THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 18, 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. I want to announce at the get-go that Senator Boniface is here with us today and she’s replacing Senator Lankin. We also have our good friend Senator Dawson who’s here replacing Senator Jaffer. Welcome to Internal Economy.
We’ll get right to business with item 1 on the agenda, which is the adoption of the minutes of the proceedings of the May 11, 2017, public portion. If there are no questions, maybe somebody can move the minutes. Senator Cordy moves. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Item 2, update on Phoenix pay system. As promised, this week we have before us Pascale Legault, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate; and Luc Presseau, Director, Human Resources Directorate. We also have Monique Daigle, Chief Compensation Officer, Human Resources Directorate. We’ve got to talk about our pensions at some point. I’ll turn the floor over to our guests this morning.
[Translation]
Luc Presseau, Director, Human Resources Directorate, Senate of Canada: Good morning, honourable Senators. I am pleased this morning to provide you with an update on the Phoenix system in the specific context of the Senate. First, as did the Speaker, may I introduce Ms. Monique Daigle, Chief Compensation Officer at the Human Resources Directorate. She works closely with Pascale’s team, with Mr. Mathieu Dupelle in particular, to properly manage the Phoenix system in the Senate.
Since its implementation, the Phoenix system has been the subject of many press conferences and articles in the media. The transition has been very difficult for government employees in general. The Senate migrated to Phoenix in 2016 when the old system was replaced. And so the former system is no longer available.
[English]
At the time of the migration to Phoenix, we maintained our own compensation service within the Human Resources Directorate rather than transferring the entire responsibility for payroll to PSPC and the Centre of Expertise in Miramichi. This means that we continue to manage our own payroll and can react much faster than other government departments can because of having to go through a third system.
The briefing note in front of you provides further details about the problems faced by our finance and compensation teams and speaks to the control measures that we’ve put in place to ensure the two very important aspects of the task of paying employees. The first is to make sure that the employees of the Senate are paid appropriately and on time, and the second is to ensure that the Senate is protected from a financial perspective. Pascale can speak to that much better than I can.
[Translation]
Despite the efforts of both teams, there are still cases of overpayments or underpayments. In the briefing note we present a table with specific statistics in this regard. There are certain points we could perhaps focus on.
Since the Phoenix system was brought in in April 2016, as you can see, 226 employees had issues, which represents a fairly high percentage of Senate personnel, but that was spread out over the whole year.
You can also see that 51 paycheques were manually generated during that period. That is much more than we used to do. With the former system, there may have been one or two manual pay cheques generated per year, whereas with the new system, there are more. Lately there have been fewer, but it is a statistic that speaks volumes.
Pascale will speak to you about the financial entries that have to be made because of the problems we have had until now. In the case of employees who were overpaid, we have several methods to recover those funds. Of course, if someone received two pay cheques for the same period, we try to recover the funds immediately, but there are certain salary errors we do not necessarily detect immediately. It could be $5 or $10 per pay cheque, and the problem can last a certain time. In such cases, we make arrangements with the employee to recover the funds, but that can take longer.
You have the briefing note. I will be pleased to answer your questions, and Pascale is available to answer questions of a financial nature if you have any.
[English]
Senator Batters: I have several questions. First of all, it says in the briefing note the Senate did not centralize payroll activities; therefore, the compensation team within the Human Resources Directorate was maintained. Why didn’t you centralize the payroll activities and how many people work on the compensation team in the Senate?
Mr. Presseau: With the decision not to centralize payment, there were two elements to the pay transformation. They are modernization, which was the Phoenix system, and centralization, which was moving all payroll to Miramichi in New Brunswick.
On the decision at that time, senator, I can’t really answer; I was not here. But there are only 17 agencies and government departments that had the ability not to transfer that pay there. As far as the number of compensation advisers that we have within the Senate, we currently have three compensation advisers, as well as Monique, dealing with the Phoenix system. We have a fifth person in compensation who deals exclusively with senators’ pay and pension for retired senators.
Senator Batters: Do either one of your colleagues —
The Chair: Senator Batters, Nicole actually wants to add to that answer for you.
Nicole Proulx, Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and Chief Corporate Services Officer, Senate of Canada: On the question of why there was no transfer, we are not the government, so the Senate, actually as our counterpart on the Hill, maintained the compensation teams on site.
Senator Batters: In looking at the chart provided in this briefing note, I see that 30 per cent of Senate employees have been affected by Phoenix pay discrepancies, which is a huge percentage. Last time when we were briefly discussing this, I thought that I recalled you saying, Pascale, that the amounts ranged up to only a maximum discrepancy of $2,000, yet I see in this chart that there’s a percentage of variances above $5,000 of 4 per cent of the people affected. Then between $1,000 and $5,000 — there’s 16 per cent more.
That’s a big percentage over that $2,000 amount. I’m just wondering: What is the largest amount you have, and what sort of total dollar figure are we talking about in discrepancies?
Pascale Legault, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you for the question. Last time, if I recall correctly, the question was about the number of overpayments and underpayments specifically at March 31. I want to clarify that. The percentages that are reflected in the briefing note reflect the overall variances that were identified throughout the year. Of all the variances that were identified throughout the year through review procedures, a very large portion has been resolved and, as at year end, have been addressed.
At year end, we do have 138 transactions of overpayments and underpayments. The largest amount is a little bit over $6,000 for an employee. The other amounts that would be over that — we have a few transactions, 13 in total, that relate to amounts that are due to other departments or agencies, so they’re not an underpayment to an employee. They are as the result of an employee transferring from the public service to the Senate and the fact that we do not have the capacity to start paying them, so they’re still being paid by the other organization. The employees are not affected by these underpayments that relate to other organizations.
Senator Batters: Okay, so is the maximum underpayment for a Senate employee $6,000?
Ms. Legault: Yes.
Senator Batters: I see there has been an additional compensation adviser added. Is that strictly to deal with the problems of Phoenix? Also, even though a major benefit potentially of Phoenix would have been centralizing the pay system, we didn’t do that, and now we’re hiring more people, so that seems to be concerning.
Mr. Presseau: In that number of compensation advisers that I stated earlier, that temporary resource is also included in there. It was for a specific period of time. It started in November, and it’s to help with the additional workload created by Phoenix at this time.
Senator Batters: So it’s strictly to deal with that. How long is that person projected to be there?
Mr. Presseau: Right now, the projection is for two years.
Senator Batters: Then when I see the concern that the Senate wrote to the particular ministry involved and the deputy minister, it took them two and a half months to respond to your letter. From the brief information we have here, it sort of sounds like the letter was nothing more than a “we’re working on it.” I hope the letter says more than that. Did you receive substantial comfort from that letter that the Senate problems are being addressed appropriately?
Mr. Presseau: There were some commitments in there of things that have been done with processes that we’re now able to access that were not available to us before, and a different mechanism to get into the pay centre. So, yes, we did get some actions from that.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Monique, Luc and Pascale, for your presentations. Of the 147 overpayments and underpayments, and aside from the $130,000 it has cost so far to effect fixes, can you tell us the total dollar amounts that are off — the value of the underpayments and the value of the overpayments added together — not the sum, but —
Ms. Legault: The absolute value?
Senator Wells: Yes. Thank you.
Ms. Legault: Just to clarify, are you looking for all the variances throughout the year or the amount at March 31 that we have still to pay or to recover?
Senator Wells: The amounts that we have to date, or as close to date as you can give me, based on the errors of the Phoenix pay system.
Ms. Legault: The latest information we have that is consolidated as of March 31 is $90,897 in gross overpayments, and we have $66,411 of underpayments. So the absolute sum of that would be $156,000.
Senator Wells: Thank you.
Senator Marshall: Thanks very much. Could you give us some more information on the underpayments, specifically the impact on staff? When we hear the reports in the media with the public service overall, we’re hearing about people who haven’t gotten a paycheque for several months. What’s happening with our own staff? Is it similar, or are we looking after that issue?
Mr. Presseau: We are looking after the staff as they occur. We haven’t gotten anybody who has not been paid, so we figure out a way, sometimes through a manual pay, as we were talking about a bit earlier. Some of those overpayments may not be large, so that somebody may not notice on their pay, but there are still underpayments, and we still make sure we correct that problem later.
Senator Marshall: But the underpayments — I think the figure you gave was $66,000. Is there any employee in there waiting for $5,000 or —
Mr. Presseau: No.
Senator Marshall: There’s nothing like that? The staff are pretty well paid up to date?
Mr. Presseau: Correct.
Senator Marshall: How are we recovering the overpayments? Do we work out a payment plan with the employees? How is that being handled?
Mr. Presseau: We do work out repayment plans with the employee if the amount is relatively large, but what we do is actually speak with the employee and ask about the mechanism. In some cases, they would just write a cheque or say, “Take it off the next pay” or whatever. We do work it out with the employee.
Senator Marshall: Okay. How old was the payroll system that was replaced by Phoenix?
Mr. Presseau: The former regional pay system was over 40 years old, and it had its quirks as well.
Senator Marshall: Did we pay for Phoenix, or was that — I won’t call it a “gift” — but was it given to us?
Did we pay for that?
Mr. Presseau: No, we didn’t.
Ms. Legault: No, it’s a service provided without charge.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Thanks very much.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I would like to understand the table you presented. Thank you for your explanations. The table refers to 761 employees. It is the number of employees who received overpayments or underpayments, correct?
Mr. Presseau: No, 761 is the total number of employees paid by the Senate every two weeks.
Senator Dupuis: So the 226 employees represent 30 per cent of the 761 employees. Now, regarding the overpayments, do you know how many people were affected? Among the 226, there were some who received more, and some who received less than they should have. Do you have the breakdown on that?
You don’t have to answer me immediately. I have another question concerning the last three lines of that table. Fifty-one pay cheques were manually generated; 69 overpayments were prevented, and 78 underpayments were prevented. Do we add those up, and withdraw that number from the 226, or is it a figure… In other words, 226 employees had a problem. Do we add the number of overpayments, underpayments and manually generated payments to the 226 cases, or are they included in that figure?
Ms. Legault: The 51 people who received manually generated payments are not included in the number of people identified has not having been paid. That figure would have to be added to the other one if you want a total figure. I cannot tell you the exact difference with the absolute figure of the 226 employees. These are employees and not transactions. In certain cases, unfortunately the same employee might have had an overpayment and an underpayment. I would have to do some research to obtain that information.
I can tell you that we did three audits during the year where we analyzed each pay period, each employee’s file, and extrapolated the amounts that should have been paid. We worked with human resources to do that. In the first audit, 70 per cent of the discrepancies we identified were overpayments, and the rest were underpayments. In the second audit, it was 50-50 overpayments and underpayments, and in the last audit it was 60 per cent underpayments. So there is no real trend indicating that the system does more overpayments than underpayments.
Senator Dupuis: Regarding the next-to-last figure, those 69 overpayment cases that were prevented thanks to your intervention, are they to be added to the total as well?
Ms. Legault: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Dupuis: And the same goes for the 78 underpayments?
Ms. Legault: The figures at the bottom were to give you an idea of the controls in place that allowed us to prevent a certain number of errors.
Senator Dupuis: Perfect. Thank you.
Mr. Presseau: I would like to add something to what my colleague mentioned; the figures do not include the cases we corrected as we went along. So there are transactions that were verified, as Ms. Legault mentioned; audits were done, but there are processes in place, as listed in the briefing note, that mean that we do checks at several stages, even before payments are issued. If there are discrepancies at that point, they are corrected before they become a problem. The figures represent different things.
Senator Dupuis: They do not take into account all of the efforts made by the team to detect those problems?
Mr. Presseau: Exactly.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Downe, you get the last questions on this issue.
Senator Downe: Given it’s a problem not of our own creation, I think it has been very well managed by the Senate team. Because I hear, as a resident of Charlottetown, where the Veterans Affairs national headquarters is located, I literally can’t go down a shopping aisle at Sobeys without hearing complete horror stories of summer students who haven’t been paid and people who don’t have money for their rent. That department has been badly affected by this terrible system. Aside from what a disaster it is now there’s a special cabinet committee on it, which is always a red flag for a big problem. I think everybody involved handled it very well on our end and the impact has been dealt with to a very large degree.
Given that there’s no foreseeable end to this, is there any consideration of us opting into some other system, or are we going to have to incur these additional expenses? I know we have somebody for two years. I suspect in two years we’ll be looking for an extension. There’s no indication the system is going to be cleaned up. Do we have a plan B in effect?
Mr. Presseau: Senator, we received a mandate from Internal Economy a couple of weeks ago to have a look at that and the commitment is to come back before the summer period.
The Chair: Maybe I can address that. Steering has asked the administration to come back to us with some proposals, take the time to study the cost of implementing and developing those proposals, both in response to the particular issues we’ve had with Phoenix and also with our ongoing attempts to maintain our parliamentary independence as a Senate body. I think is important. We’ve seen some of the issues we’ve had even with pension management, for example, of our colleagues. We have given them that mandate to go ahead and come back to this committee with some tangible proposals, but it will take some time because it’s quite a large task at hand.
Thank you, colleagues, for this item.
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Ms. Daigle.
Mr. Presseau, could you stay with us to discuss point 3, the criteria for language training?
[English]
We had a discussion regarding language training, colleagues. It’s item 3 on the agenda. Luc, would you like to launch us off on this?
Mr. Presseau: While we were having the conversations, or while you were having the conversations, rather, on the implementation of the Senate office management policies, there were some questions with respect to the criteria to be used when the steering committee is asked to have travel for language training outside of Ottawa. At that point we were asked to put together a series of potential criteria. Those have been put to the steering committee and are before you now in the briefing note.
The Chair: Colleagues, I don’t know if you’ve all had an opportunity to see the briefing note, but this is the time for us to tackle the issue, so Senator Marshall, Senator Batters and then Senator Downe.
Senator Marshall: I have one question. I didn’t have a problem with the criteria. What would be the process now, Luc? Say if I request one of my staff to go on language training, do I send that request to you?
Mr. Presseau: There are a number of different ways. If it’s language training in Ottawa, there’s the language school, and you’re well aware of that. We do that just as a matter of course. This is only for language training where there would be a requirement for travel outside of the Ottawa region.
Senator Marshall: That would be like when my staff went to Quebec for immersion training.
Mr. Presseau: Exactly.
Senator Marshall: And then it would go to the steering committee, would it?
Mr. Presseau: The policy states that you can fund it out of your office budget or you can request funding from steering. These criteria were sort of guidelines for the steering committee to consider.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Thanks very much.
Senator Batters: The criteria 1(d) that says there is a gap that would be closed by providing the training. What does that mean? Is there maybe a better way to phrase that which would provide a little bit more detail?
Mr. Presseau: You said that well. The criteria is intended to mean that immersion is typically a very intense period of time. Very seldom would it be right at the beginning of language training, so you would need to have had some kind of other language courses. You wouldn’t be starting from zero. What you’re trying to establish is the benefit of going to immersion now. Is there something that is different? That’s how we would be able to deal with that through the language schools and the teachers and the testing that we do to see what the gap is.
Senator Batters: Okay. So maybe you might want to change the wording so there’s a gap in the timing or something like that, because what I thought that actually meant was that there was a gap in the knowledge base of the person, that they actually have a need for language training and they’re not just going for a nice little trip to Quebec or something like that.
Mr. Presseau: Thank you.
Senator Downe: Thank you. I support the recommendations. The only question I have is on (a). Has there been any travel outside Canada for language training for staff?
Mr. Presseau: I’m not aware of any travel outside of Canada.
Senator McCoy: What are the criteria for saying yes; or is it an automatic yes if all of these criteria are met? Is that what we’re saying?
Mr. Presseau: Those would be if we got a request, senator. What we would look at is to try to provide the answers to these questions for the steering committee.
Senator McCoy: So if all of these criteria are met, then the steering committee is going to say yes? It will be automatic, will it?
The Chair: Well, it doesn’t come to steering, actually. This request goes to HR. It only comes to steering if there is —
Senator McCoy: HR is going to say yes automatically if all of these criteria are met?
The Chair: Well, I suspect if the criteria are met they would have to say yes. If they’re not met and they say yes, then there’s a problem. If, more importantly, they say no and the criteria are met, senators can bring it to steering at that point. I think we’ve dealt with maybe one case in the years I’ve been chair of Internal Economy.
Senator McCoy: So it’s not really approving, then, it’s merely what the senator needs to demonstrate in order to have this policy put into effect so the approval by HR is not really necessary. So maybe we would just like to change this word from “approved” to “once the senator has demonstrated these criteria are met then central funding will be allocated.”
The Chair: I don’t have problems with the word. At the end of the day, the administration, if they have difficulty, they bring it to us anyway. That’s fine.
Senator Plett: I’m assuming, Luc, or chair, that steering decided not to accept the recommendation that was made by the chair and deputy chair of SOMP a few days ago. Am I understanding that correctly?
The Chair: There was a little bit of confusion when we debated this issue at the last Internal Economy meeting, when we reviewed the recommendations, and they wanted to have more clarity on the issue. That’s why we brought it back.
Senator Plett: I’m sorry; that doesn’t answer my question, though. We were asked to meet a few days ago and we came up with a recommendation, and that recommendation isn’t reflected in the recommendations here. I’m happy to read the recommendation that SOMP made, that I would like to see included here. That is —
Senator Downe: The name of the group, I never heard of that before.
Senator Plett: SOMP?
Senator Downe: Yes.
Senator Plett: That is the group that met over the course of the summer to change the Senate Rules.
Senator Downe: The name of it is?
Senator Plett: Senate —
Mr. Presseau: Office management policy.
Senator Plett: Senate Office Management Policy.
Senator Downe: Thank you.
Senator Plett: Senator Jaffer is the deputy chair and I’m the chair of that committee. Over the course of the summer, Senator Downe, we came up and, of course, we adopted most of those recommendations and changed some.
One of the recommendations we made for language training was completion of one year of service in the Senate, which, of course, is reflected here, and then completion of a minimum of two years of language training with the House of Commons Language Training and Assessment Centre, or acceptable equivalent, accompanied by a written recommendation by a language teacher indicating that immersion would be beneficial at this time. That is as opposed to a person saying, “I want to do another two weeks in Quebec of immersion.” The professor or teacher who has been working with the particular staffer here in Ottawa says this individual would benefit from some time. The maximum period of training outside Ottawa for an employee will not exceed two weeks in total. Neither one of those recommendations are reflected in this, and I’m wondering why.
The Chair: When we did the review — again, I was corrected that review was not done here. It was done at the steering level — we thought these were issues that just needed to be addressed and were a little bit unclear, as far as we were concerned. We thought it was putting limitations on people who wanted to apply for French immersion and we didn’t want to have limitations. That was the view of some of us and that’s why we brought it here for further discussion.
Senator Plett: Then I’m not sure. Those are two things, chair. One, it was not clear and another one you didn’t like it. I think it’s perfectly clear. You may not like it, but it’s perfectly clear. I would like to make a motion that those two recommendations be included in this.
The Chair: Colleagues, we will do that. We’ll allow other senators to finish weighing in and we will do that at the end of the process.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I have some specific questions to ask. I agree with the recommendations. Regarding the criteria for funding the training of senators’ staff, does this include both employees and contract employees, or only employees?
Mr. Presseau: Only those who have the status of employees in your offices.
Senator Dupuis: In that case, could you specify that this is regarding the training of senators’ employees, in order to avoid any ambiguity? If I understand correctly, there is a general policy on language training in Ottawa, and then there is another for training given outside of Ottawa.
Mr. Presseau: Yes, that is correct. The House of Commons has a language school in which the Senate participates. A great deal of individual or group training is offered to senators, as well as to their spouses or partners.
Senator Dupuis: In that case, is it possible to specify in the document that this is training for the employees of senators outside of the national capital region? I did not even know that there was a more general policy; I just found out this morning. For greater clarity, you need to specify that this policy applies to training outside of the national capital region, and that it completes a more general policy.
[English]
The Chair: I also want to clarify my answer to Senator Plett because there’s some confusion. The decision was not taken at steering, colleagues. A few weeks ago when we reviewed the SOMP recommendations it was a member of this committee who brought up the issue, Senator Marshall, who wanted this clarified. So we all agreed to bring it back for a more fulsome discussion, if I remember correctly. I don’t mind taking responsibility for it.
Senator Marshall: I can speak to it. My recollection of what came forward to the committee was just that the decision would be made by CIBA, so I asked for the criteria. But I’ve never heard of the criteria that you’re talking about. That’s new to me.
Senator Plett: It was done this week, Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: I wasn’t aware of that.
The Chair: For clarity, Senator Plett, you said you were asked by somebody to deal with this, this week? It was from the administration, I guess?
Senator Plett: Daniel Charbonneau, in order to bring it to this committee.
The Chair: Got it. We’re just trying to get clarity on this.
Senator Wells: Two things. One, in number 1(c), I recommend it be changed from Ottawa to the NCR. I don’t know what’s available outside Ottawa. That might be Gatineau. Generally, we point out things like that.
Second, in point (f), the training schedule must not exceed the end of the current period. It’s my understanding that political staff are renewed on a yearly basis, so I think we should give consideration to how we word this. The current period for political staff is after a year, whatever that date is. I think we need to give consideration to wording that correctly, because I make the assumption that my political staff will not leave me after that one-year renewable period.
The Chair: Don’t ever assume anything, Senator Wells.
I have some questions, Luc, in regard to the actual budget. I have the document in front of me.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I understand, our total allocated budget for this program is $105,000 a year. What I further understand is that $65,000 of that is for senators. There’s an envelope for senators directly, and $40,000 of it for Senate staff and administration. Are those accurate figures?
Mr. Presseau: It is. It sometimes varies, but that’s the overall, yes.
The Chair: Over the last two or three years’ experience, how much of that budget is being used up by senators and what percentage of that is being used up by staff?
Mr. Presseau: I’ve got the numbers here for actual expenses for 2016-17, what we have now. At this point, senators were around $20,000, and admin was around $30,000.
The Chair: And the $40,000 budget is for administration and senators’ staff, correct?
Mr. Presseau: That’s right.
The Chair: I find those numbers just not equitable at the end of the day. I find the $40,000 for the administration of the Senate and senators’ staff a very limited budget compared to the $65,000 applicable for 105 senators. I’m wondering, colleagues, have we ever had an instance where we’ve busted the budget on the administration side, where we’ve come —
Senator Cordy: It should be flipped.
The Chair: Again, can somebody answer my question? In the last three or four years, how close have we come to reaching that $40,000?
Ms. Proulx: I know that in official language training for senators, there’s been pressure in previous years. It was mostly on the senators’ portion. For senators’ staff and administration, it has not been used that much. Senate administration staff, when they’re hired, must meet the linguistic profile, so there’s limited cost for the Senate administration in terms of training. From senators’ staff, there have been some requests, but not a lot.
Last year, through the Main Estimates process, there was a request to increase the —
The Chair: Let me interrupt, Nicole. I was just informed of something by my very effective assistant. I understand, when it came to office training of our staff, that budget would come out of the senator’s budget. It wouldn’t come out of main budget.
Ms. Proulx: Not for the language training through the House of Commons.
The Chair: I’m saying for French immersion, I remember a request from Senator Marshall’s office and my own, and we had that issue. We wanted to send our staff to French immersion and we were tapped out in our budget for whatever reason and we were refused. I’m saying that’s not reflected in the $40,000.
Ms. Proulx: That is not reflected. I can only talk for the number of years I’ve been here, which is several.
The Chair: Again, the answer to my question, then, is the $40,000 is for the administration, not for the Senate staff.
Ms. Proulx: It does cover the cost of training through the House of Commons.
The Chair: There’s no immersion?
Ms. Proulx: There’s no immersion.
The Chair: Got it.
Ms. Proulx: It’s all paid through the courses provided by the House of Commons, and you see the notices that are sent out regularly. That’s what this amount pays for. It also pays, I should add, for the language testing services. When we do need to have confirmation of language proficiency, we go through the House of Commons to get assessment. There’s an amount for that as well.
Just to note, regarding the budget, there was a request in the Main Estimates last year to increase it by 30,000. Previous to that, it was at $75,000.
The Chair: So it was increased?
Ms. Proulx: It was increased last year. There was a shortfall, mostly, of $30,000.
The Chair: From a budgetary perspective, wouldn’t it make sense to separate the French immersion budget from the language training in the National Capital Region? That way we have a box for language training in the NCR, an amount of budget available to administration and Senate staff, and an amount available for French immersion, where applicable, especially if we’re going to embrace the criteria that Senator Plett has put forward in terms of trying to set benchmarks of what should be available to staff. Is that logical? We can send that to Main Estimates to review that. It seems to me the 105 right now doesn’t have any pressure, but if you can review that, Senator Wells, and break it down for us in those categories?
We’ve tasked them with that. If there are no more questions, Senator Plett, do you want to move your motion?
Senator Plett: I will have to find it again on my BlackBerry, if you’ll give me a minute.
I have it here, thank you. I would like simply to add to this that, whatever point this would be, in my case here, it’s (e) and (g): That a completion of minimum of two years of language training with the House of Commons language assessment centre or acceptable equivalent accompanied by a written recommendation by a language teacher indicating that immersion would be beneficial at this time.
And then, also that the maximum period of training outside of Ottawa, or to Senator Wells’ suggestion here, outside of the nation’s capital, for an employee will not exceed two weeks in total.
If we could add those two bullets to this, I would support it.
Senator Downe: Senator Plett, why was the recommendation in there for a written request from the language teacher?
Senator Plett: We felt, Senator Downe, that, if I’m the staffer and I just say, “I want to go to Quebec for a few weeks of language training,” that shouldn’t be up to me; that should be up to somebody saying it would be beneficial for me to do that.
If I had not accomplished anything in two years of language training here, and there would be no benefit for me to go to Chicoutimi for two weeks — it’s a wonderful area in the summer — and I go there for two weeks to do some language training on my own initiative, the word we used was a professor who had been doing the instructing here, and it got changed just to a teacher. I’m fine with that, but we felt there should be a recommendation that it would be beneficial for that staffer to go there.
Senator Downe: Would it not be in the best interest of the teacher to keep the students, though? They’re not in the business of farming students out.
Senator Plett: I don’t think so. I think if you’ve been here for two years and a student requests that they think they would benefit from that, somebody should recommend that if we want to put someone else there, but I don’t think the staffer should just, on his or her own initiative, say, “I want to go for two weeks of language training somewhere else.”
Senator Downe: I don’t know the process, so you can educate me, but I assume if the person is taking the program through the House of Commons, reports come to the senator that they work for on the progress, like a report card, in effect.
Senator Plett: I cannot give you that information.
Senator Downe: Does anybody know?
The Chair: No, I don’t think that occurs.
Senator Plett: We can put all the rules in that we want that say somebody will use this to their own advantage. I don’t think a professional teacher or instructor would hold somebody back if they thought it would benefit that student to go somewhere else for language training. I can’t imagine.
Senator Downe: It’s two weeks max, not a year?
Senator Plett: Two weeks, max.
The Chair: Senator Downe brought up an issue I want to address. The way the motion is worded, Senator Plett, it is two weeks max. Does that mean an employee who had has been here for a period of three or four years can only go for two weeks of immersion? I find that insufficient. If somebody is diligently applying themselves to learn a second language, I think two weeks of immersion might not do the trick. I know we have some brilliant people who work here in the Senate, but I think that two weeks total, the way it’s worded, basically precludes somebody who is progressing and has done two weeks, six months or a year down the line, from requesting to go back for further immersion.
Senator Plett: You may be right. Of course, if we want to discuss the number of weeks, I’m not saying that I would be opposed to an amendment there, but the fact of the matter is, Senator Housakos, that if somebody has done two years of diligent work here, two weeks of immersion would be pretty good.
I’ve done two weeks of immersion out there and I went there cold turkey — I could say “bonjour,” kind of — and I could use a few more weeks even for that. Two weeks there wasn’t enough for me, for sure, but I think for someone who has spent two years of diligent training here, two weeks is a top-off for them. I think anyone who is going to then work in the French language is going to get pretty fluent after two years here and two weeks of immersion. If you want to make that three or four, that’s up to this committee.
Senator Batters: Is it two weeks per year?
The Chair: The way it is worded now, it would be two weeks, period.
Senator Batters: Having also been to Quebec City for a couple of weeks the last two summers, two weeks is a substantial immersion program, typically, because you’re also staying with a host family and speaking only in French on your off hours as well. It’s substantial. I think it’s satisfactory, myself.
Senator McCoy: I’m going to vote against this motion and here’s my reason: The premium we put on employees speaking French and English — both official languages — in order to serve not only senators but Canadians across the country, is very high.
To put any kind of restrictions beyond normal prudence as the list of criteria that were presented earlier is, in my view, counterproductive. I think anything we can do to encourage people to gain the second official language is very important.
I myself come from Alberta. I tend to favour Albertans. I have Albertans in my employ. Albertans, by and large, do not speak French. They are working flat out most of the year. Their French-language training they squeeze in when they can, but they are trying. I think anything we can do to facilitate that, and it may in fact take longer than some people who have a facility for languages might experience.
So I shall vote against this motion because I think it is unduly restrictive.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: My question is for Senator Plett, but I will wait till the end of the meeting. It is a private question, which is not compromising in any way, on the two-week language training.
I am wondering about placing limits on immersion training elsewhere. In the document we have before us, it says that some training is funded by the senator’s office and that other training is funded through the central budget. Is that correct? In that case, the Senate absorbs the cost of immersion training if the criteria justify it, but up to a certain point. For example, it would fund a certain number of weeks, beyond which… Let’s take your example of two weeks, Senator Plett. The Senate would fund two weeks maximum, and if the senator wanted to pay for additional training for his staff because he thinks it is important, he could pay for it from his budget.
I don’t know if I understand the current system; part of the training can be paid by the senator, and part of it by the central administration. That is what it says here.
The Chair: Yes, the central budget pays for the cost of the training that is held here in Ottawa, and the training that is held outside of the national capital is paid through the central budget.
Senator Dupuis: So, no training…
The Chair: Before the rules governing training outside of Ottawa were put in place, the cost was paid from the senator’s budget. That is why some adjustments have to be made to the rules, so that they are clearer.
Senator Dupuis: The document is not clear. You have to ensure that you are referring to training paid from the central budget.
[English]
Mr. Presseau: Just to clarify, senator:
[Translation]
There are two ways of obtaining training outside of the national capital region. You can indeed ask for funding through the central budget, but there is also the possibility of paying for the training through the senators’ office budgets, according to the rules that are in place.
Senator Dupuis: If I understand correctly, this is new information, according to which immersion training can be funded both through the central budget and by the senator’s office.
Mr. Presseau: Could you specify what you mean by “both”?
Senator Dupuis: I just want to know who pays for what here. So my question…
The Chair: I think that Senator Dupuis is confirming what we know, which is that the rules are not specific enough. That is why we are having this discussion. Go on, senator.
Senator Dupuis: I simply want to understand who can pay for the basic language training.
This is my second question: who can pay for immersion training? What is possible currently? The office of the senator and the central administration may pay for the basic program? The office of the senator and central administration may fund immersion training?
Ms. Proulx: You are referring to the current situation.
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: At this time, as I mentioned earlier, the language training offered in Ottawa is paid for from the central budget. When there have been requests for training in French immersion with travel involved — if my memory serves, there have been two over the past few years — they were submitted to the steering committee. Finally, it was decided that that training would be paid through the senator’s budget.
However, under the new policy and the management policy for senators’ offices, there are criteria to support the new policy, which I will read in English:
[English]
“Costs of official languages training for senators and their spouses, including travel costs, are paid from the central funding, with no deduction of travel points.”
[Translation]
That is the $65,000 I was referring to earlier.
[English]
“A senator may make a request to the Internal Economy Committee to have costs for official language training for staff, including travel costs, paid from central funding with a deduction of travel points. Alternatively, the cost of official language training and related travel costs for staff could be paid from the senator’s budget.”
[Translation]
That is the new policy on the management of senators’ offices, which was approved by the committee a few weeks ago and will come into effect on November 1. When that policy was approved, a request was made to develop criteria that would allow the committee to decide in which cases training would be paid for through the central budget. That is what was prepared and presented and is being discussed at this time.
Senator Dupuis: So it is still possible to ask for funding. In other words, if the motion is carried, could I make a new request if I want to send an employee on training for two months? I would pay for the six additional weeks from my own budget. Would that be possible?
The Chair: Yes, you can submit a request to the steering committee.
[English]
Another question I have for confirmation: On the services offered by the House of Commons right now for language training, do they offer it during weekends, evenings? When are those services offered? I’ve been informed that they’re offered during working hours, during the day. If that is the case, you’re telling me that an employee here who wants to take services is going to be taking language training offered by the Parliament right now on my time.
Colleagues, I thank Senator Marshall for bringing this to our attention. Clearly, I know this has been a consuming item on the agenda, but, by the same token, I think I’ve discovered here that there are a lot of broad views on this and a lot of broad rules on this. We shouldn’t have so many rules on such a simple issue. With the acquiescence of this committee, if you can leave this matter with me and steering for a couple of weeks, after what I’ve heard around the table today, in consultation with Senator Plett and Senator Jaffer, I will come back here with a concrete proposal of what the rules should be.
Senator Tkachuk: We’re really looking forward to it.
The Chair: You see, David, we don’t put all the work on your shoulders.
Senator Cordy: He’s on steering.
The Chair: A little technicality there.
Item 4, contract over $100,000, replacement of key equipment components.
[Translation]
Ms. Bouchard, you have the floor.
[English]
Hélène Bouchard, Director, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, I am here today to obtain the authorization from your committee to launch a request for a quote to enter into a contract exceeding $100,000 for the replacement of key components located in committee rooms 2 and 9 of the Victoria Building.
[Translation]
Most of the equipment in rooms 2 and 9 of the Victoria Building is now more than 14 years old and has gone well beyond its shelf life. In the context of the move to the Conference Centre and of the transfer of four committee rooms to 1 Wellington Street, the modernization of the two committee rooms in the Victoria Building was not included in the short and medium-term plans. At this time, we have four committee rooms that have television broadcasting equipment, and in 2018 we will have seven, if you exclude those in the Victoria Building. However, since the decision was made to continue using those two committee rooms in 2018, we had to make a decision. Public Services and Procurement Canada agreed to do a complete analysis for the potential modernization of the rooms, including the broadcasting equipment. The cost for completely modernizing those two rooms would be approximately $1 million each, because we are talking about cutting-edge equipment, cameras and control rooms.
However, that is not a firm decision, and we will see what Public Services has to say.
[English]
In the meantime, ISD needs to replace key component equipment to avoid major service interruptions. The existing Media Matrix mainframe — I won’t get into technical details — have been discontinued for years and therefore need to be replaced in both committee rooms.
There’s one thing I would like to mention, we have those two Media Matrix in those committee rooms, and we had a spare, but the spare is now gone because we had to use it. It’s very critical that we need to replace this equipment.
The Information Services Directorate budget was increased temporarily by an amount of $124,000 in 2017-18 to purchase a backup in-room digital recording system for all committee rooms for redundancy. That was planned for this year. We presented that to the committee budget.
However, given that funding was available in 2016-7, in the last fiscal year, it was agreed to purchase the equipment, like the in-room backup system, in the last fiscal year so that we could use the approved budget that we have right now to upgrade the critical equipment in committee rooms 2 and 9 in the Victoria Building.
It’s important to mention that this equipment, whenever we need to modernize, not in the long term, but I would say in the short term, so this equipment will be reusable. It’s very important that we don’t throw it away.
There’s no additional funding required. It’s a reallocation of funds from something we purchased last year. We could have purchased that equipment I’m talking about in the last fiscal year, but there was some information missing, so that’s why we decided to pre-purchase the other equipment.
The cost would be $110,000; we know that for a fact. I need authorization to enter into contracts exceeding $100,000. We will have a request for quotations. We already have pre-qualified vendors, as you know, because we need to maintain the equipment over all the committee rooms, but we’ll do a request for quotations with these companies. I’m open to questions.
Senator Batters: I was listening through the translation to your initial remarks, and I think there was an error in the translation because it said $1 million for each room, but the briefing note says $110,000 for both committee rooms. I wanted to clarify.
Ms. Bouchard: As I mentioned, because those two committee rooms have old equipment, to modernize all the cameras, the control rooms and all the interpretation systems, the equipment you see in the room right now, you’re talking about $1 million per room. It’s quite expensive. The plan was not to modernize the equipment because we will be getting new committee rooms.
The Chair: A million per room?
Ms. Bouchard: It’s about that.
The Chair: Not $10 million, a million.
Ms. Bouchard: I’m not asking for a million here. I want to modernize some critical equipment.
The Chair: Just to be clear, when we use a number next to millions, because it gets us edgy.
Senator Batters: You’re saying to do the whole meal deal, it would be a million, but that’s not what you’re proposing here.
Ms. Bouchard: Not at all.
Senator Batters: You’re proposing the $110,000?
Ms. Bouchard: No, absolutely.
Senator Marshall: When you say “initiate a request for quotations,” what are the logistics? Do you go to three vendors?
Ms. Bouchard: We will go to pre-qualified vendors, and we send our requirements to these vendors and we go with the best price.
Senator Marshall: You have your list of vendors?
Ms. Bouchard: Yes, absolutely.
The Chair: No other questions, colleagues? Motion to adopt, please. Senator Tkachuk moves the motion. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
Item 5 is going to be deferred because Senator Munson is not here, so we’ll wait for him to get back.
Are there any other matters for the public portion of the meeting? If there isn’t, I’ll ask to go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)