Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 19 - Evidence - March 22, 2018
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 22, 2018
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:30 a.m., in public and in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Larry W. Campbell (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. I welcome everyone to the Thursday morning meeting of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration. Before we start, I would like to welcome Senator Jaffer back, fit as a fiddle and ready to go. It’s so good to have you back.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
The Chair: Honourable senators, a copy of the public minutes from March 1 is in your package. Are there any questions or changes? Could I have a motion to adopt the minutes? Senator Moncion, seconded by Senator Tkachuk. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Carried.
Just as an update, at the last meeting the committee approved the international travel for Senator Cools and Senator Neufeld. I wish to advise committee members that both senators have cancelled their trips and will not be submitting post-trip reports. So that’s just so everyone knows that. Some things came up on their behalf, and they simply weren’t able to take the trip.
Honourable senators, next is Item No. 2, the Advisory Working Group on Parliamentary Translation Services.
On September 21, 2017, this committee tasked an advisory working group to review the service agreement for language services with the Translation Bureau in order to improve the service level and quality of the translation and interpretation services offered to the Senate.
On behalf of the working group, I have the honour to table its report. The chair of the working group, Senator Ringuette, is at the witness table, with Céline Ethier, the clerk. Senator Ringuette, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Colleagues, it is my pleasure to present to you today the report of the Advisory Working Group on Parliamentary Translation and Interpretation Services of the Senate. Several senators raised concerns regarding the level of quality of translation and interpretation services offered. This working group was created to review the service agreement for language services with the Translation Bureau of Public Services and Procurement Canada in order to improve the services offered.
[English]
The working group met with the Translation Bureau leadership team and with the International Association of Conference Interpreters to discuss the concerns raised by senators and staff and to better understand where the system was failing the Senate. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Stéphan Déry, the bureau’s new chief administrative officer, and his management team for their willingness to meet with us and for being so responsive to our needs. They are committed to ensuring that senators and the administration receive the highest quality services.
Following meetings with the working group, the bureau studied a random sample of interpretation and translation products prepared for the Senate. A full report outlining the results of their examination and their proposed action plan to address identified issues will be delivered shortly.
In the meantime, an executive summary of that report was distributed to the members of this committee, along with the working group report. The bureau’s management team should be commended for their efforts.
The working group’s recommendation focused mainly on the need to better manage the relationship between the Senate and the Translation Bureau to ensure better lines of communication between the end-users, senators and their staff, and the bureau, and to establish a system to monitor results and complaints.
The Senate does not currently have a point person responsible for managing the agreement and ensuring good outcomes. The working group recommends that a manager be appointed and that this person report to Internal Economy on the status of service and any issue requiring attention on a yearly basis. The group also recommends that the Senate work with the Translation Bureau to perfect a feedback process for senators and staff so that concerns can be addressed in a more timely and coherent fashion.
Mr. Déry and his team informed me that a system will be in place by October 15. We hope that this system will allow the bureau to generate statistics and other performance measurements that will contribute to ensuring a high quality of service.
[Translation]
As Senator Carignan mentioned during our last meeting, Senate committees often wait too long before receiving the translation of documents related to committee meetings. The group recommends that the Translation Bureau assign enough translators to meet committee needs. It also recommends designating set translators — and I draw your attention to the word “set” here — to Senate committees to ensure continuity and the development of specialized terminology. These translators should also attend meetings where draft reports are being discussed. Mr. Déry is open to the possibility of a pilot project with one of our committees.
The working group also recommended that the committee encourage the Translation Bureau to begin assigning set interpreting teams to the Senate as soon as possible, as it does with the House of Commons, and I repeat: as it does for the House of Commons. It also recommends studying the possibility of creating set interpreting teams for Senate committees. This would allow interpreters to get to know senators and it would ensure continuity in interpretation.
[English]
During its meetings, the working group became aware of some issues related to the current physical workspace provided for interpreters. Internal Economy should ensure that the physical space provided for interpreters in the new Government Conference Centre meets the needs of the Translation Bureau and its staff and that the most modern technology is made available to facilitate their work in the chamber and in all Senate committee rooms.
[Translation]
The members of the working group agree that it is crucial to ensure top quality translation and interpretation services for the Senate. The Constitution Act, 1867, the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Official Languages Act all contain provisions allowing senators to express themselves in English and in French and mandating the availability of simultaneous interpretation. Canadians have the right to services of equal quality in both official languages. The members of the working group also believe that the Senate must do what it can to ensure that no matter what language is originally used, its publications and broadcasts reflect the very best translation and interpretation available so that all Canadians have equal access to the entire context of the debate and to its nuances.
This goes back to what Senator Carignan said during our last meeting. Any shortcomings in our translation and interpretation services are important, as they affect parliamentary privilege and constitutional obligations. This is why members of the working group feel that the committee should urge the Department of Public Services and Procurement to provide the Translation Bureau with the necessary additional resources so that it has the capacity to meet Senate demands and for it to be able to assign translation and interpretation work based on the experience and relevant knowledge of interpreters and translators, and not based on the lowest price.
The working group recommends that the committee adopt the Senate report so that a written response from the government can be requested. I hope that the working group’s report will be sent to all senators so that they can acquaint themselves with it.
I would like to thank the senators who participated in this study, particularly Céline Ethier, who provided us with wonderful support.
Thank you for your attention. I am now ready to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Ringuette. I join you in thanking not only the senators involved in this committee but also the staff and, in particular, Ms. Ethier.
Senator Batters: Senator Ringuette, thanks very much for this report and presenting it today. One of the very surprising things I saw in this particular report was on page 3, where it indicates that, when you met with people from the International Association of Conference Interpreters, it says: “They informed the senators that the Senate is often used as a training ground for new interpreters.” To me, that seemed like maybe a source of some problems, and that’s potentially a reason that we’re having this problem. So I wondered if you could comment on — I didn’t really see specific reference to that problem in your recommendations, and I wondered how, in the particular recommendations that you have, you see that problem being addressed.
Senator Ringuette: We have to recognize that interpreters are not standing in line to have a job. Actually, it’s hard to recruit interpreters. I support the fact that the Senate participates in mentoring and guiding new graduates in this field because, like in any other field, there’s a natural attrition happening, and we need to make sure, for the future, that we have the staff to provide the service that we require.
They are not necessarily the cause of the complaints that we’ve gathered, but I do believe that the current process of having on-the-job training for new interpreters is one of the missions that we should keep.
Senator Batters: Are you saying that the pay scale that the Senate is paying may not be appropriate? Has that been evaluated?
Senator Ringuette: No, we didn’t address the pay scale, and, with the meetings that we had with the interpreters and the Bureau, the issue of pay was never raised.
Senator Batters: Okay. I also note that it seems like the major recommendation you’re making is to designate a manager, and a lot of recommendations kind of flow from that. Would that be a new hire? How many people would they be managing? Did I hear you correctly because I was listening through the interpreter? Did I hear you say that it would be by October? If so, why the delay?
Senator Ringuette: We’re not recommending that you hire a new Senate employee to assume the communication flow and deal, on a continual basis, with the Bureau. What we’re saying is that, within the current Senate administrative staff, there should be one contact person for the Bureau so that, if there are issues, the Bureau can have a line of communication with the Senate administration.
If you look at the whole of the recommendation, you will see that we’re saying that this contact person with the Bureau would report to you once a year. It’s not a major additional task, but I think it is a key one because of the recommendation that we’re making.
One of the issues, when we started our group, was finding out that the service provided to the Senate, in its committees, is not on the same standard scale as the service that has been provided to the House of Commons and the House of Commons committees. When I say “designated team,” there’s a purpose to that. It has to do with the language used by the different committees, by the different senators. That is a major factor in, especially, the interpretation, and also we find that, when a committee is at a stage of reporting, the translator that will be assigned to translate that document should be invited to the table so that they can understand the language, can understand the nuances of senators.
So, hopefully, these different steps will correct the many complaints that we’ve been hearing for many years.
Senator Batters: Okay. Sorry, how many people would they be managing? Did you say October would be when you’d be scheduled to have this designated person in place, and, if so, why wait until then and not do it sooner?
Senator Ringuette: It’s April 15.
Senator Batters: Oh, April is what you said, not October?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
Senator Batters: Okay, and how many people are they managing?
Senator Ringuette: The Bureau manages their interpreters and their translators. The only thing that we are recommending here is that a current Senate administrator be the link with the Bureau because, right now, they’re working on their own. They’re working in a void. There’s no communication; there’s no contact.
I believe that it’s not a huge additional task to ask a current Senate administrator to take on.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, Senator Ringuette, for the report and also for your presentation. I’m looking at recommendation number 4, which refers to the additional resources. What did you envision there? Could you just elaborate a little on what the additional resources would be?
Senator Ringuette: Well, I guess the first issue that needs to be addressed is the different standard of services from the Bureau between the House of Commons and the Senate. First and foremost, we need to correct that situation now. It is up to the Bureau to manage additional resources that they will need and how they will manage that resource. That’s their management contract. They have a contract with the Senate.
But the Senate needs to ensure that that same level of service is being provided to both chambers. That’s first and foremost.
In our discussion on Monday with Mr. Déry, he informed us that he’s been talking with the deputy minister of supply and services. He’s new. He’s keen on doing a good job for the Bureau. The current system of contracting out — because some of the bureau staff are staff, and some of the Bureau are contracted jobs. And they were limited, bound by the lowest bid for contracting out.
Now, Mr. Déry informed us on Monday that the deputy minister has agreed to a new standard of contracting out, which is that they have a selection grid that will include the quality of performance, which is quality of the product and time delivery.
Senator Marshall: Okay. So when we communicate with Public Services and Procurement, should we specify what additional resources are required? Because when you read the report, someone could say, “Okay, they’re only looking for an administrative assistant.” So should we specify what we’re looking for so that we end up with what we’re looking for and not something less?
Senator Ringuette: We were not saying that the Bureau needs an administrative assistant. What we’re saying is that the Senate needs a contact person who will be responsible for making the link between the Bureau and this committee and will report once a year to this committee. How the bureau manages its own internal affairs is up to them, but the quality of service that they provide to the Senate is our affair.
Senator Marshall: I got that impression from the sentence that says, “The House of Commons had an administrative assistant to coordinate the work of interpreters while the Senate did not,” when I was reading recommendation number 4, I thought one of the additional resources we would need is either an additional body to be an administrator or to reassign duties.
Senator Ringuette: I don’t believe we need a full-time staff. I think the current administrative staff —
Senator Marshall: Would work that in?
Senator Ringuette: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Marshall: There’s nothing we can do with the physical space now, is there, when we’re talking about working conditions?
Senator Ringuette: Well, when we met with the association of interpreters and they talked to us about the conditions — and we don’t see them, and they have a hard time seeing also who is talking on the Senate floor. They’re up there in a small cubicle, and there are three people. They have a hard time breathing in that space, never mind providing a professional job in such a working space. One of the recommendations is to please make sure that when we move to the new facility, that that facility is adequate for these professionals.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: Senator Ringuette, something struck me in this report. The survey of senators and personnel and the test that was done within the bureau indicate that satisfaction levels are relatively high. The test shows relatively good results in relation to what we hear or experiences that are often expressed. This seems to show that these are isolated issues. It’s more a problem of quality control than a generalized issue. How can you explain the difference between what you heard in interviews and what the test found and what is very often anecdotal evidence? There seems to be a gap in perceptions.
Senator Ringuette: Personally, I was disappointed when we sent the survey to senators, clerks and personnel given the number of complaints I had been hearing for a few years. We did not receive a large number of responses indicating exactly what these complaints were or providing any examples. I was disappointed. Also, within the Translation Bureau, they have a new person in charge of quality control who did their own testing. In my opinion, the result of this test was average. I think that average quality for this institution is unacceptable. In my conversations with them, they didn’t find it to be acceptable either.
We talked to them about our recommendations. They agree with all of our recommendations. The Translation Bureau didn’t even have a complaint mechanism. Complaints were therefore received but not sent anywhere. There will now be a mechanism in place as of April 15. It will be a mechanism similar to the one the Library of Parliament uses when it does research for a senator. The Library of Parliament sends the research then comes back and asks the senators or the staff if they are satisfied with the quality of the research, and whether there are additional points that would need to be covered. The Translation Bureau will implement a similar mechanism. The number of complaints, the type of work in question and the corrective measures that the Translation Bureau will take will be made available.
Senator Pratte: You have insisted on the issue of having a group of interpreters and translators assigned to you on a permanent basis. Based on your communication with them, do you have an idea of the feasibility and administrative complexity of such a task? Is this a realistic goal that will not cause disruption, that will not require considerable resources?
Senator Ringuette: This practice has been in place in the House of Commons for decades. I repeat: I was surprised that the practice of assigning an official team to us was not an established standard for the Senate.
Senator Pratte: Are we talking millions?
Senator Ringuette: No, we are not talking about millions. We are talking about some additional employees so that the teams are always made up of the same people. Terminology differs, for example, at the Banking Committee, versus what is discussed at the Agriculture Committee. Just like the teams for the House of Commons, they will familiarize themselves with the terminology and develop their skills for every committee. We are not talking about millions. We are talking about some additional employees, but the fundamental question is about how the service is managed.
Senator Pratte: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Plett: My questions were answered when Senator Batters asked, but I would like to make a few observations, if I could.
Did we make sure we had the best translators on the Hill this morning for this particular session because it’s been very good?
The Chair: It’s always the best here, senator, always.
Senator Plett: I don’t want to be critical of people who are working for us here, but what I have found — and this is from French to English, obviously, because that’s the only one that I listen to — but when we have a lot of English speakers in a row and the person who needs to translate from French to English isn’t worked too hard at a particular meeting or in the chamber that they aren’t ready when all of a sudden someone starts speaking French. We’re half a minute or a minute into the speech before all of a sudden this person realizes, oh, somebody is speaking French now; I need to start working. We don’t get the beginning of it. It’s not necessarily bad translation when they catch up. I find that a bit of a frustration.
Another frustration I have is when we have a presenter or a speaker who is fairly fluent in both languages. Senator Pratte flips from English to French quite often when he is speaking.
Senator Munson: He does it on purpose, I know that.
Senator Plett: I know. What happens is that he’s speaking French and starts speaking English, the translation stops when he stops speaking French, and there’s still a half a sentence or so left to go and now I’m getting English in the mike instead of the last part. The translator might be speaking, I don’t know, but now I’m getting English in the mike, and I’ve lost the last part of the sentence.
Senator Ringuette, thank you for doing what you’re doing. I hope whoever supervises this will try to work with some of these nuances.
Another thing, we have some speakers who are very clear and you can understand very well. Not that others’ translation isn’t good, but they are talking very softly. And they’re this far away from the mic. You can hear them back there, but we need to tell these translators, “Get right in front of that mic so that it’s a little clearer.”
These are some of the frustrations. I’m quite disappointed that they have better translators in the other place than we do here. I think that’s shameful, and we need to work on that.
Those are just some observations, chair. Thank you very much for the presentation.
Senator Ringuette: Chair, if I can comment.
Senator Plett, I think one of the problems in regard to the observation that, for French to English and so forth, the translation doesn’t flow as fast as the speaker is because of the physical situation where they are. They are limited in the number of people that can be sitting in that space. That’s why one of the recommendations is to make sure that the new facility that we will occupy for a decade or more is adequate.
Another major problem that they expressed to us is that, when committees do video conferencing, the technology that the translators have within these committee rooms is not adequate for them to provide the good service that they would like to. The committee rooms and the technology available to the interpreter, especially when committees do video conferencing, need to be upgraded.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Ringuette, I would like to congratulate you, Ms. Ethier, and your working group on the quality of your report and your work, as well as the quality of your presentation this morning.
I have three concerns to raise. My first concern follows up on Senator Plett’s observations. I believe that we need to distinguish between our appreciation of the translation services and the interpretation services. It is important to recall that the conditions under which our interpreters work are not easy. They do not generally receive speakers’ texts in advance. Speakers frequently switch between French and English, which is as it should be. So there are major issues there.
Among your recommendations, two strike me as particularly important: the fifth and the tenth. For my part, I discovered with surprise this morning that not only is the Senate not the second most important client of the Translation Bureau, the most important being the House of Commons, but that it is a secondary client. This seems clear. It seems to me that there are issues around workflow organization, independently of resources and budgets. I do not understand why it is not already accepted that we need to specialize translators and interpreters, and generally assign them, depending on the volume of work, to specific committees and areas of speciality.
For this reason, I support your recommendation number 5, which is truly critical.
Recommendation number 10 regards an issue which will be important in managing resource acquisition. Even if the Translation Bureau hires additional resources — and I understand that this is essential given the increased demand — we need to change the modalities of our contracts with regard to professional services. The quality of services must be balanced with the issue of lower costs. But lowering costs must not be the sole factor considered. I would invite you to insist on that point during your discussions.
You wish to meet once again both with the minister and with representatives of the Translation Bureau. I think it is extremely pressing to meet the minister and advise her of all of the concerns of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. We will see what the reaction in the Senate will be.
Once again, thank you very much.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain. This is one of the reasons why the committee is asking the Committee on Internal Economy to table the report of our working group in the Senate, so we can ask for a response from the government. We need to insist. I think this would be a way for senators to insist regarding the evaluation process for contract freelance workers. Thanks to Mr. Déry, we have already attained this with regard to freelancers hired by the Translation Bureau to work for the Senate. However, we must recognize that the problem is broader in scope. If we can contribute to changing the parameters, so much the better.
Senator Saint-Germain: This would be a good opportunity for that. Thank you.
Senator Carignan: There are several things I would like to mention. I would like to make a comment regarding the survey on levels of satisfaction with the services. It is difficult to respond to a survey on the quality of translation services if one is not completely bilingual. A unilingual speaker of one of the two languages may find the translation excellent, but is not truly able to judge its quality. This may have caused a bias in the survey. In my opinion, the quality is probably lower than would be suggested by the results of the survey. For example, for translation services, there are 44 answers which indicate that the service is “very good,” and 32 answers that state that the service is “good.” Nonetheless, there would still be ways to make improvements to the services — major improvements.
I would also like to comment on Senator Plett’s suggestion about the beginning and end of the interpretation, and the fact that sometimes a sentence is missing: people must understand that interpretation is not an easy job, nor is stenography, and we senators should think about the way we speak in this chamber, and try to speak a bit more slowly sometimes. We should be aware that our speeches are being interpreted. Furthermore, changing languages in the middle of a sentence will automatically lead to that situation. We should therefore be aware that there is interpretation, and that stenographers are transcribing our words at the same time, which requires special training. I would suggest that senators receive information on the subject, or attend a workshop, during which stenographers or interpreters could explain the problems they face so that we can be aware of them when we rise to speak in the Senate.
That is all I have to say about simultaneous interpretation. Let us move on to written translation, which is problematic, as is the quality of our reports. Senator Moncion can bear witness to that. At the Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I cannot tell you how many times we had to sit down and rewrite the French, with the assistance of Senator Fraser, because it was so terrible. That is not part of a senator’s job, and it is unacceptable.
Another issue is the tabling of documents in French. When documents are tabled in English at committee and are not provided in both languages, I am highly offended, because the reverse is unimaginable. Never would a document be given in French only to anglophone senators, for fear of their reaction. Whereas we francophones accept such circumstances without complaint because we think it will be too complicated.
“Too complicated” is not my constitutional right. My constitutional right is receiving my own version of the document at the same time as my anglophone colleague receives his, so that I am not at a disadvantage because I am missing nuances, arguments or part of the preparation. That is unacceptable. Often, we receive the translated document after the witness has appeared.
I don’t believe you have directly addressed the aspect of resources from that angle; perhaps if more resources were provided, we would receive the translated documents sooner.
I would be interested to hear your comments on this subject.
Senator Ringuette: I completely agree as to the difficulties, especially within the chamber. We must not forget that stenographers work on the floor of the chamber, whereas the interpreters are located way upstairs. Their work is made more difficult by distance and very limited work space. This is why we have recommended that you ensure the interpreters have adequate space in the new building, because it is crucial.
Committee reports are drafted in collaboration with the Library of Parliament staff and the chair. Before the report is drafted, the committee has an informal discussion as to its main thrust. The person tasked with translating the report, whether into English or French, should be present throughout. It is unacceptable for senators to be forced to correct the original or translated version of a committee report. We believe this measure will be helpful.
Another measure is having dedicated staff, which we recommend and which should also help. I believe we senators also have responsibilities towards the service. When we intend to give a speech in the Senate, we should have the courtesy of sending it to the Translation Bureau beforehand rather than five minutes before we rise to speak, because the interpretation booth up in the rafters is not set up to receive them.
The Translation Bureau, and more specifically the interpreters, made several requests for office space near its facilities to help them do their work. They have not received a reply. They provided us with a letter after our formal meeting.
We have work to do if we wish to improve the quality of service. It is in everyone’s best interest.
Senator Munson: I congratulate you on your report, senator. I have a question to ask and a comment to make in English. That’s not bad, is it? A few words in French. What a surprise for you all!
[English]
I sit on the Long Term Vision and Plan committee, and you mentioned many times your recommendation No. 8 to make sure this committee makes sure that in the new Senate building — not the conference centre, but the new Senate building — there is adequate space for the interpreters.
I’m not sure that in our report that we’ve been looking at — and maybe Brigitte Desjardins can help out here — were the interpreters brought in with Public Works to take a look at the space and what the space would look like? Were they part and parcel of this? Because you have to have a buy-in. Did the interpreters have an opportunity, like we’ve had on many occasions, to go to the new Senate building and to see what was there for us? It’s an impressive place, and we may be moving in a few months, so to make sure now may be a little late. We have to be assured that the interpreters are satisfied with the space and they can see us do our work.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: I thank you for your efforts in the language of Molière.
Senator Munson: Acadian.
Senator Ringuette: I would also like to thank you for taking note of the situation, given that your responsibilities include the new Senate premises. I encourage you to show leadership and invite the Translation Bureau representatives to visit the new facilities, and ensure that any required changes are made. That is the reality. I like to think that every problem has a solution. I am convinced, Senator Munson, that given your interest, you will follow up with this group.
Senator Munson: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: As an example of our situation, a report was prepared in English only for a committee because it was urgent. We only received the French version of the report one hour before it was tabled in the Senate. So we only had one hour to review it and make the necessary changes. That is one example. In order to assess the quality of language or of the translation, we need to look at the English document as well to determine whether or not the translation is accurate. Only a bilingual francophone can do this work. An anglophone will only read the English version. That is perfectly understandable. I no longer compare the English and French versions. I only read the French. It is not up to me to check the translation. If reports were drafted in French first, the burden of checking the accuracy of the translation would fall upon our anglophone colleagues, who would then understand what it is to have a single hour to read a 30-page report at the very last minute.
There is too much of a lag between the time when a report is available in English and the time when it is provided in French. We are given a timeline between the end of drafting the report and the date it must be tabled at the committee. That deadline — and I would like to hear your comments on this — for tabling a report on such and such a date is the source of the problem. For example, a report that is finished on any given day will be tabled the very next day. Either we only have one version, or the translated version was done quickly and there was no time to review its quality. Should we give ourselves at least one week, or at the very least three or four days, between the time a report is done and its tabling in the Senate, so that the report may be translated and reviewed by the committee?
Senator Ringuette: It is up to us, especially the francophone senators, because we most often find ourselves in that situation. As long as our committee has not received both versions of the documents, we will not proceed. The Senate will survive for a few more days. This will force committee chairs, clerks and research staff to respond. I am pleased that you raised this, as I want to take advantage of the opportunity to repeat to Senator Carignan that we must insist upon this. I feel somewhat guilty myself, as a member of different Senate committees. Sometimes witnesses that appear before us do not have their documents in both official languages. I am sorry to say that we may have been a bit too accommodating.
[English]
The Chair: I think we are sort of roaming off into a different area. Not that I disagree with what you’re saying. I agree with it. But I think we’re moving away from the report and more into how we should be making changes to prevent the situations that Senator Moncion mentioned. I’ve stated this many times in the past; I agree with you. But I think we’re moving away from the actual report.
Senator Carignan: I disagree.
[Translation]
We could not be any more on topic than this. I’m sorry, but we are very much on topic.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate your comment.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I might have a recommendation to make. In our Rules, could it be written somewhere that a report would need to be tabled, for example, five days or a week before being presented to a committee? Could we receive it at least one week before the meeting?
[English]
The Chair: Again, senator, that’s different from what we’re talking about here. That’s an entirely different issue. I understand Senator Carignan doesn’t agree, but we’re dealing specifically with this report. I think this is an issue that should be brought up and should be discussed, but we should have the time for it.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that the report be adopted with the recommendations?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That I table the report in the Senate and that the government response be requested?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you very much, and thank you again for the hard work. This is a very good document.
Honourable senators, the next item is the Senate Office Furniture Strategy.
Senator Tkachuk: We need a strategy for furniture?
The Chair: I invite Brigitte Desjardins, Director General of Property and Services; and Caroline Morency, Director of Long Term Vision and Plan and Accommodation, to the witness table.
Thank you very much for coming today. You have the floor.
Brigitte Desjardins, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I begin, Mr. Chair, will you permit me to answer the questions with regard to translation? There have been very good questions given by —
The Chair: No.
Ms. Desjardins: No, not today?
The Chair: No.
Ms. Desjardins: Another time, then. We’ll go specifically to the furniture.
The Chair: Yes, thank you.
Ms. Desjardins: First of all, thank you very much, honourable senators. Good morning. We are here to discuss the furniture strategy. It will be Caroline who will explain the actual strategy, but just to set the stage, as you all know, we will be embarking on some important moves in the upcoming year. We thought that we would use this opportune time, in the spirit of being fiscally prudent, as well as being responsible custodians of our movable assets, to look at the overarching game plan for the furniture that we had in inventory, as well as moving forward with regard to future acquisitions.
I will let Caroline speak to the actual strategy. Also, she will be making her presentation in French, for those who have to put their earpieces on. Thank you very much. Then we will be available to answer any questions.
[Translation]
Caroline Morency, Director, Long-Term Vision and Plan and Accommodation, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, Mr. Chair, thank you for inviting us. We are here today to ask you for authorization to launch a competitive process to enter into one or more standing offers for the purchase of office furniture for the Senate, on an as required basis, of course, up to a maximum amount of $250,000 over a period of five years. The current standing offer will expire on June 30, 2018, in a few months.
During the Senate’s temporary residency at the Government Conference Centre at 40 Elgin Street in Ottawa in 2018, Public Services and Procurement Canada will provide all of the new furniture required for senators’ offices, apart from a few heritage items. No furniture will be moved from Centre Block or to the Government Conference Centre’s temporary warehouse. We did a preliminary evaluation last year which allowed us to conclude that the majority of the furniture from Centre Block is in good condition. So, we recommend using the existing furniture in Centre Block, which has been deemed to be in good condition, to replace damaged furniture in the East Block offices and the Victoria Building offices as necessary, until those buildings are closed for renovation. We intend to do the same with administrative offices as needed.
Also, the increased use of tablets and laptops in offices has led to an increased demand for office furniture that is more ergonomical and better adapted to the new technological tools that we use today. We also want to include ergonomical items such as adjustable chairs and desks in the new contract in order to meet the particular needs of senators and Senate staff. When Centre Block closes, the furniture there that is deemed to be in good condition will be moved to the Senate’s new storage facility at 95 Noël Street in Gatineau. If necessary we can use the Senate’s finishing studio to improve the furniture that is slightly scratched. That furniture will then be used in East Block offices or Victoria Building offices.
So we are asking for your authorization to accept one or several offers up to a maximum amount of $250,000 over five years.
Thank you for your attention, and I invite you to ask any questions you may have.
[English]
The Chair: Does anybody have any questions?
Senator Marshall: Yes, I have two.
Thank you very much for your presentation. My first question relates to the financial implications. You gave the expenditure amounts for three fiscal years, but we’re almost finished now this fiscal year. Do you have the numbers for this year?
Ms. Desjardins: We only have numbers right now for 2016-17, but we have not supplied the numbers yet for 2017-18. But we can certainly supply that.
Senator Marshall: Yes, I’d be interested in seeing them.
My last question relates to the second recommendation, where you’re saying a cap of a maximum of $250,000 over the next five years; is that $250,000 a year or is it $50,000 a year?
Ms. Morency: It’s over the five years. So it’s, on average, $50,000 per year.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Thanks very much.
The Chair: Seeing no other questions, can I have a mover for the following motion: That the Senate Administration restock and reuse the existing furniture in the Centre Block to replace furniture, as needed, in the Victoria Building and East Block, as well as Senate Administration offices going forward; and that the procurement of a new standing offer for the purchase of ergonomic items, such as chairs, adjustable tables, and new office furniture be capped at a maximum of $250,000 over the next five years?
Moved by Senator Munson, seconded by Senator Tkachuk. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Carried. Thank you.
Thank you very much for coming today.
Item No. 4 is a motion from Senator Plett on CIBA subcommittees.
Senator Plett: Currently the Internal Economy Committee has seven different subcommittees, not counting the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Senators who sit on these committees are clearly also members of other committees, and the Senate established a schedule for committee meetings which was agreed to by the Senate leadership, and the time slots are managed by the whips.
The whips and/or group liaisons are not being made aware of CIBA subcommittees. They set their own times and meet. Due to the potential conflicts with other committee meetings, CIBA subcommittees are now meeting during Senate sittings, which makes it difficult for those of us who are trying to have people in the Senate Chamber, especially when they’re needing to speak and other things and keeping our numbers up. In recent past, these meetings have created conflict between a senator’s obligation to the chamber and the commitment to the subcommittee.
The motion proposed three things: That only one subcommittee meet at a time when the Senate is sitting and that the whips and/or group liaisons be advised of all CIBA subcommittee meetings, and if there are two subcommittee meetings meeting at the same time that the whips and group liaisons will manage the conflict.
I don’t think I need to explain any more than that, chair, other than just to again add as a whip — and I’ve talked to my counterparts — we are having difficulties. This doesn’t deal with steering committees because we then have steering committees along with that as well meeting at whatever time they can find. I know we all have very difficult schedules.
I am asking that we do this, and we, as whips, are still going to try to accommodate when things are impossible, but at least we would have the clerks contact us in order to somehow manage these time slots. You have a motion, I think, before you. I would move that motion.
Senator Marshall: After being the whip for four or five years, I must say, Senator Plett, I agree wholeheartedly with your recommendation, and I will be supporting you 110 per cent. Thank you.
Senator Moncion: This is just for CIBA?
Senator Plett: This is for CIBA subcommittees. That’s the only subcommittees there are.
Senator Moncion: You’ve answered both questions because I was going to ask if there are any other committees where —
Senator Plett: Yes. Oh, sorry, Veterans, but they have a regular time slot. They are also a subcommittee.
Senator Moncion: Do they meet during the Senate sittings?
Senator Plett: No, they meet Wednesdays at noon.
Senator Moncion: Any reason why we can’t do that with CIBA?
Senator Plett: That’s what I’m suggesting that we try. In the past this hasn’t been there so they set meetings. Many of us would like to get out of the chamber and have a different meeting rather than sitting in the chamber and listening to me or anyone else drone on.
Senator Moncion: Can we just specify that it’s CIBA?
Senator Plett: I think it is specified as CIBA.
The Chair: It is specified as CIBA. Another whip, Senator Mitchell.
Senator Mitchell: A liaison. I am agreeing with the terminology being used by Senator Plett, who is a whip. I wanted to, first of all, thank him for taking this initiative, for convening a meeting of whips and liaisons. It was very productive. He’s right, and I support the motion.
Senator Saint-Germain: I, as well, support very strongly the motion, and I will go further. I believe that we should revisit the number of subcommittees that we have. Because, according to me, I won’t speak about an eventual oversight and audit committee — that’s another issue — but I believe at least two committees might be merged.
The Chair: We can deal with that after we deal with this.
Senator Housakos: I want to give a different perspective because all the whips and facilitators have weighed in, but I’ll weigh in as a former member of steering. I remind colleagues that a lot of these subcommittees and working groups do the heavy lifting for this committee, and they take on work that’s important, that they have to report back to steering and matters eventually get here.
Given the time constraints — and I know it’s difficult for them to meet — if we make it more difficult for them to meet, keep in mind there will be a bottleneck created for administration and steering to deal with.
Senator Munson: After seven years as a whip, and with very little time left in my life, please save my life.
The Chair: This must have come from the whips’ union. They’re all here, I know. I’m surprised you didn’t bring former members in for this.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: Since we were talking about translations, I notice a small error in the French version. In the last sentence, it says, “Les whips et les liaisons de groupe conviennent sur les heures de séance de chaque sous-comité.” But it should say, “Les whips et les liaisons de groupe conviennent des heures de séance de chaque sous-comité.”
[English]
The Chair: Could you suggest how it would be reformulated?
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: “Les whips et les liaisons de groupe conviennent “sur les” heures de séance de chaque sous-comité,” when it should say, “Les whips et les liaisons de groupe conviennent “des” heures de séance de chaque sous-comité.”
Senator Carignan: The term “liaisons de groupe,” is a little bit strange, isn’t it?
[English]
The Chair: So the French version will be changed to “shall agree on the sitting times” en français.
Senator Pratte: That’s right.
The Chair: Any other questions? It was moved by the Honourable Senator Plett that only one subcommittee be authorized to meet at a time while the Senate is sitting that the whips and group liaisons be notified of all subcommittee meetings, and that in the event that two or more subcommittees are required to sit while the Senate is sitting, the whips and group liaisons shall agree on the sitting times for each subcommittee. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Carried. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Senator Plett.
Item No. 5 is options for approval of international travel. Following discussion at our March 1 meeting, a briefing note has been prepared outlining three possible options for these requests. The options include the status quo, the status quo with criteria and a firm prohibition on international travel outside of IIA and committee travel. This briefing note is included in your package.
I would like discussion. I would like to advise you that, from my point of view, we should have a firm prohibition on international travel.
Senator Munson: I know this is going to be an animated debate. We’ve gone back and forth over the many years I’ve been here — almost 15 now — and I want to put firmly on the record that I support international travel. It has to be managed properly. It’s been difficult for many. We used to have two trips a year. Then it became one trip, then it became zero, and now it’s back with people asking to travel to attend some of the events around the world.
We have no borders in this country, really, as senators, because the work we do extends beyond the borders of this country and the organizations— whether it’s women’s groups or special needs groups, you name it— there is responsibility for us to show the face of the Senate not only in this country but in other parts of the world.
I’ve been fortunate to be associated with Special Olympics International and Special Olympics Canada, and the Senate has been gracious enough to pay for my travel to places such as Shanghai and Austria recently.
Where we do have teams consisting of 150 people with special needs who are the face of Canada out there, and when you’re asked to go as the face of the Senate to speak and to hand out medals and to talk to ambassadors, and you talk about the Senate and its work and social needs and that we are here to protect and support minority rights, I find these are such gratifying occasions.
I think you have to use these trips judiciously. I have, once every two years or whatever when those games are on, and I know it makes a difference in terms of being out there and part of legislation that comes before us later on or in a budget as it’s presented for Special Olympics and other groups. That goes the same for Paralympics and so on.
I understand there’s a bit of controversy and reticence in the sense of just stop it, just don’t go there. We’re allowed to go to the United Nations, for example, to represent Canada on the rights of the child and the rights of people with disabilities. There is no prohibition to go to New York and/or to see our fellow politicians in Washington. So if it’s used in the sense of being judicious about it and to keep the costs down, we have an opportunity to be out there to represent our country as senators. Thank you.
Senator Marshall: I don’t support option number one, status quo having no formal criteria. The second one, the status quo with criteria, the problem is that it’s so judgmental that when you get into areas like value for money, while one senator might feel that this is a worthwhile trip another senator won’t. I think we’re going to get into a lot of debate about what’s worthy and what’s not worthy.
I support option number three, complete prohibition. I think we should completely prohibit. Keep the New York and Washington options, that’s fine with me, but option number three I support.
Senator Housakos: As someone who was saddled with some of these decisions in reviewing applications as a former member of steering, I can tell you why we became flexible at some point. Senator Munson is absolutely right, there was a complete prohibition at one point and there were valid arguments made, as Senator Munson made today. Invariably it became, as time went on, more and more demands were being put, more and more requests were being put and we felt people were trying to find ways of working their requests around what they thought the guidelines for exceptions were rather than a genuine open, transparent request based on their work as senators.
It became such a subjective exercise for steering. I suspect this current steering committee has brought it to Internal Economy as a whole at this committee because they probably got tired of dealing with the increase of these requests.
The reason for going to a full prohibition after the twenty-fifth report to the Senate as a whole is because, again, it got to the point where the requests were growing and growing and ballooning to a point where from a fiscal point of view they couldn’t be justified.
We warned everyone at some juncture I think a year ago that it was starting to grow and it was becoming unrealistic to continue to sustain this, but instead of seeing a curtailing of requests we’ve seen an increase in requests.
I’m of the view that we have to go back to a rigid policy. I also have a question for the chair and for steering. I know that the previous steering committee had put into place a policy which is consistent with the new SOMP rules. Any time there were exemptions for international travel, there would still be points taken off from the four-point international system. Is the administration still applying that policy?
The Chair: Yes, we are.
Senator Housakos: Very good. So thank you.
Senator Jaffer: My inclination is to go with status quo with criteria. Ever since I’ve been here I’ve been very uncomfortable with, for example, with sponsorship travel. I’ve never taken sponsorship travel because I’m very nervous about having a country pay for your travel. There are times when you work on an issue that’s not covered by a committee or by the international parliamentary associations, and if we are able to justify that it’s something you’re working on here and it’s to promote that work internationally, and we can always say no. This committee can say no, but I don’t think there should be a complete prohibition but very strict criteria.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I fully support recommendation number 3.
For all of the international travel, regardless of the format, whether it is a Senate committee trip or a parliamentary association trip, the opportunities for subsidized travel — which we have to declare to the Senate Ethics Officer — are already quite numerous.
I have observed, in this committee, that it is very easy to be invited by groups and organizations if you want to travel. That should not be encouraged.
Furthermore, serious international organizations who really want to have a senator or a member of the Senate of Canada be a lecturer or partner have the means to do so and will be able to cover those expenses. As long as the Senate Ethics Officer doesn’t feel there is a conflict of interest, there are already many, many possibilities. So I will support the third option.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: I’d just like to point out again — and I hate to repeat what other members have said — that senators do travel internationally with interparliamentary groups. They travel internationally with committees. They travel internationally with ministers. Many senators go with ministers. They travel internationally with sponsorship groups. I understand Senator Munson’s involvement, but we all can have an involvement and we all could be flying around. I find the fact that we’re sitting here debating in our committee whether someone should go somewhere, it just drives me nuts. It’s a waste of time and I’m trying to figure out the right words for it. I don’t think it brings the taxpayer any benefit, so I would like to see a ban on international travel. We had it before. It worked. As far as I was concerned it worked really well. No one asked, we didn’t have to say no, no one went, and that’s what we should do.
I’m of the third option, and I’d actually like to move it, if we could, have it on debate or we could wait until everybody has had something to say.
And just one more point on New York and Washington. We do have a limit on New York. You can’t go to New York unless you have business with the United Nations. You can’t go to New York just to go to New York. And with Washington it’s the same; you can’t go to Washington to visit the museum. You have to go to Washington with an express purpose and an express reason.
Senator Batters: I as well favour option three, the complete prohibition. As a very new member of steering, during my first few weeks with steering, those were major items that steering was dealing with in a fair bit of our agenda. And since December, our full Internal Economy Committee decided to have people who wanted to do those sorts of international travel as exemptions to the prohibition that existed, come to the full CIBA for transparency and accountability and justify that here and answer questions. It’s like we’re becoming the travel committee instead of the Internal Economy Committee, so I would favour a return to the complete prohibition. Thank you.
Senator Plett: Just one clarification before I make a comment. Option three does still leave the New York and Washington under the conditions?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Plett: In that case, I also would favour that. I do want to address what Senator Munson said in part. I have travelled over the years. Many of you know my involvement with associations related to my previous life. I go annually to national mechanical contractors association meetings, but the last two years they have been out of the country. They flew me there. So I think if organizations want us to come, they can pick up the tab, and that is the approach I’ve taken.
I’ve told them that, when they were in Canada, I could go because I could claim that under Senate expense. Then, when they invited me out of the country, I said, “I’m sorry; I can’t go.” So I missed one year, and they said they wanted me there. So I said, “Well, the option is for you to pay my travel,” which they’ve been doing.
So I think, if people want us to come badly enough, they’ll foot the bill, or we foot it ourselves. So I would also favour option 3.
The Chair: Thank you. Before we go into the second round, steering didn’t actually throw it to CIBA because we didn’t want to do the work. We threw it to CIBA because it appeared that, as we went along, it was just going to end up here anyway. So why go through two processes?
The second thing is that, again, I have great sympathy with Senator Munson, but I believe that, if an organization wants you to come and wants you to participate in an event, they obviously see a value to you being there and want to hear what you have to say. I don’t think that it’s wrong to say, “Look, if you want me there, you have to pay for me to come there.” I agree, and I understand what Senator Jaffer says. But, at the same time, I don’t feel beholden. I went to Australia, for instance, on drug policy. They told me they wanted me to be there. I said, “That’s fine, but you’re going to have to pay.” I filed it with the Ethics Commissioner. And they got value, and I got value. So I think that we have to do that more and more. Otherwise, it is out of control because there are no parameters. It totally is a value judgment when you start listening to what’s going on. It’s not fair to the senator, and it’s not fair to put us in that position.
Senator Munson: Well, there’s a motto in Special Olympics: “Let me win, but, if I can’t win, let me be brave in the attempt.” So I’m brave in the attempt.
The Chair: Nobody can ever accuse you of cowardice, Senator Munson, believe me. On that, I will entertain a motion from Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: I move that we adopt recommendation number 3.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Carried. Thank you.
Item No. 7. Honourable senators, we’d better move in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)