THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 15, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met with videoconference this day at 8 a.m. [ET] pursuant to rule 12-7(1) to consider financial and administrative matters.
Senator Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I am Lucie Moncion, senator from Ontario, and I have the privilege of chairing the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
I would like to introduce the senators who are participating in this meeting: Senator Patricia Bovey,Manitoba; Senator Yvonne Boyer,Ontario; Senator Claude Carignan, P.C., Quebec, who is expected to join us shortly; Senator Dennis Dawson, Quebec; Senator Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia; Senator Tony Dean, Ontario, who is also expected to join us shortly; Senator Tony Loffreda, Quebec; Senator Yonah Martin, British Columbia, who will be joining us shortly; Senator Donald Plett, Manitoba; Senator Jim Quinn, New Brunswick; Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec; Senator Judith Seidman, Quebec; Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta; Senator Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
I welcome all those who are following our proceedings across the country.
I also welcome all the staff who are with us this morning and who are accompanying us for this hour of our meeting. Indeed, this morning the meeting will be held from eight to nine o’clock. We will see how far we can get with the agenda in the hour we have for this meeting.
Honourable senators, the first item of business is the approval of the minutes of the meeting of December 1, 2022, which is in your packet. Are there any questions or changes to the minutes?
[English]
Senator Seidman: I have a question. On page 2 at the bottom, I note that we had a discussion about notations made prior to the end of each month — that section 3.7.3 of SOMP be amended. The quote here is:
When practicable, regular employees shall enter all requests for paid leave in the approved electronic management system in advance of senators’ or chief of staffs’ approval. All leave must be entered prior to the end of the month.
Do you remember that we had that conversation? But what I noticed — for whatever reason, and maybe there is a reason — is that it doesn’t carry through in the next two paragraphs.
So if you look at paid leave, it’s done. However, for unpaid leave, it still says “prior to the end of the fiscal year,” and for compensatory leave, it also says “prior to the end of the fiscal year.”
I’m wondering why it’s not consistent for all three types of leave and that it doesn’t say “prior to the end of the month.” This would be much more helpful for everyone as opposed to suddenly being surprised with the statement “prior to the end of the fiscal year.”
The Chair: We agree, and we have an understanding with HR that they will be coming back with new wording in February, if that is acceptable to you.
Senator Seidman: Absolutely. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments, colleagues, on the minutes? If not, could I have a mover? Senator Plett moves the motion. Are we all in agreement, colleagues, that the minutes be approved?
Thank you. The motion is carried.
The next item on our agenda is the eleventh report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets regarding the Main Estimates for 2023-24. Senator Tannas, a member of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates, will present the report. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, and Nathalie Charpentier, Comptroller and Deputy Chief Financial Officer, will assist with this item. Senator Tannas, you may begin your opening remarks, and we will go to question period after this.
Senator Tannas: I’m going to read the report into the record. I think it’s important that we do so with budget matters. And then, before we go to questions, I’m going to propose a couple of concurrent actions that could be taken as we adopt the report.
The Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its eleventh report.
Your subcommittee was mandated by CIBA on February 10, 2022, to examine and report on financial matters, including any proposed estimates, keeping in mind the necessity for the Senate and its administration to demonstrate responsible management of the public funds that are allocated to the institution.
As part of this mandate, your subcommittee, consisting of Senators Bovey, Marshall, Moncion, Moodie and Tannas, met in hybrid mode on November 29, 2022, to review funding requirements for the 2023-24 Senate estimates.
Two documents were prepared for the subcommittee members: Proposed Main Estimates for 2023-24 and changes in required funding, which included funding requests, and the Directorate Executive Overviews.
During its meeting, your subcommittee heard testimony from a total of 13 individuals, including representatives from the Executive Committee. Your subcommittee thanks all these individuals for their comprehensive and focused presentations.
The Main Estimates have been prepared in light of a new economic and operational reality resulting from two years of a pandemic that has had a significant impact on the operational activities of the Senate. Based on the planning assumptions that there will be an average of 100 senators during the fiscal year, that the parliamentary calendar and Senate operations will be similar to a normal year and that the effects of the pandemic on operations will be minimal, the proposed budget is based on the following principles: maintaining high-quality service to senators and the sound management of public funds in the context of the pandemic and post-pandemic recovery.
Throughout its study, the subcommittee considered the impact of the pandemic on the operations of the Senate as a whole. Your subcommittee is also mindful of the Canadian economic situation and wishes to emphasize the importance of balancing operational needs and quality of service to senators with good stewardship of public funds.
In the course of its deliberations, your subcommittee identified a number of key elements that it believes should be emphasized to ensure continuity in the development and assessment of future financial requirements.
The first is the impact of the pandemic on Senate resources. Your subcommittee heard testimony from directors and executive committee members about the challenges of staff retention and overtime management. In the face of the new realities of working during a pandemic and in the context of a post-pandemic recovery, the health and safety of senators and staff remains a priority. Your subcommittee notes, however, that the high employee turnover can result in the loss of corporate knowledge, temporarily affect productivity and weaken the corporate culture. It supports sustainable recruitment strategies to promote staff retention and stability.
Second, there are new programs and initiatives. Regulations under the Canada Labour Code, the Pay Equity Act and the Accessible Canada Act require the Senate to implement new programs with deadlines predefined in the regulations, including pay equity, accessibility and harassment prevention. In addition to these regulatory requirements, your subcommittee notes that the Senate is working to implement a wide range of initiatives targeting different areas of the administration based on the institution’s strategic priorities, including diversity and inclusion, recruitment, audit and oversight. Your subcommittee has carefully reviewed the submissions for new programs and initiatives and recommends funding, as outlined in Appendix B, based on identified priority needs, while keeping growth reasonable in this period of economic uncertainty.
The third area is information technology. Your subcommittee emphasizes the importance of a well-functioning information technology infrastructure that supports information technology and provides senators and staff with a secure, productive and efficient work environment for the day-to-day operations of the Senate. To this end, your subcommittee supports the additional funding requested by the Information Services Directorate.
The overall budget of the Senate considered by your subcommittee for the fiscal year 2023-24 is $126,694,386. It’s attached to this report as Appendix A. This represents a 4% increase over the previous fiscal year, or $4,872,684.
With respect to expenditures for senators, a total increase of $433,861 is projected. This represents the economic increase in allowances and pensions to senators; an increase of 2.8% for the individual office expense budget, which covers salary and economic increase of 2%; and inflation of 5.3% for non-salary expenses in senators’ offices. An increase of 13.1% is budgeted for the senators’ travel budget to reflect cost increases over the past two years, but no increase is budgeted this year in senators’ living expenses.
New funding requests from Senate Administration total $3,921,356, which includes funding requests approved by CIBA during the year representing $1,111,448. Of the additional new funding, $1,183,950 is to maintain or renew the IT infrastructure and technologies; $417,058 is to increase human resources capacity; and $208,000 is related to the cafeterias.
The Audit and Oversight Committee budget was decreased by $177,932 as part of a transfer to the Senate Administration for the new Chief Audit Officer position. The committee’s budget was reduced by 7.5%, or $179,180, as funds were transferred to the Information Services Directorate to support witnesses appearing by video conference.
The International and Interparliamentary Affairs budget was increased by 5.6%, or $201,407, to fund two international conferences. The diversity, equity and inclusion initiative will have a budget of $100,000.
Senate-wide, the budget will increase by $573,172, mainly to cover the increase in Treasury Board rate of the employer contribution costs for superannuation, the Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance. In addition, initiatives requiring one-time funding will be self-funded for $924,480 as presented in Appendix B.
In summary, a total of 14.5 net additional full-time equivalent positions are proposed for the administration of which 7 full-time equivalents were approved by CIBA during this past year. Among the increase, four full-time equivalents are in the Human Resources Directorate to implement and manage high-priority programs as well as the Senate legislative requirements as I mentioned under the Canada Labour Code, the Pay Equity Act and the Accessible Canada Act.
In addition, five full-time equivalents are to be funded under the Public Service and Procurement, PSPC, existing Long Term Vision and Plan knowledgeable client funding arrangement at no additional cost to the Senate. However, we know there is a cost to the taxpayer.
Finally, it is proposed to add two additional Senate pages to provide assistance in the Senate Chamber galleries.
Colleagues, your subcommittee is concerned with the increase in the number of administration positions within the Senate, which has increased from 372 positions in 2017-18 to 493 positions in the next fiscal year, as well as the overall increase in the Senate’s budget.
After careful analysis of your requests, your subcommittee makes the following recommendations for the Senate’s 2023-24 budget: That the Senate’s 2023-24 budget be $126,694,386, which is an increase of 4% over fiscal 2022-23; that the 2023-24 budget adjustments listed in Appendix A and Appendix B be approved; and that the proposed budget strategy be accepted.
That is the report of the committee, colleagues.
Before we go to questions — and after some discussions — I would like to put on the table for discussion here today, the potential — as a final step, and concurrent with approving this budget — that we have a hiring pause between now and a time either potentially just before or just after the new year. Hiring activity would take a pause with the exception of those jobs that either are about to be filled or are in the process of being filled. That is, they have been advertised, people have been interviewed, and so on. Your steering committee could approve that those jobs go ahead and that hirings be filled. Other cases could be brought forward during the pause for approval by steering to go ahead, but that — between now and the implementation of the budget in April — SEBS complete further analysis of some of the new hires and make sure that they fully understand and can explain to this committee, and to others, what those jobs are. They would work together with administration to make sure that every one of these new jobs is warranted. In addition, a potential review of other roles and other procedures in the Senate could be undertaken.
That’s an observation by a number of us on the subcommittee. That may be a responsible step in addition to approving the budget as it is, the FTEs as presented. We’ll leave it to you to think about that as we have a conversation here, but the subcommittee is formally recommending the approval of the budget as presented.
Thank you, chair. My colleagues on the committee, as well as Mr. Lanctôt and Ms. Charpentier, are here to questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tannas, for presenting this report. You did a marvellous job.
Colleagues, are there any questions or comments?
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair. I really don’t have questions, but I do have a few comments that I would like to make.
As Senator Tannas pointed out, the budget is almost $126.7 million. In 2016, when we decided to reform the Senate, our Senate expenses were just under $75 million. They were $74,572,094. That means over the last seven years, the cost of the Senate increased by $52 million, or 70%. One may wonder if Canadians are getting 70% more out of the Senate than they did in 2016.
I was here before 2016 and I’m here now. I don’t think we are getting 70% more services. As a matter of fact, I just texted my administration in my office to see how far behind my claims were for my hotel expenses. Things are not improving.
The increase is not due to the senators. It is due to administration. As Senator Tannas’s report highlights, the overall Senate budget increases by 4%, but the expenses for senators’ offices will rise by only 0.7%. So it’s the administration costs that are rising by 8.6%.
The number of senators has not varied a lot over the last few years. There have been a few more appointments now, but they haven’t cost the Senate a whole lot of money yet. The budget for groups, caucuses and senators’ offices have been frozen or have had only small increases in quite a while.
The increase in expenses for administration is what drives the increase in costs for the Senate. As indicated in the report, the number of administration positions within the Senate has increased from 372 positions in 2017-18 to 493 positions in the next fiscal year. At the end of his report, I think Senator Tannas said that we shouldn’t be hiring any more people for a while. I think maybe that should have stopped a few years ago as well because we have 120 more people, and the services are not getting better.
Colleagues, the administration has to become much more frugal. I would strongly suggest that our Subcommittee on Estimates go through a zero-based budget exercise in the next year. We need to go through our budget line by line to make sure we prioritize properly and that we can get value for our money. We are not getting value for our money.
We did this exercise a few years ago, and I know it was a very cumbersome exercise, but it forces each department of the administration to focus and determine what the priorities are. We cannot continue to fund all the “nice-to-haves” like we have been doing.
Canada is going through and will continue to go through a very tough time over the next while. If ever there is a time to lead by example, now would be the time to start leading by example. I do not think our Senate, in the last seven years, has led by example. We don’t have more senators, our services have not improved, and yet our budget has gone up 70%.
I don’t know what private organization would get away with what we are asking the public to allow us to do. I am really disturbed by these numbers. I am thankful to Senator Marshall for pointing some of this out to me personally. I wish she was here, but she unfortunately couldn’t be here today and she certainly regretted that but, colleagues, this has got to stop.
Senator Tannas: Just a brief response. Thank you, Senator Plett, for your observations and for being a proxy for some of the comments we would have expected to hear from Senator Marshall.
Let me say that I think the administration does a great job in delivering what we ask them to deliver, and there is no question that the Senate activities have expanded greatly in all kinds of areas over the last number of years.
We have three activities that are going on right now that are being mandated by the government to us and which I covered in the report. Each one of those has an enormous amount of work that has to go through it.
We have increased the number of committees that operate. In fact, on this very agenda, we’re going to create another one.
We have asked our Senate Administration to expand. We have never asked them to stop doing things that we asked them to do a long time ago and that perhaps we don’t need any more. So in conjunction with just poring over everybody’s job descriptions, it would be important as part of this pause to actually ask ourselves if there are things that we could ask the administration to stop doing or to do differently to be more efficient.
An efficiency review is probably a better name than a zero-based budgeting process. I participated along with Senator Marshall in the zero-based budgeting process. It was like a very, very long trip to the dentist. I would like to see something that involves that but also gets to the root of some of the costs, which is around things that have always been done a certain way that maybe we could do differently. We could tie it to a commitment to actually reduce the budget over time as those services or ways of doing things are changed.
That is the optimistic view of what I think we could accomplish in the next few months at Subcommittee on Senate Estimates, and I know a number of the committee members would be keen to participate in that. That said, the committee has looked through, done their work, and a 4% increase is being presented.
Senator, I think we’re all sensitive to the comments that you have made. I know Senator Marshall would support a deeper dive but also a thoughtful dive where we asked the questions. Do we really need to do this? Do we need to do that? We can pick up some efficiencies that will help counter the extra work that not just Senate Administration but all Canadian organizations that fall under the regulations of the Government of Canada are coping with.
Senator Plett: Thank you for those comments, Senator Tannas. I would certainly support that. If you want to call it an efficiency review, I’m fine with that as long as the final outcome is that we start being more frugal. You, yourself, Senator Tannas are a successful business person. You wouldn’t accept this in your business. I don’t believe for one second that you would accept this in your business, and we are asking Canadians to accept it from us.
We are hearing the comments again that we’re supposed to go out to Canadians and say, “Just trust us. We will do better from now on.” I think that doing better needs to start now with freezing a whole lot of things, including the hiring of any more people. But thank you for your comments.
Senator C. Deacon: I want to echo Senator Tannas’s comments. I look at our organization in the context of the work that I spend my life focused on in this place. We’re a publicly funded monopoly. We don’t have an incentive to change, and that’s a problem. We have to recognize that and start to revisit how we do our business.
There are a lot of experienced business folks in this room, and we all know that when a business gets into trouble, it’s forced to change. Everything is put on the table, and you’re forced to change how you do business in order to survive and thrive. I would offer that we can’t leave senators out of that. We can’t leave out how we do business in the chamber. We can’t leave out how we do business in committees. We must take a good look at how we do things and what we can stop doing, what we can change and what we’re asking the administration to do in order to support us.
But if we’re asking them to continue to support us doing things the same way, then all we can do is ask them to do more with less, and asking them to do more with less is not a way to improve productivity. Changing how we do business is the way to improve productivity. If we want to become a more productive organization, we must revisit and be willing as a group of senators to revisit every rule, every policy, in this place. I, for one, believe that is a very healthy exercise for us to undergo.
I believe when we do that, we can find a huge amount of savings and we can find a way to improve our productivity overall. There are a lot of committed folks in this place; they really give of themselves. When we become more productive, everybody will feel more capable of contributing to their full potential.
I want to echo your comments; I was inspired by them.
Senator Dean: I don’t take any issue with the points that have been made so far. I think all organizations can do better and work more efficiently, and this is no exception. I think that is important.
I think we could start — allusion has been made to this — close to home and be more efficient about the way we do business in the chamber and set an example for the organization. It should start with us and the way we do our own business. Then we can look at others and be a demonstration project. Let me put it that way and I’ll say no more than that.
On the question of expenses, absolutely, there are some things that do take some time and Senator Plett is right. I will say on expenses from my own personal perspective, the sooner I get my expenses in, the sooner they are paid. The turnaround times are not out of whack with other expense claims systems I have been involved in. Certainly, if I submit my expenses within a reasonable time frame, they are normally paid within a week or two, which I don’t think is unreasonable.
I want to talk a little bit about human resources. Human Resources, which is about the people in this place who support us and work very hard and productively on our behalf, are at the centre of everything we do, and we rely on our people. As we think about becoming more efficient, I think we have to be cautious about sending the wrong signal to the people who support us in this organization. On HR, I will say that our Director of Human Resources is the best director of human resources that I have seen here. She is among the best that I have seen anywhere. We are hugely reliant on our HR leadership. We have a fantastic HR leadership. She deserves our support and she certainly has my support. Thank you, Ms. Francis, for the work you are doing and the leadership you are showing.
My point here is that, yes, we can always find savings and efficiencies. I think we have to be cautious about the language we use and be positive in this exercise in the sense that we are responsible for demonstrating to Canadians — I’m echoing here what others have said — that we can operate in an effective and efficient way. There are positive ways to do that. There is positive language we can use in doing that in terms of communicating it.
All that being said, I am very comfortable with the direction we appear to be moving in. I think we have to do it cautiously, carefully and thoughtfully. That’s all I would like to say. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: My comments are a follow-up to Senator Dean’s.
I would like to bring more balance to our conversation, because I am afraid of a slip. While I am in favour of continuing to both modernize and streamline our work, I believe that the work done by senators and the Senate Administration over the past seven years, including the creation of the Audit and Oversight Committee, should be commended.
As other employers and public companies have done, we have had to overhaul our technology infrastructure to continue to work in hybrid mode and be functional in the chamber and in committee. In terms of democracy and transparency, we have allowed our debates to be televised, which was not the case before.
The report very rightly highlights the fact that we have had to adapt and try to be exemplary in terms of all the legislation, particularly in terms of health and safety and equity. I congratulate the members of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets.
It must be recognized that we have asked a great deal of our administration and it has needed more resources. That is why I would like to see this balance in our speech.
We are not going to stop everything and start again; rather, we must continue to improve. That said, the issues raised by the committee are questions that any dynamic organization striving for excellence must ask itself.
Finally, I would like to reiterate the fact that we have supportive employees who are very competent. That’s why I think we need to remain an employer of choice, and speaking constructively to our employees will help us remain an employer of choice.
[English]
Senator Bovey: I very much appreciate all that has been said. I want to echo what Senator Dean said. I want to start by thanking the employees. It has been a tough few years. With us not here being able to have the interactions for those two years, I think that added layers. I start by thanking everybody who has worked really hard, those in our offices and those in administration.
The realities coming out of COVID are different than what they were before we went into COVID. The societal and employment realities, people are working at home and on site. We are still semi-hybrid in many ways as a society. As Senator Tannas said in his report, there are new responsibilities that we have to deal with as a result of legislation. As he said, there is the Canada Labour Code, the Pay Equity Act and the Accessibility act. Those are really big files. We have been working on diversity in the Senate in some of our subcommittees. There are a lot of other issues that float to the surface. When you float them to the surface, there is a responsibility to do something about them. When you analyze a situation, you have to do something with the analysis that has come forward.
I would really support a deeper dive. As I do that, I want to say one of those analyses we have asked for was by our new director of HR. In the few years I have been here, there have been three directors of HR. We asked for an analysis of what the needs of the institution are in light of where we have been and where we are going and in the light of the new external responsibilities that have been put on us. We have that report. I think that does need to be balanced. Maybe we agree with the time frame or maybe we don’t. The interrelatedness of what goes on in this place I think has to be addressed. I worry we have become too siloed, and that is very easy to do when you work on Zoom. You deal with one issue in front of you. Have we really looked at the interconnectedness of the organization as a whole so that we can be — as Senator Plett said — really effective? Let’s measure where we have come.
Colleagues, I’m wanting us to take a look at the realities around us, be sensible about how we do that, do a deep dive for effectiveness and efficiency. Maybe in that deeper dive, Senator Tannas may have to look at the interconnectedness rather than looking at it from silo to silo.
Senator Quinn: I think the item we are dealing with is the Main Estimates, in that description. Senator Tannas made observations about the staff increase and about what I would call an organizational review. I think we all come from different backgrounds, public, private or public and private. Some of us have gone through these types of discussions in a government sense and in a private sector sense. I’m just cautioning our discussion with respect to the fact that there may be things we want to talk about in camera. I don’t disagree with the things that are being shared here, but I think we are starting to dive down a little bit deep in terms of discussions that I think are more appropriately held in camera.
Senator Boyer: I don’t disagree with you, Senator Quinn, and I don’t disagree with anything I have heard this morning.
I believe that we need to look at our organization and see how we can improve it, but I also want to note that I don’t want to see diversity fall off the table. I want that to be front and centre as we look at all these issues, because the Senate has not been very friendly to Indigenous and racialized people. We need to keep that in mind at all times. We have talked about this place being the choicest employer for everyone, so we want people to feel welcome here.
That’s something to keep in mind as we do this organizational review; we still have to focus on keeping diversity on the table. Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: I would like to thank Senator Tannas for his report. There will need to be some reflection on the recommendations he is asking us to consider.
I want to start by thanking the men and women who serve us every single day. Like it or not, and whatever you may find fault with in regard to what they are doing, they are doing what we have asked them to do. The challenge is that we can always be better. I could be a better driver if I observe all the stoplights or don’t cut people off, but ultimately, I’m going to have to change my own behaviour if I want to be a better driver.
My point is to say that when we make comments about things not having gotten better or that we are not getting the value for what we are spending, I don’t think that is fair. We are offering criticism of the people who are doing what we have asked them to do. If there were different direction, they would do it. They don’t get the instructions from above; they get the instructions from us, the senators and this institution.
We need to be sensitive to the reality that every institution can improve. That’s not a new thing. We employ a lot of people, and human resources issues are not for everybody. It is really important for us to put that in context because trying to understand what you are expecting people to do and having the expertise to give advice for that is really important, because it’s easy to say what to cut if you don’t understand the impacts of it.
Senator Boyer makes a very valid point. This is a 2022 institution that still looks like it’s 1867 in some ways, because it hasn’t really evolved to what the country has become. It isn’t as diversified. The law has now said that we have to be more accommodating to folks with disabilities. That has been evolving for decades. Pay equity that is coming in is the law. We are going to have to pay women better than we have in the past. There’s a cost associated with that.
By the way, no efficiencies will fix that. We need to acknowledge that, for decades, we have been paying them less than they are worth. Fundamentally, that is the issue.
At the same time, we have hired a new human resources director to assist us in guiding the organization. I don’t think the first thing we want to tell her is that what she has been doing is a complete waste of our time. In some ways, that’s what I’m hearing. We need to reflect upon where we can improve and, more importantly, how that would be done differently than it is currently.
You have to take the time to do that. This effort will take a considerable amount of time, but it also means that those who are going to be responsible will need to have the patience and the opportunity to do that in ways that are constructive so that we can all benefit. We care about the institution.
I think Senator Tannas’s point is that there is not an infinite amount of money to run this place. The taxpayers who are paying for it should have some understanding that what we are doing here is of value to them and equally to the work we are doing.
The only thing I would disagree with — and this is not censored language — is that we are not a business, sorry; we are a government institution. We need to differentiate how we manage an institution that is responsible for doing different things than businesses. Businesses have bottom lines, and the bottom line is that you are either making a profit or not. Ultimately, you will decide to change direction based on that.
But I do want us to be sensitive to the men and women who serve us here, because if they are hearing this conversation, I wouldn’t feel too great. To the HR director whom we have tasked with a tremendous challenge to guide the organization, I want to say that I have total confidence in her and what she is doing. Equally, I have confidence in the recommendations she has made to us.
There are things we can do differently. I ran an organization, and in the 22 years I was there, almost every year, we made it better. We were constantly looking at how we could improve it. There’s nothing terrible about that. It’s the nature of what you have to do if you want to be effective.
I want to end on this one point: No matter what we do in terms of the review, if we are not communicating to the public with whom we want to gain some confidence, we are not going to do very much. They need to appreciate the hard work we do on their behalf. We need to find a way to make sure that communication is always in sync regarding what we’re trying to do in the chamber and, more importantly, what we are trying to deliberate on.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I would like to go back to Senator Yussuff’s comments that we are not a private company. It is true that we are not a private company, thank God, because you have to manage the revenues in a private company. When the income is not there, you have to cut accordingly. Here we are lucky: We don’t have to manage the income, only the expenses. So can we do it right?
I understand that there are things that are mandatory and that we are required to do, but we often have the reflex that for a new responsibility, a new position or a new function, the in-house staff cannot do these new tasks. So we hire staff every time we have new tasks, when sometimes a reorganization of work could do the trick.
There’s a red flag that tells us we’re heading towards a trend of growing the machine. Is this good? Is it effective? Is it essential? Maybe it is. I question some of the functions, but I have not had the benefit, like the subcommittee, of hearing the witnesses and the justifications. One thing is certain: We need to do the zero-based budgeting exercise, out of respect for Canadians. If we come up with the same result or within a few hundred thousand or a few million dollars, we can tell Canadians that we have done this work, and that it is essential for the Senate of 2022-23 — or 2023-24, in this case — to add more positions if we are going to do our job properly, be useful to Canadians, and communicate that information to Canadians.
I think we need to do this exercise. We have to be careful if we say we are going to look at how we as senators can spend less. The issue does not seem to be the budgets of senators, but rather the administrative side of things.
We’re talking about 372 positions in 2017-18 and 121 more positions four years later... I apologize, but there is something to the delivery of the same service or product, in principle. There may be specific elements, but we need to seriously analyze it line by line, out of respect for Canadians.
The Chair: Before I go any further, I’m going to make a few comments, because some of the comments I’ve heard here lack a bit of context. So, since 2018, we have moved from the Centre Block and we are now in the Senate of Canada building. All of the services that used to be combined with the House of Commons are no longer combined, so there are costs that are now entirely borne by the Senate. This means that services and staff have had to be added to deal with maintenance, security, in-house services, broadcasting, and all things IT.
There are a lot of changes that have occurred and so the Senate has had to adapt and add resources. We have to take into consideration that there have been major changes in our operations over the last five years. We have had to fund and add positions to keep the Senate running. Comparing years and numbers without taking into account the full context is perhaps misleading to Canadians.
The other thing I wanted to talk about, because I’ve been on the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets for a number of years and chaired it for a couple of years, is that some of the comments that have been made here this morning are distressing in terms of the work that is done by staff, and especially the quality of that work.
I was very restrained this morning with regard to some of the things that have been said here. I, who am perhaps closer to the people, have great admiration for all the work done by our staff, because they are there for us, even well beyond regular hours.
Staff send me emails and texts on Sunday mornings. I find this inconceivable and it should not happen. The Senate is a government institution, we can understand that.
I would like to talk about the budget to conclude the meeting. We have 10 minutes left and I would like it if we could talk about the budget. We have understood everything about the search for operational efficiency and the need for productivity. We also understand the context. I would ask you please, in the last few minutes we have left, to focus on the work we have to do here this morning.
We heard the comments; they were well received. I’d like to talk about the areas that may not have been discussed yet this morning.
[English]
Senator Plett: Clearly those comments were directed at me and the comments I made, because everyone else said the opposite of what I said.
Chair, I was not critical of the staff. I was critical of the budget. I was critical of what the Senate has done, not the staff. Our human resources director is not responsible for the budget increase of 70%. She is doing a good job. I have no question about that. I have high regard for our staff. All I have heard since I made my comments is people defending the increase in our budget of 70%, and then someone even suggested that we do this in camera so Canadians can’t see what we are doing.
I take exception to that. I appreciate our staff as much as anybody else. In the last seven years, our budget has increased by 70% whether we would like to admit it or not. So let’s find a way, as Senator Tannas said, to do an efficiency review. I’m all for that. I’m not in favour of us firing staff. Senator Yussuff, I’m not in favour of decreasing wages. But instead of hearing that we should do an efficiency review, I hear let’s give them more money. That’s the opposite of what we need to do here today, colleagues.
We have a responsibility to Canadian taxpayers to try to become more efficient. It is not the staff who has made us less efficient. It is we who have made us less efficient. So let’s do that. Let’s not try to twist what I said into saying that I was somehow critical of the staff. I appreciate the staff as much as you do, Senator Moncion or Senator Dean or anyone else here. We have become an inefficient bureaucratic ball, and we are a business. We are responsible. For us to just say we are not a private business, we are a government institution, let’s just spend money. I take offence to that. I’m sorry, chair, I lost my temper there, but this really goes beyond the pale when people accuse me of having possibly suggested that we don’t have good staff and that I don’t appreciate them. I appreciate every one of them.
The Chair: Senator Plett, I’m sorry if you felt that my comments were directed at you, but they were directed to some of your colleagues and our colleagues around this table.
Senator Tannas: Colleagues, one of the evolutions of the Senate that has happened over the last number of years has been to do all of this in public. This committee used to, by default and reflex, go in camera over everything. This is a good exercise. As a result, we are where we are and I think it is better.
The percent of our total budget for the entire administration — all of the assistance we get, committees and everything that you see going on here — is 29% of our total budget. There are efficiencies that I think we can find in that 29%, but we also have to be mindful of the 71% and what can be done there.
There are important new initiatives. Someone mentioned diversity as an important new initiative. However, there are also an enormous number of vacancies at the moment. Rather than hiring people by rote to fill jobs that maybe we don’t need or we could repurpose others for, it is a good time to do a review. COVID has presented us with an opportunity where we can actually reshape things and make things more efficient without having to say goodbye to any team members who are here today serving us. This is a good opportunity for us to take a pause and be thoughtful while still making sure that the initiatives that are important — new initiatives we are doing either by choice or that we are required by law to get up to speed on. We can move forward with those things. But we should be taking the time right now to thoughtfully move forward with every new team member to make sure that they are on the right seat on the bus and that they are going to be with us in a relevant role for a long period of time.
Let’s take this opportunity and do it without fear from our team members that this is some kind of a witch hunt. It isn’t. This is an unusual, once-in-a-generation kind of opportunity for us to actually examine things in a thoughtful, methodical way with the administration leadership, which is the best leadership I have ever worked with in my time here. I am so proud of the team that we have. I believe that the team will respond to this challenge along with those of us who are on the committee that can invest the time with them to go through this review. We’ll do it quickly and efficiently. We’ll keep this committee informed, and through this committee, we’ll keep the public and the Senate informed.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Tannas just gave me the best introduction ever. Let’s work with the managers in the administration; that’s what’s important.
We have done well and we have costs associated with a long-term temporary facility. Let’s isolate these costs, but more importantly, let’s work with the administration to identify possible sources of savings and more modern ways of doing things. Let’s not exclude ourselves from this exercise. I think it is very important.
I’m going to displease some people by saying this, but I’m very concerned that if we hire this great external consultant, he’s going to take hours from our administration to tell us what to do, but we will also be paying him to understand the culture, the workings, and the needs of our organization.
Why not use our expertise in such a context first? We will be the judge of the results and the next steps.
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: I just want to echo some of the comments that have been made. My mother had a saying, when you have one finger pointing out, you have three fingers pointing back. As senators, we have the answers to the problems and concerns that we have today. That is for us to change and show the leadership as a group, as Senator Dean said. I know that we have a team of people in the administration who are going to do everything they can to magnify our good efforts. But right now, as we reinforce the past and the way we have always done things, they are just following that guidance. So, we have to change. I want to thank you for that.
I did note that there is one item not in the budget — appropriately so because the RFP doesn’t close until tomorrow — namely, the environment and sustainability RFP that has been issued. I want to put that on the record. I’m glad there are not a bunch of items in the public right now when the RFP closes tomorrow.
Senator Bovey: Obviously, I feel that I have been well supported and my office has been well supported by HR. By “HR,” I mean the staff of the whole organization.
In my prior lives, I have been engaged in many such studies of efficiency within organizations as the world changes around us. They can be very constructive, positive and exciting to do. If we do embark on this — let me call it an efficiency dive — is the administration willing to work with us on this? Can it be a deep, worthwhile, joint venture so that we can aim to meet everybody’s goals for an efficient, effective Senate in the 2020s and beyond? Can we all do it together and move forward together? Those are my questions.
The Chair: The work will be given to the Subcommittee on Estimates, or SEBS, and we will see from there. I think we are going to be working with administration on finding the ways to work this out in a coordinated way. It has to be thought out. Right now, we’re just giving ideas, but at some point we will have to sit down.
One of the conversations we had about this was looking at maybe doing two or three groups at a time to be able to do the work efficiently at one level and then to work from there. These are just conversations that we have had amongst ourselves, but this hasn’t been done in the context of being well thought out and there has been no exchange of ideas. These are just some of the ideas that are coming out.
Senator Bovey: The word that flies to the top for me is that word “with” because I think that’s really important. I hope the work is not undertaken in a siloed approach. I think organizations miss something when they are not looking at the integration — the spiderweb, if you like — of the connectedness of the various parts. When one spoke is missing on a bicycle wheel, the whole thing stops. I hope that the word “with” flies to the top as well as understanding the interconnectedness of the parts of what we are.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Bovey. And Senator Yussuff, I apologize.
Senator Yussuff: No need. It’s early morning. We have a whole day to get through. We’ll get there.
Sometimes we reflect when we comment. Senator Tannas gave us a report. I think it’s fair for every senator in this room to have a chance to speak. I didn’t make comments about my friend over there who said something about cutting salary. I wasn’t talking about that. I’m saying that pay equity, as is written in the law, will result in us having to increase the salary of female groups. That’s the reality. Once we do the review, I know what it will entail. I have done this before in my life.
My point is that we can’t have a discussion to help do the things we’re talking about, we’re going to have diversity of opinion. We don’t always have to agree. That’s what’s wonderful about the Senate family. Somehow, we’ll figure it out at the end of the day. I think we need to reflect on the fact that, despite our sensitivities, at times we’ll have disagreement, but, more importantly, I think we care about the institution.
I understand my friend may have taken the comment the wrong way, but the reality is simply to acknowledge the report and vote “yea” or “nay.” You don’t need many of us to come to this meeting. I don’t think anybody is suggesting that. From time to time, we’ll rub each other the wrong way, but let’s be clear: We know what the end objective is. Can we work together to make changes to the institution to make it a better place? There isn’t infinite money to run this organization. I get that. We all know that. We’re practical people.
Having the process clear as to how we are going to do the review is really important because it might help people focus a bit more. It’s a complex organization. There are many different arms to what we need to review. I think those who are going to be part of that need to have it clear as to where you’re starting and where you want to end up. In absence of looking at the whole picture, you are not doing justice to the review of how to make the organization better.
I don’t have the history some may have here, but I think it will be critical for folks who are partaking in that to have a fulsome approach to what they are looking at.
The Chair: The conversation that we’re having this morning is important.
Senator Loffreda: First, I thank all my colleagues for their insightful comments. We all come from different backgrounds. I can hear the diversity of the comments. That’s what makes for great discussions and great results, so thank you to all my colleagues.
I also want to thank our staff and at the same time wish them a happy holiday.
I sat in on a few Senate Estimates Subcommittee meetings. You know the respect I have for all senators, including those on our SEBS subcommittee. Going forward, I feel that they can do the proper work that is required. I recommend that we approve this report, move forward, take on the challenge that has been put forward this morning and come back with a report saying here is where the value is, here is where we will be adding value and here is where we can do better.
I recommend we adopt this report. We have had this discussion in SEBS. Senator Moncion, you know the discussions we have had. Who doesn’t care for a penny is not worth a penny. From what I have seen, the Senate does care for pennies. I think everybody works and tries to be as frugal as possible and bring value as much as possible. Although every organization is different, I think we do things properly. From what I have seen in my 40-plus years experience, this organization has been run as well as any other that I have seen over the years.
Based on our SEBS subcommittee, we will continue to do so. I have confidence. Let’s approve this report. Let’s take it forward. Let’s come back with a detailed report from the SEBS subcommittee and report all in public, being both transparent and accountable. As we say in our Finance Committee — transparent, accountable, predictable. Let’s do it. Let’s move forward, improve matters and improve things.
Thank you, once again, to all the staff, for all that you do and for everything that is done here.
Senator Seidman: I would like to thank SEBS for the tough work they did on the estimates for the upcoming year and for being completely transparent, which is what you have done. SEBS hasn’t tried to paper over the issues here. You have offered us great transparency. We have offered the public great transparency.
You have also offered us a measured approach forward so we can tackle this new era — and it is in many respects — with the administration, who, quite frankly in all my years working on the HR subcommittee, have always jumped in with both feet to whatever challenge we have put in front of them, and there have been many.
We now have a proposal and, more than that, we have an addendum that Senator Tannas offered us, which was a freeze on hiring and an efficiency review. I think that is a wise approach going forward.
I thank you for that. We all have put forward our opinions on the situation but I think we have a positive, constructive way forward here. I see that with optimism, frankly.
Senator Tannas: I agree with the comments that have been made by Senator Loffreda. What we should do is approve the budget, which includes an increase in the head count, and also approve or direct SEBS and the administration to work together on an efficiency review to look at what can be done to provide more efficient service, while also implementing the wide range of new initiatives — required initiatives — that need to be implemented in 2023-24. With respect to a pause on hiring, the pause would be there, but the steering committee, between now and a report back to this committee, would be empowered to provide exceptions to the hiring pause.
The Chair: Now, with what you have said, I recommend that we take the transcript. So you have all heard what has been said by Senator Tannas, and we will add it to the motion that is going put forward for discussion or for a vote or a choice this morning. Instead of me trying to repeat all of what you said, we will take the transcript, add it to the motion. Are we agreement with this, colleagues?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: All right.
Senator Plett: Are we in agreement with the budget? Is that what you’re asking?
The Chair: With adding, from the transcript, the information that Senator Tannas — we would add that to the motion that will be presented right now. We don’t have the transcript, but we have all heard what he has said. As I said, instead of me repeating or rephrasing, I would rather use his wording, and —
Senator Plett: First of all, yes, I agree with that. My question was whether this is not a vote on the budget yet. You’re asking whether —
The Chair: We’re going to the vote on the budget with that added to it. Okay? Clear? All right.
Seeing no more questions or comments — you are the mover, Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: I am.
The Chair: It was moved:
That the eleventh report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates relating to the Main Estimates for 2023-2024 be adopted with the comments that were provided by Senator Tannas and that it be presented to the Senate this afternoon.
Are we in agreement, colleagues?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: The motion is carried, on division. Thank you, colleagues.
Are there any other comments or questions for the good of this committee? If not, I will take the time to thank everyone who has worked diligently on this this morning. I want to thank the staff. I want to thank everyone for making this committee work so well. I want to thank the administration for making my life easier. I didn’t say “easy,” but “easier.” I want to wish everyone rest during this holiday season and hope that you enjoy your time with your families and friends and that you come back in good spirits and health in the New Year. On this note, thank you, colleagues. We are adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)