Moved the adoption of the report.

I have a question for Senator Boehm.

I notice that this is a report related to a budget. I wanted to ask for the sake of others in the chamber — and similar to what Senator Lankin asked on a previous report — what the nature of the trip is. As well, what are some outcomes that you expect from the trip? Maybe you could elaborate on the budget. Thank you.

Well, thank you very much, Senator Martin. It is, in fact, for a trip, and it’s a trip that was planned to take place earlier and features a revised budget — a lower budget — that was sent to the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, or SEBS, and then to the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, or CIBA, for approval afterwards.

It’s in support of the long study that the committee has undertaken on the fit-for-purpose nature of Global Affairs Canada. It is supplementary to a trip that the committee took to Washington in December of last year. This one will take the committee — in a reduced number, I should add, because what was approved was the chair plus six members of the committee — to London, Oslo and Berlin.

In terms of why there, it’s because these particular countries have a similar system to ours in the way they conduct their foreign policy. They have recently integrated their aid and development function. In the case of the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or FCO, it’s now the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, or FCDO, and the Norwegians have done the same thing, as did the Germans, because they are like-minded.

We will be looking at conditions of foreign service — this is not a foreign policy review per se — how people are recruited and how they are supported. This trip is planned for a non-sitting week — the week before we return in September — and it is basically the last element of this study that we have been working on since last April.

I hope that helps a little.

I have a question as well.

Senator Boehm, will you take more questions?

Yes, of course.

I was concerned with your comments that the full committee is not participating. It has been a long-time tradition in the Senate that, assuming senators participated in committee meetings here in the chamber and committee rooms, they would all participate on the complete study. Are there some senators who haven’t participated in the Senate? Is that why they are not going? Are there some who do not want to go? Have there been restrictions imposed?

Thank you, Senator Downe. One of the recommendations that had been made at the first pass that we made, both to SEBS and then to CIBA, was that we should perhaps look at reducing the number of senators.

In practice, what happened on the Washington trip was that only half the committee attended, and I suspect — as is often the case, whether because someone is ill or has a timing conflict — we will be looking at reduced numbers. But the idea, when making a second attempt at this, was that we would look at a reduced number.

In my view, we should budget for the complete committee to go because every senator — every member — is equal. However, in practice, this has not always been the outcome.

Obviously, the policy has changed. Years ago, when I was on CIBA, the position was quite clear. Senators participated, and, as you stated, there are always reasons some people can’t go. There was never a full allocation. However, I can’t understand how the committee can write the report when some of the committee members participated in all the meetings, and others did not. Notwithstanding they may read the transcript or look at it on Zoom, there are nuances that are missed. How do you intend to square that when you write your final report?

Well, thank you Senator Downe. This study has been going on for some time — since April of last year. In my view, all committee members have had a pretty good exposure to various witnesses. I don’t have the data in front of me in terms of how many witnesses we have seen and heard, but I do think that writing the report with all the data and information we have received will not be that onerous and that senators will be prepared.

Also, on the trip that I had mentioned, we are not looking at substitute senators either. So everyone has been exposed to this one way or the other.

This is my last question. I would urge caution here. The Senate’s foundation, reputation, is on the great work the committees have done, all the way back to the various reports done over the years — former Senator Croll’s report on poverty, for example. They travelled extensively outside of Ottawa and made a tremendous impact on changing poverty levels in Canada when the recommendations were adopted by various governments over the next number of years.

I guess the question is — and Senator Kutcher would know if this is still politically correct or not to say — if we are throwing the baby out with the bath water. In my opinion, we have to be excessively cautious here that we are not reducing cost at the very foundation of the Senate. Are you concerned that in future studies all committee members should travel?

I agree with you, Senator Downe.

I believe it’s around $275,000, Senator Batters. We dropped it from the original cost, which was over $100,000 above that. I don’t have the exact figure in front of me.

Senator Boehm, I’d like to know if you think a study on international diplomacy and the effectiveness of our foreign service should include municipalities inside Canada?

Thank you for the question, senator. We plan to travel outside Canada only.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and report adopted.)