this budget discussed for approval with a view to coming back to the subcommittee. However, there is a technical problem that I was advised of yesterday such that some members of the subcommittee are away over the next couple of weeks. The chair is away next week and I am away the following week, and in order to have a meeting there must be a quorum of three members. I do not know if this committee appoints replacements, but if that has to be done, it should be done today so that committee chairs have an opportunity to appear before the committee over the next few weeks.
Senator Tardif: If I understand correctly, part of the discussion is that there is a change in the way that conference expenses can be taken into account in a committee's budget as well as miscellaneous expenses. It is, therefore, important for the committee to take into consideration that there are changes. I agree with the way that those changes are being proposed. The committee has to take into consideration that where there are cuts, it is because of the changes that have been made in those areas, which, if I understand correctly, have been applied unanimously to all committees.
The Chair: Perhaps we can resolve the issue in the following fashion: If you are in agreement, I would like to see at least this aspect of your budget approved this morning so you will not be impeded in the immediate work you have to do. I would ask the full committee to empower the steering committee in the absence of the subcommittee to entertain any other requests you may have while the subcommittee is not available. Would that satisfy you?
Senator Kenny: Yes, thank you.
The Chair: We have a motion from Senator Robichaud to accept the report. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contrary minded?
Carried.
The committee is in agreement that in the absence of subcommittee members, the steering committee will deal with any requests from chairs of any committee. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
The committee continued in camera.