THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 9, 2022
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met with videoconference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET] pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Sabi Marwah (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. My name is Sabi Marwah. I am a senator from Ontario and I have the privilege to chair the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Today, we will be conducting a hybrid meeting with some senators participating virtually and others in person. The meeting will start in public and a portion of the meeting will then be in camera.
Before we begin, I would like to remind colleagues of the best practices for a successful meeting. Please keep your microphone muted at all times unless recognized by name to speak. Senators attending remotely are responsible for turning their microphones on during the debate. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of English, French or no simultaneous translation.
Should members wish to request the floor, please use the “raise hand” feature if you’re attending virtually, and advise the clerk if you are attending in person. Should any technical or other challenges arise, please signal this to the clerk immediately and the technical team will work to resolve the issue.
I would now like to introduce the senators who are participating in the meeting. We have Senator Patricia Bovey, Manitoba; Senator Yvonne Boyer, Ontario; Senator Larry Campbell, British Columbia; Senator Dennis Dawson, Quebec; Senator Tony Dean, Ontario; Senator Éric Forest, Quebec; Senator Raymonde Gagné, Manitoba; Senator Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Lucie Moncion, Ontario; Senator Rosemary Moodie, Ontario; Senator Donald Plett, Manitoba; Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec; Senator Judith Seidman, Quebec; Senator Larry Smith, Quebec; and Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta. I see that Senator Salma Ataullahjan has also joined us today.
Welcome to all those viewing these proceedings across the country.
Honourable senators, the first item is the approval of the public minutes from May 19, 2022, which are in your package. There’s one change, colleagues. You will recall that at the last meeting, Senator Bovey informed CIBA during the meeting that she did not intend to pursue the loan with the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia due to the shipping fees. This is not reflected in the report provided to CIBA by the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group on May 19, but once the working group submits the updated report to reflect that specific change, the updated version of the report will be inserted into the minutes.
Are there any questions or changes, colleagues? If not, can I have a mover for the following motion —
Pascale Legault, Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Chair, there is a comment.
Senator Bovey: I guess I’m very confused about what minutes are. I thought minutes reflect what is said in a meeting. The report was submitted so far before the meeting; it was before we got some of those quotes. In the meeting, I said a number of other things. I also talked about why we were following the desire to preserve the one painting by Edward VII. I also mentioned that in addition to the fact that we were not going to continue the loan with the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia. As far as museums at the Senate, I also said that because of costs we were looking at having the next museum closer to Ottawa than Nova Scotia.
So when I read the minutes, I have to say I was surprised they didn’t reflect what I actually said, and what I said is in the evidence that came out of that meeting.
The Chair: Senator Bovey, if I can make a correction, the transcript of the meeting will reflect exactly what was said. The minutes and the reports of the working group will be exactly what you submitted. We cannot change the report because that’s what you submitted. If you care to update the report or make whatever corrections you wish to make and resubmit it, we can resubmit the revised report. But otherwise the report must reflect what has been submitted to the committee. The transcript of the meeting will reflect your verbal comments.
Senator Bovey: Mr. Chair, if I may, I will move the minutes on condition that they are updated. Our committee is meeting tomorrow afternoon.
The Chair: Okay. As soon as we get the updated report from you, it will be resubmitted to the committee.
Senator Bovey: Thank you.
The Chair: I think Senator Bovey moves the motion:
That the Minutes of Proceedings of Thursday, May 19, 2022 be adopted.
As a reminder, colleagues, votes will proceed in a similar fashion as the hybrid chamber whereby senators who wish to oppose or abstain are provided with an opportunity to do so. The absence of any opposition is interpreted as support for the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? I see no hands up. Did I hear a comment? No. I declare the motion carried.
Colleagues, the next item is a request for approval for the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie. I believe Member of Parliament Mr. Drouin was supposed to be joining us but he’s running a bit late. If it’s okay with you, we’ll come back to this item and move to item 3.
Item 3 is a report from the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets concerning committee travel and budgets. Pierre Lanctôt, CFO, will join the meeting by video conference as a witness. As usual, the presentation will be followed by time for questions. It is my understanding that Senator Marshall will make opening remarks and that Pierre will assist in answering questions.
Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Welcome, colleagues. I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, which includes recommended allocations for seven committee budgets.
Before reviewing each budget request, I wanted to provide some context. For the current year, 2022-23, the total funds available for the committee expenses will again be $2,382,000, less the $500,000 for witness expenses, leaving $1,882,000 for release for individual committee budgets.
This is the first allocation for committee budgets since the Forty-second Parliament. The subcommittee met on this past May 24 to review seven budget requests. Four contained requests for travel both within and outside Canada; that’s Agriculture, Fisheries, Defence and Human Rights; and two contained requests to hire consultants to provide specialized services, with the total amount being requested by these committees of $952,597. Given that we are only a few months into the current fiscal year, the subcommittee was initially concerned with tying up just over half the budget envelope. However, because in most cases a reduced delegation ends up travelling and because efforts are made to find additional savings, the subcommittee was informed that most committees’ actual expenditures are closer to 40% of their total budget request.
Given that any unspent sums are clawed back at the conclusion of a travel activity and are made available for other committee travel requests, your subcommittee was comfortable moving forward with the majority of these requests.
We met with the chair of the Agriculture Committee, who presented a budget allocation that contained proposed expenditures of $50,977 for one activity and that’s in Glasgow, United Kingdom, for the 2022 World Congress of Soil Science. This is in relation to their study on soil health in Canada and included funds for four senators and one committee analyst to travel.
The subcommittee carefully considered this request. In general, the members felt that sending four senators and one staff to an international conference was somewhat excessive given the fact that a conference is not a committee activity and there are options available for senators who wish to attend conferences, such as using their own budgets to participate virtually.
Consequently, your subcommittee recommends approving the funds with two participants to attend the conference in person. This would reduce the total amount for this activity to $21,826. We suggest that the choice of which two participants be left to the committee’s discretion.
Next, the subcommittee met with the chair of the Audit and Oversight Committee who presented a budget application that contained the proposed expenditure of $100,500 for general expenses. This is in relation to the committee’s mandate, which includes the power to hire internal auditors. The committee is seeking funds to hire an executive recruitment firm to conduct a competitive process to assist the committee with the selection of the chief audit executive.
Although we understand that the current budget process in the SARs requires all committee expenditures to be approved by CIBA before seeking the approval of the Senate, your subcommittee feels it is critical that the Audit and Oversight Committee be independent.
The subcommittee is encouraged to see that the Audit Committee has a proposal before the Senate to implement an independent budget process for their expenditures in the future. Based on this information, the subcommittee therefore recommends the release of the funds for general expenses in the amount of $100,500.
The subcommittee also met with the chair of the Aboriginal Peoples Committee who presented a budget application that contained a proposed expenditure of $11,650 for general expenses. This is in relation to their study on the constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.
The budget includes funds for hospitality in the amount of $2,100; for honorariums for elders in the amount of $1,050; and for mental health and cultural supports for witnesses in the amount of $8,050, at $350 each for 23 witnesses.
The subcommittee notes that the question of witness support and counselling is currently before CIBA. We do not wish to prejudge this decision. However, in considering this request, the subcommittee members were supportive of this request and, therefore, the subcommittee recommends the release of funds for general expenses in the amount of $11,650.
Next, the subcommittee reviewed a legislative budget application from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that contained the proposed expenditure of $6,000 for general expenses. This amount is for the purchase of criminal codes, which is an annual request, and therefore your subcommittee recommends the release of funds for general expenses in the amount of $6,000.
Next, your subcommittee met with the chair of the Fisheries and Oceans Committee who presented a budget application which contained proposed expenditures of $28,587 for one activity for a press conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia. This is in relation to their study on the implementation of Indigenous rights-based fishers across Canada, and includes funds for six senators to travel.
Having carefully reviewed this request, your subcommittee felt that sending six senators and two staff to a one-day press conference is somewhat excessive, particularly when senators have other means to travel within Canada using their own travel points. Consequently, your subcommittee recommends approving the funds for two senators and two staff to attend the conference in person. This would reduce the total amount for this activity to $19,825.
While we suggest that the choice of which two senators be left to the committee’s discretion, we do note that it would be customary for the committee chair to represent the committee at a press conference. In this case, because of the specific topic being studied, the subcommittee feels that it would be important to suggest that the chair be accompanied by another committee member with ties to the Indigenous community.
The subcommittee also met with the chair of the Human Rights Committee who presented a budget application which contained proposed expenditures of $313,618 for two activities. The first activity is a fact-finding mission and public hearings in Vancouver and Edmonton for $166,058. The second activity is a fact-finding mission and public hearings in Quebec City and Toronto for $147,560.
These two activities are in relation to their study on human rights generally but more specifically on the topic of Islamophobia in Canada, and includes funds for nine senators to travel. The committee also included a request to include funds for one staff each from the chair and deputy chair’s office in their budget.
Having carefully considered this request, the subcommittee feels that the interests of the committee can be met by including one member of the chair and deputy chair’s staff in their budget. Other senators may be accompanied by their staff, if they so wish, using their own travel points.
Based on the information provided, the subcommittee therefore recommends the release of funds for activity one in the amount of $166,058 and activity two in the amount of $147,560.
Finally, we met with the chair and deputy chair of the National Security and Defence Committee who presented a budget application that contained proposed expenditures of $442,325 for two activities. The first activity would be a fact-finding mission to Northern Canada for $381,350. The second activity is for a fact-finding mission to Colorado Springs, U.S.A., for $59,975. This is in relation to their study on issues relating to security and defence in the Arctic and includes funds for 10 senators to travel on activity one and 12 senators to travel on activity two.
The budget also includes a request for approval for a sole-source charter plane. Having carefully considered this particular request, the subcommittee feels that the interests of the committee can be met by approving a sole-source charter plane given the locations to be visited.
Based on the information provided, the subcommittee therefore recommends the release of funds for activity one in the amount of $381,350 and activity two in the amount of $59,975.
In total, your subcommittee is, therefore, recommending the release of $914,744 today for three committee travel activities, one conference and three general expenses budgets, leaving $967,256 for the remainder of this fiscal year of the $1.882 million set aside for committee expenses.
That’s the end of my presentation, honourable senators. I’m available to answer questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Marshall.
Colleagues, we’ll now open it up for questions.
Senator Plett: Thank you, Senator Marshall, for an intensive report.
I have two comments and they will somewhat contradict each other, but nevertheless.
I have two problems here. One is that we are even considering any travel for any committee when we are in hybrid fashion and we are suggesting senators stay home and not even come to Ottawa. We have half the senators here; half are home because it’s not safe to travel to Ottawa.
Until we are in full, in-person sittings, I think it is irresponsible for us to approve any committee travel. I don’t know how we can travel to Glasgow, Scotland but we can’t travel to Ottawa. I just cannot understand that at all. So I’m very unhappy that we are doing that at all.
Having said that, if there is committee travel, much to the chagrin of some of us, we are in a new era of the Senate. We used to have two caucuses in the Senate. When a committee travelled, both caucuses or both parties were represented on any trip. Those days are gone. We now have four caucuses in the Senate.
So if there is committee travel, something like Agriculture Committee travel, I would be equally frustrated if somebody from the opposition would not be allowed to go on this trip.
Clearly, if we are going to choose four people — in this particular case, the chair is not from the opposition and, obviously, I’m more concerned about my caucus than others — in the sense of fairness, we have four caucuses. I think if all four caucuses want to be represented on a trip, they have the right to be represented on a trip.
So although I don’t think we should have any travel, if we have travel, then I think every caucus should be allowed to pick a person, which is what the committee suggested, I believe. You said they have four, and I would assume from that statement that they were anticipating taking one from each group or caucus, which would be the fair, equitable and right way of doing it.
With all due respect to her subcommittee, I think to allow any travel, first of all, is wrong. I did not apply to go on the trip to Scotland, nor do I plan to go on it. We have another committee member who would like to. Of course, for Scotland I couldn’t take it out of my personal budget anyway, but even in Canada, I should not have to take it out of my own budget if we are giving money for the committee to travel.
With the utmost of respect to our subcommittee, I’m opposed to two aspects, which do somewhat contradict each other but nevertheless should be considered by this committee. Do we want to open it up before June 30? We have hybrid sittings until June 30. We shouldn’t have travel, but if we do, it should be fair.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much for your comments and questions, Senator Plett.
Our role was to look at the committee budgets. To your comments with regard to senators not travelling to Ottawa and not being here in person for sittings, I have no control over that. There are senators who are here, sitting around this table, and who are participating in person on committees. I travel domestically and internationally. To not approve committee travel because there are some senators who aren’t coming to Ottawa in person — I feel that those two issues are mutually exclusive.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Plett: Excuse me, chair. I had questions for the chair of the subcommittee, and she was answering me.
The Chair: I’m sorry. I can’t monitor that easily from here. Go ahead. We’ll wait —
Senator Plett: Which tells us, again, why we should all be in person.
Senator Marshall: May I finish my response to Senator Plett?
The Chair: Yes, please.
Senator Marshall: For studies where committees are doing public hearings, all senators can attend, and that’s why the budgets were so high for the National Security and Defence Committee and the Human Rights Committee. For the other issues, such as the Fisheries and Oceans Committee wanting to have their press conference in Halifax, the committee felt that to send an entourage of four senators to Halifax was a bit excessive. It’s CIBA’s decision as to whether they want to increase the number. It’s the same for Senator Black. We suggested two people go and that other people can participate virtually. Virtual attendance is an option. However, we realize that being there virtually is not a substitute for actually being at the conference.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: First of all, Madam Acting Chair of the subcommittee, I would like to congratulate you, because I think the subcommittee has worked to a high level of competence and has gone as far as it can go. I appreciate that.
Of course, one always questions the higher costs. In my opinion, the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights and, more specifically for me, the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence, have extremely high budgets.
I am surprised that the report recommends that we release the amount of money requested for the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. I wonder if an analysis could have been done and if other options could have been found, including whether some of the work could be done in hybrid mode. The number of senators who will travel seems to me to be high in both cases, 12 and 10 respectively. That seems excessive to me.
Will these committees and others be required to report their expenses within 30 days of their return, so that we can see the actual costs, and if necessary, reallocate the amounts not used?
[English]
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much, Senator Saint-Germain. I’ll answer in English.
I’ve been on committee travel with the National Finance Committee when we did one activity in the west and one in the east. While hybrid is an option, it is not a substitute for actually being there.
You asked your question in the context of, for example, the National Security and Defence Committee. That is a big issue now. It’s always been a big issue, but more so now with the situation in Ukraine. You’ll notice the application that is in your materials indicates all the communities where the committee members are going to go. All of those communities either have military bases or military exercises. They have some connection to Canada’s military. The activity down south is to visit the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, headquarters, which the Prime Minister just visited.
It’s important that all members of the National Defence Committee go to see it for themselves. In the National Finance Committee, we’re always looking at the funding of and the new budget initiatives for NORAD and the North Warning System. However, I have no conceptualization of it. I can’t visualize it. I think it’s important for our senators to go to actually see what’s there, talk to people in the military and to get a handle on what’s happening. I’m looking forward to their report.
The other point I’d like to raise is that enthusiasm on the committees for travelling is always highest when you’re budgeting. As you approach the travel date, people start changing their minds. For the first activity, you’ll have a diminished number of senators, historically. When you get to the second activity, people are getting tired of the travelling, so the numbers diminish further.
This is why, in the report, we say that we budget a certain amount of money but that usually the expenditures come in at about 40%. In my experience with the people at Finance and with the committee clerks and support staff, they’re very careful about the expenditures. I know from my experience travelling, they will put you on a bus for three hours rather than let you travel by air.
We took all that into consideration. I took all that into consideration. It’s an important study, and I really feel that the members of the National Defence Committee — all the senators — should have a right to travel.
Your last comment was on the financial report. That was introduced a number of years ago. I think it’s still in place. Am I correct? That would still be in place. We would look at the numbers and see what actually materialized. We would track it.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you.
Senator Tannas: I’ve spent some time on this committee, and I know that we have recommended and, ultimately, approved expenditures to travel that didn’t involve all senators on the committee going wherever. In those circumstances, I think there was a discussion with the committee to say, “Look, it is too expensive for everybody to go, so you guys better agree on a number of people, bring that number to us and we will deal with it.” I recall an Agriculture and Forestry Committee trip to a fair in China some years ago where that was done.
I am under the impression that we may have a situation where not all groups have been dealt with, and so some folks are being excluded by virtue of not belonging to the right group or want to go and their group is not being represented.
Is this a new precedent we are setting? I’m wondering about parliamentary privilege. Was there any discussion, chair, about that to make sure that we are on the right side of fair when it comes to this?
Senator Marshall: We actually looked at it in two categories. One is the regular committee studies, et cetera, and historically all senators have been provided the opportunity to participate if they so wish.
When we look at the issues that weren’t related to studies or public hearings, which is the trip for the soil conference or the press conference in Halifax, we did not take that into consideration, no. For example, for the press conference, we felt that to send four senators for a one-day press conference seemed a bit excessive. My experience at press conferences on Finance Committee is that there are usually two or three people there, as opposed to four or five. It’s up to CIBA if they feel that there should be somebody from each group going, participating in those activities that are not related to studies or public hearings.
Senator Tannas: In the other cases, there was a consensus worked out amongst the committee on this. We are actually not having people that are saying, “Wait a minute, I think I have a right to be there because of whatever,” and the subcommittee and CIBA are making the decision on who is going and who is not.
Senator Marshall: We haven’t specifically said someone should go. With the Fisheries Committee, we did say we would expect it would be the chair and someone from the Indigenous community, but it is entirely up to the committee. The outcome or fallout, Senator Tannas, I expect would come if we approve the lesser budget for those activities that aren’t studies or public hearings.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Tannas, if I could provide a comment on that, to a large extent, this information isn’t public yet amongst the senators or the various committees. So when that information does get to them, perhaps then we will get some pushback on whether they have complaints that we cut back the number of senators. So far it’s confined to the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and this committee.
Senator Tannas: If there is fallout, they could obviously go back through SEBS again and make their case and bring it here, right? Thank you.
The Chair: Yes, that’s correct. That’s always an option.
Senator Campbell: My question has been answered.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: First of all, after doing some checking, I found that there are only existing practices; no clear guidelines, no rules, no maximum amounts that are imposed for the different committees.
So, we’ve had requests from four or five groups and more than half of the budget for the year goes to four groups, and to me, that doesn’t make sense for the 18 standing committees that we have in the Senate, so I have a concern about that.
Secondly, no matter how many senators travel, the entourage remains the same. There is very little difference in the number of people who have to accompany senators on their travels. This is a reality because it is part of the logistics of travel. Everything is organized, so it is difficult to change the number of people regardless of the number of senators travelling. There could be guidelines where we indicate the minimum number of senators that have to be on the trip for it to happen, because there have been events where only four senators have travelled and the costs are about the same except for one or two people.
Thirdly, when the documents were sent to the different committees because there were no limits, people suggested to travel all over the place, and that is not necessarily a problem. If we look at the documents, we see that the documents represent the maximum amounts of prices that could be charged. When we are told that the expenses might only be 40%, until we have the information, it is difficult to say that it is only going to cost 40%, when we know that when people have received the amounts, they can spend them because the expenses have been approved.
Finally, one last thing, there is a NORAD base you could visit in North Bay and it would be cheaper than going to other NORAD bases in Northern Canada. We don’t have to visit them all, and they’re pretty much the same from place to place. There are experts in the academic sector who are doing studies and analysis on the protection of Canada’s North and they could be consulted.
So I understand the need to travel and go to the different communities to see what is there, but there is the issue of the costs associated with that and also the time required for all of the people involved in that travel. I think those are things that were considered in the subcommittee meetings. Is that correct, Senator Marshall?
[English]
Senator Marshall: Yes. With regard to your comments on establishing limits, there are no limits. Each budget is looked at practically in isolation. You’re correct in saying that experience has shown that when committees submit their budget, on average they usually spend 40% of what’s approved.
I don’t know if it would reduce the cost, but seeing that costs are of concern, one of the issues we did consider at the subcommittee is approving activity one only, and then having that committee come back for approval of activity two. We did consider that and then decided that, for example, with the Human Rights Committee they want to start their study early in September and then they were going to go right into activity two. It was considered, and it is something that CIBA could consider doing.
The third issue with regard to exactly where the committees go for visits, the National Security and Defence Committee have a lot of experience — and they are on the committee and know the issues. If they say that they should go to Colorado Springs or wherever, I would not take it upon myself to say, “No, you can’t go there. You have to go to some place in northern Ontario.” Unless I was really familiar with that committee and had served on it and felt that I could make a sensible suggestion, I would not feel comfortable that with.
We could look at your suggestion about establishing limits, but, as you know, it’s not something we will be able to do here today.
I must say, it’s the Human Rights Committee and the National Security Committee proposals that seem to have the most concern. We discussed that at the subcommittee in detail.
The way the subcommittee meeting was held was that we had two groups of the chairs coming in, presenting their proposals. We asked them questions and raised concerns, et cetera. We had two panels. Once they finished, we debated each of the proposals.
With what is being recommended, I felt we were very conscientious and also tried to be fair to the committees. I realize too that they are travelling now, after the pandemic, and maybe looking at the dollars is a big shock. I was also surprised when I first saw the numbers.
If it’s something that SEBS could do, I think it will be a difficult exercise, but it is something we could do.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I see there are no other speakers. I will make a comment.
At the outset, I would say that I must agree. I do agree with Senator Plett and the comment that he made at the outset. We can’t very well say that we want to have hybrid sittings because we don’t want to travel and then travel for committee purposes. That’s just not right.
The only thing I would add, Senator Plett, is that travel is taking place after the hybrid motion ends. From my perspective, it’s very hard to see the continuation of hybrid if we want to travel at the same time. That’s a discussion for another day.
Honourable senators, I see a lot of comments, especially on the two large budgets, the two large items. I suggest that we approve the smaller items and move on.
However, on the two larger items, may I suggest that we ask the committees to really look again at what they have submitted to see if there are any opportunities whatsoever to reduce some of the costs, get back to us next week and we will expedite it on a priority basis.
Would you be satisfied with that approach, colleagues?
Senator Plett: Chair, first of all, thank you for your comment. I trust that somebody will let the government leader know that he could be the one that would be kiboshing trips if he does anything like I expect that he might do. But anyway, be that as it may; that, of course, is one man’s opinion.
The other issue is, chair, that I really would like for CIBA to make a decision here on how we determine if we don’t allow — I certainly appreciate what Senator Marshall said about a press conference; that’s not even precedent setting. It has been the case in the past that the chair and the deputy chair attends — or in this case, a different senator, an Indigenous senator, whatever the case may be. It is certainly not precedent setting that we would ask that. I don’t think we need a full committee at any news or press conference.
Whether it’s a fact-finding mission or a convention that we’re attending, I think we need to establish some parameters on how we decide who is important to go on a trip. To just toss a coin or simply say that it will be these two groups this time and these two groups the next time is equally unfair. Again, as I said, I’m a member of the Agriculture Committee. I’ve been part of the Agricultural Committee since I got to the Senate 12 and a half years ago because that’s one of my big interests. If I was not in the position that I was in as the leader, I would probably be our most active member on the Agriculture Committee.
I would be very upset if the Agriculture Committee was going on a trip and I was left off of that trip when I represent a large agricultural community; I would be excluded from going on a trip because it wasn’t my turn or it wasn’t my party’s turn to go. I struggle with that, chair.
I’m not going to vote against something that my colleague, who is the chair of this committee, is recommending. I have done enough in voicing my objection to it. But I think this committee needs to establish some clear parameters around what is fair.
Proportionality is not a fair way to determine trips of certain types. Proportionality is not the way to go on that. Even though with proportionality we would still be the second-largest group, I still do not believe that is the fair or correct way to do it.
Chair, I’m not sure what I’m suggesting here, other than I think that CIBA needs to make a decision so it’s easier for our subcommittee. Our subcommittee is clearly working around the information and the instructions that they have, save some money.
I’ll leave it at that. I’m starting to repeat myself, chair. However, I would like something further done about it.
The Chair: Yes. I’ll take that under advisement, Senator Plett, and come up with some criteria that perhaps we can deploy in the future.
I think we have one last speaker.
Senator Marshall: I would just like to finish on this note: When we are talking about studies and public hearings for committee travel, I would not support denying members of a committee from travelling. I think that if you’re a member of a committee and you’re travelling for a special study, or you’re having public hearings, you have a right to attend.
I know we travelled on the National Finance Committee for some budget changes. If I had been told that I could not go on those public hearings, I would be very unhappy. We have to keep that in mind when we are looking at the cost; all senators should be allowed to go if they so wish.
When you start picking and choosing senators, that’s not an equitable way to run a committee.
The Chair: Colleagues, are we comfortable with approving the report with the exception of the two large dollar amounts? We will send that back to the committee chairs and say if there’s any way possible for that number to be reduced by whatever mechanism the committee deems appropriate.
I don’t think it’s fair to us to sit down and decide how best to reduce it; we should leave it up to the committees. We will review it on an expedited basis when it comes back.
Senator Campbell: I’ll be voting against this. I think that this is just kicking it down the road. This has been studied. We have had our say in it and, quite frankly, we should bring it to a vote and move on.
The Chair: Colleagues, what’s your preference? Any other thoughts?
Senator Tannas: I agree. We have delegated this work to the subcommittee. The National Security and Defence and Human Rights Committees’ eye-popping amounts we know will not be the amounts. It is priced the way that it is to make sure that every member who wants to go can go. We know that typically has not been the case. It’s the right way to budget it. We have been through that a number of times.
I am with Senator Campbell. I think we should show the committee the respect to vote on their report.
The Chair: Colleagues, are we prepared to vote on the report?
Senator Marshall: I would like to, yes.
Senator Forest: Yes.
The Chair: Should we take a vote? Does anybody wish to vote against? Are we all in unanimous agreement?
Senator Moncion: If we vote on the report and the report is voted down, all committees have to resubmit to the subcommittee. That’s the first caveat here.
The second one is that nowhere did we ever speak of excluding senators from travel. What we are saying for National Defence and for Human Rights is that we would like them to look at what they presented for their budgets — even though we think the amounts will be coming in lower than what has been proposed — to see if, even before they resubmit, they can bring the numbers down. I am very uncomfortable voting for $750,000 in travel to two committees the way that the report is presented. That is my objection here.
I will be voting against the report if we have to vote on the report, and we will be penalizing five or six other committees for having presented budgets that we can work with.
Senator Marshall: I agree with Senator Campbell; he was on the subcommittee when we did our detailed work. I also agree with Senator Tannas that we should just consider the report and see whether it’s acceptable.
The Chair: I must admit I’m not of that view. I’m of the view that some of the amounts in the report are excessive; they are very high. To spend $800,000 on two trips strikes me as being excessive and I will be voting against it.
But let’s proceed to a vote, if that’s what we wish to do.
Senator Plett: I have spoken against part of the report, and that objection stays there. However, I believe that we mandate people to do a job for us. We have a subcommittee that did a job for us. Simply by virtue of the fact that I don’t agree with part of their report, it would be very irresponsible of me to say I’m going to vote against the report because there’s one part of the report I don’t agree with. And I don’t agree with that part of the report. Quite frankly, I take some exception that we would say, “Let’s exclude two parts of it, because they are a large part, but let’s forget about the problem Senator Plett has because it’s only a small part.”
I will be voting in favour of this report, and I think we are doing a huge disservice to this committee and to this subcommittee by saying that we are going to vote against this report. Senators who are saying they are going to vote against have been on this committee, and they have done the hard lifting. When we say that we are not excluding some senators from travel, I’m sorry, but with the Agriculture Committee, we are excluding some senators from travelling, pure and simple. That decision has been made by the subcommittee, but I’m prepared to accept that.
I said I wasn’t happy with it, but we can kick this down the road forever, colleagues. I’ve been here 12 and a half years. We have never yet had a committee where 100% of the committee travels. The stats that we have been given here today are very close to being exactly what happens, where 40% or 50% of the people travel. But the budget has been set in case all of them travel.
That is always the way things have been done. Again, this isn’t precedent-setting. We haven’t had committees travel for a few years. Somewhere along the line, if we didn’t have a government that had blown all our money, then there should be something in reserve because we haven’t been travelling.
Colleagues, it is wrong for us to thumb our noses at the subcommittee and say, “We don’t like part of your report so I’m going to vote against the whole report. Go back to the drawing board.”
As much as I have voiced my objections, I support us voting on it today, and I will most certainly be voting in favour of it.
Senator Dawson: It surprises me to agree with Senator Plett. It hasn’t happened very often over the last few years and certainly not in the last few days, but I agree with most of what he said except what he said about the government.
But I also agree with him that, in 17 years, it’s always been about 40%. It’s not an average; it’s a fact. It has always been that. Sometimes, we will have exceptional travel and some committees will spend a little more than that, but I’m certainly satisfied to vote for it. I was on that subcommittee. It’s a lot of work, so I want to congratulate those that did the job, because it’s a lot easier to criticize it than to do it.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I was a member of that committee and I can tell you that it is not an easy job. People have done a thorough analysis. Two committees have quite large budgets. I intend to vote in favour of the report, but it shows that certain guidelines must be set. A trip that is part of an order of reference to a committee for the analysis of a bill is different from a trip or a mission to acquire knowledge on a given subject. We should think about establishing some guidelines that would avoid the kind of discussion we are having this morning. However, I intend to vote in favour of the report.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, why don’t we say, from a vote perspective —
Senator Smith: Chair, I won’t take much time.
Going back in history, one of the thrills I had when I joined as a senator was to get on Internal Economy Committee quickly and do a similar job to Senator Marshall. We never said who could go and who couldn’t, but after creating the budget, we did a thorough analysis and had a discussion with the chair and the deputy chair to make sure they went and spoke with senators and tried to understand the motivation of the senators before any decision was taken. Everyone understood where the committee was going and the rules.
It’s important the chair and the deputy chair would, in this particular case, because of the importance of the subject, speak to their colleagues to really determine that. Just so you understand, 48% was the number that we worked with for about two or three years when I was on that committee, and 48% of the monies budgeted were spent, It was 48%, just so that we’re clear. I don’t know how that has been recently, but it gives you a clear indication of exactly what was spent.
Senator Plett: Call the question.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Marshall:
That the fifth Report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be adopted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I will say “on division,” but we will go with the majority view. Thank you, colleagues.
We will go back to item 2, which concerns funding for the forty-ninth session of L’Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, and I believe Mr. Francis Drouin, MP; Jeremy LeBlanc, Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs; and Marie-Ève Belzile, Principal Clerk, Parliamentary Exchanges and Protocol, International and Interparliamentary Affairs, will join us as witnesses by video conference.
As usual, the presentation will be followed by time for questions. Mr. Drouin, welcome. You may begin your presentation.
[Translation]
Francis Drouin, Member of Parliament, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell: I want to begin by thanking you for hearing from us again concerning our budget request, so that the Canadian Branch can present the 49th Annual Session of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie in Montreal, in 2024. My appearance before you on October 8, 2020, was to make the same request, but for the 47th Annual Session in 2022.
The health situation that has afflicted us all has also affected our desire to host this event, which should have been held next month. In fact, the Canadian Branch Executive Committee decided on January 19, given the risk, to postpone the meeting to 2024. So I am back before you to present an update on our budget for the same event, held in the same city, but this time in 2024.
It should be noted that the cost increase for 2024 is largely related the logistics and increased costs for audiovisual services and transportation. A series of mergers and acquisitions in the Canadian audiovisual industry took place during the pandemic. In addition to inflationary pressures, the pandemic has increased the cost of these services.
We have also included the meetings of the Association des secrétaires généraux des parlements francophones, ASGPF, in our planning, as well as the Parlement francophone des jeunes. These entities also sit in parallel to the annual session. I can assure you that, as with the previous request, we are working to ensure that we manage the public funds for this event as efficiently as possible.
Thank you very much. We are ready to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, are there any questions for Mr. Drouin, Jeremy or Marie-Ève? I see no questions. Thank you, Mr. Drouin, for the presentation.
Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That approval be granted to host the 49th Annual Session of the APF in Montreal, in July 2024;
That funding be approved as follows, excluding EBP:
$19,448 for 2022-2023
$214,357 for 2023-2024
$1,460,165 for 2024-2025
That the temporary funding for the fiscal year 2022-2023 be absorbed from the anticipated budget surpluses of Associations; and
That the total cost be shared using the usual formula (30% Senate, 70% House of Commons) between the Senate ($508,191) and the House of Commons ($1,185,779).
Senator Forest moves the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
If any senator wishes to oppose or abstain, please raise your hand. Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried. Thank you all.
Colleagues, moving to item 4, this concerns the proposed amendments to the Information Management Policy, as well as the Senators’ Office Management Policy, or SOMP.
David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, will join the meeting by video conference as a witness. Pierre Lanctôt, our CFO, will also assist with this item.
Mr. Vatcher, you may begin your presentation.
David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, as stated in the briefing note, the Information Management Policy was approved by this committee in April 2021 and came fully into force on April 1 of this year, following significant training and awareness activities across the Senate. As a result of these activities, a point was raised regarding the retention period for senators’ financial records and supporting documents. The proposed amendment you have before you today addresses this feedback in detail.
In a nutshell, it will amend the policy to allow senators to retain information related to their financial records and transactions for as long as they wish rather than deleting it once it has been processed by the Finance and Procurement Directorate.
As a point of reference, the retention period for all financial information by the Senate Administration will be maintained for seven fiscal years. Given that the policy was approved by this committee, I am returning to you today to seek your approval on this specific amendment. Thank you. I’d be happy to take any questions.
The Chair: Are there any questions for Mr. Vatcher, colleagues? Seeing no questions, can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Senate Information Management Policy be amended —
Could I dispense with this? The motion is in the reading material that was sent to you. If you’d like me to read it, I gladly will.
Senator Moncion: Dispense.
The Chair: Can I have a mover for the motion? Senator Campbell moves the motion.
Colleagues, any objections? Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried.
Moving on to item 6, it is my honour to table a summarized version of the fourth report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure concerning the governance of Senate Administration. This report is placed before you for your information.
As a background as to why this item is here, one of the questions raised by Senator Tannas was about how the full extent of the motion that we approved was done in camera and hence is not available in the public domain. By putting it in the summary report, this will now be tabled in the public portion of this meeting and, hence, will be accessible to anybody who wishes to see the full extent of the motion that was approved. This provides more clarity and transparency to the full motion that was approved by this committee and hence is provided for information.
Are there any questions or comments, colleagues? If not, is there any other public business? My apologies; I missed item 5. It’s a request for proposals for iPads and peripherals. David. will assist with this as well.
Mr. Vatcher: The proposal before you is to launch a competitive process to establish a standing offer for the purchase of iPads. The Senate continues to purchase iPads primarily for use by senators.
In the past, as you can see, we have issued small independent RFPs. We anticipate, by establishing a standing offer, to achieve some cost savings and faster access to units when required. We have estimated future purchases based on anticipated iPad life cycling. No new budget is being requested for this. I’m happy to take any questions, senators.
The Chair: Thank you, David.
Are there any questions for David, colleagues? I see no questions in the room. I was going to say if there are any questions on dollar amounts, to please ask about that in camera, but there are no questions. We will vote on this in the in camera portion, because then, we can mention the dollar amounts involved.
Colleagues, moving on to item 6, which is other matters. Is there anything else senators wish to raise before we go in camera?
Senator Plett: Chair, I have one issue that I wish to raise.
The Chair: Go ahead, Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: I’m going to raise the issue, but I don’t know that we’re going to get any resolve today, nor do I know that I’m asking for it here. However, it’s an issue that’s quite concerning to me, and it deals with the Information Services Directorate doing things with our emails.
The reason this came to my attention is that, as everyone knows, we are having quite an active leadership race in the Conservative Party of Canada, and, obviously, there are a lot of emails floating around from candidates to different members. I realized that I was getting no emails from any of the candidates. Now, that might have been a pleasant change for some, but for those of us who are a little more involved and want to be a little more involved, it became a little alarming. The strange thing is that my wife was complaining to me every day of the week, saying, “Why do I get all these emails from these candidates?” In the meantime, I wasn’t getting any.
I had my administrative people look into this, and I found out that somebody — and I don’t want to point fingers, because I’m pretty illiterate when it comes to that stuff — was flagging what they thought might be frivolous emails from coming to my account. In that investigation, we found out that they had also decided that two media services in Canada were probably things that Senator Don Plett wouldn’t want to read, when in fact it was the exact opposite. Those are the exact kinds of media reports that Senator Don Plett wanted to be reading.
It is concerning to me, chair, when we have people making decisions for us as to what they believe we should have. Over the years, those of us who had kids we were trying to control had devices on our televisions. We could control that they couldn’t watch certain channels. I don’t think I need to be told what channels I can watch anymore. Chair, I have a real problem if this is being done on a regular basis. We are in a free and democratic society, and I do not need thought police deciding what I can and can’t read.
In any event, since my office staff has got this corrected, I’m now, of course, inundated with emails that I wished I wasn’t getting, but nevertheless, that was my choice. I’m raising this. I’m not sure there’s anything that can be done here today other than I want somebody to contact me and let me know that this will never happen again to my email account.
The Chair: Mr. Vatcher, would you care to comment?
Mr. Vatcher: Of course. Thank you for your comments, senator. First, I want to say that ISD only diverts emails when we detect an emailing campaign, and we never erase anybody’s email. Quite the contrary; we go above and beyond to make sure all Canadians can reach out to our senators, and that is part of our mission.
I’m greatly upset to hear that you have experienced something different, and I will personally look into it and get back to you, senator. Thank you for your comment.
Senator Plett: I appreciate that, David. Thank you very much.
Senator Campbell: I have a question, David. At what level does ISD step in when we get a deluge of emails? What is the level where you step in?
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for your question, Senator Campbell. That is a very pertinent question. Unless Mr. Chair objects, I would prefer to answer that in camera. The reason for that, senator, is that these kind folks who like to deluge us with emails —
Senator Campbell: I understand.
Mr. Vatcher: — would love nothing better than to know.
Senator Campbell: That’s fine. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, David. If you could follow up with Senator Plett later on, that would be great.
Colleagues, if there’s no further public business, we will go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)