Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 3 - Evidence - May 5, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 5, 2016
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, pursuant to rule 12-7(1) of the Rules of the Senate, met this day at 8:05 a.m., in public, for the consideration of financial and administrative matters, and in camera for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. Good morning also to our two guests that are here with us today. I want to congratulate Senator Mitchell again, informally, for being named the new Government Whip. I know he will do an excellent job, and we're pleased to have him here. We also have Senator Lankin with us this morning. She is not an official member but she's always welcome to our meetings, as all senators are.
Before we start the meeting, I'd like to express this committee's and our concern about what's going on in Fort McMurray. Our thoughts are with the people of Alberta in that town and everything that's going on there this morning. It's a terrible tragedy, and we hope that the first emergency forces that are working on this will be able to put out that fire as expeditiously as possible.
I want to point out that this meeting is a continuation of the last meeting. We had some special circumstances that forced us to suspend and not adjourn the last meeting. So we're going to be going to our agenda on issue 4, which is the first report of the Subcommittee on Communications. As it turns out, it has become a committee and a report that has been reported multiple times, but now I think we've gotten final sign-off from all caucuses.
If I can have Pascale Legault come before us to give the last address hopefully on this issue and we can move on.
Pascale Legault, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was wondering if we could distribute the package for the presentation.
While the papers are being distributed, I would like to go back to our last meeting when this committee approved the proactive disclosure mock-ups. The decision was to also integrate all recommendations coming from the security report from Mr. McDonald.
After that decision, we went back and discussed the impact and changes that were required, and we realized that by implementing the wide range of recommendations, the Senate would go back to consolidating all travel and hospitality expenses and, basically, would not be providing the breakdown that was required under the objective of transparency.
The Subcommittee on Communications requested that Ms. Bouchard, Mr. McDonald and I work together to balance transparency without compromising the security issues raised. What you have in front of you, and the proposed changes, take into consideration all the issues that were raised. This presentation was made to the Conservative caucus to ensure that it was considered reasonable.
On the front page, where you have the high-level mock-up, you see the name of the senator, affiliation, province, office, hospitality, living and travel. There's no change on that page. The only comment I would like to make is that —
Senator Downe: Could I have a point of order? Are we in camera? If we're talking security — any security component — I don't think we should be in public. I like open meetings but —
The Chair: If the committee so chooses to —
Senator Downe: When we get to security, maybe we can go in camera.
The Chair: I wasn't sure if Mr. McDonald was specifically addressing any of the security issues. If we are, we'll go in camera.
Senator Downe: Thank you, chair.
Mike McDonald, Director, Senate Protective Service, Senate of Canada: Any security discussion would be generic, unless a question is driven to make it more specific. But otherwise, I was not planning on doing that.
The Chair: It's up to the committee. If you want to go in camera, Senator Downe, I have no issues. I just figured it's —
Senator Downe: If it is sensitive, I heard that they will go in camera. So that's fine. Thank you, chair.
The Chair: We're basically presenting the disclosure platform and report as it will be announced publicly. So there's nothing that should be presented here today that shouldn't be for public consumption.
Ms. Legault: On that first page, no change has been made; the mock-up that was presented remained the same. The only item that was discussed yesterday was whether we needed affiliation on that page. The view was that we could remove that column without reducing the level of information or meeting the objective here, or we could have the following affiliations: Conservative, Liberal or non-affiliated. I will leave that to this committee to make at the end of the presentation.
On the next page, where you have hospitality expenses breakdown, there was one change that was made. It is referring to when the hospitality event took place. As opposed to having the specific date, what was recommended is that we would have the month of the event. So it provides the information of approximately when the event happened, but there's no possibility of linking any pattern between hospitality and travel expenses. This was in line with the recommendation from security. Also on that page, I'm just going to say that we're going to have the purpose, and additional information will be provided. It's the name of the contractor.
On the next page, this is where we have the most changes, travel expenses. So we took all of the advice into consideration, and, for any trips that are regular — so that means residency to Parliament Hill — there will be no dates provided in the columns where it starts week of and ends week of. The reason is that there could be some travel patterns derived from the information provided. So no information will be provided on the timing of the regular travel. We will continue to provide dates for the other travel, so for conferences, training, because those are more ad hoc, and no travel pattern can be derived from this. We will not provide specific dates; we will provide the week of.
To the right, what we've done is consolidate air, bus and train transportation. So there are no specifics on that side. To the right, we have consolidated taxi and mileage. Therefore, there's no identification of the specific mode of transportation used by the senator.
To the bottom, we have the designated traveller. If the designated traveller is joining or accompanying the senator to the Hill for a Senate sitting, no dates would be provided for the same reason as for the senator, so that no travel pattern can be derived from this.
On the next page, contract, no risks were identified, so no changes have been made to that mock-up. The only thing is that we will provide, on top of the subject, the name of the service provider. This was considered key information.
This is the proactive model that we are recommending, and Mike is available to answer questions. I am as well.
Senator Manning: Just a question on the travel expenses. We're not going to put down the name of designated traveller, but that's already public knowledge. We all have a designated traveller. That's accessible to the public anyway, correct?
Ms. Legault: At the Senate, the designated travellers are not made public, and it will not be disclosed as part of this proactive disclosure.
Senator Manning: What about children?
Ms. Legault: No names will be provided.
Senator Wells: Pascale, where will the dependents be recorded, or will that be under the category of designated traveller?
Ms. Legault: It will be under "designated traveller.'' It would be called "dependent.''
Senator Wells: So there will be another line saying "dependents''?
Ms. Legault: That's right. No names.
Senator McCoy: This is more of a generic question. In terms of previous disclosure statements, it had been very confusing and, indeed, misleading in the sense that the expenses have been reported out of period. In other words, the expenses have been reported as if current, when, in fact, they occurred in the last fiscal period. It causes no end of confusion, not only for ourselves but for the public and, in particular, the media. Is that going to be corrected? Are we going to have real-time reporting here? Are we going to have expenses reported so that, if it was incurred in the first quarter of the current fiscal year, it will be reported that way, or are we going to have expenses reported in the third quarter of the fiscal year because that's when Finance finally got the numbers together?
Ms. Legault: Finance will report the information 60 days after the quarter when it was incurred and claimed. Obviously, if a claim is being made in one quarter for the previous quarter, it will not be disclosed in the previous quarter because Finance does not have the information to disclose it. The new system that we are building is all automated, so the claim has to be put through in order to be disclosed in the quarter.
Senator McCoy: So will the dates reflect when the expenses were incurred or when you have done your work?
Ms. Legault: It is when the expenses were incurred.
Senator McCoy: That's what will be reflected in this disclosure statement?
Ms. Legault: Yes.
Senator McCoy: That will help. Even though they're not posted until you've completed your work, at least it will reflect when they were incurred. That will be a major step forward. Thank you.
Senator Wells: One of the issues that we've had to deal with in the past is just this issue. So the expense would occur, let's say, in quarter 1, and that expense, for a great many of us, let's say it's a flight pass that might cost $10,000. That expense incurred in quarter 1 would be recorded within that quarter, but the actual use of that expense, if I can call it that, happens over the next five or six months. Yet, it shows as a first quarter expense and, therefore, perhaps a ballooned expense when it's actually not used at that time. Is there somewhere within the disclosure statement that there could be a note that says "expenses incurred,'' for instance, publications? I know it's a small one, but if I buy a subscription to a journal and get monthly delivery of that journal, again, it's an expense that was incurred at one point but delivered over a longer period. I'd like the staff to consider having a note that would explain that or would explain that that could be the case.
Ms. Legault: For this one, because of the materiality, it's very important and significant from a value perspective. We intend to have a mechanism when it's a prepaid, if it's not reflected in the expenses. So there would not be a need for a note. If someone purchased $10,000, it would be set aside as prepaid, and, whenever it's used, this is when it would be categorized as an expense. From our perspective, it's not an expense yet. It hasn't been used. It's an asset.
Senator Wells: Even though it's been expended.
Ms. Legault: It's been purchased, exactly.
Senator Munson: Thank you for your report. I think, for clarity's sake, you should explain, since this is a public meeting, why there's that generic position in the report about travel, saying that it doesn't show any patterns. I think it's important. If you might remember, a few years ago, because of studies and things that were done through auditors, when they talked about patterns, there were not very good patterns that were discovered. This is for a reasonable reason. I know we're talking about security, and I know it's public. But I think, as to patterns, if a reporter is listening to this conversation this morning, they might not quite understand what you mean by just showing how a person travels from home, in these parts of the country in their constituency, to Ottawa and back and that that's why you want to have it there, that the travel is there but not on the specific date.
Mr. McDonald: If I understood your question correctly, leaving it generic is about affording you greater safety in many ways. You have great protection, a lot of resources here on Parliament Hill. You may not in smaller areas, smaller airports. So it's about still disclosing the travel but not exposing you to risk in a location where you don't have that same level of security around you.
Senator Lang: Very quickly, to follow up with our witness here, I was one of the ones that brought forward the request for a security review of the proposed disclosure. The reality of it is that, for us that live in rural Canada primarily — but it also applies to the bigger centres — the patterns that could be developed could be seen by those who are perhaps viewing the travel of a senator and his family. They could very quickly come to the conclusion when your home is vacant because, obviously, if your spouse is with you, your home is generally vacant, and it leaves it vulnerable to someone who is perhaps in the business of doing break and enter. That's one element.
The other element, of course, is in respect of those who, because of some of the work that senators do, may be able to determine fairly quickly what flights you take, when you take them, how you get to the airport, and when you arrive. That leaves some vulnerability as well, if we're in a situation where individuals are dealing with sensitive issues that other people may not view favourably and subsequently look at the work that one does.
We should not discount that. We've been pretty secure in Canada, but things are changing in Canada, whether we like it or not, and changing throughout the world. I think that we have to be careful what we do and do the best we can to minimize risk. At the same time, I want to emphasize that disclosure is being done in respect of the amount of money being spent by a senator and various other information surrounding those particular expenditures.
I also would say this: If anybody wants to inquire further into the expenditure of a senator's travel, they have every right to phone that office and ask for a further breakdown of the expenditures that have taken place because it is the public taxpayer's money. I would submit that it is a very reasonable change to the initial document and that it gives a bit more comfort to senators and the Senate. We also have the right to privacy to some degree. Each and every one of us has that right as well, just like the general public has.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Lang. Deservedly, you will get the last word on this issue. I'd like to thank everybody for their contribution. It's been a long haul. We've consulted far and wide to get here. I'd like to thank Pascale Legault and her team for their patience and hard work and also Mike McDonald for his due diligence in this process.
May I have a motion? It is moved by Senator Cordy, seconded by Senator Munson. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Anyone opposed? It passes unanimously.
Senator Cordy: Maybe it's because I'm married to an accountant and my daughter's an accountant and accountants never get credit for the work they do but I would very much like to thank Pascale and Mike because the security piece was important to go through. And I thank you, Senator Lang. From the accountant's perspective, it always seems to get done and people assume it's being done. Would you also pass that along to your team? Thank you very much.
Senator Downe: I want to thank Senator Lang as well, because this is an area I never considered in the original proposal. Under his leadership, it became more important and we would have missed it otherwise.
The Chair: Indeed.
Ms. Legault: One point of clarification, affiliation. Are we to leave the information being presented, Conservative, Liberals and non-affiliated, or are we removing that?
The Chair: I understood everyone was okay with that. We got the motion and we ran.
Colleagues, I also want to point out that we're going through the last agenda now down on Item 8. I also want to add some new items to the bottom of the agenda as we go through: Funding for JIC, the Joint Interparliamentary Council. That is Item 12. Item 13 is a request from the Chair of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates who has a special request for us, so we're granting him that wish to make the request. Item 14 is the creation of an Advisory Working Group on the review of our policies and rules.
Colleagues, I want to remain public as much as we possibly can, unless there's really good reason and there's a wish on behalf of the committee to go in camera. I'd like to make it a practice now as much as we possibly can. I know the practice has been that whenever we deal with budget issues we go public and other sensitive issues we go in camera. Again, perhaps we can be a little more flexible and stay public. Nonetheless, our transcripts are made public anyways. A lot of our decisions are made public.
Item 8 is next, an update on the dispute resolution process, which essentially is the Binnie arbitration process and the outstanding issues left with some senators who didn't avail themselves of the arbitration process. I asked Michel Patrice to give us a brief overview of where we're at, obviously without jeopardizing any of the legal cases.
Michel Patrice, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and Chief Parliamentary Precinct Services Officer, Senate of Canada: This is basically an open item in the agenda, I understand, to allow questions should you have any. There haven't been many developments other than discussions. The ones left are former senators, and there've been discussions between lawyers or the actual senators in terms of the Senate — if there are any questions.
Senator Campbell: I'm wondering if we've considered a cost-benefit analysis on this. What will it cost us with regard to what we're going to get in return? I know that one of the questions I had from the Auditor General's audit was why it takes $24 million to find less than $1 million, which to me doesn't seem to make much sense to a taxpayer. I wonder if we're putting ourselves in the same position by continuing with the lawsuit with little chance of recovering, I think, what we have to put into it.
The Chair: I'll answer that on behalf of steering, Senator Campbell, it's a point that's been taken under consideration. We are trying to make sure we fulfill our commitment as an Internal Economy Committee not to arbitrate over these issues and take decisions ourselves over senators' cases. The instructions we gave to our law clerk is that we would send those cases to our outside legal representation and follow their guidance on this. I assume they will be looking at all the due diligence required. Whatever advice they guide us on, we will exercise that advice.
Senator Campbell: I thank you for that. Will we be advised of that before we go further?
The Chair: No doubt on any of those decisions that when they come back this body will be advised and informed.
Senator Campbell: Thank you.
The Chair: Any other questions?
Senator Lang: I want to follow up on Senator Campbell's question because I think it's a fair one. Part of the evaluation of where we are and where it could go and just what the costs will be and the time and the effort that would be in respect of following further along the course that has been set so that a firm decision can be made with all the facts, as much as we know them, so that we understand clearly where it's going. I would hate to see us spend $5 million or whatever amount it is and the time and the effort if at the end of the day the results are going to be minimal in any case. I leave it there.
The Chair: The message is loud and clear. We will follow the legal advice from our legal experts. Also, colleagues, I want to let people know that we have to keep in mind that a number of our colleagues want to go before the court of law and have their day before a judge to have the facts heard. Fortunately, they have that right but unfortunately there might be a cost. Throughout this whole sordid affair, inadvertently a huge cost to taxpayers had to be borne.
Next is Item 9, presentation from Hélène Bouchard and Peter Feltham on the road map going forward and some of the new technological devices and technology available to senators and senators' offices that will allow us to do our work more efficiently and effectively. I invited Hélène to come before us today and give us an overview of what's coming down the pipe.
Hélène Bouchard, Director, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you very much, senator. Yes, I was supposed to have someone with me, Peter Feltham, but unfortunately he couldn't make it, so I'm all by myself. I will be pleased to answer questions after the presentation.
I just want to make sure that you have access to the document. I want to thank the steering committee because I had the opportunity to discuss with them the situation where senators want to have more iPads in their office. We presented a different device that is more business oriented called the Surface Pro. They were quite impressed with the device. They said, "Well, maybe that's a good opportunity for you to go in front of CIBA and make a presentation of what you're working on.''
What I wanted to do today is just introduce to you the 2016-19 roadmap. We had an IM/IT roadmap from 2012-15. Now, we wanted to continue to mature the technology infrastructure and internal application development capacity.
We built the 2016-19 roadmap on five priorities, which are improved mobility and access, improved document management and collaboration, renewal of our corporate and business applications, enhance our web presence and online services, and modernize our infrastructure.
I will now turn to page 2.
[Translation]
I would simply like to mention the results achieved under the 2012-15 roadmap. As you can see, there were many, but I would like to highlight the ones in bold: the implementation of a storage area network; the renewal of Iris, the Senate's legislative system; the modernization of the parliamentary network infrastructure; and the implementation of a wireless network in the Parliament buildings.
These four initiatives are very important for what comes next. You will recall that you approved a $1 million budget to modernize infrastructure. All of this allows us now to more forward and implement measures to facilitate your work, and in particular to improve mobility.
[English]
On page 4 is the subject of improved mobility and access. When we're talking about improved mobility and access, you were sent a memo by ISD last week to implement Citrix for mobile device management. It is an application to secure your iPad in order to have access to documents. This will be done over the next two weeks.
We're also going to introduce the Microsoft Surface tablet, which is what it is right now. This is a tablet that you will be able to take anywhere and have access to your office as if you were sitting at your desk, which is absolutely amazing. This is a three-in-one: computer, tablet and also your laptop. We've already introduced about 50 Surface Pros within senators' offices, and we have senators around the table using it.
I know there's a learning curve, but personally this is a great tool for senators' staff who need mobility in Parliament or outside Parliament, as well as senators. That's given the understanding that the iPad is still a good device for senators, because sometimes they don't need the other services. At least for senators' staff and Senate administration, this is more of a business tool than the iPad, so we're trying to move away from the iPad, at least for the staff.
In terms of continuity for improved mobility and access, we wanted to review the wireless mobile service. If you remember, we came to this committee in June telling you that we wanted to extend our service with PWGSC for wireless services, because they were supposed to renew their contract. Unfortunately, they told us that they will extend their contract for another year or two. So we need to look at a new strategy to provide services to senators, because they're not allowing travel plans with Public Works — the roaming charges are high — and also they're not allowing iPhones.
So we are looking now at a new strategy, and we should be able to have something in place in the next couple of months. You will be happy with that.
[Translation]
We are also looking at the "bring your own device'' initiative. The initiative is an example of thinking outside the box. We are familiar with BlackBerry, but we would like to be able to expand the range of devices to include iPhones and Androids. We would like to give you the opportunity to use other devices. In order to do so, we need a security system that would enable us to offer you the service under the circumstances.
Moreover, a number of you have employees who wish to use their own devices. We must be able to offer them a degree of security so they can access their email or Senate services. This initiative will allow us to do that. We want people to be able to "bring their own device'' if they wish to do so.
[English]
On page 6 you will see improved document management and collaboration. As you know, we are implementing Citrix right now for your iPads, but we're also going to modernize the committee document management portal. We want to align our technology with the House of Commons. Why? There are joint committees and they also provide documents through a portal. We want to make sure that if you're part of a joint committee, we have the same infrastructure or the same type of site that you would have access to. IIA is also working on a site so that when senators are travelling, they will be in the same type of environment. That's why we're trying to modernize our technology.
We also want to implement a SharePoint site for senators' offices. This will provide collaboration and help coordinate activities within your offices. We will start with a pilot project, but I think this is a great tool for senators' offices.
We are looking at implementing Skype for Business. I know senators want to communicate using video and Voice-over-Internet. There are some considerations we need to look at. We need to look at bandwidth for the Internet and the criteria to see who will be able to use it — if everyone starts using Skype to contact their families — so we want to make sure we have some control. We are looking at a strategy for implementing Skype within our environment.
We will also continue to implement electronic documents and records management for the Senate administration. This is an ongoing initiative. This is to manage the business value information for the Senate.
[Translation]
As you also know, on page 7, we are updating operational and corporate applications. We are renewing organizational resource planning, the ERP system.
[English]
This is a major initiative that will be done in collaboration with Finance, HR and other directorates.
We will also be continuing phase two of the Iris project, which is to modernize our legislative system. We will also be implementing Windows 10 and Office 365 over the next few months.
Page 8 is enhanced web presence and online services. One of the projects that ISD will be working on — now I can mention it — is proactive disclosure. All the development behind the application will be ISD, again in collaboration with Finance.
We are also in the process right now, as you know, to redesign the Senate portal. This is a major initiative for ISD in terms of the back end in order to provide new functionality and to modernize the look of the site. This is an initiative that ISD has been working on with Communications.
We have also been looking at Iris phase three. We have been talking about Iris for a long time, but we're on the last implementation now. We're looking at phase three, so we are looking at the future. We want to leverage the investment we made with Iris, so we will be able to provide new services from Iris. One of the things that we want to do is to be able to bring in interventions from senators in the chamber and in committee. Senators will be able to capture information from this database, all their speeches made in the chamber and in committees. The way the information will be structured in Iris will permit that. That will provide so much flexibility, and this is going to be great also for the new Senate Portal, which will be modernized in the next year.
Another thing that we want to do, in collaboration again with Communications, is to modernize content management for senators' websites. ISD will be working on the back end, but Communications will be working on the design. This is something that we will be working together on, and services will be provided to you. We're also looking at continuing to modernize ParlVu. As you know, right now, ParlVu is available on any device, which is great, but we want to also provide other functionality, which is going to be the clip and edit. Any user, when clip and edit is available, will be able to take a clip of a specific time within the committees or in the chamber, and you'll be able to put that on your website or do anything you want with it. You're not going to need our service to give you a portion of a clip or anything. That is going to be done automatically by you.
We are going to also have live and rewind, so, when you're listening to something, streaming, and want to go back, you will be able to do that to listen with that, which is a great feature.
Modernizing our infrastructure: One thing that we're looking at within the next few years is to modernize our broadcast control and cameras. This will permit us to automate some of the functionality, and that will reduce the manpower required to broadcast committee events. As you know, right now, we need three people to televise a committee. We want to be able to reduce the number of people to two and sometimes to one if the committee is not a big one. This will help us to be able to broadcast four committees at the same time. This is our goal for September.
We are also looking at storage renewal; that will be in 2017-18. We are looking at different approaches. We are also looking at cloud technology, but this is on our radar in order to see what exactly we're going to do with that. We're fine for 2017-18. We may also extend for another year, but we need now to start thinking about what's out there and what we could implement in terms of storage.
We also need to modernize our digital recording system. This is in line with the Iris project.
Technology on the radar: Just to let you know, we're also looking at unified communication. With the renovation of the building, we will try to modernize our infrastructure. So, right now, as you know, our telephone system is on Xantrex, which is part of the federal government. We want to move away from that and try to be able to be more autonomous and try to bring more features around telecommunications. Your desktop, your wireless device, your telephone are all connected. That's all called unified communication. We will take advantage of long-term planning to do this, but we need to think about that.
Again, we were talking about looking at different services that we could implement through cloud, even with the renewal of the Senate portal. We're even looking at maybe using the cloud to do this. It's cheaper. We don't have to maintain the infrastructure, which I think is a great opportunity.
Basically, we have a lot of work for the next three years. I'm sure other projects will come along because priorities change pretty fast, but, right now, I think we have a full agenda at ISD. You can see on the last page, page 12, the timeline of all the projects that we want to implement in the next three years.
I know it was quick.
The Chair: It was quick and efficient and has encouraged a lot of questions. I have a long list here.
Ms. Bouchard: Peter is here for really technical questions.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for your presentation. I have lots of questions, but first I have to share the new Instagram. Look at the amazing picture from our multicultural day. That shows the faces from the Senate. Congratulations. Great job.
I have many questions. My first one is Wi-Fi. Is it now in Victoria Building?
Ms. Bouchard: I've asked the question. It probably will be within the next month, yes. It will be available in all senators' offices in the Victoria Building, yes.
Senator Jaffer: When?
Ms. Bouchard: I have here that Victoria should be April/May. It should be within the month.
Senator Jaffer: What about Skype?
Ms. Bouchard: Skype is a different aspect that we need to look at. As I explained, we need to look at our Internet bandwidth in order to support that. This will also require a lot of training. So there's a lot of preparation. What we want to do is to create a pilot project. We will be working with the House of Commons because we are sharing the same infrastructure, so we want to bring that project together in order to make sure that we have all of the information before we start implementing it.
We want to try at least to implement it so that you can get used to it, and then we will be able to open outside. At least, you'll get used to the application.
Senator Jaffer: On the Surface, I have to tell you, colleagues, it's the most amazing thing after the iPad. It gives you great access. I don't know what I'd do without Surface, but I do have a beef about it. If you have a computer that's not paid from your budget, they take your computer away, but you pay for the Surface from your budget. If we're all going to look at getting Surface instead of a computer, we need to look at that. That's not fair. Those senators who will use the Surface and not the computer pay for it from your budget, not personally.
The other thing is training. I brought this up before. I'm really unhappy with the training. The staff gets good training, but the training is always at a time when senators are away. If we're going to have these devices, we need to know how to use them. So please look at training.
Senator Marshall: Hélène, thanks very much for your presentation. When you do your priorities, is there any consultation with the senators? Who decides what the priorities are, or who approves them?
Ms. Bouchard: At this point, as you know, we always come forward when funding is required. We understand, as you remember, last year, when we had to do the modernization of the parliamentary network. If you look at the ERP system, it was brought to your attention.
If you remember, we also had the Subcommittee on Estimates during the summertime. We did the zero-based budget process. We made a presentation to them. We explained what our mission was and what some of our priorities were. You have to understand that those sometimes come from the industry. Sometimes it comes because there are some pressures from our partners. We need to deal with this. Also, it's through some discussions that we had with senators that they are looking for better document management and things like that.
This is basically how we've been doing this. I would have been more than happy to send a questionnaire and ask what you would like, but, right now, with all the projects we have to deliver, Iris, ERP, major initiatives, we're trying, at least, to bring a little bit for senators in terms of document management and mobility. We're trying to focus on that, but all of the other initiatives are really major initiatives that we need to put in place. Yes, you're right; it would have been nice to ask.
Senator Marshall: Have you given any consideration to having some consultation with at least some senators with regard to satisfaction with the IT services, just to find out whether senators feel that they're being adequately supported? Has there been any discussion on that?
Ms. Bouchard: We could absolutely do that. We had a consultation that was done for all the administration at one point, I would say, maybe two years —
The Chair: I think Senator Marshall brings up a very good point. Maybe going forward we should do a survey of senators and staff to find out what areas we're satisfied with — a little bit of a self-audit focus group.
Senator Marshall: That would be good. For example, you mentioned the expense of the roaming charges. I still don't understand — or maybe it is available now — but when we're outside the country, we're very conscious of the roaming charges. Why can't we get packages? I was travelling out of the country last week. My daughter had a package that cost her $50, yet I was going around to different locations to find free Wi-Fi and having my emails forwarded to her account. Is that problem rectified now and I don't know about it? What's the story on the roaming charges?
Ms. Bouchard: It will be rectified in the next month. This is what I was trying to explain. We met with the steering committee and presented an option that will resolve exactly what you're talking about. The House of Commons has gone through a procurement process and the Senate will be able to take advantage of that to provide you with tiered travel plans, which is good. What's happening is you pay for what you're using. At one point, you're getting to the last tier, which is unlimited and there's a cap. So you're not going to have roaming charges like you have right now. It will be exactly the same thing for domestic usage. You'll have tiered plans, which we want to implement for senators.
Senator Marshall: Will this happen within a month?
Ms. Bouchard: There are contracting issues we need to look at. But yes, it will be available for senators. I understand it has been quite a journey for you on this. We were with the PWGSC contract but unfortunately they did not provide that type of service so that's why we're changing our approach.
Senator McCoy: I want to say first that I'm a supporter of our IT department to the extent that it is a key factor in bringing this institution into the 21st century. We cannot be an effective, modern Senate without effective, modern IT capability.
I've been here for just over 10 years. After two or three years, I took myself off the system in the Senate. It wasn't contemporary. It was way behind the times. I'm very pleased to see the strides that you've made, Hélène. You've made them even though you've been under-resourced. I don't know how much money we invest in this, but I think we don't invest enough. I would, therefore, put in a generic call for an increase in focused investment in this particular technology capacity, if you will.
In terms of the portal, I'm very pleased to hear that you're moving to modernize that at the moment. We've made great strides; and I agree with Senator Jaffer that sen.ca is excellent. And Instagram and all these things are great strides forward.
Still, there are three or four ways to get into this. Now, I've learned how to get there but I'm an insider. People out there don't know how to find their way through the systems yet. I'm very pleased to hear that's being integrated.
Finally, we were one of the offices that volunteered to be a guinea pig — one of the first users of the new Surface Pros. We are great supporters of modern technology and, if we have our way, we'll go back to getting off the Senate system. The Surface Pro we have is inadequate. Once again, we've gone at it probably simply because we've decided to go cheap. We haven't got a Surface Pro, as I understand, with a large enough capacity of RAM and all those things. It keeps crashing.
Here we are. I watch my staff try to log on when they come into the office and turn their computers on. It takes 5 to 10 minutes for that thing to start in the morning. Then, if they have more than one thing happening, the thing crashes. Two days ago, the network crashed, so we had to use personal gmail accounts and Hotmail accounts. I maintain a personal email on a server that has nothing to do with the Senate because it's reliable and the Senate is not. This is altogether inefficient and ineffective. We've suggested that we like the concept of the Surface Pro — absolutely correct. It is a three-in-one, but it's not adequate to do the job in this cheap version that we are purchasing.
I want to encourage, once again, that if we do something, let's do it well and let's put more money into these things.
The Chair: I will go through our list of senators and their questions. Maybe, Hélène, at the end you can wrap up and address some of these issues quickly.
Senator Mitchell: I want to congratulate you on the organization and the progress you're making. I would say that there are probably a lot of senators who will never see this report in this detail. Maybe there's a way you could communicate with senators and their offices so they're up-to-date on it. There's a lot of interest on this.
I want to emphasize the point made by Senator Marshall and Senator Housakos on the importance of focus-grouping senators and staff. Not only does it make practical sense but also, and I came across an incident where it was evident, it has an impact on people's morale and effectiveness. You get initiative within your group to do something and they're really happy with it. Then it comes out and it's 80 per cent okay and 20 per cent frustrating to users who have never been asked about it. I had that experience with Good. I was never asked about what I found with the system. Senator McCoy is indicating the same thing. Nobody has ever asked us before they started.
The phone bill restriction, too, I remember having a discussion with someone in your department who was very excited about how much they'd reduced the cost, which is fantastic, except there's no roaming when you go to Europe. There was that disconnect. It should be ongoing and it would absolutely save money because Good came out as a huge commitment. I don't know if there are still some people using it but you can't even do a full email on it. I just wanted to mention that.
I would like to know where we are with live streaming and televising the chamber. I've kind of given up on this chamber being televised. I'm told the structure is being put in place for the temporary 10-year chamber. Is there equipment or a budget or a commitment? Are those still hurdles we need to jump through? I have a couple other questions.
The Chair: We'll have Hélène address all of them.
Senator Mitchell: Finally, I'd like to ask you about the Internet bandwidth. I've been having lots of trouble and I've talked to other senators about it: downloading on BlackBerrys, iPads and elsewhere. I just can't get emails to download. I've been told it's a server problem and that you're making an effort to change the server or that something's being done. It has to be done because the capacity is just not there.
The Chair: I'll take one question off the list for Hélène regarding broadcasting. In the blueprint report that came before this committee almost a couple of years ago, one of the recommendations to Internal Economy was broadcasting the Senate as a whole. As a result of that, we asked Public Works as they do their renovations in the Conference Centre for the new temporary Senate in a couple of years to start wiring the chamber for broadcasting. That's where it's at. Obviously, in order to finally get there, it would require a motion on the Senate floor. Hopefully it will happen in a couple of years' time.
I know the Modernization Committee is also looking at this. We'll wait for the Modernization Committee to give their input to this. I'm a proponent of, given all the strides we're trying to make in favour of making the place more transparent and accountable, ultimately broadcasting the good work we do in the Senate is the final cherry on the cake. That's in response to Senator Mitchell's question.
Senator Munson: I get five more years here, and I want to be on TV.
By the way, this is all great. This is really wonderful. It was just asked by Senator Mitchell, but with all this new technology, I'm still trying to download — the Senate is now on Instagram, and it's still loading. We're having a difficult time the last couple of days, seriously. It almost shocked me yesterday when I decided to use my laptop to ask a question of the Government Leader in the Senate, and it was loading my question, so as Senator Furey is asking me to stand up, I'm into my BlackBerry, and that opens up pretty quickly. So I was able to ask my question. I used to have old-fashioned paper, but I thought I would use the new technology yesterday, and I almost fainted that I'd have to ad lib and all those kinds of things. If I were on TV, it would be a mess.
By the way, maybe with all of this stuff, we should have GoPro cameras on our foreheads, because, in the interest of transparency, we could walk around here, walk everywhere — walk home — and maybe have our own news channels with that stuff, because every reporter in the world could see what we're doing with a GoPro. It's just an idea.
The serious thing for me, and it has been for me as a whip for these last many years — as you say, the goal is to have all of our committees televised in September. It just can't be a goal. It has to happen in September.
Are there any roadblocks now, financially or otherwise? Maybe you could just be more affirmative and say, "There will be cameras in committees, covering all committees in September.'' Once again, this week there were winners and losers who just don't get the camera in there, and there are so many good things happening in our committees these days.
That's going to happen, right?
Ms. Bouchard: Yes. I want to commit publicly, so there is no point of return. I'm working with the House of Commons. As I mentioned, we want to modernize our committee rooms, but I want to let you know that the house will be modernizing their committee rooms, so that will free up some people, so they will be able to support our committees in September, yes.
Senator Munson: Because now I have to deal with another whip, so it will be a three-whip circus, so to speak.
The Chair: Colleagues, we have a number of other issues on the agenda, so if we can be brief as we go through the list. Then we'll have Hélène quickly respond. All good points have been brought up so far.
Senator Batters: Three quick things. First of all, if you could address at the end the "bring your own device'' issue — is that just for senators or senators and staff? If it's senators and staff, how are you ensuring there's going to be proper security for all of these other devices and that we're not going to end up with a ton of problems, given those other types of devices and everything they could bring in?
Also, the coverage in this room this morning — it's kind of timely you're here, because this morning I can't open attachments or emails. It took 15 minutes for an email from Senator Tkachuk, sitting beside me, to arrive on my BlackBerry.
Ms. Bouchard: Maybe there's a problem —
Senator Tkachuk: I could have told her about it.
Senator Batters: Absolutely.
So the coverage in this room is problematic right now.
As well, IT seems to have less staff recently to deal with our offices and to help us out, even in situations where Senate equipment has broken down — printers and things like that — when the Senate is sitting. It seems to be particularly in the afternoons. I'm wondering what's happening with that.
Senator Lankin: A few quick things, as well. First, it's just a comment to pile on the issues with the Surface Pro. I think it's server issues. I had an email yesterday that I intended to send to my office to get some information when I was in this room, and it delivered at 10:30 last night. I couldn't send it; it wouldn't go anywhere. I find that the Surface Pros and BlackBerrys are freezing a lot. It's frustrating.
My two questions: With respect to Skype, I've only used it for personal, not the program for business. Does it have the capacity for multi-site, multi-screen video conferencing so you can bring a group of people and have a video meeting?
Second, in terms of the range of things, I can see how big the tasks are ahead of you, and I appreciate the work that's going into that. I don't know whether something already exists and I'm just unaware of it, but I don't see any discussion about a CRM capacity within the Senate. As we deal with many organizations and groups, and we have multiple staff and sometimes collective staff that are working with committees, the ability to keep track of and to make notations of your last interactions and send customized mass communications to people all require an active constituent-management type of program. So I'd appreciate knowing what your thoughts are about where we're at with thinking about it or adopting something like that.
The Chair: Senator Wells, you get the last question, and then Hélène can give us a brief response to all the various interesting questions.
Senator Wells: Hélène, your team is doing a great job. I see Chuck and Patrice. Whenever I call, they come.
I just wanted to make one point on Senator McCoy's earlier comment that your directorate is underfunded or not fully resourced. Over the past year as chair of the Subcommittee on Estimates, we had all directorates in, including Hélène's directorate, on a zero-based budgeting exercise. I believe Hélène's directorate was the only one that under-asked on the request for funding. In fact, after a fulsome discussion with the full committee, which was the deputy chair and Senators Larry Smith, Furey, Cordy and Tannas, we actually gave more than requested to Hélène's department. I think she has used those resources very well.
The Chair: Hélène, you have the last word.
Ms. Bouchard: In terms of training, I'd like to answer Senator Jaffer's question: We will be looking into this.
I want to mention that the project for Surface Pro was to be implemented in this fiscal year. Everybody wants it and we don't want to stop, because I think there's an interest. That's the problem right now: It's going so fast that we don't have time to keep up. I'm sorry about this, but we will be working on this over the summer to try to manage the requirements for that.
Senator McCoy, we will be meeting with your office, but understand that you are on a separate network — you're not on our network — so sometimes we have some difficulties in terms of configuration. So that gives us some challenges, but we will be working with you, meeting with you again and with your staff, to try to resolve that issue for sure. I want to tell you that we will be calling your office to look into this.
Peter, maybe you want to add something about the few problems with the email over the last few days.
Peter Feltham, Chief, Network Services, Senate of Canada: Two or three days, there's been a government-wide issue with ActiveSync and devices like BlackBerrys and iPads that rely on ActiveSync to move traffic back and forth. I've just sent an email off to find out if it's manifested itself again, and I should have an answer shortly.
Basically, it's a problem that's affected everybody. We sent a note out a couple of days ago, telling everybody that there has been a problem. If people have been having problems for a long time, that is different and you should call ISD, because BlackBerrys and Surface Pros freezing, that's not —
Senator Campbell: Macs aren't freezing.
Mr. Feltham: Okay, good. But if that's happening, give us a call and let us know. I personally have been using a Surface Pro now for over a year. I periodically have little glitches when it wants to wake up — probably once a week or once every couple of weeks — but, generally, the device has been phenomenal. I'm getting my emails just fine here on my iPhone, so I don't really have an answer for you.
Senator Campbell: That's too bad about the BlackBerry people.
Mr. Feltham: We'll certainly look into that and find out what's going on.
The Chair: Hélène, thank you. Colleagues, there have been a number of very good points brought up around the table, and Nicole and I have taken some good notes. So we'll be working with Hélène to follow up and try to get back to this committee with some answers over the next few weeks. Thank you.
Colleagues, we're going on now to item 10. Pascale Legault is going to come before us again. It's a document that I asked Pascale and Nicole and company to start working on and producing. It's a bit of a strategic plan. It's something that I think has not really happened in the past, but I'd like for us, going forward, on an annual basis or on a medium, long- and short-term basis to have a strategic plan documented, short, sweet overview, that the administration will be aware of, that Internal Economy will be aware of, that all senators will be aware of, that all caucuses and independents will be aware of. Essentially, what we're trying to do is to amalgamate a lot of the principles and ideas that this committee, steering, the various subcommittees, have tried to implement in terms of changes over the last couple of years. I thought it would be good to document them, put them on paper and go forward. I don't know if that's a good introduction, but the floor is yours.
Ms. Legault: I'd like to introduce Kim Grandmaison, who is the Manager of Planning, currently, and has helped a lot in putting all of this together.
This is really a two-step presentation. The first step is the PowerPoint presentation on page 14 of the bundle. It really covers the theory and the framework. Then, the second part will be the actual proposed strategic plan for the Senate.
If we start on page 14, the framework: The strategic planning starts with the desired end state and works backwards to determine how we're going to get there. The first slide is very important because that's the entire framework. The top part, the green part, outlines the strategic plan pieces, which have a three- to five-year horizon. The bottom part, the purple, links to the work plan and related budget, which is done on a 12-month basis.
Finally, to the left of the diagram, we illustrate that this whole thing happens in a dynamic environment as we must assess the risk and the overall environment and monitor the results on a regular basis and adjust our strategy as required.
In the next few slides, I'd like to cover quickly the components that are in the diagram. Let's start with the vision.
On the next page, page 3 of the presentation, the vision is a clear, comprehensive photograph of an organization at some point in the future. It provides direction because it describes what the organization needs to be, to be successful. For us, the vision must answer the simple question: What will success look like for the Senate of Canada?
On the next slide, slide 4 of the presentation, we provide some examples of well-known companies' vision statements. We reviewed hundreds of vision statements from private, public, not-for-profit organizations, and, really, they all have the same things in common. It's really about being ambitious, and it refers to being the top, being the best, leading, being a world reference or a role model.
The next slide shows the benefits of a Senate vision. If we do not know where we're going, we probably aren't going to get there. Identifying where we want to go, specifically in relation to where we currently are, is key to identifying those areas that we want to work on and improve.
The next slide refers to mission. Slide 6: The mission serves a different purpose. It usually provides the reason for which the organization was created.
On slide 7, the comprehensive mission should answer three key questions: What it is that we do, how we do it and for whom we do it. Again, the vision and the mission are very different. The mission answers what the organization is about, while the vision is what the organization wants to become.
The next slide, slide 8, provides practical examples of mission statements, answering these what, how and for whom.
Strategic outcome, on slide 9, is more unique to the public service and federal institution family. It is closely linked to the mission, but it is worded in terms of benefit. So it's all about what's in it for Canadians.
If you're following the original diagram that we've looked at, we have covered vision, mission and strategic outcome, and we're now looking at the last piece of the strategic plan, so the strategic priorities.
On average, organizations rarely have more than five to six key priorities. They are ranked because of their importance in achieving the grand plan of the vision. All subsequent operational, tactical, resource allocations will be derived from these strategic priorities.
Slide 11 outlines that strategic priorities are usually broad, general expressions of guiding principles and aspirations of the organization, but precise targets are necessary to achieve strategic priorities. This is really when the annual objective comes into play.
On slide 11, we are referring to those annual objectives. If we're going back to the framework, we're now moving to the bottom part of the diagram and talking about spelling out the directorate work plan through tactics and initiatives. Those will need to be measured in terms of quantity, quality and time frame, and we're now within a 12-month time period. The annual objectives must also have a specific lead that is accountable to meet these annual objectives.
Quickly, the next slide, slide 12 of the presentation, provides the important features of annual objectives. The objectives state what needs to be accomplished, by when, and must be quantified as much as possible. You need to be more concrete than with the other elements that we've covered.
The next slide of the presentation, slide 13: We're now moving to the left of the diagram, the blue zone, and we're talking about situation assessment. It takes into consideration the environment we live in. Environmental scanning would include SWOT as a tool. Some of you may know or may not be familiar with this, but it's really when the senators and management identify strengths that we can build on or enhance, the weaknesses that we need to resolve or reduce, opportunities that we can exploit and the threat that we want to avoid. Knowing our environment, knowing our risk, is key to an organization in order to develop timely and appropriate mitigation strategies.
Finally, monitoring, report and refine, on the last page of the first part of this presentation. In order for the decision maker to adjust strategies appropriately and in a timely manner, adequate information must be provided on a regular basis. More and more boards and committees require a visual dashboard to obtain succinct reports on progress and to check on how management is doing and to determine where it is necessary to intervene. This is a concept that we would like to explore further, with planning and communication, on how we can rethink our reporting tool to this committee.
The take-away from the first part of the presentation is that our strategic planning framework is a systematic process to map out how the Senate should get from where it is today to the future it envisions for itself. It can be a very powerful tool in the context of transformation and modernization. This review of the strategic planning framework serves as a context and intro to the proposed strategic plan for the Senate. This is the second document that you've received in the bundle. It starts on page 28. If you want to refer to this one now, this is a six-page document that tries to capture what we have heard and what we have read from the senators. We haven't had any focus groups. In the interests of time, we were trying to capture everything that we understood and present it as a proposal.
The Chair: If I may just interject at this point and add to the presentation, it's important, colleagues, to understand the context here. What we're presenting is a starting point. Obviously, a lot of this work has been done in the last couple of years, in practice, but we thought it was a worthwhile exercise to start documenting it, both for the benefit of the administration and for the benefit of the Senate as a whole. I know the Internal Economy Committee has the reputation of being all-powerful and secretive. But I consider us to be the bottom of this wonderful institution. The idea is to start here and work our way up. This document would put the ideas on paper, keeping in mind our experiences over the last two years in practice. We're starting to get everyone's input around the table if this reflects reality. From there, my idea is to take it back to our respective caucuses and independent senators' caucuses and have an intense discussion over the next two to three weeks to make sure this reflects the reality of the institution and we can go forward from there. I just want to clarify that.
Ms. Legault: The second page of the draft strategic plan refers to two very important elements that I would like to read aloud.
Vision: To be an exemplary, modern legislature that is relevant, effective and accountable.
Mission: To lead comprehensive reviews of legislation, to conduct in-depth investigations into issues of public importance, and to protect the rights and interests of regions, provinces and territories, and minorities.
Moving into the document, we have developed four strategic priorities, the first one being to enhance outreach and engage Canadians. We provide in the strategic plan some context at the beginning and then we break it down into three annual objectives that will tie nicely into the communication business plan.
First, is to engage Canadians with a strong narrative to show how senators are aligned with their interests. Second, to support this outreach priority, is to have a wide range of digital and social media strategies along with traditional media to get our message across. Third, is to use modern communication techniques on different platforms in order to show the important work of our senators.
Our second priority is to demonstrate increased accountability and transparency. We know that our reputation has suffered with some negative press coverage and we want to enhance the public perception of the Senate as a responsible, accountable and open institution. We want to do this through three specific objectives in the next 12 months: First, we want to implement an oversight body for senators' expenditures; second, we want to have our proactive disclosure live; and third, we want to renew the Senate policy suite, the one for senators as well as the one for the administration.
The third strategic priority refers to modernization and the need to increase efficiency. We have been very busy on that front and have five annual objectives. I don't want to repeat the excellent presentation by Hélène about IT, but I want to mention that we are replacing outdated and independent corporate system with our ERP initiative. We also have the Long Term Vision and Plan initiative that we're working on. We continue with the Iris Legislative Systems Renewal Project. We also have two important efficiency initiatives. One is about looking at ways to deliver services more effectively. A working group on HR has been put together to establish more modern operating models. We are also looking at ways to have better services with wireless networks so that all our staff can work anywhere, regardless of location.
The last priority refers to our biggest asset at the Senate. We have hundreds of people supporting all the senators. These people can make the difference between having an institution that delivers good or outstanding services. This is why we want to recognize, mobilize and empower our people. We want to do this through five annual objectives. We want to improve the synergy and strengthen the collaboration within the institution. We want to promote training. We've heard loud and clear that there needs to be more training for senators and their staff. We also need to work on how we recruit the best talent, how we retain the talent and how we plan for succession. As we all know, this institution is going through a lot of changes, and we need to ensure that the people will adapt to the modernization. Finally, we need to ensure that we develop the capacity of our staff to move from being operational to being strategic in order to be forward thinking, to be proactive and to provide further value to the Senate.
In conclusion, we are proposing 1 vision, 4 strategic priorities, and 16 annual objectives. Clearly, we have a very busy year ahead but with your support and commitment, we're confident that we can succeed.
The Chair: Thank you, Pascale.
Colleagues, I want to reiterate that this document is based on some factual practices we've been working with over the last two years. We will take the document to all senators over the next couple of weeks to get wide-ranging consultation. I don't want to have specific debates and hammer this out at this meeting, for the benefit of time, because there will be a process. We'll get input from the Conservative caucus, the Liberal caucus and all independent senators, and all leadership. When we finalize the document, it will have a wide-ranging sign-off.
Senator McCoy: Congratulations on the excellent move in the right direction. We've been saying for some time, and you've heard me say, that the modern management system is outcomes-based. I'm very pleased to see that we are reaching in that direction.
I made an off-line inquiry here. To my knowledge, no senators have been involved in this process yet. Perhaps that may be one of the reasons that the mission statement here is far more narrow than is the case, as the inquiries that our dear departed colleague, Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, led us to and that were repeated by Justice Binnie just this year, show we have six different roles. They are not reflected here, so I can certainly share those with you so you can expand your knowledge of what senators do.
On strategic outcomes, I used to do performance evaluations for a living. They're usually more specific and there is some attempt to identify, as you say, so you will know what success looks like, so you have performance indicators. That's another stretch yet to come.
Finally, my other comment is meant to be encouraging, apart from senators getting involved. It's evident, perhaps, that there are two levels happening here. I'll call you the "civil service'' of the Senate, if I may, which means that I'm giving you a great deal of respect because when they are good, they are very, very good. We, of course, would only expect the best for the Senate.
The mission, vision and outcomes of the civil service are not the same necessarily as those of the senators or the Senate, although they are complementary, of course. It could help to be that precise in laying out the different roles. We cannot do our jobs well without an excellent civil service, and we would like to be very clear in what it is you do, you would want to be that clear as well. Then we get to support you in a much better fashion, including funding and resourcing you properly. Those are my comments.
The Chair: Quickly, I'll say that we agree wholeheartedly with everything you've put forward.
Senator McCoy: Thank you, sir.
The Chair: Indeed. That's the initiative behind this. In large part we used the analysis we did with blueprint when we reached out to all senators to get feedback over the last two years of what we need to change. This fits with that process. We understood loud and clear and we've tried to work towards that direction, that we need a Senate, not just the civil servants but also the senators, that is proactive rather than reactive and will take the lead. We've taken small steps and will continue working towards that direction.
Senator McCoy: If I may just add, for the Modernization Committee, I have just completed putting together all of the Nolin inquiries with quotations from him and all other senators who spoke on those inquiries. We have it in audio as well as paper versions. I'm going to circulate that to all senators, but I will also circulate some to our civil service, so that they can begin to enjoy the full, robust sense of what senators do. Thank you.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, Pascale. That was an excellent presentation. You did an outstanding job, given that there hasn't been consultation with senators so far.
Some of the items, like priorities 3 and 4, are sort of slanted towards administration, so I don't know if this question would go to you or to the chair: How will senators be involved in the process now? Are we going to have focus groups? Will it go to the respective caucuses? What would be our role? Have we thought about how we're going to —
The Chair: This document will go to the respective caucuses, and there will be a wide-ranging discussion and consultations about the details as they've been highlighted.
Keep in mind, senator, that it's not entirely fair to say that there has been no consultation, because the administration has been working with actual minutes, speeches, guidance and advice set up over the last two years by this committee. So the document does reflect the ideas of —
Senator Marshall: I notice outreach is mentioned.
The Chair: And now we're going to go a step further, for example, and take it to each caucus and senator to make sure everybody has input to make sure it reflects where we want to go.
Senator Marshall: The role of senators. Thank you very much.
Senator Tannas: Thank you very much for your work here. This is outstanding. This is a modern document and will stand us in good stead. I wholeheartedly support the framework.
On the mission, the vision and the strategic outcomes, you have captured those very well. I've been a participant now in discussions around the vision statement and whether we ought to have one, what it ought to say and so on.
I would say this to this group and to administration: I think this is a very cogent reflection. If we can't, as senators, come to an agreement — because we haven't in 150 years been able to put on paper what it is that we do. I've presided over, along with others, efforts to try to define. If we can't, I think you should keep this and call it a working understanding by administration of what the Senate is. I wouldn't wait for senators to define something, if indeed we can. We're working very hard to do that; we may not get there. I know we're going to go through a soak-and-rinse with all of our caucus colleagues and independents. I can hardly wait to see the outcome.
But at the end of the day, if we can't provide you with something, I would say this is a very accurate reflection, and you should just call it a working understanding and drive on, because I think you've done a nice reflection.
Then we will be able to focus on the priorities and give you direction, if we think you're off base. I just wanted to put that out there.
The Chair: Senator, I remind all of our colleagues that when we sat back a couple of years ago and talked among ourselves and with leadership about making changes, we started with a communications strategy. A lot of colleagues were skeptical that we wouldn't be able to get that done, and we've achieved it.
Now I know you're undertaking additional reviews with the HR department, and the administration is working closely with us to continue to make sure that, from an administrative point of view, we've achieved some success. I'm optimistic that we will come to a consensus on this.
Senator Tannas: I will add to what Senator McCoy said: The mission statement, in particular, is very much one of the active items at modernization.
The Chair: I'm aware.
Senator Tannas: The first step in proving me wrong is to see if we actually get an agreement among 13 of us as to what it is.
The Chair: I've been following the committee very carefully.
Senator Downe: Thank you. I share the remarks others have made, but my particular concern is the cost. Senator Campbell reminded us all in his earlier comments about the Auditor General, which cost $24 million to Canadian taxpayers and found less than a million, which was further reduced by Binnie.
The Senate Liberal caucus has had proactive disclosure now for two or three years. We do it internally. Senator Massicotte took the lead on it. His office collects the information. There was no additional cost, other than his staff time.
When we talked about proactive disclosure, which we're all in favour of, we heard the cost was hundreds of thousands; I'm not sure what the final figure is going to be. That's a lot of money. I hear focus groups. I hear the cash register ringing for somebody who organizes that — some public relations or consulting firm.
We have to balance off the cost of this with the final results. So I'd like to see how we can do this in the most cost-effective manner. It's impossible to be opposed to proactive disclosure, but I'm shocked at the cost for Canadian taxpayers to receive that information. We should look at a way we can do it cheaper. Maybe we do it twice a year, yearly, quarterly — something to get the costs down. We're building structural costs into the Senate here that are just going up and up for objectives that nobody objects to other than the taxpayers, who certainly have a voice here about the costs we're incurring.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Downe.
Senator Tkachuk: They definitely need you. You're always the voice of reason.
The Chair: If I can clarify the points that Senator Downe brought up. Returning to the issue regarding disclosure, this committee studied very carefully the cost of doing that a number of months back. Of course, the total cost for setting up that disclosure platform in the first year is about $380,000, plus or minus, if I'm not mistaken, and that is all the hardware and software evaluation that needs to be done. On an ongoing basis, I think the cost is $180,000. Correct me if I'm wrong, Pascale.
Ms. Legault: Very close. The one-time is 330 and 187 is the ongoing.
The Chair: This committee, after close analysis, came to the determination that an organization and institution as important as the Senate of Canada that spends $100 million a year on behalf of senators, that spending $180,000 per year, Senator Downe, to be accountable and transparent is petty cash. There are companies that spend a lot more than that on governance in order to ensure accountability. I think this committee came to a pretty much overwhelming determination that would be the road to follow.
On your second point regarding this particular consultation in building a strategic plan, there is no additional cost incurred, because it's all being done by steering, by the leadership in administration and by senators themselves who are going to do the work in caucus among ourselves — doing this work, for which I think we're obligated to provide that vision going forward. There's zero cost on the strategic plan and a very minimal cost compared to what we spend on an annual basis.
Senator Downe: You indicated we are going to spent $1.8 million over the next 10 years to proactively disclose expenses. I just told you that the Senate Liberal caucus has been doing the exact same thing for the last three years at zero cost. Nobody is objecting to the disclosure. It's the high cost of doing it. Why is it costing so much? Why can't we do it cheaper?
The Chair: Senator Downe, you're talking about a billion dollars of taxpayers' money over a 10-year period, and over that period, you're talking about a million to justify a billion. I don't think there's an overwhelming propensity on this side to think that's unfair somehow to the taxpayer. On the contrary, it's quite reasonable to the taxpayer.
To answer your question, we all came to this conclusion, including your caucus, who have reviewed disclosure on at least two or three occasions, that what we're currently doing is not validated by Finance; it's senators on their own putting up numbers that are not validated, and there's no uniformity. In 2016, it's best that we have uniformity and validation that those facts the Canadian public are reviewing are legitimate.
Senator Downe: Just to be clear, my point is that the cost is too high to achieve that objective.
The Chair: It's noted, but we agree to disagree.
Senator Lankin: Thank you for the work and presentation. Having spent a lot of years doing this kind of work for boards, and being on boards and receiving it, the first time out is always a work-in-progress. I agree exactly with what Senator Tannas said: Something can start to get traction, and we surely should be engaging in consultation, but having 105 people edit the words in a mission statement will not be a productive exercise. Generally, to get something that reflects what the majority think and to see this as an ongoing work-in-progress is important. I think, in taking something like this to a group of people, the exercise that has been undertaken — and I recognize that much of this is capturing things that have happened over the last couple of years, and it's institutional knowledge that some of us may not have — the SWOT analysis that led to some of the conclusions is not here. That's going to be an important thing for me to judge whether or not the actual strategies that are set out and the priorities of them match what the SWOT analysis suggested to people to be the issues.
The kind of detail that Senator McCoy talks about comes when you develop the work plans. The logic plans that come out of here, that's where we want to get, and that's how we want to get there, that become the work plan, and I think that that and the dashboard reporting will be critical pieces to help us as we go forward.
This is a mix of different objectives with respect to the institution and body of the Senate and senators and staff and the administration. I think, on a go-forward basis, again, I agree, let's get some traction. I think we have to think about that. It is the particular nature of an institution like this to understand how you capture what the contributing parts to achieving the vision and mission are from the operation of the institution itself within chambers and the work of senators in their offices and the administration that supports it, the civil services, as Senator McCoy suggested, I don't think the balance here gets that yet. I think it is a work-in-progress, but it's a first step out. Well done. This is the fiduciary board of the Senate. We need to have something like this to keep ourselves accountable to the kind of budget decisions that we'll make in the future, allocation of resources against priority projects. It becomes a roadmap that's helpful, and I appreciate the work that's gone into it.
The Chair: Senator Mitchell, being the whip, you get the final word on this topic before we move on.
Senator Mitchell: I'm going to speak softly. I really want to congratulate the group that's been working on this. It's excellent and very invigorating to see it. I endorse Senator Lankin's comments and those of Senator Tannas.
I'd just make one point: It is basically there, but, when I look at priority 1, we really have to emphasize Canadians and what we're doing to serve Canadians. The heading says it, for example, but the paragraph says our: ". . . communications goal: to be understood by Canadians as an effective and important parliamentary institution.''
Our communications goal is also to listen and respond and interact with Canadians in an engagement process. It's all about Canadians; it's not all about us necessarily. We have to have some of that feature in it, but we need to build it.
I want to reinforce Senator Housakos' comments about cost. There are some costs, but what we're buying is reliability, consistency in the information and its credibility and the reduction of duplication of effort in 105 offices. It doesn't cost anything to produce this now because we've got 105 individual people preparing this information four times a year, and that's not nothing for something that doesn't have quite the credibility that we'll get from a proper central and properly audited and prepared database.
The Chair: Before we close on this topic I also want to take this opportunity to thank the administration. I want to thank our new CFO, Pascale Legault, who's been doing an outstanding job since she's been here. I also want to thank Nicole Proulx. Over the last couple of years, with everything that has transpired in this organization, there has been an overwhelming call on the part of all senators to change the direction from an administrative point of view. We've put a lot of pressure on the administration and on our civil servants — as Senator McCoy claims, you are legitimately civil servants — to help us work together and change the direction in the way we administer this place. You've done a great job. We look forward to continuing to plow away as we take on the challenges. This is just one example of good work, so we'd like to thank you for that. Thank you, Pascale.
Item 11 on the agenda is senators' staff travel with the committees. It was an item put on the agenda by Senator Lang, so I would ask him to present it to us.
Senator Lang: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. As you can see, there has been some past correspondence included with the request that I put forward on the agenda. This goes back quite a number of years with respect to a number of us who have had the experience of being the chairs or deputy chairs of various committees and the responsibilities that we have.
You'll note, in the letter of June 17, 2014, we don't just talk about the possibility of political staff being able to travel with the committees, but we also speak of extra funds being made available to chairs and deputy chairs in order to be able to do the job that you ask them to do.
In this particular case, we have, as you know, moved somewhat in the direction of making our offices more responsible and committing resources so that we can do the jobs that you're asking us to do, and that's primarily with the re-categorizing of our positions within the Senate offices so that, for the policy adviser, if you do choose to go in that direction, you can pay the going rate for someone that has the qualifications to be able to do the job that we're asking. Some senators do that; others operate their offices in such a manner that they may have more staff or more contracts to get the work that they want to have done on their behalf.
The reality of it is we now have the ability to hire and retain a very well accredited staff, within the pay scale compared to other positions within the Government of Canada. That step has been made.
The next step that, in my judgment, has to be made is to look at those chairs and deputy chairs who have decided to look for those types of individuals to be within their office, to meet the criteria and the pay range to be able to, when called upon and if required, accompany a committee on travel. I say this because of my own past experience. Also, in the letter, you'll see that there were a number of other senators who signed this letter for that request a number of years ago, to allow our committees to be accompanied by political staff when necessary, not necessarily on every visit or every travelling commitment that is made.
I think it's important to realize that — at least I know from my own personal experience and from a number of other senators — our political staff are very much involved in the writing of our reports from start to finish — the organization, the planning of it and working to ensure, in conjunction with the Library of Parliament, that we get the necessary witnesses. I know, from my own experience, that I've been on at least one visit where people within our staff were not there but where we had people who went on that particular visit who were there one time but who we never saw again. I didn't know who they were, and it had nothing to do with the end result of the report that was going to be brought forward on behalf of the Senate of Canada.
I maintain that, as senators, we should have the right, as the chair or deputy chair, within the program that we put together and put forward to the budget committee, to justify a visit. We should have the right to do it, and the budget committee should have the right to say yes or no, if that's applicable. Right now, we can't do that because our rules do not allow for it. I'm asking for the discretion to be given to the budget committee to deal with various submissions to take that into consideration.
I also want to say that, if that decision is made by a particular committee chair and deputy chair, that doesn't necessarily mean more individuals travelling on a visit. You may do that in lieu of someone else going because you feel that their expertise is more important to what you're doing than someone else's expertise.
I feel very strongly that, if we're going to ask these people to be part of what we're doing, we are strengthening our offices, which we should be doing in order to be able to do our jobs so that we can raise the status of the reports for our Senate. We should be able to. The chair and the deputy chair should have the discretion to bring forward to the Subcommittee on Budgets the consideration of that type of travel.
The argument on the other side, and I don't want to go on too long, is they say you have some ability within your own office to allow that to happen. Well, a number of issues come to bear on this. Every senator has that right, but the point is that we're all from different parts of Canada. Some, obviously, are from the major centres but a lot of us are from rural Canada. I don't feel, as in my case living the furthest away of any senator and the most expense of any senator when I travel, that I should have to use my Senate budget to do my work as a committee chair and a member of committee. All of a sudden it reflects in my budget that I am using expenditures as a senator for Yukon, but really that's not the case. All of a sudden I'm in the top 10 of expenditures because I do more work than perhaps some other senator because of the position that I've taken on. I don't think that's fair. I don't think it reflects the reality of the expenditures that we're talking about. I think it should be in a committee budget when that applies. Do you want me to keep going?
The Chair: No, I think we all got the gist of it. I had to step up for part of it and still got the gist of it.
We have a number of items on the agenda and limited time.
Senator Marshall: I have one question for Senator Lang, and the other will probably be directed to the chair.
What are you looking for? Is it the travel expenses of staff to accompany the chair and the deputy chair? Are you looking at a portion of their salary also?
Senator Lang: No, it's first, that they have the right to accompany us; and second, that when you are going on a committee visitation or hearings, that the type of expenditure of the chair and deputy chair within the submission being put forward to the subcommittee on budgets be considered. In other words, the safeguard is that it has to be legitimatized and justified.
Senator Marshall: When you submit your budget, the chair and the deputy chair will decide at that time if they want to include that in the budget.
Senator Lang: That's right.
Senator Marshall: Okay. I looked at the motion presented in our package, and this is probably just a general comment. I find that there are sometimes inconsistencies in the way issues are presented to us. I would like to see us have a consistent standard. I know in the past we've had some issues walked in and put forward to us verbally, but I would like to see a standard format. This one wasn't quite clear exactly what costs we were looking at and there's no estimate as to what it would cost. I would like to see it presented.
The Chair: So I can be clear, Senator Marshall, the motion tabled by Senator Lang was included in the binder for this meeting as presented to us by Senator Lang.
Senator Marshall: Could we establish some standards for the future?
The Chair: I can't prohibit senators who want to move a motion — I can't tell them what to put in their documents.
Senator Marshall: I'll ask Senator Lang another question. What's the estimate? How much is this going to cost us?
Senator Lang: At this stage, I'm unable to give an estimate because it would be up to the various committees in their plans for the future to put forward their budgetary amounts to the subcommittee on budgets. It would be strictly the travel costs inherent in that particular visitation. I don't see it as a huge cost, quite frankly, but I see it as a necessary cost as far as I'm concerned.
Senator Marshall: Well, I would like to see an estimate. Even if it is immaterial, I'd like to see one.
Senator Munson: I support Senator Lang's proposal, for the record, now that I'm the chair of the Human Rights Committee.
Senator Mitchell: I also support Senator Lang. I was signatory to the letter. I want to say it's a legitimate request to look at an estimate, and we can do that with past experience.
I also want to make the point that it probably won't be that much of an increment because we're already allowed to take our staff on two trips per year, one trip being three days. If you go on a five-day trip, that's two trips. We're talking about an incremental increase not a massive increase.
Senator Tannas: I'm in support of it. I would say on behalf of my colleagues on whatever subcommittee it's called, budgets or whatever, it's an understanding of everybody that this is something we would be expected to look at and question. Is it really necessary? I don't think anybody wants it to become open season that on every trip to China we're taking our assistants. Is there value in it? Just like we do for every other line item in the committee budget, we ask if there is value in it. Why is it done this way?
We would expect any time we see a request, if this does come to be policy, that we would have an answer for you when we come before you as to why this person is travelling.
Senator Downe: I'm not sure it wouldn't be a high cost because the pressure would be on every chair and deputy chair to take somebody and to submit it into the proposal because others are doing it.
The question I would have, Senator Lang, as I'm not clear is: I'm the Deputy Chair of Foreign Affairs. I'm not sure what my staffer would do on a trip outside Ottawa that I would not do as a senator. I'm the one responsible, along with other committee members, for the final report. I'm the one responsible for the questions that are asked, the answers given and the pursuit of those. What would a staffer possibly do?
Senator Lang: Mr. Chair, from my perspective, they're very much involved, at least in my experience, in the organization of the proposed visit, whom we're meeting and why we're meeting, in conjunction with one or two analysts from the Library of Parliament. They're also involved with respect to ensuring that in the report at the end of the visit or hearing we get an idea of what has taken place to ensure the political aspect of what we're dealing with.
I realize that I carry the can at the end of the day, not unlike you. At the same time, it gives the political support and benefit of somebody that's working directly in your office and is directly responsible to you. The other people are not necessarily responsible to me or you, a chair or a deputy chair. They're responsible in part to the administration and the committee as a whole. There is a difference.
The Chair: Senator Cordy will have the last question and then we'll take a decision on the motion.
Senator Cordy: Like Senator Marshall, I would like to see some estimates of numbers because this could open up the floodgates. As a member of the subcommittee on travel, I don't want to be making that value judgment on each case that comes forward. I want either yes, we're doing it or no, we're not doing it. I don't want to be looking at each one and determining that for this committee, you can go and for that committee, we don't really think so. I'd like it clear.
I wonder if at our next meeting you could bring forward estimated costs. I know it can't be exact, but if you could bring estimated costs for the next meeting, we could have a closer look before making the decision. After we have an estimated cost, I would like to bring it back to my caucus because not all deputy chairs and chairs are part of Internal Economy.
The Chair: Colleagues, the general consensus is: Number one, we are also looking at a rule change here because there's an existing rule whereby chairs can take their staff on a couple of trips. It's a valid point that some senators want to see what the incremental costs could possibly be over the next little while if we change that rule or policy.
Maybe Senator Lang can report back to steering and this committee in terms of some of those potential costs so we can take a closer look at it. Colleagues, am I right?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: For the next item, I call on Gérald Lafrenière and Colette Labrecque-Riel, who are here.
Before we get to the actual item regarding a request here from the Joint Interparliamentary Council, I want to make an announcement to the committee that, as chair of Internal Economy, among the many pleasures I have with this job is that I co-chair the JIC, Joint Interparliamentary Council, which is the committee that manages the requests on behalf of parliamentary associations. It's a House of Commons and Senate joint committee.
I've ceded my seat to a very gracious volunteer from this committee who would be replacing me as co-chair on that committee, with everyone's approval, and that is Senator Fabian Manning who would be doing that gargantuan work on our behalf. I'm just letting everyone know that Senator Manning will be the co-chair on our behalf, going forward, effective today.
Senator Manning: A short Newfoundland and Labrador speech: Right on, buddy.
Colette Labrecque-Riel, Acting Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs, Senate of Canada: I'd like to begin by congratulating Senator Manning, and I look forward to working with you as my new co-chair.
Honourable senators, the issue before you concerns the JIC and, more specifically, association budgets for the 2016-17 fiscal year. Allow me to quickly summarize this in less than one minute.
In December 2014, both this committee and the Board of Internal Economy of the house provided the JIC with a mechanism by which it could over-allocate funds for association activities. This mechanism was a response to budgetary pressures created by contributions or membership fees tied to Canada's participation in the IPU. This mechanism consisted of a temporary overallocation, up to a maximum of $550,000, with the 30-70 formula being applied, of course.
For the first time since 2014, the JIC seeks to draw on this overallocation formula in its allocation of budgets for the associations for the current fiscal year in the amount of a total of $122,000. Specifically for the Senate, the formula works out to $36,600 in terms of an over-allocated budget. So it's not quite expenditures at this point, just budgets.
As such, the JIC is seeking this committee's confirmation that the overallocation mechanism as defined in 2014 remains available for the 2016-17 fiscal year.
The Chair: The reason this has come back to Internal Economy, and I just got an indication here from Senator Tkachuk, who was the former co-chair of JIC, a long-time member of Internal Economy here and who has some institutional knowledge of things in the past, it's come back here because there was an interpretation by JIC that, in addition to the annual fund that has already been approved by both Internal Economies, there was an emergency fund of $550,000 that might be required if there was an overrun.
The understanding from the house side is that the extra 550 — the emergency fund — was automatic, correct, Collette? My understanding of having read a motion is, if we had to dole into that extra 550, which would be about 170,000 or a 175,000 — the Senate's part of that budget — it would require a motion of this committee.
Senator Tkachuk has just informed me that the house's interpretation is accurate, according to your historical knowledge. Maybe you can weigh in.
Senator Tkachuk: I wasn't the chair at the time. I think I was representing you or Senator Kinsella, I'm not sure. But what had happened, it was the IPU that was the problem. In the end, we disallowed — we basically said that we would no longer fund IPU.
The house, and I believe the Senate at the same time, said that if we weren't able to find the required money, they would fund up to half a million dollars. I assume, then, that you could count on it. But at the same time, we go to budget estimates every year, so for this year, I think we have to approve it again. That's what I think.
The Chair: That's what I think, as well. The issue is before us, but I did not feel I had the mandate to take that initiative without consulting.
Senator Munson: I'll say my comments. I want to ask the two clerks a question on their role dealing with the budgets, just to make sure it's on the table. It's nothing to do with what you're asking for today, but it has to do with independents, the new increased size of the House of Commons, the idea that independents have no role to play on any of this association travel at the present time and how JIC is going to approach this issue in the future. It will have to approach this issue somehow in the future, since there are so many independents who are being left out of the legitimate travel process.
But that has nothing to do with the money that you're looking for today to be approved. I just want to register that.
Senator Manning: Point of order, chair. Just assume these roles — I'm not sure. I have nothing here on paper looking for the half million dollars.
The Chair: That is an item that JIC requested to bring before us, so there is no documentation.
Senator Manning: I think we should wait until next week.
The Chair: Colleagues, do you want to wait until next week?
Senator Manning: I don't want to sit down and be asked to sign off on half a million dollars without being issued a piece of paper.
The Chair: Fair enough.
Colette, Gérald, if you can provide steering as expeditiously as possible the actual budgetary request, then I'll provide it to our colleagues. Then we'll review this next Thursday.
There is one last quick item. I will ask Senator Wells. He has a motion.
Senator Wells: Thank you, colleagues. As you know, as chair of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates, we've been tasked with the examination of funding allocations for house officers and caucuses as defined in Chapter 6 of the SARs, notably with respect to the additional office allowance request for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
You've asked us to report back with recommendations by May 12. Our subcommittee has begun this work, and we realize this is a complex issue — a rather fluid environment — and that the Tuesday, May 12 deadline may not be attainable.
We've heard thus far from Senators Cowan, Carignan and Harder, as well as from Charles Robert, and this afternoon we will hear from Senator McCoy. The witnesses have been helpful, but I'd like to request a bit more time for the delivery of the report and recommendations.
I'm here to ask that we present the report on Tuesday, May 17, rather than Thursday, May 12.
I know that Tuesday, May 17 is not a regular meeting day for Internal Economy, and I appreciate that I have to seek permission from the whips on time, but I think the extra time is necessary, and I request that Internal Economy approve that request.
Senator Lankin: Just a question. I understand you talked to the whips about time. Would you also speak to Senator McCoy? The independents meet on Tuesday mornings, as well, and I'd want to ensure that there's an undertaking that those of us who want to attend this committee will be able to.
Senator Wells: If the time is approved, the report will be presented at this committee.
Senator Lankin: I understand that. If you're checking with the whips, probably you're looking for conflicts. I'm not a member of the committee, but I'd like to attend this committee. I just know that we tend to meet as a group on Tuesday mornings. So if you could have that discussion, and keep that in mind, that would be good.
Senator Wells: I will.
The Chair: Given the fact that the independents don't sit as a caucus, maybe you could inform all independents via email.
Senator McCoy: The courtesy of some conversation with Senator Wells would be very much appreciated, and I think that's what Senator Lankin is saying.
The Chair: Maybe Senator Wells can reach out to Senator McCoy.
Senator Wells: Yes, that's no problem. I'm happy to do that.
Senator Downe: The problem here —
Senator Tkachuk: He's bringing it to Internal.
Senator Campbell: It's coming to Internal.
Senator McCoy: What he's saying is he's going to inform senators as to when that meeting will be, and since others might want to attend as well, he can communicate with us.
Senator Tkachuk: We caucus at the same time you caucus.
The Chair: I'm sure Senator Wells will undertake to make sure people are informed.
Senator Munson: Senator Mitchell, as the whip, would have to be informed; right?
The Chair: Colleagues, order.
Senator Manning: It's a point of order on something else.
On a couple of occasions —
The Chair: Actually, before we go on to something else, is the motion of Senator Wells approved, colleagues?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
Senator Manning: Just very quickly, Mr. Chair. On a couple of occasions this morning — and I'm not putting anybody in the corner — we've been asked to approve a small amount of funds or a large amount of funds, at times here, on very quick notice, without any paperwork. I certainly feel — and I just speak for myself, as a member of IEC — that I don't think I should be asked to vote yea or nay on a funding request without having documentation in front of me to at least know what I'm voting on in its entirety. I think, from now on, if anybody wants to come here to present to us to look for funds, they should give us the heads-up and paperwork beforehand or, if not, expect to be pushed off to the following week.
The Chair: I think that very valid point was well-made, and that's why, this morning, we didn't allocate any funds without due diligence. But your point is well noted.
Senator Cordy: It's related to Senator Wells. Senator Wells, as you know, chairs the Subcommittee on Estimates. The previous Subcommittee on Estimates actually spoke to every civil service, I guess the term is, every department within the Senate, and got the kinds of jobs that they were doing, their estimated budgets for 2016-17. It was extremely thorough, and I thank you for your leadership on that, Senator Wells. Recently, there was a comment — I think it was a steering committee that I was at. So I wasn't in the chamber, but I read it later — that we don't have the information related to what the Senate budgets are. That was all tabled earlier by Senator Wells in the chamber. So that information is available to any senator who takes the time to read it. If you haven't looked at it, go back and look at it. I just bring that up in light of the comment that was made in the chamber by a senator.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Cordy. I did hear about that comment; I believe it was Senator Ringuette, questioning, perhaps, the chair of Internal Committee on budgets. I may speak on that motion and reference your comments.
The Chair: Colleagues, we're coming to the end of our time, and I want to thank everybody. I want to point out to everybody that, today, we, collectively, have made history. Each of us today, maybe unknowingly, has made history in the fact that, today, we've had an Internal Economy meeting on budgets and administration and the meeting was exclusively done in public. That is a historic thing for the committee of Internal Economy in either house. Of course, in the pile of media coverage that we've gotten in the last few years, we get very little appreciation for some of the giant steps we've all made in order to make this place more accountable and more transparent, but I would be remiss if I didn't highlight to the media that hopefully is watching this that we've made this Internal Economy Committee very accessible to the media over the last couple of years. Unlike our cousins in the other house, who still just publish minutes after the fact, we actually have been more transparent and more public than any other Parliament has. Today's meeting is an indication, and this was not planned. So, for public consumption, this was an agenda that was predetermined, put out here for consideration by the committee, and there's absolutely, in my mind, nothing that we do in these meetings that we cannot put out for public display and public consumption. I thank everyone for your cooperation. This meeting is adjourned. I look forward to next week.
(The committee adjourned.)