THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 27, 2021
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met by videoconference this day at 11:30 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. My name is Sabi Marwah, I am a senator from Ontario and I have the privilege to chair the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Today, we will be conducting a virtual meeting that will start in public and then proceed in camera for the second portion.
Before we begin, I would like to remind colleagues of the best practices for a successful meeting. Please keep your microphone muted at all times unless recognized by name to speak. Senators are responsible for turning their microphone on and off during the debate. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of English, French or no simultaneous translation. 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.
I will now introduce the senators who are participating in this meeting: Senator Larry Campbell, British Columbia; Senator Claude Carignan, Quebec; Senator Dennis Dawson, Quebec; Senator Tony Dean, Ontario; Senator Éric Forest, Quebec; Senator Josée Forest-Niesing, Ontario; Senator Raymonde Gagné, Manitoba; Senator Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia; Senator Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Lucie Moncion, Ontario; Senator Jim Munson, Ontario; Senator Don Plett, Manitoba; Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec; Senator Judith Seidman, Quebec; and Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta. Joining us as well are Senator Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia; Senator Ratna Omidvar, Ontario; and Senator Paul Massicotte, Quebec.
Additionally, I welcome everyone across the country who are viewing these proceedings.
Item 1 is the approval of the public minutes from April 1, 2021. It is in your package. Are there any questions or changes? Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the minutes of the proceedings of April 1, 2021, be adopted.
Senator Munson: So moved.
The Chair: So moved by Senator Munson.
I will remind you, colleagues, that votes will proceed in a similar fashion as the hybrid chamber whereby senators who wish to oppose or abstain are provided the opportunity to do so. The absence of any opposition or abstention is interpreted as support for the motion.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? If any senator wishes to oppose or abstain, please raise your hand. Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried.
The next item concerns the creation of an environmental working group. Senator Colin Deacon will lead this presentation. As usual, it will be followed by questions. The floor is yours, Senator Deacon.
Hon. Colin Deacon, Senator, Senate of Canada: Thank you, chair, and thank you, colleagues, for allowing me to speak with you today. I’m pleased to be able to ask you for support for a very simple request, which is to form a working group of four — with representatives from each group in the Senate — to examine the 30-year-old environmental policy of the Senate and to look at it from the perspective of our organization, with the view to create a plan to implement for our organization specific actions over a period of time that will allow us to demonstrate leadership on the issue of climate change.
One of the things we value very much in the Senate is our independence. We are an independent organization, separate from the government, the public service and the House of Commons; we make our own rules. The issue of climate change is one that is facing our country and the world, and has tremendous support across Canada, with 91% of Canadians saying it’s a very serious issue and 88% saying it will impact their lives personally. However, only 17% of Canadians have any confidence that we can actually meet our emissions goals.
One of our biggest jobs is to hold government to account, and if we do not show leadership in doing what we say is necessary, it undermines our ability to question others when they come before us in committee and question legislation as it relates to this issue. This is an existential issue in the world today.
My hope is that you will give our small working group of four the freedom and permission to examine the Senate’s 30-year-old environmental policy, see how it should be updated and come up with a plan to present back to you by the end of December that will allow you to choose whether you want to proceed, as the Senate’s guiding administrative body.
My sense is that there is so much we can do to show that Canadians are capable of making these changes. Each organization in our country will have to make a lot of changes for us to meet any sort of reasonable carbon-reduction targets. As a body that has control over our actions and is proud of the fact we have control over our actions, we should take a leadership position, understand what is possible within our own organization and start to make progress.
I will stop there, because I’m certain there are a lot of questions. I just wanted to frame the conversation and then perhaps expand in answers to the questions I might be provided. Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Deacon. We will start now with questions.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, Senator Deacon. It’s a very laudable initiative that you are bringing up. It’s very timely and important.
Chair, I don’t know if it’s Senator Deacon who would answer this question or someone else, but having read the briefing note, I saw that the Senate is a member of the newly relaunched sustainability precinct working group, a joint initiative with Public Services and Procurement Canada, the Library of Parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate.
Since sustainability initiatives are already being explored in partnership with Public Services and Procurement Canada and are part of the Long Term Vision and Plan, would this initiative be better suited for study by the existing LTVP Subcommittee rather than there being a duplication of the efforts? Also, we have the Energy Committee to look at these issues.
Do we keep replicating advisory committees or use the present structures? I’m not sure if Senator Deacon can answer this or if you can, chair.
The Chair: Senator Deacon, why don’t you make an attempt, and I’ll give my perspective as well.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you for the question, Senator Jaffer. It’s an important one.
At this stage, I don’t know that there are any efforts specifically focusing on what the Senate can change, what policies the Senate Administration can put in place and what policies CIBA can support so that our organization is not beholden to trying to get consensus across the Parliamentary Precinct, but to instead take responsibility for this ourselves and perhaps show leadership that others will replicate to make it easier to make progress in some of these other groups.
My argument would be that I think we need to have the courage to walk the walk, as such, within our own organization. It’s challenging that, despite the rapidly growing recognition of climate change being a major issue, we still have a 30-year-old environmental policy that doesn’t reflect the magnitude of the challenge that’s facing us today. But it does suggest that we should be modifying any procedures that would reduce negative effects on the environment, which we still haven’t done as an organization.
From my standpoint, there is ample reason for us to prioritize this issue, in particular, and to at least start to get to the point where we have a policy and plan that reflects the urgency around this issue.
The Chair: Senator Jaffer, if I could offer my perspective, since CIBA is the administrative body that looks after all management of operations of the Senate, and any changes to address climate issues must be eventually approved by CIBA, it seems to make sense that the working group be part of CIBA and report back to CIBA, who can then decide which changes make sense and which do not.
That was the logic as to why it fell to the working group of CIBA. But we are open to other ideas. That is not the definitive solution but an efficient way to address some of the issues that Senator Deacon is trying to address.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I agree that it is important for the Senate to have an updated environmental policy. That being said, I have read the briefing note and I see that there is already a plan that covers the subject very broadly and that the private sector is already involved. My question is therefore twofold and is based on the importance for the Internal Economy Committee to respect these procurement policies and to respect [Technical difficulties].
[English]
The Chair: Senator Saint-Germain, we are having difficulty hearing you.
I think we’ve lost her connection, so we’ll move on to Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Senator Jaffer already raised some issues probably far better than I could have, but I want to echo, first of all, her concerns.
I also want to suggest that we can strike committee after committee after committee. There are caucuses that can easily put another one or two people on a committee, and there are some caucuses that are smaller and having a much more difficult time. That certainly needs to be taken into consideration.
Of course, nothing is guaranteed, but realistically we are in a situation where, when we rise — whenever it is, June 23 — we may well not be back here until after Christmas. There is a good chance there will be an election. We don’t know what will happen. For us to get something going now, when we are weeks away from rising for a significant period of time, I would really struggle with and I would not be very supportive of.
I think this is a laudable goal, Senator Deacon, and could well be addressed when we come back. The bottom line is that this committee will probably not do a whole lot of work over the next half year, if it would be struck.
I would strongly encourage us to at some point table this, at least until we come back, whenever that would be. Those would be my comments.
Senator Saint-Germain: I will be brief. I’ve read the briefing note and I am astonished by the proposed action items. It looks like decisions have already been made and the study has been prepared.
I would like to know if any private consulting firm has been involved in the preparation of such a plan; if you would consider that the Senate also has internal expertise in this field that could contribute to such a plan, eventually, when it is relevant to work on it; and if you would agree to involve those colleagues — from all groups, by the way — who have expertise in this field.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain. Absolutely, I want to include input from our leadership in the administration, as well as all of my colleagues and their staff, who have a tremendous amount to offer. No work has been done with a consulting firm as yet.
I have just been hoping to get to this point. I know that my first conversations with Senate leadership on this were two years ago, so it has taken quite a while to get to this point.
I take Senator Plett’s concerns that maybe there will be an election, but maybe there won’t be. We have four senators who have said they want to put in the time — Senator Anderson from the Northwest Territories, Senator Carignan from Quebec, Senator Griffin from P.E.I., and myself — to come up with a policy that will reflect the world we’re in today, not the world we were in 30 years ago, and identify possible ways we can move forward that are near-term actionable. Over the longer term, we want to be able to benchmark and provide you with options as to how the Senate could benchmark its current carbon footprint and demonstrate reductions.
There is a whole lot we would want to capture in a plan, and then we would ask for that plan to be resourced through CIBA, in whatever way CIBA sees fit. Wouldn’t it be great if we did have the ability to come up with that policy and plan, and present it to CIBA in February — if Senator Plett is correct — so that it can be actioned and we can move from the point of talking about this issue to demonstrating leadership on this issue, giving ourselves a lot more credibility when we question the government on their ability to deliver?
Does that answer your question, Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes, thank you.
Senator Munson: I want to say to Senator Deacon that I strongly support this initiative. You can talk about collaboration with other groups, about what is happening in the public service and House of Commons and so on, but change can happen from within. No matter the timetable — election, no election — we are running out of time when it comes to dealing with climate change and environmental policies. Why not be at the forefront, leading this exercise from individual senators and groups?
I know there are a lot of questions and that there are other people and other groups doing this and that. However, I think it’s extremely important that we put the Senate’s signature on an initiative like this, so it certainly has my support.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, chair, for recognizing me. I’m not a voting member of this committee, so I appreciate it doubly. CIBA will make a decision on this as it sees fit. My only comment is on process.
I would recommend that if such a committee is struck, then the members of the committee should be named by the groups as opposed to the proponent senator, which in this case is our wonderful, good friend Senator Colin Deacon. In the end, we might come to the same result. However, I think process is process and we are deviating from it considerably in the setting up of these special advisory committees. I believe CIBA functions as well as it does partly because we do stick to due process. That is my modest contribution, chair.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: While I agree with the comments of some of my colleagues about the work that can be done by existing committees, I am prepared to support Senator Deacon’s approach for several reasons. First, if a committee such as this one is incorporated into an existing Senate committee, we know that it will only be able to sit for a short time. In addition, there will be rules that will apply, which will be those of the Senate, whereas an advisory committee would offer greater flexibility. The demand on the Senate’s resources is somewhat less. The scope of the work the committee wants to undertake is much broader than a regulatory committee mandate could allow. Finally, the speed at which this group... The degree of efficiency associated with the work of this committee would differ from that of another committee. I agree with Senator Omidvar’s comment about the appointment to or selection of people for this committee and how that selection was made, but I would be prepared to support an approach like this one for the reasons I’ve listed.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Could we ask the relevant person at the table to remind us about what happens with CIBA advisory working groups if Parliament is dissolved? Do they survive, or do they have to down their tools and stop right away? It seems to me there is something where CIBA carries on. Maybe we could have that clarified.
The Chair: Could I have the two clerks respond to that?
Gérald Lafrenière, Interim Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments, Chief Legislative Services Officer: I’ll take that question. CIBA is one of two committees that continues after dissolution or prorogation. Obviously, that power would also continue with any subcommittees or working groups it would have created before dissolution or prorogation.
The Chair: In other words, the committee work would continue.
Mr. Lafrenière: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you. That answers the first part of my question. So the work could go on, which is excellent. However, one thing concerns me: We must not duplicate our efforts, and we must therefore ensure that the mandate of this working committee does not duplicate what is already being done by the joint committee. I don’t know how we can ensure that the committee’s mandate is clear, that the work is well directed and that there is no duplication. This is also my concern, even if it is an excellent idea.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Deacon, do you have a comment?
Senator C. Deacon: Absolutely, we do not want to duplicate efforts, but I’m not aware of any point at which the Senate is coming up with its own plans that it can implement at its own decision or update its own policy to guide the creation of those plans. This is about us. This is about our policy reflecting the current reality and one of the biggest challenges facing our nation. This is about our ability to develop actions that result in improvements. Then we can, I think, show others that what we’re saying has to be done can be done, and it gives us far more credibility as an organization. This is outside of what we might do together across the entire Parliamentary Precinct. This is just focused on us at this time. I hope that helps, Senator Forest. I very much appreciate your concern because none of us have the time to duplicate efforts.
Senator Massicotte: I read the mandate — the memo attached to your agenda — and it basically deals only with operations relative to its energy efficiency and environmental efficiency, which is good. I have no problem with that. However, some of the comments your committee members made indicate that they obviously see a much broader mandate and want to show examples. Let’s not duplicate our work. I’m sure you are aware there is already a committee at the government level that is responsible for executing and deriving greater efficiency from environmental energy prospects. They are at work. At the Energy Committee, we receive reports on a regular basis that make sure they are performing and getting their job done. They are often late.
I want to make sure we don’t duplicate with a bunch of committees all over the map. I have no problem with the written mandate letter that you propose, but I notice some of the comments were larger than that.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I agree with Senator Moncion on all points. I think it is an important committee. As for its membership, I think that can be left to the discretion of the members or we can adopt another formula where the members of the Committee on Internal Economy decide on the committee’s membership after consultation. My name is there, I agreed with Senator C. Deacon’s approach, and it is something that is close to my heart, but I will not make it a matter of principle. I agree with the committee; as to the committee’s membership, let the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration decide what formula to adopt.
[English]
The Chair: I see no other hands up, colleagues. The other point I would make is this is really not a committee but a working group of CIBA. It has limited life and a very specific mandate as defined in the terms of reference of the working group.
Senator Deacon, we have two choices. Would you like to proceed with a vote, or would you like to reflect on any changes you may want to make to your terms of reference and come back to CIBA at some point?
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much for offering the opportunity of that question. I would like to proceed and will be very carefully following the mandate as written.
The Chair: We shall then proceed to a vote. Colleagues, should we just take it as a voice vote, or would you like to proceed with a formal vote?
I will read out the terms of reference. The terms of reference are:
That the Advisory Working Group on Environment and Sustainability be established and authorized to:
1. Examine and report on the Environmental Policy of the Senate; and
2. Identify short, medium and long-term actions that could be taken in the operations of the Senate to contribute to its commitment to sustainability;
That the advisory working group be composed of 4 senators working collectively;
That the following senators be named as members of the advisory working group:
The Honourable Senator Anderson;
The Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C.;
The Honourable Senator Griffin; and
The Honourable Senator Deacon (Nova Scotia);
That the advisory working group be empowered to elect a chair; and
That the advisory working group report its findings to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration no later than December 31, 2021.
May I have a senator move the motion, please?
Senator Moncion: I so move.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Moncion. If any senator wishes to oppose or abstain, please raise your hand.
I see no objections. I declare the motion carried. Thank you, Senator Deacon and senators.
We’ll move on to the next item. Item 3 concerns the corporate travel credit card procurement process. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, will now join the meeting by video conference as a witness.
[Translation]
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, I am seeking your approval to proceed with a competitive procurement process and award a contract to a credit card provider for travel credit cards for senators and a limited number of Senate Administration employees.
We are looking to put in place a contract for a period of five years, plus three additional one-year option periods.
Our current contract with American Express expires on September 30, 2021. Presently, approximately 100 credit cards are used within the Senate. Over the last four years, with the exception of last year, which saw reduced travel due to the pandemic, the annual amount of transactions charged to the travel cards was, on average, $3.5 million.
[English]
There is currently no cost to the Senate for the use of corporate travel credit cards. However, many credit card companies now offer corporate cashback rewards based on the volume of transactions and early payments. Members of the CIBA steering committee recommended that corporate cashback rewards be one of the mandatory requirements for the next procurement process.
The ability to electronically transfer transaction data to the Senate expense claims system and the need for the supplier to maintain the electronic records in Canada are also other mandatory requirements that will be included in the procurement process.
This concludes my request. I would be pleased to answer any questions and to take your comments.
The Chair: Are there any questions for the CFO? I see no hands up. Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Administration initiate a competitive procurement process, to enter into a formal agreement with a commercial firm to provide travel credit cards for a five-year period and three one-year options;
That the Administration present the results of the process to CIBA; and
That a mandatory requirement for this competitive procurement process be the corporate cash back.
Senator Marshall moves the motion. If any senator wishes to abstain, please raise your hand. Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried. Thank you, Pierre.
The next item is concerning an amendment to the Senators’ Office Management Policy, or SOMP, to provide clarity regarding parliamentary functions carried out through third parties. David Groves, Legal Counsel, will now join the meeting by video conference as a witness.
Mr. Lanctôt and Mr. Groves, please begin.
Mr. Lanctôt: Honourable senators, we’re seeking your approval to proceed with an amendment to SOMP to clarify existing requirements and make updates in relation to the use of third parties in support of a senator’s parliamentary functions.
Following an assessment of the eligibility of expenses incurred in connection with the use of a third party to support a senator’s parliamentary functions, the steering committee asked Finance and Procurement and the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to examine the issue and provide recommendations to make SOMP clearer in this regard.
Presently, SOMP does not have clear rules on the use of resources for external third parties. More specifically, SOMP does not specify whether a senator can provide funding, human resources, and/or Senate-purchased goods and services to an affiliated third party in support of the parliamentary function. SOMP provisions are currently limited to partisan activities and fundraising.
Also, SOMP does not specify whether senators may use entities, including those they create themselves, to support their parliamentary functions.
However, subsection 1(1) of chapter 3:01 of the Senate Administrative Rules clearly states that the Senate resources shall be used only for either “the parliamentary functions of Senators” or “the service of the Senate.”
Subsection 1(2) explicitly states that “No person shall use a Senate resource” except for those two purposes. As such, the use of Senate resources, including office budgets and resources, to support third parties is prohibited.
[Translation]
To add greater clarity on the use of Senate resources for a third party, we propose that subsection 5.18.3, entitled “Fundraising,” under section 5.18, “Partisan Activities,” be removed from Senators’ Office Management Policy, the SOMP, and that two new subsections, 5.21 and 5.22, be added:
5.21 Fundraising, donations and contributions to third parties (person, cause or organization)
Senate resources cannot be used to:
a) purchase admission or raffle tickets for fundraising events;
b) purchase goods or services for any third party;
c) make donations, sponsorships or contributions of any kind for the benefit of a third party; or
d) perform tasks and activities for third parties.
5.22 Use of a third party to support parliamentary functions
Senators may not use Senate resources (human resources, funding, assets, goods, services and premises) to conduct their parliamentary functions through a third party or provide Senate resources to such an entity. For the purpose of this paragraph, a third party may include an entity without legal structure or an organization used as a communication or branding method, which may provide the perception that it is a separate organization.
If approved, the amendments will be made to SOMP as of July 1, 2021.
This concludes our presentation. David and I will be pleased to answer your questions and receive your comments.
Senator Moncion: Mr. Lanctôt, you mentioned July 1; in the document, it says June 1. Could you just clarify that?
Mr. Lanctôt: I guess the document was prepared earlier and, since the meetings were postponed, July 1 is the right date, because we are at the end of May already.
Senator Moncion: Very well, thank you.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Thank you for that information, Mr. Lanctôt. I would like to ask a question about the use of premises.
With regard to the new subsection 5.22, can you clarify, in practical terms, or even give an example of a situation that could be envisaged with regard to the inclusion of the use of premises?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you for the question. It would mean, for example, allocating office space for a temporary or permanent period to an organization or a third party to carry out certain tasks related to the organization’s activities. In this case, there is no reference to the fact that senators hold activities in the premises from time to time; that is not what this provision is about; it is about lending premises to third parties for their use.
Senator Forest-Niesing: So, clearly, there is nothing to prevent a senator from hosting a reception and welcoming a group to the Senate premises. This would not be included in the prohibitions in the new subsection 5.22.
Mr. Lanctôt: No. In fact, I think there is a specific policy on the use of premises that allows for the kinds of activities you are talking about. This is about lending premises to a third party for an event other than the one you mentioned, which would be an event organized by a senator.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Thank you for this clarification.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, I see no other hands up, so I will read the motion:
That the proposed update to the Senators’ Office Management Policy be approved and that the Administration be authorized to amend the SOMP as of July 1, 2021.
Senator Munson moves the motion. If any senator wishes to oppose or abstain, please raise your hand. Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried.
Colleagues, is there any other public business before we go in camera? If not, I will ask the clerk to advise members once we are in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)