Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 9 - Minutes of Proceedings - June 6, 2013
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 6, 2013
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:03 a.m. in public to consider administrative matters, and in camera to consider other matters.
Senator David Tkachuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: We have three items on the public portion of the meeting, so I need a motion to adopt the minutes and proceedings of April 25 and May 28, the public portions.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I so move.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Adopted.
Report of the Subcommittee on Budget and International Travel, Senator Comeau.
Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, I am pleased to present the thirty-fourth report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets and International Travel, which deals with a budget request for the Human Rights Committee for funds to print additional copies of the youth guide and parents' guide from the committee's study of cyberbullying.
Your committee was pleased to hear from Senator Jaffer that the Human Rights Committee promotes electronic access to these documents and they are also very much aware of Internal Economy's paper reduction strategy. Indeed, we were informed that a number of school boards have in fact included links to their guides on their own websites.
That being said, there continues to be a demand for hard copies of these guides, especially from students and teachers. Senator Jaffer assured us that copies of the guides would be printed on demand rather than having large stocks of printed documents kept in anticipation of future requests.
The level of interest in these guides is clearly a good news story that reflects very well on the Senate and the work of its committees. Therefore, your subcommittee strongly supports approval of this budget application. I move adoption of the thirty-fourth report.
The Chair: Discussion?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Senator, am I correct in saying this money comes out of the committee funds that are already budgeted for?
Senator Comeau: Correct.
Senator Stewart Olsen: It is just a reorganization of committee funds?
Senator Comeau: Yes.
Senator Stewart Olsen: A reallocation?
Senator Comeau: No. This would be a request for new funding to be added to the budget, but the committee has not spent its full budget allocation yet. There are funds available for this added request.
Senator Stewart Olsen: So it is for new money but the committee has money left over in its budget, is that it?
Senator Comeau: I would have to ask. I could ask Ms. Lank at what point the committee's budget is at now, but this is a request for new funding.
Heather Lank, Principal Clerk, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: Senator Stewart Olsen, to clarify, this is indeed a new budget request for the cyberbullying study. This is their first budget request for this fiscal year. It, of course, comes out of the overall envelope for Senate committees, but they do not have the authority to move money from other studies or from other budget into this. This is a $5,000 budget specifically for printing these guides. We are still very well below the total budget envelope. There are still plenty of funds available for committees, but this is a new budget application for this committee for this study.
Senator Marshall: But it is for the increase in demand for the addendums to the report, is it not?
Ms. Lank: Exactly, Senator Marshall; that is right.
Senator Cordy: On that point, we were quite pleased to hear the number of people who wanted the report. I think that is a very positive thing.
Senator Comeau, I am not sure if you mentioned this or not, but they are not printing the $5,000 worth at one time. They will be printing them on demand, as they need them, so there will not be copies sitting on a shelf somewhere.
The Chair: Budget inventory.
Senator Cordy: Budget inventory; that is exactly right. Thank you, chair.
The Chair: If there is no further discussion, we have a motion on the floor. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: That is it, Senator Comeau?
We are going to Item No. 3, then, the IPU. We have Eric Janse here and Jeremy LeBlanc to talk about the decision made at the JIC meeting not to fund the membership in the IPU. The JIC made an allocation — I think it was a little over $60,000 — for them to continue their work until the two sides, the board in the house and in the Senate, made a decision on our end result, which is, over a number of years, our withdrawal from the IPU.
With that, Mr. Janse will brief us on what happened on the other side at the board level and then he will brief us with some of the other information we got. Then we have a number of decisions to make. Our options are to confirm the decision, to send it back — I cannot remember the third one, but you will brief us on that; that is why you are here.
Please proceed, Mr. Janse.
Eric Janse, Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
For some time now, the Joint Interparliamentary Counsel has been concerned with the high level of contributions paid by certain multilateral associations to which the Parliament of Canada belongs. This concern grew when, as part of the expenditure review exercise undertaken by the Senate and the House of Commons, the budget for parliamentary associations was reduced by 20 per cent. As the level of contributions has remained largely static, the fund for activities of associations has, therefore, been reduced.
As outlined in the letter the JIC co-chair sent to the chairs of both Internal Economy committees that you have before you, the JIC came to the conclusion that the $400,000 of membership fees required to belong to the Inter- Parliamentary Union was too high, and is recommending to both boards that the Parliament of Canada cease its membership in that association.
To quote that letter:
[Translation]
The JIC is of the view that the funds expended to pay international contributions to the IPU Secretariat could be better used to finance the participation of Canadian parliamentarians in the priority activities of other associations.
[English]
You also have before you a letter from the president of the IPU that was sent to both Speakers responding to the possibility of Canada withdrawing from the IPU. The letter makes reference to the fact that the membership fee for next year will be 352,000 Swiss francs, down 10.4 per cent from the 393,000 charged some four years ago.
Other parliamentary associations to which Canada belongs cannot claim the same reduction rate, as many secretariats appear unwilling to undertake reform to reduce expenses and contribution levels.
[Translation]
In his letter, the president of the IPU offered to bring Canada's concerns to the attention of the IPU's Sub- Committee on Finance and ask for further reductions.
[English]
You will also have before you a briefing note that was prepared for this committee as well as the House Board of Internal Economy. It provides some financial analysis of not only the IPU contributions but also those of the other parliamentary associations that pay fees.
Some of the information contained in the note was not available when the JIC considered the matter, including for example the amount CIDA provides in funding for the ParlAmericas international secretariat here in Ottawa. The note also outlines that despite the reduced budgetary envelope for parliamentary associations, the JIC envelope traditionally has lapsed over $500,000 each year.
The House Board of Internal Economy considered the matter at its meeting on Monday. Its decision on the issue is contained in the letter from Speaker Scheer on behalf of the board to the JIC, which I understand has been distributed to you, and states the following:
[Translation]
After discussion, the Board agreed to ask the JIC to reflect on its decision regarding IPU. The Board also suggests that the JIC review the contributions required by other multilateral organizations so that a consensus can be established concerning not only the IPU but all the parliamentary associations that require membership fees.
[English]
As the JIC is de facto a subcommittee of both Internal Economy committees, the issue must be considered by both bodies.
Just to answer your question, Senator Tkachuk, there are indeed three options provided in the note. One is to maintain the status quo and to advise the JIC to pay the membership fees and continue Canada's participation in the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
Option two, which is largely the option the House of Commons board adopted, is to refer the matter back to the JIC for further consideration and ask that they also look at other associations.
Finally, option three would be to simply ratify the JIC recommendation to both boards.
My colleagues and I are prepared to answer your questions, as I am sure are the members of the JIC who are also members of the Internal Economy Committee.
Senator Fraser: I have had considerable experience in the IPU but also some experience in other interparliamentary organizations. While I agree that the IPU is expensive, I know it has been working on reducing its costs. I would strongly object to option three, which is to withdraw from the IPU. I think that would be a retrograde step in terms of Canada's foreign relations in general, not just parliamentary relations. This is the largest interparliamentary organization in the world in which we have played, for many years, a much remarked leadership role across a broad range of policy and action areas. The IPU goes directly to some of our foreign policy priorities — the promotion of democracy and the promotion of human rights — and it does so not just through sitting around and talking but through action on the ground.
Its committee on human rights actually gets parliamentarians out of jail in tyrannical countries. Its promotion of women has done more to advance women in parliaments, and therefore in politics, around the world than any other group of which I am aware. It is a forum in which people can meet and speak who would not otherwise be able to do so. For example, Israeli and Palestinian parliamentarians can meet there, and have done so on many occasions, in a way they never can elsewhere.
I think that the letter we have been furnished from the President of the IPU makes a pretty eloquent case for why they care about us, but I think we should also care about them. If these are the only three options on the table, I would think that option two might be a way out. My preference would be for option one, but I suspect that I might not be able to carry the table on that.
Option two, to maintain the status quo but order a review of contributions for all associations, would be well worth examining. I was fascinated by the table and the footnotes in the documents provided to us. ParlAmericas gets way more money from the Canadian taxpayer than the IPU does. It gets $555,000 a year from CIDA, which comes out of the same taxpayer's pocket, only $16,000 from the JIC. They get an awful lot of money for I know not what.
I have never had a firm sense of the value the OSCE. I am not saying it has none, but I am not sure whether we get fantastic value for it. No one is going after these groups.
I cannot understand why only the IPU, the largest, oldest and in my view second perhaps only to the Francophonie, the one in which Canada has played the most prominent, useful and respected role. I do not see why the IPU should be our only target.
The Chair: Just so I am clear, the second one would say we send it back for further review by the JIC; is that what it was?
Mr. Janse: That is correct.
The Chair: That is what we mean by status quo and not status quo, i.e., we are still a member of IPU. That is what it means, right, just so I am clear?
Mr. Janse: I think for the board, it was a slight variant of option two that the board adopted basically asking the JIC to reflect on its decision, in light of some of the new information provided, and also to look at not just the IPU funding but all multilateral association funding.
The Chair: What does that mean?
I am sorry, senators, I just want to make sure we know what the consequences are.
If, let us say, the JIC stays with the same decision, then does that mean they have to go back to the House of Commons again and the Senate?
Mr. Janse: My understanding, yes, given that the JIC is de facto a subcommittee of both boards. Any decision to pull out permanently from the IPU would —
The Chair: So it would require that it could come back here.
Mr. Janse: That is right.
The Chair: Okay, that is good. That is all I wanted to know at the moment.
Senator Doyle: My question has been partially answered, but in looking at the notes here, we have been part of it now since 1912. I am wondering if the committee could play the devil's advocate for us here and tell us what the negative consequences are of not being a part of the IPU. Obviously there is push-back on us getting out of it. What do you think the real negative consequences are of our getting out of the IPU? They look at human rights, and what have you, but from your perspective are there any additional negative consequences of not being a part of it?
Mr. Janse: I can provide maybe a very short answer and maybe turn it over to Senator Fraser and some of the parliamentarians who are more involved with the IPU.
The IPU is the one and only organization that involves all parliaments of the world. There are other multilateral organizations, for instance, the CPA, Francophonie, NATO, et cetera, that see parliaments of many, many countries meet on an annual basis or more-than-annual basis. The IPU is the only association that allows members of pretty well each and every parliament of the world to meet and discuss issues. That is maybe one thing to put on the table, but again there might be certain senators who would have more to add.
Senator Doyle: If you were making a recommendation, of course you would recommend that we remain part of it.
Mr. Janse: We are not really making a recommendation.
The Chair: Senator Doyle, he is not here to advocate. He is here to help inform us what we have to advocate for and against. That is what we will do.
Are you done, Senator Doyle, or do you have another question?
Senator Doyle: No, that is fine.
Senator Kinsella: First, I would like to underscore a few principles that lay at the foundation of parliamentary policy in terms of participating with parliamentarians around the world. I believe that parliamentary diplomacy is critically important for any democratic parliament and that the work that Canadian parliamentarians, both from the Senate and the House of Commons, undertake is extraordinarily important. Not only is it important in terms of the relations between parliamentarian and parliamentarian, but 90 per cent of the time it is also supportive of the work of the executive branch, and there are not that many cases where what parliamentarians are doing in the various interparliamentary, multilateral fora is not supportive and very closely associated with the foreign policy of the government of the day.
I believe that remaining in the tent is a strategy or a tactic for Canadian values to be able to be placed on the table and discussed with our colleagues from all around the world who are operating under all kinds of different systems of governance.
I want to build on what Senator Fraser has said, because as one of the documents that has been circulated, I think maybe the letter from Dr. Radi, who I do not agree with on very many things, nevertheless points out the tremendous contribution that the Parliament of Canada has made over the years to peace and democracy in the world. You know every day we pray for peace and prosperity in the world, not just in our own country.
However, we have had problems — when I will say ``we'' I mean Speaker Scheer and I — during the preparation of the Congress, the very successful Congress, that we hosted in Quebec last fall, and also a Congress in which we invested an awful lot of money. The problems were associated with the secretariat. This is not the only multilateral parliamentary association where we have problems with the secretariat. There is a serious problem with the secretariat of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
I think this is very fortuitous that we sit here and think about what are our objectives as a Parliament, as a very prominent member of a number of these multilateral interparliamentary groups.
The problems that we had, Senator Oliver, with our clerks, particularly Clerk Audrey O'Brien, signed a memorandum of agreement as we prepared for the IPU Congress that we hosted in Quebec, and it was very clear and IPU accepted it and they signed, and it had a lot to do with the granting of visas. In that agreement, it was crystal clear that Canada, our Parliament, our IPU, Canadian branch, committed to make every effort to ensure that all members of IPU would receive, if they applied and met the criteria, a visa to come to the Congress. We did that. There were a number of member parliaments with whom we have absolutely nothing in common and there were difficulties around inviting those parliaments.
However, the agreement that was made with the secretariat was that we as parliamentarians do not control the issuance of visas. That is a power that is reserved to the executive branch. However, we did commit that we would make every effort to try to encourage the executive branch if problems occurred and we met that commitment and the record is so clear.
In a few cases, the secretariat did some very bad things, and that is my value judgment. The bad thing had to do with my signature, which was on the bottom of the invitation, along with that of my colleague Speaker Scheer, but the text of the letter over which my signature appears was not written by me or any of my staff. It was written by someone in the secretariat in Geneva. Obviously, we were not amused.
We have clear evidence of misbehaviour, if not something far more serious, being done by the secretariat. I am not carrying the flag for the secretariat as such, but I do carry the flag in support of everything that Senator Fraser has said of the importance of us being in the tent.
I am sorry for going on so long, chair. I will close by saying that we should use this as an opportunity to help clean up that secretariat, and $400,000 in this economy is an awful lot of money. In terms of the three options, we are all reminded by the Canterbury Tales that sometimes we should question our options — these are your options, as the knight found on his way back to the castle.
I think there is another option. My other option would be to allow the executive committee of the Canadian branch of IPU to attempt to negotiate a 50 per cent decrease of the payment that we make to IPU. If you look carefully at the letter that Dr. Radi, the President of IPU, addressed, they do say that if money is an issue, they are prepared to talk about it. I would suggest that within the spirit of option 2, we would shake that a little bit more. Let us pick up on that invitation from Dr. Radi, the president, to negotiate something better. I would say they are awfully anxious to see Canada remain in the organization. I, too, am very anxious, but we have to clean up that secretariat.
Senator Marshall: I was surprised to find this in the package because I thought that we had dealt with this at Internal Economy already. Am I mistaken? Have we already made a decision? We have not made a decision on this?
The Chair: No, we did not.
Senator Marshall: This has not come before?
The Chair: No.
Senator Marshall: When I look at option 2, I do not see option 1 as being realistic. Senator Fraser spoke to option 2: Maintain the status quo but order a review of contributions. In making their recommendation or decision, would JIC not already have reviewed the contributions of all the associations? If JIC had made the decision, would they not have already done this? That is what I would have thought.
Mr. Janse: I have two points. You are absolutely right, they did. There were several meetings on the issue, senator, but at that time we did not yet know what the membership fees would be for next year for the IPU. As the letter from Dr. Radi indicates, in fact they are going down again, so that is new information; as well, there is the information about ParlAmericas, when the JIC considered the matters, so there is a little bit of new information that JIC could consider.
Senator Marshall: This is the first time this has come before Internal Economy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I am not sure if I missed part of Senator Marshall's question, but I am going to repeat it just to make sure.
Has a study been done on the membership fees of other countries to the association?
We are still a rich country and I would not want to benefit from preferential treatment compared to other countries that are poorer. At the same time, I would not want to pay more because Canada is a richer country.
Is there an equity formula for membership fees? We have the membership fees here, but there are also direct or indirect fees related to travel or participation in activities. What does the membership entail in terms of direct and indirect fees for participation in various activities and how many different activities are there?
Mr. Janse: Those are good questions, senator. We have a document that indicates Canada's contribution as a percentage of the total contribution fund for all parliamentary associations that require membership fees. We could circulate the document after the meeting.
The IPU contribution is 4 per cent of the overall budget. IPU's budget for activities has gone down considerably, by approximately 38 per cent compared to last year's budget.
Senator Carignan: Did the budget go down because we were the hosts?
Mr. Janse: No, it is for this year's activities.
Senator Carignan: I am always wary of percentages. What does that mean in figures?
Mr. Janse: The figure is $150,000.
Senator Carignan: That is for how many activities?
Mr. Janse: There are two annual conferences.
Jeremy LeBlanc, Deputy Principal Clerk, International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate, Senate of Canada: The two main events in which most Canadians participate are the annual meetings. There are two annual meetings: one in the spring and another in the fall. Canadians also participate in two IPU annual activities held at the same time as the United Nations events.
Senator Oliver is a member of the IPU International Executive Committee and member of the executive committee for the Twelve Plus Group made up of vice-presidents. He participates in the meetings of this executive committee that meets two or three times a year. He is also the president of a group on the World Trade Organization, which holds one or two events a year. Finally, Canada participates in a women's group that usually holds one meeting a year.
I would say that, on average, there are about 7 to 10 events a year. However, most of the funding is used to cover the costs of participating in the two larger meetings.
Senator Carignan: So my understanding is that we are 1 of 162 and we pay 4 per cent. So we are paying roughly 7 per cent of our portion compared to other countries.
What is the union's allocation formula compared to other countries? Is it based on wealth or population?
Mr. LeBlanc: It sort of reflects the scale used by the United Nations, which combines a number of factors such as the country's GDP, the ability to pay and the population. Rich countries do pay a higher percentage than poor countries.
Mr. Janse: By comparison, I would like to add that Japan pays approximately $1 million Canadian.
Senator Carignan: So Canada is poor.
[English]
Senator Tardif: I am certainly very supportive of the work of the IPU and the work that it has done over the years. I align myself with the comments made by my colleagues Senator Fraser and Senator Kinsella. I think we should consider option 2, which would be to send it back to the JIC for review in light of other multilateral associations and the fees that they pay.
I would, however, comment that the large amount of fees, such as the $400,000 fee that must be paid on behalf of IPU in order to continue to belong, has an effect on the budgets of other associations, especially bilateral associations. That work is important, and I have been seeing the budgets of the bilateral associations reduced, so this large fee is eating into the envelope. As we keep paying it, it is having an effect on the work of bilateral associations, so I would ask senators to keep that in mind.
I am not advocating that the IPU should not continue; I think it has value. It has shown its value for more than 100 years. We need to keep it, but we need as well to balance it with the work of other associations. I do not know when envelopes are increased, if that is ever to happen, but it has to be taken into consideration that as we keep spending all this money, it is having an effect on other envelopes and the work of other associations.
The Chair: That was exactly the reason for it.
Senator Comeau: I will not get into the quality of the work of the IPU — that has been mentioned by others — but I would like to echo Senator Kinsella regarding the secretariat. I spent time with the IPU some years ago. At the time the late Senator Bosa was the chair of the Canadian group, and he was one of the earlier pioneers of reform. I recall how much time and effort he spent in trying to reform the IPU, with great resistance from the secretariat. I could even use the word ``dismissed'' in regard to what Senator Bosa was trying to do, along with a few of us.
I think there are a number of areas that we can work on and that the JIC might be able to look at, such as, with a review of the fee structure, the fact that richer countries pay the most and are outvoted by countries that do not pay at all. In other words, if the countries that pay most of the bills are smaller in number, they get outvoted. That might be looked at.
In addition, reduce the number of meetings per year. We are attending a huge number of these meetings. Even look into the possibility of moving the headquarters, which is in the most expensive city in Europe, Geneva. Obviously there is certain prestige to living in the most expensive city, but the secretariat should in fact reconsider their location.
These are a few of my comments that, depending on which option we go with, the JIC could possibly consider.
Senator Fraser: In response to some of the comments made by colleagues, I sat on the executive committee of the IPU for some time and continued in the noble tradition of fighting for transparency. Over the years, we have been joined in that by other major countries and have made progress. For example, the accounts of the IPU and the budgeting process of the IPU are light years away from where they were when I began there. Progress has really been made, and there has been progress on controlling costs.
However, the present Secretary General of the IPU, who is, shall we say, of a controlling disposition, is leaving. There will be a new one. This is an opportunity not only for Canada but for all like-minded countries to press for even more improvement and cost control. I think that is happening at the end of this year.
In terms of the costs of the other activities, Senator Oliver, as you know, will be retiring. I know because I had the job that he now has in many ways. Those trips to the executive committee in Geneva and the executive committee of the twelve plus cost a lot of money. If you are on those groups, you must attend meetings. He will not be there any longer. Therefore, automatically, until it becomes our turn again in future years to rise, we will not have those ancillary costs for the IPU.
I seriously proposed at one point moving the IPU headquarters to Montreal. I did not get support for that proposition, although I thought I made a pretty good case: bilingual city, close to New York, all those good things. Anyway, I got nowhere.
I would observe, however, that Geneva is hugely expensive and the Swiss franc is frequently a problem. Also, the IPU, like other international organizations, gets very significant financial benefits from the City of Geneva and from the Swiss government who realize it is to their advantage to have as many international organizations as possible, which tends to offset to some extent the extra costs of being in Switzerland.
The key thing I would like to say is in regard to the Speaker's proposed option 4. I think you are right; Mr. Radi has clearly opened the door for further negotiations to reduce our fees. I would suggest that 50 per cent, particularly if you are talking in one fell swoop soon, might be a bit hard for them to digest in light of the fact that the financing formula affects all members of the IPU. However, something can probably be done and I would strongly endorse the concept that we keep pressing.
Finally, I would observe that perennially in the IPU there is a hope that the United States will come back. It appears to be a slightly more realistic hope now than it has been for some years. Of course, if the United States did come back the whole fee structure would change for everybody because the United States would be paying. I am not saying that is going to happen, but I have been there and it could. All I am saying is it could. It is just something to bear in mind.
A variation on option 4, perhaps in combination with option 2; I repeat, I am not sure why the IPU is the only target here.
Senator Cordy: I am curious. In Parliament or the JIC at least, which would be Parliament, do we get the budgets of these international associations to which we contribute?
The Chair: Mr. Janse, do we send them out to everybody? We have them here, right?
Mr. Janse: The Canadian sections would receive them.
Senator Cordy: No, I am talking about international. If we are making a half-million-dollar contribution, do we not get copies of how this money is being spent?
Mr. Janse: The Canadian group did and in fact it was shared with the JIC for the IPU, for instance. It can certainly be further shared.
Senator Cordy: If it is taxpayers' money, I think everybody should have access to these international budgets.
The Chair: We have a number of options on the table now. Where do senators want to go? Do you want to go with the house?
Senator Stewart Olsen: I prefer number 2, to send it back to the JIC to look at again. However, I am not happy with ``maintain the status quo'' because I think that is confusing. I think that line should change.
Senator Comeau: May I move, chair, that we go with option 2, along with sending a transcript of our meeting this morning to the JIC?
Senator Marshall: If that is the motion, my understanding is that the JIC has an overall envelope, so I would like for them to stay within the budget envelope for 2013-14. The option is saying that JIC would report back to Internal Economy by December, 2013. I do not know if you need six months or not. However, my primary concern going with option 2 is that I would want us to stay within the current budget envelope and that we not go over. That would be my preference.
Senator Downe: I would like to follow up on Senator Cordy's comment. I assume we not only receive the budgets, but are the budgets audited by Canadian institutions? For example, the Auditor General of Canada audits the International Labour Organization and other international organizations on a cost-recovery basis. Do we have any of our independent auditors on a random basis looking at any of these associations? If not, do you represent this committee on the JIC, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: Yes, I do.
Senator Downe: If not, could you raise that at the JIC? I would like to know the answer.
The Chair: Sure.
Senator Downe: That would give more comfort to the point Senator Cordy raised, which is that taxpayers' funds should be supervised not only with the budget but with our officials looking at those budgets at some point; not on a yearly basis but on a random selection. I would like to hear back at some point.
The Chair: I need a motion of some kind. I think we have agreement on item 2. Do we want to set a limit or a parameter that Senator Kinsella put forward, or do we just go with — Senator Comeau, do you want to make a motion?
Senator Comeau: May I amend my motion by including Senator Kinsella's provision, as outlined earlier?
The Chair: Do you want to make it as a mandate or do you want to make it as a recommendation? There is a difference.
Senator Comeau: I would make a recommendation.
The Chair: Senator Kinsella, are you okay with that?
Senator Kinsella: Yes, I am good with that. I thought that the technique of attaching the minutes of this meeting will provide the JIC with the discussion on the item, so I am very supportive of Senator Comeau's motion in amendment.
The Chair: Senator Fraser, on the Liberal side, are we a happy family on this and we will send it back?
Senator Fraser: Less discontented anyway.
The Chair: There are small nuggets that you have to take back from time to time, so that is a recommendation. It is a unanimous recommendation of this committee, if I can say that.
Next, we are going to go in camera.
Senator Cordy: Before we go in camera, I want to raise a couple of things.
The Chair: Is it new business?
Senator Cordy: Not really, no.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Cordy: First, I think it is important that in public we thank the Internal staff for the work that they have done over the past few years, which have been interesting to say the least. We have had outside auditors, the Auditor General and we have incurred challenges. The staff have always been very professional, so publicly I would like to thank the staff very much.
Second, it seems that every time I pick up the newspaper I am reading about Senator Wallin. In fact, I found out about Senator Wallin being investigated by reading the newspaper, and I am on the committee. That is extremely frustrating. I was at the airport a couple of weeks ago waiting for my luggage and a Conservative MP came up to me to tell me how much Senator Wallin has to pay back and what claims she had made. I am on the committee. A Conservative MP is telling me all these things and I have no idea what he is talking about. It is very frustrating to find out that a Conservative MP has all this information. I do not know whether it was right or wrong because I have no idea.
Mr. Chair, what I would like for the committee to have would be an update. Could you give us an idea of what is going on? I read the paper every day and people talk to me at the airport. I am on the committee and I do not know what he is talking about.
I wonder if we could have an update. I am not a media hound, but we are getting calls all the time. You are saying it is very easy when you are not a media hound because you do not know anything to tell them anyway. Therefore I wonder if you could give us an update on what you know as the chair that you could share with the rest of the committee because I am sure others are in the same boat I am in.
The Chair: The update that I have is really not much more than what you may have already read in the paper. We have enquired to find out when the audit will be complete. One thing we do know is it will not be done this June. We do not believe it will not be done this June from what they tell us, so we will have to wait.
My guess is, and I think the clerk agrees from what he has told me — and he has talked to them; I have not been the person talking to them — that we expect it this summer, probably August.
That is all I know right now, so that is about all I can tell you.
As far as the rest of the stuff, we have had this problem where there have been documents leaked, and I do not know who is talking to whom. Everywhere I turn it is always in the paper. We have not been releasing any information, or at least I have not, that has been considered confidential, that is for sure.
Senator Fraser: Mr. Chair, I know that with the previous audits, the auditors briefed the steering committee before the formal report came in. Have you had such a briefing in the case of Senator Wallin?
The Chair: There was a briefing on a statement of facts in April 2013 to the steering committee.
Senator Fraser: Can you bring us up to date on what you learned?
The Chair: The steering committee was in camera and we are not in camera here, so that will be very difficult. It was a statement of fact, so I do not want to release any information. I do not think it is fair to release information until the audit is complete. If you want a private briefing, I would think your deputy chair can do that. It was to all of us.
Senator Downe: Two meetings ago I specifically asked the auditors, when they were before us, how long the audit would take for Senator Wallin. They said, ``Not very long,'' and that was vague enough. I asked them specifically whether would we have it before the end of June, and they said, ``Absolutely, it will not take that long.''
I would like them to explain to us, either in person or in writing, why it has now changed. They told that to this committee two meetings ago. This is the first I have heard that we will not have it before we adjourn for the summer. They told the committee. What are they telling us now?
The Chair: Go ahead, Ms. Joseph. You have been dealing with them, so maybe you can be more specific — or maybe not.
Jill Anne Joseph, Director, Internal Audit/Strategic Planning, Senate of Canada: Maybe not.
Senator Downe: Well, maybe not, but I would like to hear from them either in person or in writing. I would like to hear it sooner rather than later because not having it by the end of June is a problem.
Ms. Joseph: What we can say is they are accessing some third party information and they can only work as fast as the information is coming in for them.
Senator Downe: I understand all that, but they told this committee, when asked directly, that we would have it.
Ms. Joseph: They have not met a few of the deadlines. They project that they will be able to do things, but circumstances —
Senator Downe: They do not miss any billing deadlines, and I see the price going up constantly. This is extremely annoying. If they had told us this at our second last meeting, we would have asked them what additional resources, or whatever, does it take to get this done. This is totally unacceptable that they do not have this when they told us they would have it.
Ms. Joseph: They have to follow their processes and they are dependent on third parties to provide information. Once they do share their findings with the committee, they validate facts, then they finalize their report and then we have it translated. The process is a bit cumbersome.
Senator Downe: I understand all that. However, they gave us their word they would have it, and now we are not having it. We should deduct a percentage from their bill.
Senator Marshall: If we are expecting to get the Wallin report in August, is it anticipated that we will be called back?
The Chair: Do not hold me to that, Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: I am just asking. If it comes in when we are not in session, will we be called? I am just wondering for the month of August, should I not make plans for August? I want to be here when —
The Chair: We all want to be here.
Senator Marshall: Is it possible we may do it in August if the report comes in during August?
The Chair: I think we will have it at the earliest convenient date that senators can make it, yes. My guess would be that is what we will do.
Senator Marshall: We will not wait until we go back in session?
The Chair: No, we will not.
Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell: You answered my question. I wondered what would happen when the report was ready how we would go about it, so thank you, chair.
Senator Cordy: I read in the paper that Senator Wallin has paid back money. Has she in fact paid back money? Do we know how much she has paid back?
The Chair: Well, I think that this is part of the audit process, so how it is in the paper I have no idea. I do not know the exact number either. I will just finish here and then we will go in camera and just read about it in the paper, I am sure, later on in the day.
Senator Johnson and then Senator Furey.
Senator Johnson: Thank you, chair. I would like to support Senator Downe. I wonder if we could not hear from the auditors. I was in the very same meeting and they said, ``Oh, next week, we could have something ready.'' I wonder if we could not have them in before we recess for an update.
The Chair: Senator Carignan, did you want to be on the list? I have Senator Fury and then Senator Carignan.
Senator Campbell: Can we make a decision on having them here before we move on to another question?
The Chair: Yes, we will.
Senator Furey.
Senator Furey: Thank you, chair. I want to go back to your comment in response to a question about what we as a steering committee were briefed about. I do not believe our role as a steering committee is to hold information back from the full committee. We are just an arm of the committee; we are actually servants of the full committee.
The Chair: I agree with you.
Senator Furey: Your comment that I could brief my side leads me to believe that perhaps you have already done that to your side. If not, then I believe the full committee deserves a briefing. Whether it is in camera or not, I do not really care.
The Chair: That is what I meant to say, that it would be in camera, Senator Furey.
Senator Furey: Then I would like to hear from —
The Chair: We can go in camera and do that.
Senator Furey: I am fine with that, but I would like to hear from the clerk and from Ms. Joseph exactly what it is that we as steering know, and we should share all of that with the full committee.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Chair: I am fine with that.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I do not fully agree with having a preliminary meeting with the auditor. What I want is to see the report as soon as possible.
The file has been open for a number of months. Much of the work has already been done, because they started it before. One year, they asked for an additional period to cover another period. So I assume that the first period they went over has been completed, at least 90 per cent of it. I am in favour of sending a very clear message to the auditor saying that we want the report to be prepared as soon as possible. Of course, the report would have to be in order, sound and prepared as soon as possible. We cannot afford to wait anymore and to spend the summer in limbo on this file. We must take action. The public is waiting for the report. We are constantly being asked questions on where the report is.
Senator Wallin is also in limbo. I do not think it is fair for her either. It is bad for everyone. I think we should send a clear message to our auditors to prepare the report right away.
[English]
Senator Campbell: Nothing is clearer than them sitting here and us eyeballing them. They were hired at exactly the same time as when we had ours. Since January 3 they have been working on this. I figured this report would be out before we left. For them to now say, ``Well, we are not going to make it,'' I want to know why, and I want to know what the hell they are doing. If they do not understand how ticked off we are, they are not going to move any faster.
I understand that certain procedures have to be followed and I do not have any concern about that, but do not come here and tell me you are going to have it by the end of June. I want to know why it is not going to be here by the end of June, and I want to have some idea of what is going on within this report so all of a sudden we are not like ``Oh, my God.'' I would like to have some idea of what we are looking at here. I have no problem with it being in camera, but we need them here because they are not living up to what they said they were living up to.
The Chair: It is very clear what everyone wants. It is the same thing that I want. We have made it very clear that we want this information as soon as possible. They are looking at Senator Wallin's case. In the other cases they were specific to residential. This is specific to general expenses on travel, so it is a little more complicated, I would think. That is why we may explain part of it, but I agree with Senator Campbell that it does not explain all of it.
Senator Campbell: I would like to make a motion that we have the auditors appear before this committee next Thursday.
The Chair: I think we are all in agreement there. I would like to hear from them directly.
Senator Campbell: Thank you.
The Chair: Are we done? You will inform them that they can come on Thursday to find out where they are.
We are now going to go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)