THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 5, 2020
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met by videoconference this day at 11:00 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(1), in consideration of financial and administrative matters; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), in consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Sabi Marwah (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, senators. My name is Sabi Marwah, I’m a senator from Ontario and I have the honour of chairing the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Today, we will be conducting a virtual meeting that will start in public, and the second portion will be in camera.
Before we begin, I would like to remind colleagues of the best practices to have a successful meeting. Please keep your microphone muted at all times unless recognized by name to speak. Senators are responsible for turning their microphones on and off during the debate. When speaking, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of English, French or no simultaneous translation. It is important that members speak in the language they have chosen to listen to. If you do an intervention in English, you must select the English channel. If you do an intervention in French, you must select the French channel. If you plan to alternate from one language to the other, you will also need to switch the interpretation channel.
Should members wish to request the floor, please use the “raise hand” feature. Should any technical or other challenges arise, please signal this to the chair immediately and the technical team will work to resolve the issue, or please contact the committee clerk at the technical assistance number provided in your invitation.
I would now like to introduce the senators who are participating in this meeting: Senator Claude Carignan, Quebec; Senator Tony Dean, Ontario; Senator Percy Downe, Prince Edward Island; Senator Renée Dupuis, Quebec; Senator Éric Forest, Quebec; Senator Raymonde Gagné, Manitoba; Senator Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia; Senator Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Yonah Martin, British Columbia; Senator Lucie Moncion, Ontario; Senator Jim Munson, Ontario; Senator Josée Forest-Niesing, Ontario; Senator Don Plett, Manitoba, who will be joining us shortly; Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec; Senator Judith Seidman, Quebec; Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta; and Senator Pierre Dalphond, Quebec. Welcome to all those viewing these proceedings across the country.
Honourable senators, the first item is the approval of the public minutes from October 22, 2020, which is in your package. Are there any questions or changes?
Senator Marshall: I so move.
The Chair: Senator Marshall moves the motion that the minutes of the meeting of October 22, 2020, be adopted. Honourable senators, in order to determine if this motion is adopted, the clerk will proceed with a roll-call vote. I will ask every senator to unmute once their name is called.
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, Senate of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Honourable senators, I will call the member’s name, beginning with the chair, then going in alphabetical order. Senators should indicate if they vote for, against or abstain. As simultaneous translation will be suspended for the vote, I will conduct the vote in both official languages.
The Honourable Senator Marwah?
Senator Marwah: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest-Niesing?
Senator Forest-Niesing: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Mr. Chair, we have 16 “yes” votes.
The Chair: Thank you. I declare the motion carried.
Honourable senators, the second item is the fourth report from the Audit Subcommittee, which deals with the annual financial statements of the Senate of Canada. Joining us as witnesses are Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, and Nathalie Charpentier, Comptroller and Deputy Chief Financial Officer from Senate Finance. And from our auditors Ernst & Young, Suzie Gignac, Engagement Quality Review Partner, and Niguel Givogue, Manager, Assurance Services. It is my understanding that Senator Downe will speak first, followed by a presentation from Pierre Lanctôt and the representatives from Ernst & Young.
Senator Downe: Colleagues, following a detailed and thorough review of the financial statements, your Audit Subcommittee, which also consists of Senators McPhedran, Marshall and Dupuis, is pleased to recommend the approval of the audited financial statement for the year ended March 31, 2020, which has received a clean audit opinion. Your subcommittee also reviewed three related documents: the financial statements, the narrative that provides the highlights from the statement and the audited finding report from the external auditor. Your subcommittee briefly presented its findings at the October 22, 2020, CIBA meeting. I will therefore not repeat the points already made.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the auditors for their work and for being with us at CIBA again today to answer any questions from the committee members.
The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, do you have anything to add?
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you, senator. I do not want to repeat what I said at the October 22 meeting, but I want to provide the highlights before we take questions. In the financials and the statement of our operations, we are showing an increase in expenses by 1.9%, which represents $1.8 million. Four main reasons explain that variation: a higher number of senators than planned; higher basic sessional allowances; increase in personal costs for the administration and senators’ employees; increased broadcasting services costs. Those costs, those increases were offset partly by a decrease in transportation and communication costs.
On the statement of financial position, we see a strong and stable financial position for the Senate as of March 31. Two key variances are worth noting. One is an increase in employee benefits by $800,000 as a result of changing the approach for recording sick leave. And the second is a variance in reduction of tangible capital assets, due to the amortization being higher than acquired during the year.
That is a very brief summary of the financial statements. We’ll be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Are there any questions of Mr. Lanctôt before we hand it over to the auditors? Senator Marshall, do you have one for the CFO or the auditors?
Senator Marshall: The CFO. And Senator Plett had asked a question at our last meeting regarding the fact that the cash on hand hadn’t changed from last year to this year. Is there an explanation for that?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, Senator Marshall. Yes, there is an explanation. The amount of cash that is kept in bank accounts is for a specific purpose, and we’re keeping the same balance year after year, until we either use it or the need is no longer there.
Senator Marshall: Thank you. I’ll let Senator Plett know.
The Chair: I see no other questions for the CFO, so I shall now proceed to talk with the auditors.
Suzie Gignac, Engagement Quality Review Partner, Ernst & Young LLP: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will briefly, as the others have done, summarize what we mentioned a couple of weeks ago when we were here. We did meet with the Senate Audit Subcommittee in October, went through our audit results in detail and answered their questions on those results. At a high level, we have substantially completed the audit. We will complete once we have the approval of the financial statements and the letter of representation. This is very common at this point in time in the audit. We do anticipate issuing an unmodified or a clean opinion on the financial statements, essentially saying that they are fairly stated, in all material respects, in accordance with Public Sector Accounting Standards.
We had no material corrected or uncorrected differences and we had excellent cooperation with the team. We would like to thank them very much at this time for their help in getting through the audit. And I’m happy to answer any questions.
Senator Jaffer: I am curious; I was reading the report and I saw in the key audit results, in the executive summary, that you talk about where the potential for management bias might exist. What kinds of things would you be looking for when you say that?
Ms. Gignac: The potential for management bias can exist in things like accruals, where you’re making estimates and you may have biased to have lower accruals, and those types of things. We put some additional focus on accruals. Or it could be potentially not having expenditures in a year because you want to meet your budget, those type of biases. We do work on those kinds of areas to make sure it’s covered off.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for the explanation.
The Chair: Colleagues, I don’t see any hands up. Honourable senators, it was moved by Senator Downe that the report be adopted and the financial statements be tabled in the Senate. In order to determine if this motion is adopted, the clerk will proceed with a roll-call vote.
Ms. Legault: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Honourable senators, we will proceed in the same fashion as with previous the vote.
The Honourable Senator Marwah?
Senator Marwah: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest-Niesing?
Senator Forest-Niesing: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Mr. Chair, we have 16 “yes” votes.
The Chair: Thank you. I declare the motion carried.
Colleagues, it is normally good practice for senators to meet privately with the auditor following an annual audit. Therefore, I would ask that we go in camera very briefly. Everyone except senators, the recording secretary who will act as clerk for this part of the meeting and the representatives from Ernst & Young should please leave the meeting. Please advise us when we are ready to go in camera with the auditors. After the in camera portion, we will return to the public portion of the meeting.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: The next item is the fifth report from the Audit Subcommittee, which deals with the quarterly financial reports for the quarter ended June 30, 2020. This item is for information only. As before, Pierre Lanctôt and Nathalie Charpentier will stay with us for this item to assist in answering questions. The presentation will, of course, be followed by time for questions. Again, Senator Downe will make a brief presentation and then we’ll open it up for questions.
Senator Downe: As you indicated, this is for information. If you have any detailed questions, I urge you to consult the report. I will give a brief overview.
I’m today tabling, for information, the Senate financial highlights report for the first quarter of 2020-21 fiscal year, covering the period from April 1 to June 30, 2020. The report is prepared on a quarterly basis by the Finance and Procurement Directorate. The objective of this report is to provide continuous information about the usage of the Senate budget authority’s actual expenditures and forecasted spending for the current year.
For the 2020-21 fiscal year, the budget of the Senate totals $115.6 million. At the end of the first quarter, the Senate has spent $19.6 million, or 17%, of its annual budget. Based on forecasts, the Senate is expected to spend $98.5 million, or 85%, of its annual budget by the end of the fiscal year. That being said, a surplus of $17.1 million is expected for 2020-21, which represents 15% of the annual budget. The surplus is mainly due to reduced activity level because of the pandemic.
That concludes my comments, chair. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, do you have anything further to add, or should we go straight to questions?
Mr. Lanctôt: Chair, I have nothing to add, so we can move to questions.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: My question is for Mr. Lanctôt or Senator Downe. I want to verify something regarding the impact of the pandemic. There’s a negative impact. However, have you assessed the additional costs associated with video conferencing and health measures, for example? Have you been able to estimate the costs associated with the impact of the pandemic on our fiscal year to date?
Mr. Lanctôt: We recorded and identified the additional costs incurred in relation to the impact of the pandemic. Starting in the second quarter, we’ll be able to identify these specific costs in our reports, along with the savings. We did save some money in relation to the pandemic. The savings will be explained, along with the additional efficiencies and costs.
Senator Forest: But you don’t have an estimate right now —
[English]
Senator Downe: Chair, I would like to briefly comment on that. Obviously, the largest cost reduction for the Senate will be in travel and getting senators to and from Ottawa. Also, we have significant savings on the parliamentary associations that are not travelling overseas or hosting incoming delegations. That amount of money will be significantly more than the costs we’re incurring for the issues Senator Forest raised.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Downe. I see no further questions, so we’ll move on to the next item. Thank you all for your presentations. As I mentioned, this item was for information only.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I would like to briefly take this opportunity, before we move on to the other topic, to thank the administration for responding to the questions. You may recall at the last meeting that I had indicated having a number of questions resulting from my review of the documents. I forwarded those in writing, and I received a prompt and complete response for which I thank them.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Moving on to the next item, the third item covers the Public Accounts for fiscal year 2019-20. This item, again, is for information only. Pierre Lanctôt and Nathalie Charpentier will make a presentation, followed by time for questions.
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Honourable senators, earlier we had discussed the Senate financial statements for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020. I will now provide the highlights of the Senate financial information that is part of the Public Accounts, which are typically published in the fall.
The financial statements present the financial position and expenses of the Senate, with comparative figures from last year. The Public Accounts summary that you have presents the expenses and funding by program activity and compares them with the Main Estimates. Also, the funding includes two separate categories: statutory funding and voted funding. Here, I am referring to page 88 of the package. Expenses receiving statutory funding include senators’ sessional indemnities; contributions to the senators’ pension plan; retiring allowances; senators’ travel, living and telecommunication expenses; and contribution to the employee benefits plan.
Overall, the Senate spent $3.6 million less than the initial funding received from the Main Estimates, which is adjusted at the end of the year to the actual amount spent. The reason for the lower spending is the reduced travel for senators, as fewer sittings took place during the election period and the beginning of the pandemic during the fourth quarter.
As for the voted funding, the Senate spent $12.7 million less than the Main Estimates. There are a few key reasons. First, the level of activities was lower than planned, again, due to the election and the pandemic. This also affected the spending of committees, and international and interparliamentary affairs. Second, the Senate incurred less operational administrative expenses than planned, including savings on some vacant positions. The briefing notes contain more explanations on the key variances.
This concludes my remarks. I will be pleased to answer any questions or receive any comments.
The Chair: Thank you, Pierre. Senators, are there any questions for Pierre? I see no questions.
Honourable senators, we move to Item 4, which is the commencement of a competitive procurement process for establishing a new standing offer agreement with the long-distance moving service provider. Colleagues, I would remind you that since we are now discussing requests for proposals in public, please do not refer to dollar amounts or your personal opinion on the supplier or selection criteria as this could influence the bidding process. If senators wish to discuss sensitive information, this should be done in camera.
Pierre Lanctôt, again, will make a presentation on this item, followed by time for questions.
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Honourable senators, I am now soliciting your approval to proceed with a competitive procurement process to establish a standing offer agreement for the provision of long-distance moving services. We are looking to put in place a contract for a period of three years, plus two one-year option periods.
Under paragraph 8.3 of SOMP, the Senate pays for moving expenses for senators who want to move personal effects from their place of residence to Ottawa, and we’re also paying for the return to their place of residence. Only two moves are allowed, according to SOMP.
The current contract for moving services has been in place since 2016 and will end on March 31, 2021. Over that period, 46 moves took place, an average of nine moves per year. The cost of the move, individual, has varied widely because of the level of items to be moved, the distance and the types of moves.
Over the next five years, we anticipate that around 25 moves will take place. Obviously, with the current pandemic situation, it is hard to forecast with certainty what the moves will be, but at this point, we basically assume about 25.
This basically concludes my remarks. Again, I will be pleased to answer any questions or receive your comments.
Senator Forest-Niesing: This is just a quick question with respect to the forecast amounts. If I understand correctly, it has been based on a calculated average of $3,600 per move, and if I look at the table you have — and this would be on the second page of that item, on page 93 of the bundle — and the fact that the projection is over a number of years, has any cost of inflation been factored into the projection? If not — which I’m calculating is not included — why not?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, senator. We looked at the rate and, basically, we had estimated inflation would be about 2%, but we have not seen inflation in the last few years. So, because we are expecting the contract to be for a period of time, we felt that the amount estimated, based on the historical numbers, was appropriate for the purpose of estimating the cost going forward.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, I see no other questions — there are no other hands up — so I will remind us that we will continue with the rest of our public items, and we’ll formally approve the RFP in camera in order to keep the information on the dollar amount from influencing the bidding process.
We go to the fifth item, which is the commencement of a competitive procurement process to establish a contract with a specialized firm that will provide the Senate with Employee and Family Assistance Program services. Vanessa Bastos from Human Resources will join the meeting as a witness. As usual, this presentation will be followed by time for questions. Again, senators, we should refrain from sharing information that could influence the bidding process.
Vanessa Bastos, People, Culture and Inclusion Lead, Human Resources Directorate, Senate of Canada: Good morning, honourable senators. I am here today to request your approval to proceed with a request for proposal to establish a contract with a specialized firm that will provide the Senate with Employee and Family Assistance Program services. This contract, if approved, would be established for an initial period of three years, commencing on January 1, 2021, until December 31, 2023, and will include two additional option years.
Currently, the Senate has had in place a contract with Morneau Shepell since January 1, 2018, that will come to an end on December 31, 2020. Steps have also been undertaken to ensure that we promptly launch an RFP once approval of this request is obtained by this committee.
The EFAP programs offer both senators, Senate staff and their immediate families access to a broad array of services that include topics such as family issues, financial matters, career and legal services, as well as mental health support, and health and wellness services. These services are offered on a confidential and voluntary basis, in person, over the phone as well as online.
The EFAP programs are a standard benefit that most employers extend to their workforce, with a view to really promote health and well-being. These particular services have been extremely useful during the type of crisis we’re living in as a result of the pandemic. They provide a conduit for individuals to have access to counselling and other support services that help them deal with the personal and professional upheaval that may come as a result of some of these crises.
In conclusion, we know that the EFAP services are beneficial in terms of improving employee productivity, allowing them to focus on their work while they have some support in dealing with some of the issues that may affect their lives, and they help in reducing absenteeism as well. We hope that I’ve answered and clarified any questions you may have. I’m happy to address any comments on your part. Thank you, senators.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much, Ms. Bastos, for the very thorough presentation. I have a number of questions. First, how do employees find out about these services? Do you have announcements from time to time? How do they find out that there is help available?
Ms. Bastos: Absolutely, senators. There are a number of different avenues available. It has been heavily promoted as part of communications that have gone out throughout the pandemic. The mental health committee that was established a couple of years ago is also another vehicle that promotes the services. As part of the onboarding of new staff we go through the benefit options available to them, and that information is available. As well, on our IntraSen site individuals can have access to that information through our health and safety site.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you. We have a very multicultural country now, and families are also very different than the so‑called normal. I was wondering, with the providers that you are looking at, are you also looking at their cultural sensitivity?
Ms. Bastos: Absolutely. We work with providers that typically have a broad network of contacts and counsellors spread out across the country. Based on the needs identified by employees, if there’s a need to have someone with a specific background or profile that would benefit and help the individual, we will solicit that type of service to make sure the consultants that are made available to our employees are able to understand the context and the unique circumstances of individuals. That’s the benefit of having firms that are well spread across the country that have contacts across different specialities and are able to identify resources that are better suited to address some of the cultural sensitivity needs of some of our employees.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: I’ll ask my question in French. It concerns the increased importance of access to mental health services and supportive measures for employees in all sectors. It relates to the transition that could result from a change in service provider.
In your recommendation, you included a two-month extension. I want to make sure that the extension isn’t too conservative in terms of time. We know that the months go by quickly and that a great deal may need to be accomplished during the transition, depending on the circumstances. In your opinion, is two months enough, and even ample time, to ensure that the transition process doesn’t disrupt access to services?
Ms. Bastos: Certainly. I’m happy to answer your question. I can confirm that we added a clause to our contracts. This clause states that, if individuals are already obtaining mental health services, there must be an extension to ensure that they receive proper support. The goal is to avoid risking a service disruption. We required the extension because there may be a change in provider. We want to make sure that our employees will receive proper support and that the services won’t be disrupted as a result of a change in provider. We included these provisions in the current contract to make sure that people receive proper support and to ensure a seamless transition between the providers and the two programs. We want to make sure that there won’t be any gaps or differences in the quality of the services provided to employees.
Senator Forest-Niesing: That’s reassuring. Thank you.
Senator Dupuis: Good morning, Ms. Bastos. In your note, in the third paragraph, you refer to the current contract with Morneau Shepell. This contract started in January 2018 and included two possible extensions of one year each. Why didn’t you choose to pursue these extensions? I gather that you explained that the cost exceeded the amount established by CIBA in 2018. However, why did you re-tender the contract instead of returning to CIBA to request an extension or an increase in the value of the contract?
Ms. Bastos: We did this for efficiency reasons. As I said, we noticed when we looked at our records that the measures implemented didn’t cover the two extension periods. As a result, we would be financially unprepared. We had already covered three years with the current contract and it would have required the same effort to return to the table within a year to negotiate a new contract. Therefore, we determined that it would be more efficient to apply for a renewal and tender a new contract.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I see no other questions. We will now continue with the rest of our public items and formally approve the RFP in camera.
The next item is the sixth report from the Subcommittee on Human Resources. Élise Hurtubise-Loranger, Senior Parliamentary Counsel, will join the meeting to assist in answering questions. As always, this presentation will be followed by time for questions.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I’m pleased to present the sixth report of the subcommittee, which was adopted unanimously. The other subcommittee members are Senator Judith Seidman, Senator Tony Dean and Senator Percy Downe.
In July 2019, amendments to the Canada Labour Code and to the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act came into force, thereby making all parliamentary employers, including the Senate, subject to the federal health and safety framework under Part II of the Canada Labour Code. Further amendments to the code will come into force in the coming months to expand the concept of workplace injuries and illnesses beyond physical health and safety to include occurrences of harassment and violence, as well as psychological injuries and illnesses occurring in the course of employment. As noted in the committee’s fifth report, which I tabled before CIBA on October 22, 2020, the subcommittee is currently reviewing the Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Senate Workplace — the 2020 policy — that was presented to the Senate during the last session of Parliament. We’re reviewing the policy to ensure its compliance with the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations, which are expected to come into force on January 1, 2021.
As required by the regulations, the Senate’s Policy Health and Safety Committee, which is composed of employees and employer’s representatives, will be involved in this process. Specifically, the regulations require that a work place assessment be conducted jointly by the Policy Committee and the employer in order to identify risk factors that contribute to harassment and violence in the work place. Subsequently, the policy on the prevention and resolution of harassment and violence must be jointly developed by the employer and the Policy Committee. For the purposes of Part II of the Canada Labour Code, CIBA represents the employer for all staff of the Senate, including senators’ staff and employees of the Senate Administration. In light of the critical role played by the Policy Committee in conducting the work place assessment and developing the policy on the prevention and resolution of harassment and violence, we’re of the view that the reporting structure of the Policy Committee warrants reconsideration.
I’ll quickly go over the mandate of the Policy Committee. You received the committee’s report. However, I’ll emphasize that the committee participates in the development of work place health and safety policies and programs; that amendments to the Canada Labour Code increase and expand its responsibilities with respect to harassment and violence in the work place; that it plays an important role in the planning and monitoring process; and that it must cooperate with the Labour Minister in terms of the implementation and enforcement of the Canada Labour Code. The Policy Committee isn’t a parliamentary committee or subcommittee. It’s required under the Canada Labour Code and it’s composed of employees and employer representatives. It’s a parity committee. Under the Canada Labour Code, the Senate must have a policy committee.
[English]
I will now explain how the current committee is composed. The current committee — the Senate’s Policy Health and Safety Committee — is composed of both employees and employer representatives. The Labour Code requires that at least half of the members of the Policy Committee must be employees who do not exercise managerial functions. The Labour Code and regulations made under it entitle the Policy Committee to further provide that employees’ representatives must be selected by their unions, if unionized, or their peers if unrepresented. The remaining members of the Policy Committee may represent the employer. The employer has the discretion to select its representatives for the purposes of the Policy Committee.
I will say a few words now on the current members of the Policy Committee. When parliamentary employers became subject to Part II of the Canada Labour Code, which is the case for the Senate and this happened in July 2019, the existing Policy Committee, heavily inspired by the requirements of the Canada Labour Code but created under the Senate’s then policy on occupational health and safety, was continued for the purposes of the code while the Senate Administration prepared a new occupational health and safety policy and processes to ensure the Senate’s compliance with Part II of the Labour Code.
The Policy Committee is currently composed of two Senate Administration managers, currently the Chief Human Resources Officer, Ms. McCullagh, and the Director of Building Operations and Asset Management, two union representatives, one unrepresented employee of the Senate Administration and one senator employee, and this position is currently vacant.
Reporting relationship — and this is what concerned our subcommittee — under Section 9 of the Policy Committees, Work Place Committees and Health and Safety Representatives Regulations, on or before March 1 of each year, the Policy Committee must submit to the Labour Minister an annual report of the committee’s activities during the 12-month period ending on December 31 of the preceding year. These obligations are new for the Senate, as it became subject to the Labour Code in July 2019.
Under the Health and Safety Policy Committee Charter currently in place, the committee must first report on its activities and on disputes it cannot resolve to the executive committee. Given the new reporting requirements, CIBA’s role as the employer for the purposes of Part II of the Labour Code and the increased role played by the Policy Committee with respect to the prevention and resolution of harassment and violence in the Senate workplace, your subcommittee is of the view that the reporting structure should be reconsidered to ensure CIBA’s involvement.
Accordingly, your subcommittee recommends that the Policy Committee continue to report to the executive committee and that, as a member of the executive committee, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel report from time to time on the Policy Committee’s activities to your subcommittee. The chair of your subcommittee will then report to CIBA, as required.
Mr. Chair, I am ready to answer questions.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much, Senator Saint-Germain, for that very informative briefing note that you provided and the report.
In the recommendation, it indicates in the report you’re saying that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel report from time to time to the Human Resources Subcommittee. Was there any discussion with regard to the time frame? I’m curious as to the “time to time.” Is it linked into the annual reporting or did you have something else in mind?
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for the question, Senator Marshall. All this is indeed related to the annual report that must be submitted to the Labour Minister. I think that this type of report must be reviewed by the Human Resources Subcommittee. The subcommittee will certainly submit the report to CIBA before the report is presented to the minister. We’ve also had discussions to ensure that the Law Clerk will keep the Human Resources Subcommittee informed of the key activities of the subcommittee, an important subcommittee when it comes to health and safety and the prevention of harassment and violence in the workplace. As such, this recommendation assumes that a much more comprehensive report will be submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. I’ll wrap up by saying that, when we first asked our questions and made our recommendation, we noted that the current subcommittee hadn’t reported to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration in the past two years.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Senator Saint-Germain, I have two questions. The first concerns the membership of the current Policy Committee. I gather that there was talk of a parity committee, with two Senate directors, two union representatives, one other employee and a senator’s office employee. Is this really a parity committee? There seems to be more staff representatives on the committee than we usually see in a parity committee. Is that right?
Senator Saint-Germain: The committee’s membership is determined by the Canada Labour Code. Under these circumstances, the current membership meets the requirements of the code. The word “parity,” if it must be interpreted as “two equal parts,” is irrelevant because the Canada Labour Code determines the membership. The subcommittee’s goal is to ensure that all positions on the committee are filled. You’ll have noticed that the senators’ staff aren’t represented. The position allocated to them is currently vacant.
Senator Dupuis: Thank you for pointing this out. I had a question about this position. There’s some confusion regarding the process by which senators’ staff are required to appoint a representative to this extremely important Policy Health and Safety Committee.
My other question concerns the report that counsel must submit to the subcommittee. I understand that we don’t want a specific schedule for reporting to the subcommittee. However, shouldn’t we specify that the reporting must be done “from time to time” and also “at the request of the subcommittee?” In other words, if the subcommittee feels that a need exists or if it’s missing information, we don’t want to be told that the timing isn’t right. If we want to establish a clear link with the subcommittee, we should clarify this by adding “from time to time” and “at the request of the subcommittee.”
Senator Saint-Germain: I think that this is an excellent suggestion. We could add the following: “report from time to time, and also at the request of the subcommittee members.”
I want to point out that the subcommittee members work very closely with the Law Clerk and Human Resources Directorate staff. Unless we decide otherwise, they attend all our meetings. We set the agenda and determine our requests. However, your comments are encouraging us to be more cautious. I can assure you that the subcommittee members are very vigilant and that the Human Resources Directorate and the Law Clerk work together in an exemplary manner, which warrants recognition. However, I have no objection to amending the recommendation, subject to the agreement of the subcommittee members and CIBA, by adding “and at the request of the subcommittee.”
Senator Dupuis: You’re giving me the opportunity to specify that this wasn’t at all based on a concern that there would be a bad relationship between the subcommittee and a Policy Committee. All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Everyone is replaced from one day to the next, so what was our goal? This is what we should be clarifying. Thank you.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you. I agree with your comment.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, I see no other questions, so I will move to the motion. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Saint-Germain that this report be adopted. Colleagues, the clerk will now proceed with a roll-call vote.
Ms. Legault: Honourable senators, we will proceed in the same manner as before.
The Honourable Senator Marwah?
Senator Marwah: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest-Niesing?
Senator Forest-Niesing: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Mr. Chair, we have 16 “yes” votes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Colleagues, we’re moving to the last item. Is there any other public business? If not, we shall now suspend briefly and go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)