Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 3 - Evidence - May 17, 2016
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 17, 2016
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, pursuant to rule 12-7(1) of the Rules of the Senate, met this day at 8:01 a.m. in public for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, colleagues. We have a change of venue today. We found a room with a window. It's a beautiful way to start the day with a sunny day.
We'll go right to the first item on our agenda, which is the adoption of the minutes of the proceedings of the May 12, 2016 meeting. Are there any questions?
Senator Marshall: I have a question concerning the advisory group. A couple of things have been deferred to this meeting. "Senators' Staff Travel'' is on the agenda, but what's the status of the advisory working group on the review of policies and rules?
The Chair: Repeat that question, if you don't mind?
Senator Marshall: The establishment of an advisory working group on the review of policies and rules was deferred to the next meeting. I don't think it's on the agenda.
The Chair: Yes, because we thought the next meeting would be on Thursday.
Senator Marshall: Okay, we'll talk on Thursday.
The Chair: We haven't struck that committee yet.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Senator Tannas: Senator Housakos, I have a small item under "Other Matters'' I'd like to discuss with respect to the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets.
The Chair: Do you want to give us a heads-up as to what that item is?
Senator Tannas: It's to do with travel of a communications person on a committee trip.
The Chair: Very good.
Do I have a motion for the minutes to be passed? That's moved by Senator Munson, seconded by Senator Doyle. All in favour? Any objections? It's passed unanimously.
Item 2 is the first report of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates.
Senator Wells, you have the floor.
Senator Wells: Has the report been handed out?
The Chair: Colleagues, while the report is passed out, I want to remind everyone that, as per our objective to be as public and transparent as possible, the meeting is in public. Of course, all our meetings have been and will continue to be in public, unless, of course, a senator deems it necessary to go in camera. I just remind all colleagues of that.
Senator Wells: I will wait a moment, chair, while everyone quickly reviews the short report.
Thank you for allowing me to be present and to speak with you today as Chair of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates. As you know, on April 21 our subcommittee was tasked with the examination of funding allocations for house officers and caucuses as defined in Division 6 of the SARs, notably with respect to the additional office allowance for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. On behalf of the subcommittee, I am pleased to present this first report.
As the report indicates, there was a consensus — in fact there was unanimity amongst members — that Senator Harder could fulfill his duties adequately already with the funds allotted to him and, as such, no new increases have been recommended beyond the $400,000 already approved by CIBA in January and April at the end of this year.
That said, the $400,000 has created a pressure on the budget structure — I'll speak about that in a moment — and those funds need to come from somewhere else. There are also additional pressures due to the increase in the number of senators and the appointment of a whip and Deputy Leader of the Government.
I'd like to speak briefly and then take any questions. I'd also welcome my colleagues on the subcommittee to assist in answering some of those.
I'd like to take a moment to talk about the report. It goes beyond the initial view that $400,000 is enough to run the leadership office. In our subcommittee meetings, we heard from a number of leaders of caucuses and leaders who have been leaders in different capacities. We've had Leaders of the Government in the Senate, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, a Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and we had Senator McCoy — I'm not sure what her title is, but for now I'll call it the leader of the working group of the —
Senator Tkachuk: Representative of the working group.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Tkachuk.
We had a discussion about how those offices have been run and are run: caucus management, the use of their $185,400 office budget as part of their overall mélange of the leadership office. We had quite a robust discussion and came to the conclusion that it's not just the $400,000 to be looked at in isolation, even though that was the request.
I don't know if this type of in-depth analysis has been done before with respect to leadership offices, but you'll see on the top of page 3 of the subcommittee's report "Amounts available to the government in the Senate leadership team,'' which now includes, obviously, the $250,000 granted in January 2016, the $150,000 additional granted last month, the collective office budgets of the leadership team, the $75,000 allotted to the deputy leader, the $100,000 allotted to the whip's budget, and the additional amounts allotted as independent senators' research allocation of $7,000 per senator — that's $21,000.
We looked at the total amount of just over $1.1 million available to the leadership team, and we thought in this circumstance, given there was no caucus management function, that this would be a suitable amount. Again, there was more than consensus. We didn't just sort of agree on it. We were all firm in our unanimity.
Regarding where this money will come from, although the subcommittee was not tasked specifically with finding the source of these funds to alleviate the pressures, we did work closely with Nicole and Pascale, and others from Finance, to identify areas where savings could be found. As you know, the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates spent the last year looking at the budgets for the Senate. Of course that was top of mind for the committee — certainly for me, as chair of the subcommittee — when it was doing that work.
So we determined that the additional funds required would come from unallocated committee funds and reduction of witness funds, as well as reduction in caucus funding based on expected membership changes.
I'd be happy to take any questions if anyone has any.
Excuse me. I just want to mention the others on the subcommittee: Senator Jaffer, as deputy chair, Senator Tannas, Senator Downe and Senator Tkachuk. Am I missing one?
Senator Jaffer: Senator Campbell.
Senator Wells: Yes, Senator Campbell. I'm sorry.
Senator Munson: The salaries for the deputy leader and the whip, are they included in this? Are those salaries automatic?
Senator Wells: Those salaries aren't included in this report. Do you mean the additional?
Senator Munson: The additional salaries.
Senator Wells: They're not included.
Senator Munson: It's automatic?
Senator Wells: We didn't have much discussion on this, but any additional salary that a senator gets would not be included. It's not an allocation of a budget. It's their salary.
Senator Munson: Is it automatic?
The Chair: Absolutely. Unless we have some issue with the nomination or the process, but it's a salary. It has nothing to do with this budget allocation.
Senator Marshall: I have a couple questions. On the top of page 3 where we're talking about the $21,000 — three times $7,000 — how many non-aligned senators do we have? Is it just six? I'm getting a bit confused now about who is an independent and who is not aligned.
Senator Wells: I would seek the assistance of Nicole on this, but I would think a non-aligned senator is one not associated with the Conservative caucus or the independent Liberal caucus.
The Chair: An unaligned member is also not associated with any of the political parties recognized by Elections Canada.
Senator Tkachuk: That's correct.
Senator Marshall: So am I right in saying that we now have three whips in the Senate? We have three whips, and do we have three deputy leaders or two deputy leaders?
The Chair: We have three deputy leaders.
Senator Marshall: So when we get down to the pressure of $778,000, the additional salary for Senator Mitchell as whip and for Senator Bellemare as deputy leader, is that in the $778,000?
Senator Wells: It is not.
Nicole Proulx, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, Senate of Canada: The additional salaries for the positions of leader, deputy leader and whip are not included in this budget. It's a statutory budget.
Senator Marshall: Oh, it's in statutory.
The Chair: That's why I think Senator Wells is saying it will add budgetary pressures; correct?
Senator Wells: Yes, because the initial amounts requested were not part of the statutory allowance.
Senator Marshall: All right, then. Thank you.
Senator Campbell: Just a point of clarification. In fact, there are only two paid leaders, two paid deputies and two paid whips because the independent Liberals aren't being paid.
Senator Marshall: Oh, okay.
Senator Campbell: In name there are three.
Senator Marshall: We're only paying two. That was my question. Okay.
The Chair: Sorry, I misunderstood. The Liberal caucus leadership does not get a salary top-up.
Senator Marshall: One last question. Talking about the $778,000, that's the money we haven't budgeted for, right?
The Chair: That's correct.
Senator Marshall: Did you say it's going to come out of committees? Is that where it's going to come from?
Senator Wells: We don't know where it will come from, but there are suggestions. When we looked at the additional cost, for which there wasn't a budget, we looked at options for reallocation from areas where we knew there wouldn't be full uptake, but this hadn't been decided. These are just suggestions in case this committee has questions about where the money might come from. This is a "might.'' This hasn't been allocated yet.
Senator Marshall: So in the back of our minds we should remember that there's almost a million dollars we will be looking for if we approve this.
Senator Lang: I have a couple of observations. I guess because an allocation of dollars is statutory doesn't mean it shouldn't be identified. I want to say this because if you're the Leader of the Government or the Leader of the Opposition and that much more money allocated to your office, although it's statutory, it's still a cost of running that office.
Senator Tkachuk: No, the only thing in statutory is the salaries.
Senator Lang: I'm talking about the salaries. Maybe I'm missing something here. You have a salary allocation as a senator, and then you have that much more over and above for the office that you hold in respect to the cost of being, in this case, the government leader. Is that not correct?
Senator Tkachuk: Government leader and opposition.
Senator Lang: Yes. My point is that that is not identified in these numbers.
Senator Tkachuk: No, but it is in the budget. It is in the budget, the estimates.
Senator Lang: The point I'm making is that to be transparent and accountable, running these offices should reflect that amount of money over and above the normal Senate allocation so that at the end of the day, we around this table know that, no matter which pot it comes out of, this is what it costs to run this particular office. I would submit that the next time this is presented, that should be allocated. Although it's statutory, or whatever, it's still a cost.
The Chair: Colleagues, can I just draw everyone's attention back to the issue at hand? At this point the debate is not about the salaries of leadership.
What we asked the subcommittee to do is look at the operation budgets. Internal Economy, to my understanding, for years has always separated the operations budget of leadership in the Senate and the statutory top-up for leadership positions, be it the Speaker or the various officers of the Senate. If we want to revisit that particular issue or open up that issue, that's a whole other debate.
The debate at hand is in regard to the mandate we gave the subcommittee regarding the operation budget of the leadership, and I think we should stay within the confines of that debate or we'll be here all morning.
Senator Lang: Mr. Chairman, in deference to the position I'm putting forward, I'm not debating whether he or she should get paid. All I'm asking is that that cost be identified when we look at the total costs of running an office. That's all I'm asking.
The Chair: I'm responding to that and saying for the longest time this committee has budgeted that in a separate way where the officers of Parliament have clearly identified statutory top-ups, and operation budgets of officers of the Senate have a standalone budget. All I'm saying is the work that we asked this subcommittee to do is strictly on the operations of the budget. If you want to open up a new topic for discussion, which is what you're doing right now, we can do that at a future date, but that's not what we're tackling this morning.
Senator Lang: I'm not going to pursue it further. I'm just saying it costs more to run this office than what we see here.
Senator Manning: The $7,000, that's on top of the regular budget allocation they receive for their research office?
Senator Wells: Yes, that's fair.
Senator Jaffer: Every independent gets it.
Senator Manning: That's over and above what we receive?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Senator Wells: Independent senators are deemed different than caucus-aligned senators.
Senator Manning: Okay.
My issue here is where you're going to find the money, and my understanding is unused committee funds. Would that be correct?
Senator Wells: We weren't mandated to find the money, but as part of the work that the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates has done in the past, I thought it would be useful if I identified where there might be some relief of that pressure. I'm not suggesting that it come from there. I'm merely answering a question that I knew would come: "Where will it come from?'' There were two options where we think that we can find money.
Senator Manning: My only concern with that is that we're three months into the fiscal year now. A fair amount of the budget, from my understanding, has been allocated from our last meeting, and I realize that we don't spend everything in this budget on a regular basis. The fact is we have nine months left in the year, and I understand a fair amount of committee travel has been identified. The fact is that I wouldn't mind to approve this today, banking on the fact that we find the money from funds that have been budgeted but not spent. So we're hoping that people don't spend money that we already gave them in order to pay this bill.
I understand where you're coming from. You have to look for ideas and suggestions, but I think we have to be very careful going down the road where we're allocating more money than we really have, hoping that we'll find it down the road in six months' time.
Senator Wells: It's a good point, but this subcommittee is not recommending more money than what's already been approved. We're just confirming that the budget that sits within the leadership team's group is satisfactory without anything additional.
Senator Manning: But you may be looking for a reallocation later on, to move committee funds over to this side of the ledger if they are not used. Would that be correct? Am I reading this right?
Senator Wells: I understand your question.
CIBA has already approved the $250,000. That was in January 2016, and it approved and granted an additional $150,000 in April. All the rest has already been approved. In fact, everything that I've mentioned has been approved, so where we find it is a matter of discussion and looking at where we might have money.
This subcommittee didn't approve or recommend anything additional to what's already been approved.
The Chair: If I may just reinforce what I think Senator Manning is saying — and he's absolutely right — is that I think we're going to be obligated to find the funds within the existing envelope we have as we go forward. Obviously if there is a shortfall towards the end of the fiscal year because of these added pressures, then of course we can always go to estimates.
Sorry for interrupting, Senator Manning, but maybe I can ask Pascale Legault to weigh in on this and maybe give us some clarity.
Pascale Legault, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: To re-emphasize why we have identified a committee as a potential source of funds is the fact that in the last 10 years, 45 per cent of the allocated budget was used. If we look at the top 5 years within those last 10, 67 per cent of the overall allocated budget was used. The reason for this is that we always use a worst-case scenario, or a very prudent assumption, when we allocate the budget, such as assuming everyone's going and taking a separate taxi. The assumptions are worst-case scenario and they never materialize.
If we look at all of this, we think that a significant portion of that $800,000 could be funded. In fact, the vast majority could be funded with the committee budget available. We will monitor the situation very closely so that we can scoop any funds that are not used and put them towards this pressure, and we will continue to monitor other sources of money throughout the next month to fund this internally.
Senator Manning: That's fine. We're looking at $778,000 in added pressure, right?
Senator Wells: Yes, that's correct.
Senator Manning: I've lost my train of thought, so I'll have to come back to it.
Senator Marshall: Can Finance explain the composition of the $3,042,348 in the second-last paragraph? I'd like to have a schedule of that for my files. Thank you.
Senator Tannas: I have one more question for Pascale: Do we anticipate savings based on the budgeting we did for the inflow of new senators and the setup of their offices? Is that a potential source of funds to skate us back onside our budget?
Ms. Legault: Yes. When we make the recommendation in December for this committee for the Main Estimates, we use a number of assumptions. One of those was that we would have 100 senators sitting throughout the year. That was a very prudent assumption, and we know this is not the case currently.
The other assumption we made based on past experience is the usage of each senator's budget. We have not requested the full $185,400 for each senator because we know for a fact that it was not fully used in the past. I'm going to say we're using approximately 80 per cent per senator.
We have to monitor those two assumptions: We know that the one about 100 senators was very prudent, but we may be a little short on the 80 per cent because of the level of activity. We're monitoring both, and we think that if we see the number of appointments we are expecting in September, we should break even based on the budget that we have requested, but we're not looking for a significant source of funds that could reduce the pressure we're talking about here.
At this point this is not considered a source of funds, but if there are no appointments in the fall, then it could become a source of funds.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator Lankin: I have no basis on which to judge the actual numbers. I don't have the background or the experience, while the people on the subcommittee certainly do, so I appreciate the work that has been done.
I want to ask a few short questions so that I can understand, on a comparative basis, what these numbers mean. I may have this wrong, but I've heard some of the discussion of what monies were allocated to the previous office of the government leader, and I think it was around $800,000. Did that number include the salaries and operational budgets for the deputy leader and the whip, or were those in addition to it?
Senator Wells: The salaries of the office budgets of the deputy leader and whip were separate.
Senator Lankin: They would be on top of that $800,000?
Senator Wells: That's right.
Senator Lankin: Then this might become a comparable number. I wanted to understand whether this was substantially more than in the past or not.
Senator Wells: Specifically on that topic, one of the things that we did look at was the amount used for caucus management, which clearly wouldn't be required in this case.
Senator Lankin: I've been a leader and a whip in a caucus, and so I have some sense of what that management job can entail, but I don't understand why that is substantially different from the kind of support or service that's envisioned for all senators, including the group of independents.
Senator Wells: I don't understand.
Senator Lankin: The committee, in considering this, thought that the caucus management job would not be as substantial in this office. What sorts of tasks or differences did you anticipate?
Senator Wells: It was one of the questions that we asked specifically of Senator Cowan. I'll look to some of my independent Liberal colleagues to provide greater detail if they can, but I know that they have a carve-off of their total allocation for caucus use, such as research and things like that. I don't exactly remember how much.
Senator Munson, can you help me with that?
Senator Tkachuk: It was $200,000 and some.
Senator Wells: Yes, it was a number of hundreds of thousands of dollars which senators could apply for from the leader's budget for specific work on projects that they're doing. It was an application process for a pot of money from within the independent Liberal caucus.
Senator Carignan spoke about the staff that he assigns to manage various votes, policy files or organization in the caucus that I belong to. I'd point to those two things specifically.
Senator Munson: In the Senate Liberal caucus, this money goes through a vetting process. You make an application for these funds. I don't know the exact figure right now, but we have a group of senators, and an applicant would have to sit in front of our caucus and explain why this is a good public policy issue.
Just to give an example, Senator Charlie Watt had an extensive report done by a legal team on Inuit land claims in the North, and we felt not too many people in the public are paying attention to that. So he has to make a presentation to, let's say, ask for $50,000 for legal opinions and investigations that happen in the North, northern Quebec and Labrador. Then he would come to us, and we would present that and put it out as a public policy document that was presented by the Senate Liberal caucus. That's where that money goes.
Senator Wells: In the Conservative caucus, we do it differently. It's not an application process. There's a team of people who look at special projects, if that were one of the requests.
Senator Lankin: As I understand it, then, what was established back in January for the independents was the $7,000 each, which they could pool to have something like what you do. It's an attempt at equivalence of some sort across that, I guess.
Is there anything that Senator Harder identified in terms of the office for the representative of the government that he felt was necessary that can't be fulfilled out of these funds?
Senator Wells: He broke down the tasks in his application, as I recall, but he didn't assign specific amounts; nor did he suggest where those amounts within his budget would come. He didn't say, "Here is one thing, and I can use my senator's office budget for that or my additional $7,000 for that.'' There wasn't that level of detail, not that we saw. We didn't consider it on that basis.
Senator Lankin: My last question is on the $185,400, which is the operational salary budget that each senator gets. Included in this amount is the $7,000 times three for each of the three individuals on that leadership team? Is that amount of money counted in the Leader of the Opposition's operational allocation budget? Presumably they have a Senate salary budget as well.
Senator Wells: I asked about that. I spoke to two leaders of the opposition, Senator Cowan and Senator Carignan. They don't separate the tasks within their $185,400 allocation and their leadership budget. For instance, Senator Cowan did not have an executive assistant for his Senate office and an executive assistant for his leadership office. He had one executive assistant that came from that umbrella of funds. Both Senator Cowan and Senator Carignan operated like that.
Senator Lankin: I am presuming, again, if we look at the roughly $800,000 or whatever for Senator Carignan's Leader of the Opposition budget, the $185,000 would be in addition to that.
Senator Wells: That's correct, yes.
Senator Lankin: The last thing is an observation, and I would like to know if it's correct. I can't judge the sufficiency of these funds. I think people have done that. This is a lesser budget that's being provided to Senator Harder and the leadership office around the representative of the government than is being provided to at least the Leader of the Opposition if not also the leader of the independent Liberal caucus.
Senator Wells: Okay.
Senator Tannas: To provide you, senator, with some assurance, Senator Harder, in his remarks with us and the exchange we had, said, "Look, I'll make it work.'' He never tried to assert that he couldn't do his job with the funds that currently had been approved. That gave us some comfort.
I don't think the way this has all turned out is perfect. But given the circumstances and the way in which the government kind of pre-sold us on how this would all work, the reality once Senator Harder came, and the way in which he wants to work it or feels it is necessary to work it versus all of the arrangements that were made beforehand and budgeting, I think all of the formulas need to be revisited next year. But for now, we're satisfied that everybody can do their job and get on with it.
The Chair: To the point made by Senator Tannas, I know there was some consternation, which is too strong a word but something approaching that, that independent senators get an additional $7,000 whereas senators associated with a caucus do not.
I think Senator Tannas is right. This is a quickly changing dynamic, one we didn't foresee when we were doing budgets earlier this year or last year. It is something that we're going to have to take a look at, not just in the fullness of time but the fullness of the changing dynamic.
Senator Batters: To respond to a couple of Senator Lankin's points to provide you with a little bit more information on this, when you were asking about whether the deputy leader amount and the whip amount for their office allocations was included in the amount for the office of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I would remind you that what we were looking at and what had initially been approved by CIBA was amount of $250,000 for the government leader of the Senate. Then there were additional specified amounts for the deputy leader budget and for the whip budget.
Senator Harder's request was solely for him as government leader in the Senate where he was requesting this $800,000 amount. That was solely for the government leader amount. He did not come here asking for additional amounts for deputy leader and whip. In fact at the time, I don't think he had one appointed yet.
Also, prior to January this year, independent senators received no additional budget money; so that was a change we made in January.
Senator Lankin: Thank you.
Senator Manning: The initial request from Senator Harder was for $800,000 and some. Would that be correct? I'm having a job to follow this. Can somebody tell me what he asked for and what the end result was?
The Chair: I think he asked for $800,000, wasn't it, Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: It was something like that.
The Chair: It was between $787,000 and $880,000, or something like that. In the end, I think what you're proposing here is $600,000.
Senator Wells: I'm proposing no additional funds beyond the those —
Senator Manning: What amount have we allocated?
The Chair: It would be $600,000 you would have available, give or take. Not including his —
Senator Tannas: It was $400,000. Apples to apples, he asked for between 7 and 8 and we're giving $400,000.
Senator Wells: Senator Manning, it is also important to know that when the request was made, and not to presuppose what Senator Harder knew or didn't know, but this is the first time we've looked at this type of thing in totality. I'm not sure that was taken into account when the budget request was presented.
Senator Manning: It's new territory for us, so we're finding our way.
On top of the $400,000 plus that we're okaying, Senator Mitchell, who in our world is a whip, gets $100,000 for his office. Am I following that?
Senator Wells: Yes, for the whip's office.
Senator Manning: He gets $100,000 and $75,000 for the deputy leader on top of what we're allocating.
Senator Wells: That comes as part of their whip's budget.
Senator Campbell: Which is all combined for the leadership team.
Senator Manning: Is the $100,000 for the whip part of the $400,000?
Senator Wells: No, it's in addition, as is the $75,000. That's why I call it the "Senate leadership team.'' It's more than just the leader's budget or the representative's budget.
The Chair: If I may ask a question, and I'm sorry I don't know the answer, is a budget allocated for the deputy leader?
Senator Wells: Yes, $75,000.
The Chair: So $100,000 for the whip and —
Senator Wells: — $75,000 for the deputy.
The Chair: Plus $400,000 for the leader. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: To further answer Senator Lankin, one of our preoccupations was that there is another caucus — the independent caucus. We heard from Senator McCoy who said there were 18 people in that caucus and they were not seeking funds. It looked like Senator Harder and two others. It's something we'll have to wrestle with later.
The Chair: That's a very good point.
Colleagues, I see there are no more questions on this. Could I have a motion?
Senator Tkachuk: I move adoption of the report.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Tkachuk, seconded by Senator Munson. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Anyone opposed? We have unanimity again.
Item 3, colleagues, is a request of the Social Affairs Committee for additional witnesses.
I have a request from Senator Kelvin Ogilvie. Their committee is doing a study right now on dementia in our society. As part of the study, the committee has invited a group of individuals who are patients right now suffering from dementia. Three of these individuals have been asked to come and testify before the committee. They do require some special attention and care. In this particular instance, four individuals are required to care for these three patients.
The Senate Rules that do exist are that we reimburse. We give authorization for two representatives per organization to come to testify before the committee. In this instance, Senator Ogilvie is asking for an exemption because of the extenuating circumstances with these three individuals who would like to testify before the committee. They do suffer from dementia, and there is an additional request of four attendants to take care of them. That would bring it to a total of the three witnesses, plus the four individuals who care for them. They are seeking leave from this committee to authorize that expense.
Moved by Senator Manning. Seconded by — is there a question?
Senator Cordy: I think this is an excellent study. These are extenuating circumstances, and I would second the motion.
The Chair: All in favour, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Item 4: Senators' staff travel requests for committees
Senator Lang: I was asked by Senator Marshall to do an estimate of what it would cost if a policy advisor were to accompany a deputy chair or chair on any one particular visit. We asked the administration to do a breakdown.
I know it seems kind of in depth with respect to the numbers, but we did a review of the last 19 Senate visits and tried to get an average of what it would cost. We looked at these particular visits and related them to what it would cost for a communications officer or anyone else to visit with a Senate committee.
If a decision were — and it's an "if'' — approved by the Subcommittee on Budgets for the chair or the deputy chair to have a policy advisor accompany them on a certain requested visit, the average cost of those 19 visits was roughly $3,100 for someone to accompany between airfare, obviously, and accommodation. It's an average. It depended on the particular study, where they were going and for what purpose.
The other point I want to make is that one of the reasons I'm putting this forward is that we have changed, in our offices, the expectations of our staff, for those that wish to do so, to be able to hire a well-qualified policy adviser within the categories. If you recall, a number of months ago we gave a significant category increase in the remuneration that could be paid to that position. It was substantial. I for one, in my experience as a chair over the last three years, know how important it is, in my judgment, for those who wish, to at least have the opportunity for your policy adviser to be considered to accompany you on a visit. This goes back to the most important work we do, and that is the writing of reports.
If you look at your correspondence of last week, a letter was signed a couple of years ago by chairs and deputy chairs who felt it was important that we at least have the option, subject to the concurrence of the Subcommittee on Budgets, that that type of decision could be made with respect to the personnel within our offices.
That would be the check and balance, which is not a foregone conclusion. It would be a case of you having to go forward and justify your budget and what you are proposing.
I think it's fairly clear. A number of chairs feel strongly that that option should be available to them, depending on the report they're dealing with.
Senator Tkachuk: Are you saying one staffer or both? In other words, only the chair, or the chair and deputy can take a staffer?
Senator Lang: I'm saying the option could be for the chair and deputy chair, but it would have to be justified before the Subcommittee on Budgets.
Senator Tkachuk: So the total allocation you're talking about here is one person.
Senator Lang: It could be a maximum of two if the chair and deputy chair were approved.
Senator Tkachuk: So if one person went on a trip it would be $3,100, and if two people went it would be $6,200?
Senator Lang: It would be $3,100 per person, on the average. If you took two, it would be $6,200, but that's the decision that would have to be made.
This is a proposal that we put together three years ago. It has never really gone anywhere. From my experience, I feel strong that for those offices that are doing those reports, if your policy adviser is totally immersed in these reports, they should have the ability to go on a visit that's going to be of some value to you.
Senator Tkachuk: And go on international trips.
Senator Lang: That possibility exists as well, but that decision will be made by the Subcommittee on Budgets. You will have to justify it.
Senator Cordy: Being a member of the subcommittee, I would prefer that that decision be made by all of Internal. It's either chair and deputy chair staff, or it's chair or deputy chair, but not left up to the subcommittee to determine.
This is May, and we have allocated almost all of the funds available for committee travel. Under the assumption that the clawback that's coming up will be almost 50 per cent, we'll have a significant amount of money for travel starting in the fall.
Now, since that time, we have been allowing a communications person to travel with committees. This committee and the subcommittee in particular will be looking at whether or not this is good value for money. We saw the pictures coming from the North, and a picture is worth a thousand words. Anyway, we will be reviewing that in the fall.
Just for everybody's information, the clawback is going to be less because we have now allocated a communications person to travel with, if not all committees, certainly most of the committees that have travelled or are travelling this spring and summer. So there will be less money coming back, clawed back. There's only so much money. That's the reality.
If we are going to allow two additional staff people to travel with every committee, that's an additional — and I think that more than 10 trips have been approved by the subcommittee — 20 individuals will be travelling.
I'm not saying approve it or don't approve it, but it will mean that fewer committees are going to travel. That's just a reality. There is only so much money. When we look at the previous report we passed earlier today for funding for Senator Harder's office, which I agreed with totally, when we look at the pressures that come from that, we are now going to add an additional two people per committee. The bottom line is there will be fewer committees travelling, in my mind.
A question I would ask would be that my staff person was travelling, who would they be working for: me or the committee? That's a question that we have to look at.
The Chair: I have a few comments on this issue as well.
Senator Cordy is right. There is a limited amount of resources, and we have to be very prudent when we make such a change that at first seems innocuous but isn't when we start digging deeper and start adding one or two people.
We took a decision to add communications people to committees in a number of instances, and I think we did that because we saw a need. We have all understood that we need to better communicate what the institution does for Canadians. We also saw a deficiency in the fact that there was great work done by the committees when they went on the road, but the people that we work for weren't aware of it very often. In some instances, even where the committee was holding a public hearing, obviously since we weren't doing an effective job of reaching out to the communications outlets, we weren't getting the message out. So we thought there was a need for it and we thought it was a good investment in order to support committees' work.
Senator Lang, Senate committee work has been recognized for years as being good work. Many people have commented that the work we do is far more substantive and informative, and that we're more diligent in our work than even committees on the house side. In my mind, there doesn't seem to be such a huge deficiency, but yet we're trying to correct something.
Senator Lang, in the last little while, have you seen situations where committees have done reports where they're shorthanded because committee chairs or deputy chairs haven't been able to bring their staff along?
From my work at Transport and Communications and other committees, I have found that the senator clerks, Senate staff and the library analysts who do their work there — are they perfect? No one is, but by and large they're doing pretty good work to support the committee.
What deficiency are we trying to rectify here?
Senator Lang: We're trying to strengthen the ability of the chair's and deputy chair's position to be able to do the job you're asking them to do.
Looking back at my time as a chair, I can only use myself as an example of how much support I got or didn't get. I can tell you this: The policy advisers within our offices we utilize for this purpose, and I know a number of chairs do, are there until seven o'clock at night if asked or on the weekends to do the work that is required.
That doesn't necessarily say the same thing within the administration. The commitment to the final product and to ensuring that you get all the necessary information is personified by that commitment to your office and to ensuring that the Senate and the Senate committees, at the end of the day, bring forward the reports that we all want them to bring.
My point is this: I will go on the record and say that if I have a choice between a policy adviser who is helping to draft and direct the drafting of a committee report — a committee of which I'm the chair — I would prefer to have that type of individual with me as opposed to a communications officer because, quite frankly, I know how we can get communication. I know that. Now, it's not perfect, but I know that, depending how you run your office, you can get the necessary press if you do it in certain ways.
From my point of view, it's an optional situation of going before the Subcommittee on Budgets.
I can see Senator Cordy's point. Maybe to start it should be strictly the chair who should have that option to present to the Subcommittee on Budgets.
As I look back in respect to the travel, we just had this conversation: We're going to find the money in committees to be able to do other things. I feel strongly that we should have that ability, because you're asking us to do the job and we're asking somebody to do the report. For example, we went to NORAD. We built that report basically in the office that I'm in. The staff and I — the deputy chair and I on my side — couldn't go, and they were talking about things we had never seen.
Senator Batters: I'm glad that you did it in this fashion, Senator Lang, setting out what the costs could be. I didn't want to see a chart where it indicated the amounts that have been spent for chairs and deputy chairs to send staff on committee trips. That probably would have been significantly limited, because currently chairs and deputy chairs can bring their staff members on a trip, but it's a maximum of two trips per year. I think that's probably limited to domestic travel and has to be paid for from their own office budgets.
I think this provides a more realistic picture of what we could be facing.
I have just a small point. In your ground transportation observation, you talk about how staff would rarely need to claim ground transportation, because they live in Ottawa and they take a cab to get to the airport or train station. Well, that's ground transportation, so that's not really a valid observation.
Senator Manning: Thank you, Senator Lang, for your presentation. I have a couple of questions for Senator Cordy.
At each presentation — I haven't had an opportunity to make one yet as Chair of the Fisheries Committee — is there a proposal for a communications person to travel, or is that carte blanche? Is each proposal separate and you have to make a request to bring a communications person with you?
Senator Cordy: Each case is separate. Each chair and deputy chair who appear before us has to bring a communications plan, and they have to request at that time whether they would like a communications person to accompany them.
Having said that, there have been committees come forward in April, for example, and when they notice that other committees have communications people accompanying them, they have made a special request — not for additional funds but because a senator or senators are not going — for a communications person to attend. As a subcommittee, we looked at each of those retroactive cases and determined, I think in all cases, that we would allow a communications person to go with them, because we felt it was extremely important that if we're doing this great work, it should be communicated to the public.
Senator Manning: Good idea.
Maybe someone who has served here longer than I have can answer this: In the past, have we had a situation where the chair's staff would travel?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Senator Manning: When and why was that changed? Maybe someone can answer that for me.
Senator Tkachuk: I don't know when it was changed.
Senator Manning: But there was a time when the chair's staff travelled with the committees?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Senator Manning: I don't have an issue with it. My only concern is that I think it should be a situation where the case has to be made to the Subcommittee on Budgets. Whether we go with the chair having the staff and the deputy chair having the staff, I don't think we should have carte blanche that for every committee that travels, every chair or deputy chair takes someone with them.
If we have to make a case to take a communications person with a committee — which is vitally important, in my view — we should at least be in the process making a case for a chair such as me to take a policy adviser. I don't think it should be an automatic part of the budget, like interpreters or whatever the case may be.
But I don't have an issue with it in regard to making the case. If someone is making a case and the subcommittee can prove it, that's —
Senator Tkachuk: It was always part of the committee budget for staff to travel too. We have two trips now where we can take staff with us.
Senator Manning: Out of our own budgets.
Senator Tkachuk: Out of our own budgets.
Senator Manning: Before, did the money for staff travelling come out of the committee budget?
Senator Tkachuk: You would have to get committee approval. It would have been part of the package when you went for your budget.
Senator Manning: It wasn't part of your own personal budget, no. Okay.
Senator Wells: It's important that we give consideration to this. We should do it — or at least give us the flexibility to do it.
I've never been chair or deputy chair of a committee like this, so it wouldn't have applied to me in the past, but I know that when I do travel for my other Senate business, it's always helpful to have that kind of assistance.
I know for one of the associations on which I, I was shocked to see a delegation of political staff coming from the United States to meet with senators and members of the House of Commons here. It was in preparation for a visit of senators and members of the House of Representatives in the U.S. I was surprised, but pleasantly so, to see that staff were empowered to do the things that they need to do.
I can only speak for my staff. They are not simply functionaries, but they're skilled operators in the jobs that they do. We've spent the last few years restricting our activities, and I don't think it served the Senate or Canada. It certainly hasn't served the senators. I think maximum flexibility should be given to senators to decide if they need that assistance, particularly on committees.
Senator Tannas: On the committee with Senator Cordy and Senator Doyle —
Senator Cordy: You actually chair the committee. You're the big boss.
Senator Tannas: If we do this, I think the subcommittee is going to need to, on a case-by-case basis, make decisions on political staff, on security staff, which is another area we have opened up, and also around communications staff. I'm not afraid or uncomfortable with the idea that we would say no to any one of those three different circumstances. I think that's just part of the subcommittee's work. It's why we get paid the big bucks for doing it, and we'll chin our way up to be able to make those recommendations to this committee.
If it's the will of the group here to approve this, we'll make sure that we are as critical as we need to be to do so. If we don't, then thanks to Senator Lang for bringing this up and to all of us for having a good discussion in order to make decision.
The Chair: I had mentioned that Senator Tannas would have the last word, but I'll allow my deputy chair to have the last word.
Senator Cordy: I would like to thank Senator Lang for bringing it up and for the discussion that we've had.
I don't like to compare ourselves to the U.S. I've travelled to NATO meetings. They travel with their own plane, their own doctor. Each person travelling has at least one staff person, so I don't think we want to go that way, although sometimes it would be nice to have our own plane, wouldn't it — and that's just a joke for anybody listening.
Senator Campbell: It's been a slow news week.
Senator Cordy: It's been a slow news week. Yes, let's have that headline — "Senators want their own plane.''
Senator Campbell: A proper jet.
Senator Cordy: While I understand that there are valid points around allowing a chair's or deputy chair's staff or both to accompany a trip, I think it's more important that more committees travel.
And if we allow this, it will — you know, it's great to say you've got to make your point, but we all know that this eventually will become the norm. I think it's more important to have 25 committees travelling, because I think we work in a vacuum when we're in Ottawa. I think it's important to travel across the country. I would prefer to have more committees travelling across the country and getting input from Canadians around the country than spending that money to allow political staff people to travel with the committee. I think the committee people that we have travelling with us, the staff from the Senate, are doing an exceptional job. I think it would be more important to have more committees travel, and I think we have to keep that in mind.
There's only a certain amount of money to be spent, and we have to decide how we're going to spend it.
The Chair: Colleagues, I've listened very carefully to the discussion around the table, and I heard some very good points of view. There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus, though. It seems to me that there is a benefit to staff in certain circumstances travelling with the chairs and deputy chairs. That's why I think Internal Economy had allocated the availability of two points to chairs and deputy chairs to bring their staff.
I hear loud and clear that there will be pressure on the travel budget of committees from the subcommittee. I also hear that there's an openness to review the process to see the benefit of doing this. Maybe we can increase the travel points that senators can utilize from their offices once they are chairs or deputy chairs.
I'm weighing on the side that maybe we can give the subcommittee, which does make the big bucks right now to look at committee travel, the mandate on a per-case basis to review special requests, as we do right now on the communications front, which we all agree is a lot more critical than anything else. There was a need that needed to be rectified, and we rectified it. Since we're reviewing that on a case-by-case basis, I think it would only make sense that we do the same for the time being with this particular request. Maybe we can ask our subcommittee to study in the next few weeks a little bit more in depth the pros and cons of making a change to our Rules and what those pros and cons are, and what a way forward might be. Is it to allocate more funds for this? Is it to allow senators to use a larger amount of their existing 64 points to bring their staff?
If Senators Cordy and Tannas would be willing to add to their workload, maybe they could sit down with the various chairs and deputy chairs in the next few weeks and months and discuss with them the pros and cons. I know Senator Cordy is not maybe excited by that prospect.
You will need even less use of a private jet with all the work we're piling on to you.
Colleagues, does this make any sense?
Senator Lang: I just want to get clarification here. As chair, are you recommending that we accept what was presented here with the understanding that the subcommittee will further review this and see whether or not there are other ways that this could be done, but this would be an interim measure?
The Chair: No. What I'm recommending is that this is not accepted, that on a per-need basis the chairs and deputy chairs can go before the committee and request an exemption.
Senator Lang: Mr. Chairman, you need authority from Internal Economy for that exemption because the subcommittee at this stage doesn't have the authority.
The Chair: That's what I'm saying. We would give them, on a per-need basis, the authority to review requests like that, but it wouldn't be carte blanche. It would be on a per-need basis going forward.
Senator Lang: That's fine.
The Chair: We will accommodate the needs, but it would be vetted through the subcommittee.
I'm also adding that the subcommittee maybe in the next few weeks and months to look at the Rules as they exist right now going forward and put something in place that's a little bit more —
Senator Lang: That's fine.
The Chair: Because maybe the two points are not adequate enough. I don't know.
Does what I'm saying make sense, Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: I think it does.
To be clear, what we did in the past is we just said, "Look, we're not recommending this because it's not in the Rules.'' You're asking us to set that aside, and we would come forward if we saw something compelling and say that it's not in the Rules. You would be expecting a recommendation from us, notwithstanding the Rules, just give a recommendation on it.
The Chair: That's my sense of the consensus around the table.
Colleagues, am I wrong?
Senator Munson: Chair, I agree with what you say, but I think when the subcommittee meets on these things, everything has to be contextual. You can't be sitting and saying, "Oh, yes, it makes a lot more sense to have a senior policy adviser for chairs at the expense of a communications person.''
Senator Tannas: Right.
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Senator Munson: We're looking at communications people on a per-case basis, I guess. I think we have to move beyond that in the fall, that that's automatic for any committee travelling because it just makes eminent sense to have that.
You talked about the North; you talked about the pictures. I talk about the writing, too. We had beautiful writing and stories about the North, which we've never had before, and it was done by a professional writer in communications.
So when you are weighing this and saying, "Well, Senator Munson, because he's Chair of Human Rights, wants to have somebody to hold his hand across the country,'' at the expense of a communications person — I don't think so.
The Chair: Just to be clear, I need a motion here. On the first item, we are going to grant the committee, on travel, the authority to listen to requests from chairs and deputy chairs of committees who want to bring their staff on a particular study or trip; correct? The thing that I want to clarify: Is that going to fall within the two-point system out of 64, or it will come out of committee budgets?
Senator Batters: You wouldn't need to make a change if it was coming out of the two-point system because they can do that right now with nobody's approval.
The Chair: So even if they have the two points available and they haven't been used, they will be charging this to the travel budget of the committee?
Senator Lang: That's right.
The Chair: I'm saying they will still reserve those two points for other travel. I just want to clarify that.
Okay, so the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets will have the authority to hear requests from chairs and deputy chairs to bring staff on travel.
Senator Lang: On a case-by-case basis.
The Chair: They will report to the full committee, just as they do now. Is everyone good with that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All agreed.
And the second mandate we're giving the committee is maybe by the fall to come back with a little bit more clarity on that issue. Maybe the committee could also come up with a clearer way forward in terms of what our policy would be for a communications officer with a committee, plus staff support for chairs and deputy chairs.
So we're done with Item 4.
Are there any other matters? Senator Tannas already has an item on the agenda, and you would like to add something else, as well. Senator Tannas.
Senator Tannas: As directed by this committee, on Thursday, May 12, the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets has considered a request from the Transport and Communications Committee to include a communications officer in the place of a cancelled participant on their trip to Western Canada in June 2016. This trip is in relation to the committee's study on the transportation of crude oil.
After reviewing the committee's communications plan, the subcommittee recommends that this request be approved, provided that the expenses are within the budget amount that has been previously approved by the committee.
The Chair: Colleagues, is that a reasonable request? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: I know that the Subcommittee on Budgets has a very tough job, from time to time, trying to work within a limited budget. We always have situations where we are suggesting for approval travel for 12 senators, even though in most cases, as Pascale touched on earlier, we end up with about 50 per cent of the expenses approved.
I've been here now seven years, and this is about the only committee I've sat on where close to 12 senators show up, even here in Ottawa, let alone travelling across the country.
Maybe instead of trying to come up with a budget for 12 senators all the time, we should have a reality check and look at the past three years of travel. If the average number of people travelling on a committee is six or seven, maybe we can approve for eight or nine. If 86 per cent of our budget is already allocated but we're hoping to get back 42 per cent of that, it's just juggling back and forth. Maybe it would be a bit more realistic to look at the average amount of travel.
I've sat on very few committees in my time here where there have been 12 people at the table. That's food for thought. We might look at that in order to make the subcommittee's job a little easier.
I also think we should be looking at June travel. It's a topic that comes up here every year. We usually end up with legislation coming from the House of Commons. Our Fisheries Committee sometimes has a tough time meeting Tuesday evenings here in Ottawa because of legislation and delays in the chamber. As Senator Marshall touched on from her days as whip, we're heading into a time now where numbers are very important in the Senate, and we're always putting extra pressure on the members who are here because of people who are travelling to other places. We should take a serious look at travel in June.
Those are just a couple of points that have been on my mind, and I wanted to get them out this morning.
The Chair: Noted, Senator Manning.
Thank you, colleagues.
(The committee adjourned.)