Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence - February 6, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 6, 2014
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9 a.m. to consider administrative matters and other matters.
Senator Noël A. Kinsella (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: The first item of business is the adoption of the minutes of the proceedings of January 30, pages 2 to 4 in the documentation. What is your disposition?
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Marshall that the minutes be adopted. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 2, second report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets. Senator Smith (Saurel).
Hon. Larry W. Smith: Honourable senators, I'm pleased to present the second report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, which deals with budget applications from four committees for the current fiscal year.
[Translation]
The first request is $172,917 for the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, for public hearings and a fact-finding mission in British Columbia for its study of aquaculture.
[English]
The second request is from the National Security and Defence Committee to undertake a trip to Colorado Springs to visit NORAD headquarters as part of their study on international security and defence relations. The committee is currently focusing on ballistic missile defence, and this visit would lay the foundation for hearings to be held over the next four months. This request is $65,120.
The third request is for the Transport and Communications Committee to conduct a fact-finding mission to Winnipeg, Edmonton and Yellowknife as part of the committee's study of CBC/Radio-Canada. The budget for this trip amounts to $80,597.
The subcommittee met at length with chairs and deputy chairs of each of these committees to review the budget applications in detail and to ensure that each committee has identified clear objectives for these trips.
[Translation]
We are sure that these three activities will be very useful for the studies in question and we recommend that these requests be approved.
[English]
I would like to note that while the budgets include sufficient funds for all members of each committee to travel, it is likely that smaller delegations will actually do so. We therefore expect that in all three cases there will be significant clawback of surplus funds following completion of the activity.
[Translation]
The last request is rather modest and comes from the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages for its study on CBC/Radio-Canada's obligations under the Official Languages Act and the Broadcasting Act.
[English]
The budget request includes $7,500 to engage a graphic designer to prepare the executive summary of its report, as well as $2,000 for printing.
Your subcommittee is very comfortable with all four budget requests, and we respectfully request the adoption of the second report.
The Chair: Do we have a motion?
On debate, the Honourable Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: I had two questions. One is Fisheries and Oceans. Is most of the $172,000 for travel? Is that for airfare?
Senator L. Smith: My understanding is the large amount of that expenditure is for the actual travel.
Heather Lank, Principal Clerk, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: Yes.
Senator Marshall, of that amount, the airfare component is $116,507.
Senator Marshall: The whips will be interested in knowing. All of this travel will have to occur before the end of the fiscal year, March 31?
Ms. Lank: That is correct. This is a budget for this fiscal year, so the travel would have to be completed before March 31.
Senator Marshall: If this is approved here this morning, it goes on to the Senate for approval?
Ms. Lank: That is correct.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Senator Doyle: Transport Canada is currently doing a study on CBC. What, again, is the $9,500 for? Wouldn't that be part of the entire study that's under way too?
Senator Cordy: That's separate.
Senator Doyle: That's a different committee.
Senator Cordy: That's Official Languages.
Senator Munson: Do you have any idea of the dates? Are they during break weeks?
Senator L. Smith: One of our groups is going to be travelling, Senator Munson, during the break week. I believe that's Senator Lang's group. The other group would be travelling during the first week of return.
We've asked those questions so that we ensure that for the operation inside the house, we have people in the house. People are recognizing it's important for them to travel not only when we're in the house, but when we're not sitting. We're trying to make sure that the whips are not being abused.
Senator Marshall: I've indicated to our members, for committee travel, that Senator Munson and I get together and meet and discuss when the travel is going to occur, and also who is going on the trip.
Senator Tkachuk: On Transport and Communications, are they going to all the cities in Canada or just picked these three? Did they say?
Senator L. Smith: The objective was for the Radio-Canada study to get witnesses in before they actually left for these regional areas. What they felt was important was that they would get a lot of data and information in early, that they would then go to regional areas so they could see the other assets of CBC and understand in the regional areas the impact that CBC really has on the Canadian community.
Of course, Senator Cordy, if you have anything to add to the description, I'd be pleased —
Senator Tkachuk: It's sort of an outback tour. Instead of Toronto and Ottawa, we'll check out how things are in Winnipeg and Yellowknife?
An Hon. Senator: Throw Saskatoon in there.
Senator Tkachuk: How come they're not coming to Saskatoon? No one watches it there.
Senator Cordy: Specifically, you have to realize that we are just dealing with travel for this particular fiscal year. We did ask the question, "What are your long-term plans?" They were very conscious. They said they could do trips on the train to Quebec and, if they wanted to go somewhere else, Toronto, for example, to CBC headquarters, they could easily do that on the train, which would not be expensive.
We didn't go into great detail about further trips, but we did get a general idea that they will be travelling to areas that would be most affected by CBC. You can see Yellowknife is here, and Winnipeg, because there is a large francophone community outside of Winnipeg.
Specifically, we don't have the answers to that question because we're dealing with this. We just got an overall view of their long-term plans.
Senator Tkachuk: On the National Security and Defence Committee, when was the last time the committee was in Colorado Springs? Do we know?
Senator Cordy: I've been on the subcommittee.
Senator Tkachuk: I somehow remember this trip before.
Senator Cordy: It hasn't gone, that I can recall, and I've been on the subcommittee of Internal for a number of years. I can't recall it.
The chair is here. Would you allow the chair to answer that question?
Senator Tkachuk: Sure, if he wants to.
Senator Lang: I can say that it hasn't during the tenure I've been on the Defence Committee. I've been here five years, participating in one manner or another with the Defence Committee. I'm led to believe that it's well past the five years, as far as the timeline is concerned, and I can say that at least 80 per cent of our committee has never, ever been to NORAD because of the appointments to the committee.
Senator Tkachuk: It could be just because I'm older, Senator Lang. I find that, as I get older, time compresses. What seems three years ago was really ten years ago. I do remember approving this.
Senator Lang: Join the club.
Senator L. Smith: In our discussions with the committee, the talk went back to the late 1990s, when there was some fracture between the committee and the people in the U.S. So this is a relationship-building opportunity. More importantly, it is an opportunity for a real understanding of what ballistic missiles and ballistic defence are all about and the implications between Canada and the U.S.
The Chair: Is there further comment on this item? Are you ready for the question? Are we in agreement to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 3, an update on providing video coverage of the Senate chamber.
I'm pleased to report that we now actually have two working groups advising us. We have an overarching working group on Senate communications, and, of course, this would be a subset of it — the specific working group of senators helping us on video coverage, particularly.
There was a very informative meeting held the other day with CPAC, and we learned a great deal. We'd like to recommend a meeting with CPAC, and they're quite prepared to come back with a detailed presentation to the two advisory committees and to do that within the next couple of weeks.
We got a good presentation on video coverage from our advisory group. It's interesting because there are a lot of elements to this, particularly how the television world has changed. I found it very informative when they explained how people actually dial up what they want to watch as opposed to being given it from a single platform. The CPAC people also explained how, in terms of a channel's availability to go out the traditional way, the problem is that, of course, they would happen to have two extra channels, one for French and English, dedicated to the Senate. Right now, they just have the one that's dedicated in their contract with all the partners of the channel, companies that do this as a public service.
Work is in progress, and they're mining down quite well. Perhaps Senator Munson, who was at the meeting with CPAC might add to that.
Senator Munson: Between you and me, Mr. Speaker, we'll be able to have all kinds of jargon and streaming and pods, you name it. There are particular platforms that we use. I find it very exciting because I want to back up what you say. We seem to think that we want to turn on a channel to CPAC 2, CPAC 3, CPAC 4, to watch Senate proceedings. It won't happen that way, certainly at the beginning.
Hopefully this goes through. I find it extremely exciting because it will give the opportunity, if it's passed by the Senate, for any Canadian to watch us in some particular form, whether it's on an iPad or on a BlackBerry, and to pick out different kinds of programming. It's a work-in-progress. I'm pleased to say that working with the Conservative side, with Senator Greene and Senator Black, along with you and Senator Mitchell, these are early stages, but these are exciting stages. In terms of our mandate of being open with what we do both here and in the Senate, I think the platforms that hopefully will come will be a good thing, the start of a new age for Canadians to watch senators at work.
Senator Tkachuk: We gave approval for broadcast on the Internet, I think, so now everybody can dial up and listen to the Senate. Have we had any indication of how many people actually do that?
The Chair: Yes. In the briefing we had from CPAC, in terms of their broadcasts, they're very happy with their productions from our Senate committees because the viewership is very high. I don't understand the industry that well, but they were saying to us that that has become their best product, from their point of view, with a high volume of viewership.
Also they said something — maybe Senator Munson can help me here — about the quality, from their industry point of view, of the proceedings from Senate committees being the best they've got. Thus, they are very interested.
Senator Tkachuk: Despite or because of the Senate scandals? Is that a way for us to get the ratings up, or has it always been that way?
Senator Munson: I can't because of the measurements that are taken, but I can assure you that the ratings went through the roof during our recent issues. But it shows that, good, bad or ugly, Canadians are paying attention to us. I think the issue here is that they not only want to hear us; they want to see us.
Senator Tkachuk: Really?
Senator Munson: And I said that with a straight face.
The Chair: They did point out, senators, that earlier this week, when our Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence was having a hearing on intelligence, the viewership went way up, according to how they measure these things. I think, from our point of view, we have a quality product that they're interested in.
At any rate, the way I see this unfolding is that the work of both committees — the one that's dealing with the technical side, but also the one within the larger context of communication — is well under way. It will come back here and we will have a debate. At the end of the day, there has to be a healthy debate in the chamber.
Senator Downe: I, like others, support this initiative, but I have concerns about the cost. Prior to going forward, I want to see the cost-benefit analysis in relation to expenditures.
I want to see these high ratings. I'm not sure what the ratings are on CPAC, but I don't think any of us want to be accused of setting up any vanity project here. We have to address the needs of Canadians who want to know exactly what we're doing and do it in so-called real time.
I want to take a very close look at the budget. If we're talking multimillions of dollars, I'm going to have some problems with that in this time of fiscal restraint. We'll see as the project unfolds.
I just wanted to put that on the record.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. I think it's important to have that on the record. This is why I think we're approaching it in a businesslike fashion by having our in-depth research done, and the cost is very much part of the work that the working group is doing.
Senator White: Also in relation to the financial side, we've had some discussion in Rules Committee about rules that would have to be changed. Do we require a reference from the Senate or from this committee to actually start working on that, or can we move forward?
The Chair: I suppose, at any time, a reference on whatsoever can be sought from the Senate for a committee. I would think that, on a step-by-step basis, we need to see what the Senate decides to do here, and then we'll be in a better position to determine if it's necessary to change some rules, which no doubt it will be. You might want to consult with our colleagues who are working on those working groups to get a head start on it.
So that's the report and update, colleagues, on that item.
The next item is remuneration for the Senate Page Program, pages 5 to 6. Who will deal with that?
Greg Peters, Usher of the Black Rod, Senate of Canada: Thank you, chair.
You no doubt have reviewed the briefing note. Basically, this is a housekeeping measure for the page program. We're looking at a 2 per cent retroactive increase to the pages for the current year, so back to the beginning of August 2013. This would be a 2 per cent increase consistent with other increases throughout the Senate administration. Total cost would be, as noted in the briefing note, $3,912, most from this year's surplus and, if approved, we would budget the remainder in the next fiscal year.
There was no increase for the pages in 2011, the reason being — I don't know. It predated my arrival here. But we'd just like to note that in the briefing note. We look at future increases being consistent with other increases within the Senate administration.
Senator Doyle: How is the rate for pages set? What do you look at when you're setting a wage rate for them? Do you compare it with other jurisdictions, or is it a minimum wage?
Mr. Peters: I'll let the Director of HR speak to that.
Darshan Singh, Director of Human Resources, Senate of Canada: Good morning, honourable senators.
Compensation is always set, as you know, based on the compensation study undergoing with your offices. They do internal relativity as well as external relativity. In our case, with the pages, external relativity is limited to what is happening with the House of Commons. Our salary structure for the pages is a little bit different from the salary structure for the pages in the House of Commons, given that the job descriptions are a little bit different, the hours of work are a little bit different and the conditions of work are a little bit different.
We have found that our remuneration for the pages is somewhat competitive. We have seen that over the last year, in terms of intake, though we are paying a little bit less, our actual take-up in terms of interest from possible pages is higher than it has been in previous years.
Senator Doyle: Would they work additional hours? Is it just Senate sitting hours?
Mr. Peters: No, sir, it's far beyond that. If you look at the House of Commons pages, they would look at an average of 15 hours per week, but an average of 360 hours, on average, over the period their contract. Our Senate pages look at about 540 to 560 hours, plus it's two years. Our pages look at two years. The House of Commons is only one year. Ours is really flattened out over a two-year period as well. They do a lot of events, because the Black Rod's office oversees ceremonial, commemoration and so on. There are a lot of events after hours, on the weekends, model parliaments and so on.
Senator Doyle: In which case, they would be paid overtime?
Mr. Peters: Absolutely.
Senator Marshall: I have two questions. You indicate the base salary for both the House of Commons and for the Senate, the 13,000 and 11,000. Does that include that $1,200 bonus?
Mr. Peters: No. That's above and beyond the salary.
Senator Marshall: My second question is why would we not be looking for parity with the pages in the House of Commons? Based on the information in the briefing note, and I think you mention it in your comments, their hours of work are a bit greater. Even with the increase, they're going to be just over 12,000, whereas the House of Commons will be just over 13,000.
Mr. Peters: Senator, it's an excellent question, and it was raised at committee level as well. Darshan will speak to that.
Mr. Singh: Yes, it was raised at the steering committee. The answer that was given, which is what I'm going to give you right now, is that in order to initiate a substantial increase in pay, there has to be a reason or a justification. The initial pay is always set on the job description of the position. There has been no fundamental change in the job description of the position. We did discuss possibly looking at the job description, so I think that's an activity that the Usher of the Black Rod will be beginning in the next little while. Once we do that, we will of course come back to you.
Senator Seth: Seeing that the pages get just the minimum wage, and compared to the House of Commons, as has been mentioned, I thought it would be interesting if another incentive can be arranged, for example, a partnership with the university to receive some academic credit for their time working in the Senate. Is that possible?
Mr. Singh: It's an excellent observation, Senator Seth. As I mentioned, the Usher of the Black Rod will be working with Human Resources to review the entire Senate Page Program in terms of job description, compensation and possibly the suggestion you are making. I think that will come in the next little while. As the Black Rod has mentioned, he is relatively new to the position, as am I. It's one of the tasks we'll be undertaking within fiscal 2014.
Mr. Peters: There was a time when there was parity between both programs, so that has dipped. During the post-incident and the page review — there was a review of the entire program. I think that accounts for maybe the fact that there was no increase in 2011. We've committed to a more comprehensive review of the program, the job description, those kinds of things, to answer questions like parity, possible credits, universities and so on. We're committing to come back to the steering committee and then come back to this committee level.
Senator Lang: I have a number of questions, but I want to pursue one of the comments that you just made in respect to the review of the program in view of that political incident that took place in the Senate. Could you perhaps elaborate a little further what the results were so that we can, to the best of our ability, ensure that doesn't happen again?
Mr. Peters: Sir, I've also committed to an update to this committee on the entire page program. Coming out of that review, one of the key recommendations or observations was that in the Office of the Black Rod there be a more in-depth relationship-building process between the pages when they're hired, but also in the interview phase, the exam phase, and so on, in preparation for the pages being hired.
We've instituted some changes, and I'll be reporting to this committee eventually on what we're doing this year to mitigate and address those recommendations that were made in that review.
I'm very confident in the relationships. Even since my arrival in the last four months, I've been working hard to ensure that the relationship between my office, my small staff, the Mace Bearer and the pages is at a fever pitch to ensure we get to know them, how they're doing in school and so on. It's very positive. We're looking back, but we're really looking ahead to the future to ensure we mitigate and enhance the program and to ensure there's no reoccurrence of any type of incident like there was in the past.
Senator Lang: I want to say that I think, like all members, that the program is a great program, but there are a number closer to home for me, coming from Yukon and the territory. I notice in risk consideration that you say there is more representation from more provinces, and I think it should be "slash territories." Perhaps you can elaborate. Maybe I could speak to you privately about what you're doing in respect to ensuring that the northern students are aware of this program on a consistent basis, so that you do get applications. That's number one. You might want to speak to that.
I do have a general question to the committee here, and that's the question of retroactivity. These are contracts, and you are recommending that we compensate retroactively.
My understanding is that they sign a contract for a period of time. That's a general principle for any contract that we enter into. Is that not a principle that we should address — whether or not it should be retroactive — because of other contracts? All of a sudden you will see other requests in other areas, I suspect.
Those were two questions that I had.
The other area that I would like to know about, looking ahead, is where is this money coming from? We talked about it in the last committee, with respect to our general financing of the institution. I put forward to all members here the importance of committees and the importance of having the resources to be able to get the expertise that we need. The more we take from one, the more we take from the other. So perhaps you can tell me where the money is coming from.
Mr. Peters: Certainly.
Senator, for this retroactivity, we're only going back to August of 2013, so it is the current contract. It is not retroactive for previous years. The amount of $1,655 will be budgeted in my budget — the Black Rod's budget — for this year, and then in 2014-15, through the Main Estimates process, would be the balance of that amount. I should say that the $2,257 will be coming from my budget. The $1,655 would be in the 2014-15 Main Estimates. So that's a fairly limited impact on the overall administration.
To the other point, sir, in regard to recruiting, we have engaged in a very comprehensive recruiting process to look at as many applications as possible across the country. The outreach by the HR staff who support the Black Rod's office has been stellar across the board, not only in the National Capital Region but also across the country. We are seeing an increase in applications from the North, from across the country. I know, from initial discussions with the clerk on my arrival, that we really are working hard to ensure that we get representation from across the country. Certainly, my goal is to enhance that, to increase it and to work very closely with honourable senators to identify gaps.
For example, certain senators basically took one of our marketing pieces and cascaded it down throughout their province, for instance, through various constituents within their region. We are looking at more innovative and creative ways to market the program in the future as well, sir.
Senator Downe: I would like to thank the officials in the Senate, Mr. Armitage and others. There was a real problem of distribution in the pages a number of years ago and they worked very hard, to my mind, to get that corrected.
I found what was helpful in Prince Edward Island was that, though the young people themselves weren't particularly interested in the $12,000, the parents were highly interested when they found out. In the Senate notes that were going out, they never mentioned the amount. I mentioned the amount first and the parents were very interested in having their children apply. I think we should highlight that as well. It is a tremendous assistance for people trying to get an education and a tremendous experience.
You say to most people, "Senate page," they have no idea what that means, but the financial assistance highlights their interest to find out pretty quickly.
The Chair: Is there agreement that we adopt this?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 5, economic increase to the rates of pay to the Senate executive management group.
Mr. Singh: Honourable senators, all Senate employee groups except for the SEG, which is Senate Executive group, and MMG, which is the Senior Management Group of the Senate administration, have received their 2013 economic adjustments to their rates of pay. As mentioned by the Black Rod, they received 2 per cent, in line with the federal public service pattern.
It has been the Senate's long-standing policy to maintain SEG compensation at the same level as the TBS senior executive rates.
[Translation]
It is also the Senate's policy to apply the same rate of increase to the MMGs as the SEGs. At the end of November 2013, Treasury Board Secretariat approved a 1 per cent increase in EX pay rates as of April 1, 2013.
[English]
While the TBS rationale was not provided, we know that preparations are under way for a new round of collective bargaining, and the government has signalled that rates of pay will be one of the key issues.
We also know that the Canadian inflation rate has been hovering around the 1 per cent mark in 2013. It averaged 0.92 per cent over the January-October 2013 period. As such, it would be reasonable to assume that TBS is signalling its position on wage increases through the 1 per cent increase in EX rates.
To stick to our SEG/MMG compensation strategy and maintain the direct link between the SEG and EX rates of pay, which has served us well over the years, we are recommending that the Senate also apply the 1 per cent increase to its SEG/MMG rates of pay, of course retroactive to April 1, 2013. This will result in a small variance between the SEN-10 and MMG groups' rates of pay, an anomaly in our universal pay scale. While this may raise internal pay equity concerns, the reality is that there is already some variance, given that the SEN-10 and MMG compensation is a bit different in that MMGs are eligible for performance pay and SEN-10s are not.
[Translation]
There were also some slight anomalies in the union and non-unionized rates over the last few years due to the legislation, which were aligned in the last round of negotiations. Consequently we believe that maintaining the SEG-EX equivalency trumps the SEN-10-MNG-1 anomaly.
[English]
I will make one last point: We have not yet adjusted the Senate law management group's — the SLC group — rates of pay, which are part of the SEG group. This is because our IEC-approved compensation policy is also to keep the rates of pay of our legal personnel in line with the TBS law group rates of pay, and TBS has not confirmed its LC law management rates of pay. The LAs received an exceptional extra 10 per cent increase through the last round of collective bargaining. We do not know if TBS will factor this into its LC rates as well.
The Chair: Discussion?
Is there agreement that we adopt this?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 6, other matters.
If there are no further matters, the motion to adjourn will be entertained. So moved. Carried.
(The meeting adjourned.)