THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 3, 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 Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Today, we will be conducting a virtual meeting that will start in public. The second portion of the meeting will be held in camera.
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 microphones 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 would now like to 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, although I believe she may be joining us late; 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, Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta. Also joining the meeting is Senator Patricia Bovey from Manitoba. I understand Senator Ratna Omidvar from Ontario will also be present.
Welcome to everyone viewing these proceedings across the country.
Honourable senators, the first item is the approval of the public minutes from May 27, 2001, which is in your package. Are there any questions or changes?
If not, may I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Minutes of Proceedings of Thursday, May 27, 2021, be adopted.
Senator Campbell: So moved.
The Chair: Senator Campbell moves the motion.
I remind colleagues that votes will proceed in a similar fashion as the hybrid chamber, whereby senators who wish to oppose or abstain are provided with an 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.
I see no objections. I declare the motion carried.
Honourable senators, the next item is a report from the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group. Senator Bovey, chair of the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group, will present the report.
Caroline Morency, Director General of Property and Services, and Tamara Dolan, Curator, Heritage and Curatorial Services, will also join the meeting by video conference to assist in answering questions. Of course, the presentation will be followed by time for questions.
Senator Bovey, the floor is yours.
Senator Bovey: I want to thank the committee for inviting me to give the update of the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group. I begin by thanking my members of the committee, Senator Forest-Niesing, Senator White and Senator Stewart Olsen. We’ve been busy. It’s a real pleasure to bring you up to speed with an update on the four initiatives you endorsed us to move forward with this year. I can tell you they are important, and they have had huge public reaction, far greater than I had ever dared expect. Let me give you a brief update.
I’ll start with our national curatorial interpretation of works in the Senate collection. As you know, with funding from CIBA, our working group invited 13 curators, one from each province and territory, to write about an artwork, an artifact or a piece of furniture in the Senate collection on public view.
Senator Marshall, I know you were concerned about our timeline, and I want to say those 13 curators not only wrote excellent essays, but they got them in before the March 31, 2021, deadline.
Eight of the curators were women. One was Inuit; one was Mi’kmaq. Some were emerging; some were experienced. Two chose objects — the Black Rod itself and the bench. One chose the metal photo murals. Six chose works by Indigenous artists, one being Inuit. Two chose Speakers’ portraits. One chose a piece of sculpture.
The essays and images will go online bilingually, with one also in Inuktitut and one in Mi’kmaq. They will be online on June 14.
I thank all writers, all the artists for their copyright permissions, Tamara Dolan for her assistance, and the translators and the editors. It’s been a good outreach and a good-news project. At our next meeting, we will begin to think of the next 13 writers from the provinces and territories.
The next project I want to talk about is museums at the Senate. We have requested monies for two. We received monies for one. For the inaugural year of our museums in the Senate program, our committee has had confirmation that Committee Room B30 will be installed this September with Inuit works from the Nunavut collection, which is being stewarded by the Winnipeg Art Gallery. The Winnipeg Art Gallery’s Indigenous curator is currently selecting six to eight works, and we should know those details very soon.
Our goal is to build bridges between North and South while honouring the opening of Quamajuq, the Inuit art centre at the Winnipeg Art Gallery. In future years, we will balance museums with art galleries from across the country and, of course, we hope we’ll be able to move it so we can have two per year.
The next piece of news that I want to talk about is honouring Canada’s Black artists. As you know, our first installation is up. This has garnered not only national support but very positive international support.
I have been in touch with Black artists and Black curators across the country. We will have a new installation in September. I don’t have details for you now, but we’ll have an update that we can discuss at our next advisory working group meeting.
The fourth project that you funded was our Indigenous artwork gap analysis. With that, we contracted the Audain Senior Curator of Indigenous Art at the National Gallery of Canada, Greg Hill, to review our Senate practices for displaying Indigenous artwork and give us a report on the status. I believe you have a copy of that report, so I’m not going to go into detail, but I do want to say that the number of works of Indigenous artists held by the Senate is 22; 16 are on display. Among those 16, we have 5 Inuit and 1 Métis.
Greg Hill did a really interesting analysis per decade and, interestingly, there’s nothing from the current decade. We have paintings, prints and sculptures. We have no video, no photography.
You can read the other details, but there’s one other step that I want to give you before I talk about a couple of things where we’d like your support.
Of the artists, one is from British Columbia, three from Alberta, two from Saskatchewan, none from Manitoba, three from Ontario, three from Quebec, none from New Brunswick, none from Nova Scotia, none from Prince Edward Island and none from Newfoundland and Labrador. So I have to contend, colleagues, that we have neither a regional nor a date representation, nor do we have nations’ representation.
You will see that Greg gave us a number of recommendations, 19 to be precise. I would really like it if you could formally table this report today. There are several recommendations I would like to comment on.
First of all, Greg strongly advises that we change the name of our Aboriginal Peoples Committee Room to the “Indigenous Peoples Committee Room,” which includes Inuit and Métis.
We would be very grateful as a committee to have the concurrence of CIBA to make that name change. I think it’s particularly fitting in the week that we’re currently living in.
He also suggested that we make use of other spaces that the Senate has in our office buildings, as well as in the Senate of Canada Building itself, to present more Indigenous work. As soon as we’re allowed into spaces, we’ll begin an assessment of where else we might be able to exhibit Indigenous work.
He’s recommending that we have an Indigenous advisory group to consult and provide direction. He’s suggesting that we define objectives for the collection and display of Indigenous art and develop criteria for the collection of Indigenous work. I believe those are things that we can do and we will pick up as a committee.
I’m happy to answer any questions on the other recommendations; some of them are obviously for forward-planning purposes.
Mr. Chair, as far as those four projects are concerned, the approval we would appreciate is the tabling of the report and, for now, the name change of the Aboriginal Peoples Committee Room.
However, I have more to report, if I may. We would appreciate support and approval from this committee with our annual request of conservation. We’re forecasting our conservation budget for this year, as you know, to be $95,850 with an additional $14,150 in contingency. We’re coming forward with the recommendation that we focus our conservation funds this year on artwork and not split it between artwork and heritage furniture, because the furniture in the Senate Chamber hasn’t been used to the degree it has been before, so this is an opportunity to catch up with some of the conservation work itself.
We’re aware that flexibility is needed because we can only move work in and out according to COVID restrictions.
So we’re seeking approval to contract the forecast scope of work in the restoration work and for what we need to do with furniture so we can move forward as we are allowed to.
The next issue I want to bring up is our policy. I’ve been promising you a draft policy for some time. Between prorogation, elections and all, I’m really delighted that we’re able to come forward now with the policy that has the approval of the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group. The last policy that was approved by the Senate was in 2000. By my calculation, that’s 21 years ago, which means it’s a whole generation ago. Our goal in doing this, obviously, has been to establish a clear governance structure, to clarify our roles and responsibilities and to make sure that the collections and work management practices of the Senate are up to date for museological standards because we do engage with artists and institutions across the country.
We have refined the collection objectives and acquisitions process. Senator Tannas will be pleased that we have included a deaccessioning process. At our budget meeting, I remember he asked the question about the Speaker’s dishes in particular. Once this policy is endorsed, we will be talking at our committee about how we might be able to move some of those into regions where the Speakers had originally come from.
We’ve also updated the language around tax receipts. Obviously, the Senate does not give the tax receipts, but because our donations go through the National Capital Commission, they are the ones who issue tax receipts. We’ve articulated the fact that we do have a responsibility, as we look at the works to recommend to you for acquisition, that we have proper up-to-date evaluations that can go with the works to the NCC or that they will get them, and that the policies are properly done.
We’ve updated loan policies as well and, as I said, our key goal was to make sure that our standards and management practices are indeed up to national and international standards.
There is one other thing I’m going to bring up now before I request that you approve this policy — knowing that any policy is only valid as long as you can update it as things change — is that we’ve also included a repatriation policy, which is absolutely critical now, particularly with what’s going on in Indigenous communities. I think that as the Senate, as the higher chamber, the chamber of sober second thought, we respect and understand these issues that are absolutely critical in our Indigenous communities, and that we are ready to honour those kinds of requests should they come and you can’t honour them if you don’t have a process.
Mr. Chair, I think I’ve said what needs to be said by way of update and introduction. I’m happy to answer any questions. I know Tamara and Carolyn will be happy to answer those that I’m incapable of answering.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, Senator Bovey. That was an excellent presentation.
The first question is on the money. Are the costs for those projects going to be paid for out of the funding that has already been approved, or —
Senator Bovey: Yes. I’m not asking for new funding now. I’m reporting on the funding that you gave us and our cutback to meet the envelope you gave us was to do one museum in the Senate, not two.
Senator Marshall: That’s great. Thank you. The other question is on the geographical representation. We are Newfoundland and Labrador. You don’t have any works by First Nation artists. What would be the proper protocol if the senators have recommendations? I can certainly send in some suggestions. Would that be to yourself or would it be to the entire committee? What would be the proper protocol?
Senator Bovey: Senator, if you want to send them my way, our next meeting will be later this month, I hope. I’m not sure we’ve completely tied down a date yet. This will be under discussion and I think, honestly, we need to do it in the context of the recommendation from Greg Hill that we have some Indigenous curators to — I don’t want to say advise us on this, maybe that’s not the word, but to assist us on it.
We don’t have Indigenous curatorial membership on our committee. We have Indigenous and we have curatorial, but we don’t have it all in the same person. I would like to recommend three or four people from across the country who can serve as a sounding board for us so that for names that come forward, we can bring forward in a wider context.
Senator Marshall: Thank you. Newfoundland and Labrador has a big artistic community, including Indigenous artists. I certainly would like to see us represented.
Senator Bovey: I would like a few Manitobans as well, if I can be geographical about this. It seems that one of the provinces with the largest demographic of Indigenous people not having an Indigenous work in the Senate is a little bit of a gap. We’ve got gaps to fill.
The Chair: Given the gap in Manitoba, I’m sure Senator Plett has always wanted to make recommendations on artists from Manitoba. I’m sure he will be forwarding some names for Manitoba as well.
Senator Bovey, I have two questions. First is on the restoration itself, is the $85,000 going to be sole-sourced, or is that too small to be sole-sourced? Is it going to be tendered? How are we going to decide how we approve who restores those paintings?
Senator Bovey: I’m going to start and then I’ll ask Tamara to carry on. It is dependent, in part, on the works that are top of the line and top of our priority list to make sure we have the right technical conservator doing the work.
Tamara, I will turn it over to you, if I may, to be more specific.
Tamara Dolan, Curator, Heritage and Curatorial Services, Senate of Canada: Absolutely. I can provide a little more context. About two years ago, CIBA approved putting in place a competitive process where we would have a contract in place with prequalified vendors. We have a number of vendors who are pre-qualified. Then using a competitive process we can call up the appropriate skill sets for the work that’s required.
In terms of determining if it’s going to be competitive or sole-sourced, we would work with Procurement and look at the value of the contract, and then we use the appropriate contracting mechanisms that are in place for the scope of work.
The Chair: That’s very helpful. Thank you.
The second question relates to the Senate’s Policy on Heritage Assets and Works of Art, Senator Bovey. A number of sections in it pertain to the Speaker. Has the Speaker reviewed this policy and is he comfortable with the recommendations you are making in the policy?
Senator Bovey: Yes, the Speaker’s Office has reviewed this, as has Senate Administration. Again, I’m going to ask Tamara to fill in more details.
Ms. Dolan: To reiterate what Senator Bovey said, the policy sections pertaining to the Speaker’s Office were brought to their attention and they reviewed and approved the wording. Similarly, because the policy does touch on the Senate Administration, it was reviewed through the Senate Administration’s process and ultimately approved by the executive in April.
The Chair: Thank you. The last question I had on the policy relates to who is responsible for implementing the policy and ensuring the policy is, in fact, being followed. As you know, policies are only as good as how well you implement them. Tamara, is it your responsibility to ensure this is implemented appropriately and maintained?
Ms. Dolan: Yes. Certainly, for our working areas, it would be my responsibility to ensure that the way we operate follows this policy. Of course, everyone at the Senate uses the Heritage Collection in different ways. Everyone at the Senate has certain responsibilities to ensure that when they are using heritage furniture or when we’re looking at how the artwork is being managed, that they are adhering to the policy. We’ll work with Senator Bovey and the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group to ensure that the policy is being followed at the Senate.
Senator Bovey: If I may add to that, I want to thank the committee. The committee has done a lot of work on this. We spent several meetings wordsmithing and testing, so I want to thank them for that.
I believe the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group needs to be on top of this and monitor it on an ongoing basis. I’m delighted that we have this to work with. As I said, I hope CIBA will approve it.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. I’m going to count on the artwork working group to ensure it stays on top of the implementation and that things are done according to the policy.
Colleagues, I see no other questions. Could I have a mover for the following motion:
That the report of Mr. Greg Hill be tabled before the committee;
That the name of the Aboriginal Peoples Room be changed to the Indigenous Peoples Committee Room;
That the proposed Policy on Artwork and Heritage Assets be approved; and
That $95,850 be approved for restoration and repair of the Senate’s Artwork and Heritage Collection for the 2021-22 fiscal year, with a $14,150 contingency.
Senator Forest-Niesing, since you are on the committee, could you move the motion?
Senator Forest-Niesing: I’m happy to do that.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Forest-Niesing.
Those who wish to oppose or abstain, please raise your hand.
Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried. Thank you, Senator Bovey, Tamara and Carolyn.
Senator Bovey: I would like to thank the committee for their support and their interest in this. It’s very exciting.
The Chair: Moving to Item 3, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure concerning the adoption of a revised Senate Room Allocation Policy. Steering has reviewed the proposed policy and is now recommending its approval. Caroline will also assist with this item.
Caroline, you may begin your presentation and highlight some of the key changes, if possible. Thank you.
[Translation]
Caroline Morency, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable Senators, as part of the initiative to update Senate policies, the Property and Services Directorate has examined the room allocation policy and determined that some parts warranted better definition, particularly of its requirements in terms of roles and responsibilities.
Today, I am pleased to present to you with a summary of the changes we have made to the policy in consultation with the parties involved. The text of the policy has been harmonized with the text of the Senate Administrative Rules, such that Senate resources, including rooms and facilities, must be used for the parliamentary functions of senators and in the service of the Senate. The steering committee of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration may, on an exceptional basis, approve the use of a room or a facility for other purposes, with the exception of the rooms allocated to the Speaker of the Senate. If such a use results in incremental costs for the Senate, the policy provides for those costs to be recovered according to a schedule of standard amounts to be approved by the executive committee. The requirements of the policy have been made more specific as to: the conditions governing the use of Senate rooms and facilities, the appropriate authorities for decisions on the use of rooms, and the priorities in the event of multiple requests for the use of a room or facility during the same time period.
[English]
The use of Senate premises by third parties is better regulated. In addition, a user or sponsor who is not a senator or a member of the Senate Administration is required to sign a declaration acknowledging the conditions governing the use of Senate rooms and facilities.
Provisions related to alcohol have been enhanced. Only those who have completed the Smart Serve training offered by the Government of Ontario, or an equivalent training offered by another province, will now be allowed to serve alcohol.
Animals will continue to be allowed on the condition that the CIBA steering committee or the executive committee, as appropriate, authorizes it. Service animals will be allowed at all times.
We’re now seeking CIBA’s approval to adopt the new policy and that it takes effect immediately. If adopted, the Property and Services Directorate will issue a communiqué to all senators and senators’ staff to inform them of the updated policy.
Thank you for your attention. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I have two questions. The first is about point 3, in the section on Indemnity, which can be found on page 15 of 17 of the document and deals with the use of the rooms. The section says this:
Every user of a Senate room or facility under the Senate Room Allocation Policy shall indemnify the Senate and, if applicable, any sponsor and save them from harm and against all losses, claims, actions, damages…
I have some questions for you about the insurance that should cover that kind of situation. That is my first question.
Here is my second question. On page 17, point 9, dealing with sponsorship, although the policy is specific in certain respects, it might be good to clarify that the sponsor of an event must be present from start to finish of that event. I actually feel that this is not always the case and I am not sure whether people are really aware. So we should make sure we communicate that information better.
However, my first question is about insurance.
Ms. Morency: Thank you for the question, Senator.
To answer your first question about indemnities, we did indeed include this provision in the policy. The recommendation was made in consultation with our legal services, the office of the law clerk. The Senate is self-insured. When you mention insurance, are you referring to the users, who might have their own insurance policies, or are you referring to the Senate, that has no insurance?
Senator Moncion: I am referring to the Senate, which should be insured like any other business. In the private sector, there are liability insurance policies that cover exceptional cases where an incident at an event could result in losses. Here, we seem to be saying that we do not have insurance like that, and whatever we may do as senators, we are always responsible for everything. So money would have to be paid out in the event of harm at an organized event. I would like to know why there is a two-tier system when it comes to protecting parliamentarians, given that, when we are not acting as parliamentarians, protection exists.
Ms. Morency: Thank you for those clarifications. It is an excellent question. I will have to consult the office of the law clerk for an answer because, to my knowledge, the Senate is self-insured. However, I understand your point of view, Senator. We will have to check everything and we will come back to you with an answer as to the possibility of including that kind of indemnity in the policy.
Senator Moncion: It actually looks like the burden is always on the shoulders of the senators. It is as if we are less protected than a regular member of the public. If you look at our position as senators, it’s like that in everything. I find that a little absurd, especially when you consider our position and the work we do. We seem to be less protected than a member of the general public who is not part of the Senate or the House of Commons.
Ms. Morency: Thank you for your clarifications. As to your second question, I’d also like to mention that we will make sure that the provision is well understood when we send out our information. The provision stipulating that the senator must be present for the entire duration of the event will be emphasized in the communication.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Thank you, Ms. Morency. I have two questions. The first is about point 1.6.2.1, about reservations. It is on page 4. Specifically, paragraph 3 says the following:
Reservations for recurring meetings may only be made for sitting weeks of a parliamentary session…
That’s fine, but you specify that it is not possible to reserve more than a month in advance. Here’s the question I am asking myself: particularly for recurring meetings, why are we sacrificing efficiency to impose or keep this condition? If you can explain that, I’ll also have a second question for you.
Ms. Morency: Thank you for the question, Senator. Actually that provision was put into the policy because, when meetings do not happen, we are not always informed of the cancellation. That causes problems in the sense that, if someone else wanted to reserve the room, it had already been reserved, but sometimes there was no meeting in it. That is one of the reasons why this provision was added to the policy.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I wonder whether, in practical terms, it would be possible—especially for recurring meetings—to indicate the frequency of a group’s meetings so as to avoid the possibility of having to reorganize an already crowded schedule.
Ms. Morency: I understand, yes.
Senator Forest-Niesing: That is the first point. The second point is about any plan you may have to deal with the lack of simultaneous interpretation resources we are currently experiencing. We need simultaneous interpretation for meetings other than Senate sittings, official committee meetings, or meetings of recognized Senate groups or caucuses.
During the pandemic, a huge number of activities have been organized by groups of senators interested in a particular subject, such as working groups. A number of them have had to do without interpretation services. When we have guests, that can turn into a somewhat embarrassing problem, especially in the Senate of Canada. I would like to know what is intended in terms of simultaneous interpretation for every Senate meeting, including working groups.
Ms. Morency: Thank you for that excellent question. We did not focus on that part of the policy in particular, but I am making a note of your question and we will come back to you with a more detailed plan. You are right to say that interpretation is always an issue. We sometimes have a number of events at the same time and the resources are limited. It is an excellent point. We will come back to you with a plan to address it.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Thank you, that would be very much appreciated.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: I would like clarification on being bumped out. If we have a reservation for a committee room — and I looked at the different categories — you can get bumped out.
I often have a large group of students or people who come. If at the last minute they were to get bumped out, that concerns me. I knew that even before this policy existed, and it has always made me very nervous. Could we get more clarification on that, please?
Ms. Morency: Thank you, senator. The room allocation group would work with you to determine if there is any other facility that would be available at the same time. It may not be the exact room that you had reserved, but we would work with you to find an alternate solution when those instances arise.
Senator Jaffer: That’s reassuring. That they would work with me is great, but there should be something in place when there are big groups. What if there wasn’t another room? It doesn’t look good for the Senate to cancel any group function.
This policy existed before as well. I have always been nervous when I have an event because getting bumped out is a serious matter when you have an event. I have great concerns about that.
Caroline, you’re very reassuring when you say you would work with us; you always have. I have never had an issue, but what if you can’t find a room? That has always been a worry for me.
The Chair: Colleagues, I see no other hands up. We have three issues that Caroline is going to follow up on. I’m not sure whether we wish to proceed with this or should we proceed with this subject to Caroline getting back to the three senators on the questions that they raised? I see no objection. Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Ninth Report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be adopted.
Could one of my colleagues on steering move the motion?
Senator Munson: So moved.
The Chair: Senator Munson moved the motion. If any senator wishes to oppose or abstain, please raise your hand. I see no objections. I declare the motion carried.
Caroline, please get back to the senators on the questions that they raised with you.
Ms. Morency: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, the next item concerns the competitive process for the purchase of multipurpose paper and specialty paper. Caroline will assist with this item.
Caroline, you may begin.
Ms. Morency: Honourable senators, today I am seeking your approval to undertake a competitive process to establish a new standing offer for the purchase of multipurpose paper and specialty paper over a three-year period with two option years.
My directorate provides multipurpose paper required for individual and general office use in the Senate-occupied premises, as well as standard and specialty paper, and miscellaneous paper products such as envelopes, letterheads, business cards and holiday cards for use by the Printing Services Unit when executing custom and large printing requests.
The value of the contract is based on historical expenditures and pre-pandemic consumption rates. We have also considered current inventory levels and have accounted for a potential reduction of paper requirements following the implementation of cost-saving measures for the Senate Administration and also includes a contingency for potential price increases.
The existing contract or standing offer expires on October 31, 2021. The funds for this request are already allocated within the current Property and Services Directorate budget. We are now seeking your approval to proceed.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time. Thank you, chair.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I agree that we should move forward. I still have a question. We are doing more and more work by video conference and we are using a huge amount of paper, even though we try to keep the environment in mind. If the suppliers had points of sale, could these prices apply? For example, if I buy office supplies at one of their points of sale, would it be possible to have it as part of the deal, so that we can pay the same prices? Or do we have to order it directly from our offices in Ottawa?
Ms. Morency: Thank you for the question. At this time, we did not consider including that possibility in the call for tenders. Of course, we can look at what is possible with our Finance and Procurement Directorate to see whether it would allow us to have such a wide range of suppliers and still obtain reasonable prices.
All requests for paper will be forwarded to my unit or to the Property and Services Directorate. Then everything will be distributed to the offices. That will allow us to monitor the use of paper.
We will have to look at it all, but I am making a note of the question. If there is a way to respond to those concerns, and if the need arises in the next months or years—because we don’t know exactly how the situation will develop—we could study it, Senator Forest. Thank you for the question.
[English]
The Chair: I see no other hands up. Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That Senate Administration proceed with the competitive procurement process to establish a standing offer for —
Pascale Legault, Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Chair, I am sorry, but I was wondering if we could make this decision in camera because there is an amount involved.
The Chair: You’re right, Pascale, we should make the recommendation in camera. We’ll move on to the next item, which is Item 5. This is a request to extend the deadline for the report from the advisory working group on diversity and inclusion training.
As you all know, CIBA approved the mandate of the working group on April 1, and the deadline for the terms of reference was set to expire on June 30, 2021. Given the disruptions caused by the pandemic, and that committees and working groups did not sit for an extended period of time, Senator Moodie is requesting that deadline be extended to September 30, 2021.
Accordingly, can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the reporting date of the Advisory Working Group on Diversity and Inclusion Training be extended from June 30, 2021 to September 30, 2021.
Senator Jaffer: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Jaffer. If any senator wishes to oppose or abstain, please raise your hand. Seeing no objection, I declare the motion carried. Are there any other public items, colleagues, before we move in camera?
Senator Plett: I was asked to raise a matter here in other matters, although it is my preference to do this in camera.
The Chair: I agree, Senator Plett. That’s why I did not raise it. I will raise it and other matters in camera.
Senator Plett: That’s fine.
The Chair: Colleagues, if there is no other public business, we will go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)