THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 4, 2017
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9 a.m., in public, 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 Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good morning, colleagues.
Let’s start with item 1, which is the adoption of minutes of proceedings of the public portion of the April 13, 2017 meeting. It’s moved by Senator Jaffer. If there are no objections, it carries.
Item 2 is a contract over $100 for dry cleaning and related services. It’s only numbers this early in the morning.
Senator Marshall: That dollar amount, is that the cumulative total over five years?
The Chair: Before we get to questions, I’ll ask Pascale to present the file.
Pascale Legault, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Office of the Senate of Canada: The objective of this short presentation is to obtain the approval to launch a competitive process for the provision of dry cleaning and other related services to support the operations of the Senate.
Dry cleaning is used for pages, the Usher of the Black Rod office and table officers. The other related services include drape cleaning.
The creation of the Parliamentary Protective Service as a separate organization in June 2015 has resulted in a transfer of employees and a direct reduction of costs for the Senate in dry cleaning services. Based on the current trend, it is estimated that the new yearly cost will be between $20,000 and $25,000.
The current contract in place started in July 2012, and will expire on June 30, 2017.
The Senate procurement policy requires the authorization from your committee prior to initiating any procurement action for goods or services that exceed $100,000.
I am seeking your authorization to proceed with a competitive process to solicit bids for a supplier through a formal request for proposals.
The proposed term of this new contract will be three years, beginning on July 1, 2017, with two additional one-year options to renew, with an overall value that will not exceed $130,000.
The Chair: Any questions, colleagues?
Senator Batters: Is the Speaker’s office included in this too, or is that a separate contract?
Ms. Legault: It is included in this contract.
Senator Marshall: Pascale, is that total amount for the five years?
Ms. Legault: Yes, it is.
The Chair: Any other questions on dry cleaning?
Do I have a motion to approve the budget request? Moved by Senator Tkachuk. All in favour? The motion carries. Thank you, Pascale.
Item 3 is the second report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procurement.
Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the second report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procurement, which deals with the purchase of Senate medals. The subcommittee used its authority under the Parliament of Canada Act to authorize the contract, and we are now reporting the decision.
This is just to confirm the discussion we had last meeting of sourcing this out to the Mint.
Senator Tkachuk: Are these medals to wear, or are they to mount?
The Chair: To wear or mount.
Senator Tkachuk: Or are they just like the ones you buy at the Kennedy Centre for $10?
Senator Wells: I haven’t been to the Kennedy Centre so I don’t know which ones you are referring to. They are not wearable; they are table medals, so they would be in a box.
Senator McCoy: When will they be delivered to senators’ offices?
Senator Wells: There was a meeting held yesterday of the working group that I did not attend because I was ill.
I know there will be an allotted amount ready by June 30;I think it’s 150 medals. We’re not sure yet about the distribution of those. Senators will get theirs I believe in November, and we’re going to put the emphasis on the other ones that are going to be distributed to the other recipients prior to senators getting theirs.
Senator Batters: I would like a little reminder. It was earlier agreed in our previous motion about this that it would be a sole-source contract; is that correct?
Senator Wells: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: I have been asked by some senators who have recently resigned if we would consider giving them their allotment. They have been part of this year, and they are asking if they can also get their allotment to give out in the community.
Senator Wells: In our original proposal and in our follow-up motion we had considered that. It will include senators, for the most part, who were sitting senators in 2017. So Senator Cowan, for instance, would be a recipient, as well as his replacement, whoever that might be.
Senator Marshall: What’s coming forward for our approval today? Is it the decision that’s on page 11 of 16? Is it regarding the design? Is it regarding the extra funding? What’s coming forward for us today?
The Chair: Today it’s just a point of information of what is required, just confirming in the minutes the decision we took last time to single source this item.
Senator Marshall: We are not paying the extra $58,500, are we? I think last time Internal Economy approved the $255,000. Is that the right number? Is it 255 plus the 58? What is the $58,500, then? That’s in our notes.
Senator Wells: Senator Marshall, your question is about the 58. I don’t think there’s an expense for 58.
Senator Marshall: Is it just an update? On page 11 of 16 it says “for decision,” and there are two items here. In order to maintain the very tight deadline of June 30, we have item number one which is about the final design; and the second one is the extra money, $58,500. Is this $58,500 in addition to the 255?
Senator Wells: I understand your question. That “for decision” was for decision of the working group, not for decision of Internal.
The Chair: Senator Marshall, you are on item four on the agenda. We are on item three. I think your question is pertaining to another topic.
Senator Marshall: Sorry. I’m getting ahead of myself.
The Chair: Item four is we’re putting on the record the decision we took last time to single source item three.
Are there any questions regarding item three?
Senator Munson: It was just answered by Senator Wells that you said November? It’s the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the country and we’re going to get medals in November? Can’t something be worked out to try to have this at least in September?
It just seems to be rather late in the game for the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. Perhaps we could have some of this expedited in the sense of getting it at least in September.
I would like to see it July 1.
Senator Wells: I’ll bring that back to the working group and seek to get it expedited. I wasn’t at the meeting yesterday when this information was relayed. In fact, Charles was at the meeting and was going to make the presentation this morning. I know he’s not here now, so I’m answering some of the questions on his behalf, and I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t have the answer to that one.
Senator Munson: Thank you very much.
Senator Wells: I’ll bring it back to the working group, Senator Munson.
The Chair: That’s it on item three. Item four, the presentation was supposed to be made by Charles Robert, I understand, Senator Wells? He cannot be here today because he has some other engagements. He has asked if we can defer this item to next week’s meeting, colleagues. We’ll pursue those questions next week when Charles is before us.
Before we go in camera, I want to address an issue regarding a pamphlet that was circulated by Communications and released this week. I think most of us have read that pamphlet. It caught some attention of the National Press Gallery. As a result of the media attention, it has gotten a lot of attention across the country by schools and teachers who have been using it as a teaching tool. Obviously, that is within the confines of our outreach program. We have produced pamphlets and material to reach out to university students, to people interested in how Parliament works; and the Communications Directorate in their constant creativity and proactive reaction to outreach decided also to create a material for younger students, primary students, which I think is a good idea and all of us on the subcommittee believe is a good idea; we still think it is a good idea.
Having said that, of course, the language that was used in order to articulate the views in that pamphlet was not necessarily the language I would have used, but I fundamentally take responsibility for it. I’m the chair of the Subcommittee on Communications, and a number of senators did look at it; a number of them weighed in. It was an initiative of the comms department. It didn’t go through the regular rigorous approval that I usually expect of it at subcommittee and it went out.
Now, some people have supported it; they love the pamphlet. That’s the feedback I’ve gotten. Some are less enthusiastic, and some are vigorously unenthusiastic with it. The subcommittee and the Communications Directorate are in a situation right now where we’re trying to find the consensus in order to appease the three wide-ranging views on this particular pamphlet.
I wanted to give an update here to Internal Economy. I think I owed you guys that. We will be tackling that issue at the Subcommittee of Communications expeditiously. There are a couple of potential ways forward. One is obviously we can pull it. Another option is to keep it as is. Another option is to have a write through, which happens very often when you publish material and down the line you can just do a write through. Of course the upcoming edition that comes out can be a little bit more conducive to satisfying everyone’s objective.
If that doesn’t satisfy everyone, I’m more than happy to answer questions.
Senator Tkachuk: First of all, I’m glad that someone is thinking of something new, but words have a lot of meaning. I don’t know what the objective of the actual book was. I don’t know what the lesson plan of the book or cartoon was, but it doesn’t talk about democracy. It talks about the new independent Senate. It’s a political message, for one thing.
The second thing is that it makes fun of the House of Commons, which, to me, is a horrible message to send to kids. That’s what this thing is doing. If you read it, you can’t escape it. It says that somehow the people in the Senate are better than everyone else and we’re the only people who can run the country and the other ones can’t because we get along so well.
Well, I don’t get along that great. Right now I’m trying not to be angry, but this is not something to send to kids. If I was a parent, I would highly object to this kind of nonsense being sent out to elementary schoolkids by the Senate of Canada.
This is a wrong message, the wrong language and it’s political. We have never done that before.
I don’t know who the smart people were who decided to do this, but something like this should have come here and something like this should have been cleared by politicians. That’s what should have happened because we’re the ones responsible for it. I’m really upset.
The Chair: Colleagues, like I said in my introduction, there are three views on this. We heard one from Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Dupuis: Words count. I think I agree with you on that. It may be the only thing on which we agree, but I’m certainly —
Senator Tkachuk: There all kinds of things we agree on.
Senator Dupuis: To keep it to this morning’s discussion, words count and I agree.
[Translation]
Owls are part of the family of birds of prey. They are carnivores who attack others. A parallel can be drawn with the kind of message in this pamphlet.
Aside from the language and the way it was done, who makes this kind of decision? You clearly stated twice that you, as chair of the Committee on Internal Economy, did not receive the message. I do not know if something else happened at the Subcommittee on Communications. The fact that owls are birds of prey and that the ethics committee this week tabled a report about the conduct of a predator is very troubling to me. From a public relations point of view, I consider it a disaster.
One of the reasons I opposed the awarding of medals is that the initiative as proposed did not do anything to bring together people who are very involved in their community to discuss what it means to live in a place such as Whitehorse, Blanc-Sablon or somewhere in Nova Scotia. Nor did it foster a better understanding of the Senate’s work or show that its work does not consist only of preventing MPs from doing their job.
To my mind, the real question is what message we want to send about the work we do. My question to you is the following. In the decision-making process, how was this decided unbeknownst to us, such that people are saying today they did not know, they did not hear about it, and they do not really know?
The Chair: Senator, you are right. I must point out that the communications directorate prepares a lot documents every day. Its staff has been implementing an awareness plan for a number of months. The plan is very effective. We have greatly improved the way we communicate with the media and the public.
The pamphlet was designed to help elementary school children better understand how Parliament works. As I said at the outset, it is true that the language used was not necessarily the best. I take full responsibility for that. It is my fault. Given the process in place to carefully review documents before they are published, the Subcommittee on Communications is responsible for that.
A number of senators commented on the work done on this pamphlet. I am usually the one who does the final check and gives the green or red light. In this case, I was not thorough enough and did not do my job of making sure that the pamphlet was more representative of the Senate’s perspective. That is why I take responsibility for this.
We will take the necessary steps to address this situation in the coming days. We will make that decision with the consensus of members of the Subcommittee on Communications. We will listen to all points of view. We have heard Senator Tkachuk’s opinion, and we have clearly heard yours. Ultimately we will arrive at a solution that is representative and that will satisfy everyone.
Senator Dupuis: I have a supplementary question based on your answer about the decision.
[English]
Coming back to what you said this week, where is the power?
[Translation]
Would it be better for me to be a member of this committee, because I would have something to say about the decisions being made, or would it be better to be a member of the Subcommittee on Communications? I am not trying to say that the Subcommittee on Communications is not doing its job. I am involved in communications activities and will continue to be. I would like to know, however, if it would be helpful for me to attend that committee every Thursday. Thus far, I think so. I get the impression though that certain things happen at subcommittees that should be considered here, and I am not sure that is the case.
The Chair: Senator Dupuis, this committee is the Senate’s board of directors. This committee sets out the general directions of our work. If you are interested in working more specifically on communications, you are welcome, as is everyone else. The committee usually does thorough and efficient work. The proof of that, I think, is that we have greatly improved the way the communications directorate works. Senators who have been here for a long time have seen improvements in the past two years. We made a mistake; these things happen. We are here to accept our mistakes and try to correct them.
As the same time, I consider it an exaggeration to say that power is concentrated in the Subcommittee on Communications.
Senator Saint-Germain: First, I would like to thank you for your transparency and honesty. You admitted that there is indeed a problem. Although I completely agree with what Senator Tkachuk and Senator Dupuis said, my point is that we have to move on now and think about the future. I have the privilege of serving on the Subcommittee on Communications. Its next meeting will be my first and I intend to be there.
I would like to zero in on one issue, the vision for communications. I had the opportunity to speak with Ms. Leclerc when we launched the new website. In the French version, there was certain wording that in my opinion discredited Canadian democracy and the House of Commons. It said that the Senate of Canada was the voice of wisdom and reason in the Parliament of Canada.
I have the greatest respect for elected members, being well aware of the uncertainty, thanklessness and demands of their job. As non-elected parliamentarians, I think we owe the House of Commons the utmost respect. That same approach is evident in this pamphlet. As a starting point, I think we have to rethink the basic messages being communicated.
The communications directorate does of course do a lot of good work. As you said, it was a mistake. I appreciate your acknowledging this mistake. Let us work together constructively with an eye to the future. There is no point rehashing past mistakes. Let us acknowledge them and act differently in the future.
[English]
Senator Cordy: I’d like to begin by complimenting the Communications team, which has done an exceptional job on communications over the past few years. When we started up a committee on communications, I think we would all agree that communications within the Senate was abysmal. I haven’t heard anybody this morning compliment and talk about the beautiful pictures that are in the hallways outside here, in the Victoria Building. The Communications Directorate took the pictures, framed the pictures and hung the pictures. They are beautiful to look at. They represent all the great and wonderful things that senators are doing in outreach programs in terms of outreach.
They are contacting many senators, if not all senators, to ask if they will take part in meetings at universities, service clubs within your communities. They are doing an outstanding job.
I’m not sure that this is a mistake.
I used to teach elementary school. We have nothing on communications for children between the ages of 4 and 7 years old. What I will suggest is that those who use this material in a classroom or with young children come back to us if you have suggestions. The only feedback that I’ve gotten from somebody who used it in a classroom was that it was exceptional material. The students loved it. The teachers loved it, and they asked if the materials were available in French. When they were told they were available in French, they said, “Well, could you please send us copies for the school in French and in English?” Other than that, I haven’t heard anybody who has used it with students in a classroom. So what I’m basing it on is those who have used the material in the classroom. Are we open to suggestions? Of course, we’re open to suggestions.
The Communications team has been updating brochures, which haven’t been updated for a very long time, and I congratulate them for that. We’re talking about one. There were three other brochures that were updated. Sir John A. Macdonald said that we were the chamber of sober second thought. I don’t think that has changed in 150 years. Was the timing the best? No, it wasn’t the best, but that was out of our hands that this report came back, that it all was in the newspaper at the same time. But the fact that the Communications team is trying to do outreach to younger people — because you can’t present a brief talking about the Constitution and whatever to 5 and 6-year-olds, but they deserve to also know about the Senate — I think is a very positive thing from the communications team.
Senator Marshall: I’ll just make a couple of comments. The first one is that, if there’s something that affects all of us, especially something of this nature, in the environment that we’re working in now — we’re dealing with the Senator Meredith report. We’ve just been through a scandal and an audit. And I’m not taking away from the work that the communications people are doing; these are public servants — we’re out there in the media. I don’t think that reflects positively on us. I didn’t like it. I would have preferred that, for decisions that affect us, as senators, it come to us and not to just a few senators for approval. I would have liked to have seen it.
For anybody who is interested — I don’t know if anybody has heard — Michael Enright is reading the story. If you check “Michael Enright, Wise Owls,” you can listen to him read the story. I find that it’s kind of derogatory toward the members of the House of Commons, so I’m sensitive to that. I think there are some members of the House of Commons that are highly insulted by it. But I didn’t like it, and I certainly wouldn’t use it. I guess the bottom line is that it’s done, but, in the future, for things that affect all of us, it should come to all of us for approval.
The Chair: Senator Marshall, I hear very carefully what you’re saying. By the same token, do you expect every decision and every material produced by every subcommittee to come to this committee for review?
Senator Marshall: No, but what I’m saying, chair, is that for issues like this that affect us individually, as senators, out there in the public, I would like to have been aware of it.
The Chair: Senator Marshall, every piece of material the Communications Subcommittee puts out there — and they put out material on a weekly basis — every communiqué de presse, we put out. Every press release, we put out. Every tweet, we put out.
Senator Marshall: I’m not —
The Chair: Hold on a second.
It affects you as a senator.
Senator Marshall: I’m not interested in arguing with you or debating with you, chair, with all due respect.
The Chair: I’m trying to get guidance from you.
Senator Marshall: I’m merely making a statement that, if there’s something going out that affects all of us of this nature, I would like to see it before it goes out. I don’t think that that is an unreasonable request.
The Chair: And I want to take your request seriously and don’t want to turn this into a debate, but can you give me some guidance on exactly what elements you expect us to bring to this committee and what to deal with at the subcommittee?
Senator Marshall: I think people should use their judgment. I think that that wasn’t good judgment. If you’re sending something out for public consumption like that, I think that we should have been consulted.
The Chair: Do you want the subcommittee to send you every material that goes out for approval?
Senator Marshall: No, I don’t.
The Chair: You want us to pick and choose what we think is important?
Senator Marshall: Well, if you want to get into an argument, I guess this is one of my silly comments like I made last time, but I have a right to come to this committee and express my opinion.
The Chair: Absolutely.
Senator Marshall: I’ve expressed a very restrained opinion. All I’m saying is that, for something that affects each of us individually as senators, I would like to be consulted.
The Chair: As a member of the committee, I have the right to express my opinion, right?
Senator Marshall: Right.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: I completely accept what the chair says — I won’t repeat it — and what Senator Cordy said. Senators, I have to say to you that the chair has taken it on the chin, but it is my fault. Really, it was I who looked at it, and let me give you the process. I go to classrooms a lot, and Communications has very kindly helped me so much in outreach. For the 16 years I’ve been here, I have not had proper tools.
When you speak to a 7-year-old, in the stimulation and what we have around us, you have to have the tools. That’s part of my job as a senator, and I’ve found it difficult. Communications came up with this amazing tool, and, let me tell you, it was tested. It was tested with my own grandchildren. I took it to the classrooms. I took it to a French immersion library, where the librarian read it. Just to let you know that, even though the media are making fun of us. And I took it on the chin when I went to Rosemary Barton’s show. I was a member of the team. I don’t care; that’s my job.
Rosemary Barton, for those who saw it, was not that kind, but she took my copy and has asked for five more. She said she has shown it to her nephews, and they love it. I then spoke to La Presse. He told me — because we don’t have connection with MPs — what the issues were. I explained to him that this is the first product. This is a dialogue. The Senate has had other issues, and we are trying to explain who we are. This is our trial in explaining who we are. If we haven’t quite gotten it right, this is good. We’re having the dialogue; we will change it. Let people give us feedback, and this is a process. Rather than sort of stopping the process, I honestly look at each one of you and say, “Read it carefully, and then send your comments to Mélisa.”
Every child I’ve read it to — and, I tell you, I’ve read it to 45 children — the teachers have asked for more. We’ve run out of 3,500 copies. We have no copy left. It’s a material, but it’s not perfect. Of course not. I told the media, “We are people; we make mistakes.” I don’t want the media’s feedback, but I want everybody here’s feedback to say what should be changed or made different.
A wise owl is something from a little girl when I was a Brownie. I was told it was a wise owl. For the first time, I heard the explanation that Senator Dupuis made, but, where I come from, a wise owl is something I grew up with. I was a Brownie leader for 15 years. I always spoke to my young girls, my Brownies, on what a wise owl is. We all have different interpretations, and that’s the thing. We are a great country. We are a vast country, and it’s good. I see this. I’m telling you, I’ve spoken to a lot of media. It has not all been fun, but that’s okay. What I see is that this is good. For a change, people are talking about something else about us. The timing was not right. Things are not right, and we always beat ourselves up.
For the 16 years that I have been here — I’ll get emotional and I don’t want to — there was nobody there standing behind us. There was nobody; not one leader would speak up for who we were. Then came Housakos and Cordy. With Mélisa and her team, we now have a team that is talking about who we are. We have the best website. We have the best communication documents. I’m starting a new campaign on cybercrimes. They’re helping me with it. Each individual person is getting help that we’ve never had before.
While I’m talking, I want to invite you all to the Asian Heritage evening that they have planned next Monday.
Last year, when they planned the Asian Heritage evening, for the first time, as Asians, senators felt we belonged to the Senate. They explained who we were. What I’m saying to you is we can all be very narrow and take this narrow point of view about a document, a pamphlet or a brochure, or we can say there are some things that need to be changed. I accept that, now that I look at it. When I was looking at it, I was looking at it as a story because I’m a storyteller, but now I see that there are issues. The fault is mine. I was the one who worked with communications. It’s not Senator Housakos’ or Senator Cordy’s fault.
What I’m saying to you is to give your feedback. There are two ways to look at it: you can shut down Communications and say everything you send we look at, or you can say that these were the issues, these were the boundaries and let’s move on. I suggest to you that we move on, and each of you who have issues, please go through this document carefully and send it to Mélisa and say what you don’t like.
Look at the graphics. This is not outside work. This booklet, for 3,500 copies, cost $6,000 and it won’t cost any more because it will be in-house. Look at what it is. No, it’s not perfect. I’ve said this 10 times now. It’s not perfect, but give your feedback. Also, you may not like the owl. That’s fine. Let’s find something else to explain. But give us the tools so that those of us who go into classrooms can use this document to explain who we are.
Senator Smith: I’ll try to be a little more brief on a couple of things.
I can’t speak for anyone else other than, maybe, the Conservative caucus and the Conservative MPs. Sensitivity -- a word that was raised earlier -- and respect are important. Senator Housakos was very clear: We had a chain of command issue here. We don’t expect — at least, I don’t expect, and I think we have to be reasonable — that all decisions have to be ratified by us, at least I don’t think so. We have to give people the marge de manoeuvre to do their jobs. All I’m expecting is that we have the proper chain of command. If we screwed up with the chain of command, we just correct the error.
Point number two is that we have to be respectful, no matter who we are. If we’re going to truly be the wise owls, then we have to be respectful of the other people. Those are the people in the Commons. This was offensive to the people in the Commons.
I spoke to Senator Cordy to get a perspective of the independent Liberals and to understand the hurt that they went through when they were disbanded by the Prime Minister. So there are feelings all over the place. All I’m saying is let’s be respectful of each other and of other people. We have to have a reflex. The Communications people have done a great job, but you have to have a reflex too, so that there’s a red flag that goes in your mind that, when you write a piece of material, and it says that the wise owls are really great and the people in the Commons, the squirrels, all fight amongst each other, it sends the wrong message because we have to be respectful of other people.
I spoke to Leo and Jane, and my suggestion was simply that we’ve been successful. I had this 85-year-old lady phone me every day when I was at the Alouettes for 12 years. She phoned me five times last night saying, “Larry, get me a copy of this. I want to give it to my grandson because I heard it’s really good.”
It’s great. When we do version two, let’s soften it up a bit and move on. We don’t have to justify, senator, what Communications has done. We don’t have to justify what people have done, but let’s align ourselves to respect the sensitivity of the people around us. If we’re truly going to modernize, we have to work together.
We will always have our own points of view, but let’s make sure that we at least respect each other and the people on the other side of the house, because they have a big job to do, too. Let’s let Senator Housakos and his people do their jobs. Senator Housakos knows there’s a chain of command issue that didn’t take place. You have to make sure you go up the chain and get final approval.
That issue and sensitivity are the two issues.
Senator Mitchell: I won’t repeat. I did want to very much endorse what Senators Jaffer, Cordy and Smith have said, which was very positive. I will reinforce that it is like night and day.
The one point I will add is that this is a creative process. One of the really powerful elements of the improvement is creativity. When you’re going down the road of creativity, you’re going to make decisions that some people won’t like from time to time. But we can respond, and we are, and I think the response has been very good, and thank you for the input.
But what we really have to be careful of is that we don’t begin to kill the creativity in that organization and anger people who are doing their best and have done unbelievable work. That begins to kill creativity.
The points that are being made, if you’re unhappy with it, are great. It’s incumbent upon us to respond and I think the response has been excellent. Some adjustments can be made but let’s just welcome, endorse, nurture and get behind that creative process, and not endanger it.
One last point is this point about the we/they that is implicit in the criticism of the text. We have a bit of we/they in our Senate and we might want to start to think about that in that context, too, because your points are very well taken.
We have a bit of we/they in our Senate relationships, and I think what Senator Smith said, in that context and in the context of this discussion as well, addresses that and we should keep that in mind.
Senator Tannas: I would just say I look forward to many more mistakes, because that’s the evidence that there’s action going on. The only time I’ll be upset with a mistake is if we repeat it, because I think that’s the essence. We do things, we make mistakes, we learn from them, we correct and we’re judged on the fact that we don’t make mistakes twice.
There are only two issues that I see here. Number one, did we have it right in terms of how many senators should look at this? I don’t think this whole committee should be looking at this. I don’t think we would have made a better decision. I think that the right number is probably on the committee, there. I don’t think the answer is bringing everything here.
The other mistake, I think, is looking at the filter of sensitivity and respect. Good luck, and any time you’re making mistakes that involve good intentions, I believe this committee will support you, and I believe senators will support you. Please keep up the good work.
Senator Batters: Just to be clear, I am on the Communications Subcommittee, and this item did not come to that subcommittee’s table. I didn’t see it before it hit the newspaper and I don’t agree with it. I felt like we were roundly and deservedly mocked for this by large sections of the public and the media, in the National Post and every single Postmedia paper across the country, on the front page of the national section, which is not something that generally happens with the Senate, unless there’s bad news. We didn’t really need any more bad news for the Senate.
The difference we’re dealing with is that in the Conservative caucus, we are the only ones who sit with members of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, the Senate Liberals don’t anymore, not by their choice, and the independents don’t sit with members of the House of Commons. So we have that relationship and I always want to be very respectful of my colleagues who sit in the House of Commons.
So at least until the language is changed, I think this document needs to be pulled because of the extreme disrespect that it shows towards members of the House of Commons and the important work that they do.
Also, I did have this tested on an 8-year-old after it came out. He looked at it and said, “Yeah, it’s okay. It’s probably better for younger kids who need to learn about teamwork.” That’s the message he got out of it, which I don’t think is the message we wanted to relay.
Senator Campbell: I think it’s much ado about nothing. I think an effort has been made here to reach out. I concur; I’m not going over all of the thoughts about communications, but for those who have been here for a while, the difference in our communications is so dramatic that it’s almost breathtaking.
Senator Munson: The media pays attention now.
Senator Campbell: Quite frankly, everybody jumping around because the National Post is concerned about this and all their daily newspapers in Stonewall, Manitoba, et al., I really could care less.
I think that some people will see this as a good thing and some people will see it as a bad thing, and that’s simply life. Nobody is going to agree on everything. Do I think we could change the message somewhat? Certainly. I think we can always make it better.
As for the House of Commons, we sit here daily and take crap from those people publicly. They ridicule us, they tell us we shouldn’t be here. As far as I’m concerned, I could care less what they have to say. We have a job to do. We’re putting out our message. If the message isn’t what we want, we need to change the message. We’re sitting here talking about expelling a senator and we’re worried about a bunch of owls and what a bunch of 4- and 5-year-olds will think? Let’s get real. Everybody will have a divergent opinion and we all got to have our say here. Communications will act accordingly and we’ll move on, and I’m looking forward to volume 2 of the wise old owls.
Senator Tkachuk: I don’t want to repeat what I said, but I do want to address, first of all, that we’re all adults here, and when you make a mistake, we all get criticized ourselves. We all get beat up when we make mistakes. I wasn’t criticizing the whole Communications Directorate, as some of the senators have alluded to, and that somehow a criticism of this one particular project is a criticism of the whole thing. I like what Communications has done. I’ve been chair of Internal Economy. I know how frustrated I was with Communications. I think the Communications Directorate has done a wonderful job and they’ve been very good, but this thing was a bad thing. So I have a right to criticize something that emanates from a department that I think does not tell a story.
The testing of it, sure. There are a lot of things that kids like that we don’t want them to do or to read. As a schoolteacher, I know, and I know a lot of other people know. But the real objective will be what do those kids get out of that particular thing? They get the wrong message out of this. That’s why I object to it. I don’t think we should print any more. I think we have to change it. I don’t mind the little storybook cartoon. Kids like to look at pictures, whatever. But I think we have to be careful about what we say in there.
I think we should change it before we send any more product out the door. Politicians should look at it. Man oh, man, I can’t believe the Communications Subcommittee did not look at a product that writes about us, to educate kids, and it was not seen. There should have been all kinds of red lights going off there.
The Chair: Currently, the product is out the door and there are none left.
Senator Tkachuk: Don’t print any more.
Senator Campbell: — because you say no.
The Chair: Colleagues, please.
Senator Tkachuk: I think they’ve heard —
The Chair: I’m going through this exercise because I respect Internal Economy and we’re taking notes of all the points of view.
Senator Tkachuk: We still have a democracy.
The Chair: Absolutely, and we’re going to get it right. We’ve succeeded over the last few months at communications because we’ve been successful at balancing the points of view, which is not easy all the time, but I have the wonderful task of doing that and that’s why we’re going through this process.
Senator Downe: I’ll be brief. I want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Tannas and Senator Smith. Senator Smith talked about respect. The word I would use would be “self-awareness.” We’ve been criticized for so many years here, the tendency may be to overreact. We’re wise owls as opposed to smart owls or whatever.
As for the photos in the hallway, I see an “I love me” wall. And it’s the same with the medals. Everybody knows my view of the medals. It’s more a lack of self-awareness. How does the public sitting at home see it when they see it in the newspaper or on TV? The Communications Directorate is doing a superb job, but we have to be careful we don’t overplay our hand and we’re sensitive to the public perception. And we can slowly move that over the years, but doing what we’re doing now, we’ve made some enemies as opposed to allies in our fight.
Senator McCoy: I will echo that sentiment, and particularly pick up on Senator Smith’s comments about taking a respectful tone in all our communications. Obviously, the risk assessment wasn’t done adequately on this particular document, but I do say let’s move forward.
I will say that I think a majority of members of the ISG, at least, were offended, because it was offensive, they felt, to others. There’s a fairly widespread view that that’s taken. But I do think there’s also a widespread view that preparing communications materials that can be used in schools and for young children is an excellent idea. So I would hope that we proceed with version 2, which is much improved.
[Translation]
The Chair: Any other questions?
Senator Dupuis: I would like to clarify something, if I may.
I am not making a proposal, but when it comes to determining the image senators want to project, I would like senators to be able to define the broad strokes of what they want to convey as a message.
You say it is much better than before, but I know absolutely nothing about that. That does not mean, however, that everything is good now just because it is better than it was before. Communications are a very sensitive matter; this has been proven and it is for senators to define the broad strokes at least. This is something we have to do and we cannot ask the communications directorate to do it in our place. Moreover, we must clearly indicate to the directorate the type of message we want to send.
Let me give you a very specific example. The directorate has produced four leaflets on the various roles of senators. They are quite good and are in colour. The work is not outstanding, but the staff effectively captured senators’ different roles. I think this is a very good starting point from which to examine whether the image of senators that we want to project matches the message we want to send about our role. We can start from there. It is up to us to give instructions or to establish a framework that reflect us, and then the directorate can adapt it for both children and adults.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Like I said, the input was very helpful. I repeat again: I take full responsibility for the error. We will do better going forward and we will be more vigorous and a little bit more sensitive, obviously, between the dynamics of the two chambers. We will address that in the next few days.
Now I’ll take a couple of minutes to go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)