Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence - March 27, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 27, 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: Item 1 on our agenda is the third report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets. Senator Smith, we welcome you to walk us through the report.
Senator L. Smith: It would be my honour, Mr. Chair.
Senator Cordy: Chair, I received today's agenda this morning when I walked in the door. I did get a reduced copy on the Internet last night about 6:30, after my committee meeting, but I actually like to go over all my notes before I come to the meeting so that I'm prepared to ask questions. To get it handed to me at nine o'clock this morning is not helpful. I'm wondering if perhaps this could be avoided in the future.
The Chair: Thank you, senator, for raising that. The committee, and particularly the subcommittee, has been doing an awful lot of work. I think on Tuesday we met for about three hours. The really excellent news is that the work of the committee has been very positive, and the report that was adopted and the work that was around the report that was adopted in the chamber yesterday speaks to the good management that this committee has been doing over the resources that are made available to the committee.
You're absolutely right. It's been a complaint that I've had. Our staff are going flat out, but we must do better. Part of this, as I'm learning, is that for a lot of business items, the priority changes, so recommendations as to the agenda change. But yes, we will make every effort to avoid this. Thank you for raising it.
Senator Smith.
Senator L. Smith: Thank you, chair. Good morning, everyone.
The Subcommittee on Committee Budgets of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its third report.
Your subcommittee is aware of an increased demand for transparency regarding Senate expenses. The Rules of the Senate, 12-26, and the Senate Administrative Rules, 3:06(11), require that committees report their expenses on a sessional basis. These reports are tabled in the Senate within the first 15 sitting days of each session. The Committees Directorate annual report also includes information regarding committee expenses broken down into three broad categories for each activity: professional and other services; transportation, accommodation and living expenses; and all other expenditures.
Increasingly, requests are being received from the public, in particular the media, for a more detailed breakdown of these expenditures. Before incurring expenses, committees must obtain Senate approval of their budgets. Committee budgets are published in the Journals and include a line-by-line breakdown of requested funds. Budgets which include travel generally request sufficient funds for all members of the committee to participate, although in most cases a reduced delegation actually does. This means that the budget requests are usually much higher than the actual expenditures. Any surplus funds from an activity are clawed back and can be made available for allocation to committees for other activities.
[Translation]
The actual cost of committee trips is included in the sessional reports and in the Committees Directorate annual report. These are public documents, available on the parliamentary website. However, the level of detail that is provided in these reports is much less than what is included in the published budgets, and there is often a significant time lag between the completion of the trip and the reporting of actual expenditures.
[English]
Post-activity reports are prepared by the Finance and Procurement Directorate, which include a breakdown of the amount requested for each line object in the budget, along with the corresponding actual expenditure. Committee clerks provide an explanation for any significant variance between these amounts. These reports are reviewed by the subcommittee of the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration responsible for committee budgets.
To date, these reports have not been made public. This is a point. We would like to make sure that we are more transparent and provide the public with important information.
In order to increase the public's understanding of the committee budgets and expenditures, your subcommittee recommends the following: that starting at the 41-2 parliamentary session, post-activity expenditure reports be tabled with the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration by the subcommittee responsible for committee budgets at least annually, and that these reports be tabled in the Senate as reports of the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration — and see the appendix for the template of the post-expenditure report; and that in the event that journalists request information with respect to committee travel expenses earlier than the next projected posting time, Senate Communications be authorized to provide the information that would be normally included in the post-activity expenditure report but only after the appropriate consultation with the Committees Directorate and the Finance and Procurement Directorate to confirm that the actual expenditures for a given activity have been finalized and after approval by the appropriate subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
In fewer words, I believe each of you have a copy. If you look at the back, you'll see the form that Heather Lank and the group have put together. The objective here is not to define each senator's expense. The objective here is, if we send 9 people, or historically 12, we will take 12 times the cost of the flight, hotel rooms, et cetera, for the time that we're there. It will not be an individual expense but a total expense of the group. We can provide that transparency so that when a reporter says, "Okay, you had the Foreign Affairs went to Brazil; what was the cost?" we would be able to show that report to these folks in a consolidated version.
This would, in our minds, be a real good tool to support the work that we do but, more importantly, to provide the information so we don't have people saying, "How much did you spend here? Who spent this? Who spent that?" We would be able to provide that information clearly.
The next issue is, do we do it once a year or do we do it twice a year? Our committee, with Senator Cordy and Senator LeBreton and myself, suggests that we would start by doing it once a year, do it right, see how it goes and then judge accordingly to see if we want to increase it to twice a year.
The Chair: May I recommend that we first have a general discussion and debate, and then we will deal specifically with the recommendations and get them in the format of a motion.
Senator Marshall: When we are talking about when we're going to provide this information publicly and we say at least annually, could we be specific? For example, could we say within three months after the end of the fiscal year? Or if we wanted to do it according by trip, we could say within three months after the end of the trip. We're saying at least annually, but I would like to have it a bit more prescriptive than that.
Heather Lank, Principal Clerk, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, we did consult with Finance about the timing. Given that we do have to close the books at the end of the fiscal year, and normally all the figures are in for the purposes of the directorate annual report by the end of June, I think within three months of the end of the fiscal year is probably a realistic deadline. Unfortunately, believe it or not, three months from the end of the trip is not always enough time, especially with international travel, so within three months of the end of the fiscal year should be a realistic objective.
Senator Marshall: I think that would be good. We could work with that, and then if there is a way we can improve on that, we can look at it again.
Senator Tkachuk: Just so I'm clear on the report, when you have the committee trip, will it include the staff with the trip together, or will it be separately? Here I see staff transportation. If there are two staffers that go, it will be the two staffers?
Ms. Lank: Senator Tkachuk, the budgets are broken down actually according to senators and staff, and we would do the same in the post-expenditure report. We would group the senators together and the staff together, because they are budgeted differently. As you can imagine, sometimes there are different costs, depending if it's staff or senators. It would reflect the budget template and be broken down in that way.
Senator Fraser: I have two questions. First, are the post-activity reports prepared on an ongoing basis through the year, or do they all come cascading in at the end of the fiscal year to the Finance department?
Ms. Lank: They are normally finalized at one time at the end of the fiscal year. If time permits, I know that Finance will work on them as the books are closed, but we do receive them in Committees as a package of all of the post-expenditure reports for that fiscal year, normally two or three months after the end of fiscal. At that time, the clerks go through and identify the variances and so on. They normally do arrive as a package, although, time permitting, there will be times when they are able to close a particular activity before then.
Senator Fraser: The reason I'm wondering if we couldn't streamline this procedure in some way has to do with what happens when journalists request information. This is like a tiny little example of a problem I see in general with the way we communicate with the press. It's good that if they request information with respect to the expenses earlier than the next projected posting time, that we would consider giving them the thing, but then Senate Communications has to have consultation with the Committees Directorate and with the Finance and Procurement Directorate and then get approval by the subcommittee. These are all busy people, especially if we're talking about the end of the fiscal year. It seems to me we may be building in here a system that will be inherently slow, cumbersome and delayed. One of the immutable facts about dealing with the press is that the slower you are to provide the information, the more suspicious they get and the more hostile the resulting report is likely to be. Can we not in some way streamline this and speed it up?
Senator L. Smith: Senator Fraser, that's an excellent point. I think you have three eager beavers who want to make sure that we get the information out on a timely basis. My sense is our group, the three of us, will be following very closely with Heather the communication process.
There are issues in terms of the speed at which things occur presently, which we are trying to work on to improve our system. I think we have the full involvement of the Finance group to do this. This is a new project, and we do not want to get hung up on the process. We want to make sure the process is as efficient as possible, and that means we will follow up because I think we have the fire power in our group to make sure that that does happen. It's not giving you exactly the type of answer that you want in terms of what you will do to accelerate the process, but what I'm saying is we will make sure we follow the process so that the process will be done expeditiously and thoroughly.
Senator Fraser: That's terrific. Could we have perhaps a re-examination of the process in, say, six months to see how it's working out?
Senator L. Smith: We are not necessarily authors who want to get great credit; we are authors who want to have a system that works for people, so we would have the flexibility to listen to people who would make really good suggestions, and we will follow them.
Senator Lang: As a member here, I too have to voice my concern about having this document in front of me and having about three minutes to read it. I find that puts me in a very difficult position to make a conscious decision on any matter. I want to reiterate, similar to Senator Cordy and I think all other members, that we have to look at a better way of getting this information to us.
I would like to ask a number of questions, if I could. How does this relate, for example, to the process at the House of Commons? They are next door and we are Parliament and we share the same building to some degree. I'm kind of curious as to exactly how much transparency and how much accountability is being put forward as opposed to what's being recommended here.
Ms. Lank: Honourable Senator Lang, as far as I know, there is not this equivalent level of disclosure in House of Commons committees. This would be quite specific to the Senate.
Senator L. Smith: If I could add, the group with Senator LeBreton and Senator Cordy and myself thought, as per the suggestion of Heather, that this was a great initiative on our part to show leadership as a group between both sides. The good news is that we have nothing to compare it to, so that is a good situation. I think the suggestion that Senator Fraser made is that we are open to suggestions to make it better as we move forward.
Senator Lang: The next question I would have is, how does this apply to parliamentary committees internationally, the joint houses?
Senator L. Smith: I think the answer to the question is that we're trying to set this up to apply to our committee work, which is a specific group of activities that takes place during the year. If people want to follow or join in or add to their own operations information and we could help them, we would be more than willing to do so.
Right now, we're stand-alone. Basically, we want to focus on the committee work because the committee work is one of the key successes of the Senate. We want to make sure that we get as much positive feedback from everything we do, including this report.
Senator Lang: I don't mean to monopolize the conversation, but I have managed to read this. I want to share Senator Fraser's concern in respect to how this is done and how we proceed to make it public. I don't understand why, if we're posting it, if a journalist or a member from the public calls three weeks before, we would have the administration scrambling to try to put some figures together just to be able to answer a telephone call. It would seem to me that if you're going to post these, it should be posted twice a year. We know when they're posted. Members of the committee know when it's posted. If I, as Chair of the Defence Committee, know that our committee figures will be posted, I've had a chance to review them. If I get a call from the media, then I'm in a position to be able to respond. It would seem to me that it would make more sense to tell the media and the public twice a year or once a year — and I would prefer twice a year — that those figures that are in for those particular committees that have been travelling will be posted on such and such a date, and they're there for everybody to see.
Senator L. Smith: Senator, your point is an excellent one and one that we discussed during the analysis of trying to initiate this exercise.
The thought we had was quite simple: We wanted to do something right; we wanted to get it started; and we wanted to establish a track record. Of course, as per some of the comments that have already come to us, we have no problem moving forward and getting this out twice a year. If you grant us a chance to get it going and make sure we do it right and get it set up so that we can create something, then we can accelerate the growth and interest and exchange of information. We are not here to try to delay anything. We are here to try to make sure that we are taking a leadership role.
Senator Lang: I appreciate that but, at the same time, I think in deference to the senators and the members around this table and the members of the Senate as a whole, in respect to inquiries by the media or the public in respect to travel on a committee, then I would say that the second part of this recommendation, if it were to pass, that members of the committee should be notified that inquiries are being made. The last thing I need, frankly, is to be blind-sided by a telephone call on something that everybody else knows that inquiries have been made except for me, and I'm on that particular committee.
I would submit this: Since this is a new procedure and we're going to transparency and accountability, I don't have any problem with the first section. I do have a problem with the second section. Perhaps we should just deal with the first section and maybe require posting twice a year as opposed to once a year, see in a year how that works, see how much interest there is and then, at that time, maybe if there has to be changes, look into further changes. I would like to hear what other members have to say about that.
Senator Tkachuk: On Senator Lang's query, parliamentary groups table their expenses by their representatives in both the house and the Senate after the trip with the actual costs in a report. That's how we know that.
I like the idea of doing it once a year, chair. I think you've done a great job on this. I know that, on parliamentary groups, there are overtime costs for staff who travel. Are there overtime costs when committees travel in Canada or they travel internationally, committees of the Senate, not parliamentary groups?
Ms. Lank: Senator Tkachuk, it would very much depend on the trip. The way the overtime provisions work for Senate committee clerks is that they work on an 1820-hour year as opposed to daily overtime. If extra hours are accumulated during a trip, those are tracked. As a manager, one of the things I am responsible to do is to try to ensure that time is taken, for example, in the summer to liquidate those hours so that come September 30 of any given year, most if not all clerks will be at 1820 hours. It is only for hours over that that there's any overtime multiplied. It's managed in that way in the Senate.
Senator Marshall: I want to follow up along the lines that Senator Lang was talking about, the trips of the parliamentary associations. Senator Tkachuk spoke to it. I wanted to mention that we do track every trip of a parliamentary association that a senator participates in. We track and make sure that the report comes in and actually gets tabled in the Senate. If you look at the individual reports, it indicates who was travelling and, right at the end of the report, it summarizes all the costs. I just wanted to make that point.
Senator White: Mr. Chair, I'm just trying to get my head around this. Right now, at the end of every month, all senators submit all their expenses. I'm trying to figure out whether there is a duplication here if we are doing it this way as well and why we wouldn't just list this as a separate level on our monthly expenses, committee travel as well. I would submit it anyway. Does it not appear to be a duplication in this case?
I do my monthly expenses at the end of every month so that people see how much I've spent. Why wouldn't I just list, under a separate category, committee travel and identify my expenses there? It would be realistic. The phone call is going to be in my office, asking if I've travelled with a committee as well. I don't mind doing that myself personally
Bonnie Marga, Comptroller, Finance, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: Currently, the way disclosure of expenditures works for senators is travel as a senator, so you won't see on the Senate website any expenditure related to a Senate committee or a joint committee with the house. This report here will disclose that information and will not be linked to a specific senator.
Senator White: You're suggesting the opposite of what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that the phone calls I received last fall from the media were around, did I travel with committees? I'm going to end up having to give that information separately even though we are not disclosing it individually. It's not going to stop me having to say that anyway.
Ms. Lank: One comment perhaps worth noting is that there are an awful lot of expenditures associated with committee travel which are essentially shared between all travelling members and are not specific to any individual. Since the budget is for the entire activity for staff and senators, we thought for the sake of transparency that it would be best to report in the same way so the public could see this is what was budgeted for this item and this is what was spent. To attribute it to individual members would be somewhat misleading and would not be comprehensive.
Senator White: I understand that. My point is that it will not stop the phone calls and emails to my office asking if I travelled with the committee. I'm still going to respond. That's my point. I'm still going to have to hive that off anyway.
Senator Furey: I like the idea, Senator Smith, of annual reporting. Once you get into semi-annual or quarterly, everything gets distorted. Everybody knows the problem we're going through as individual senators with quarterly reports. In any one quarter, a senator can look like a big spender because they bought travel passes, or whatever, and it may look like they are a big traveller in that particular quarter, but in fact that quarter will get them through the next two quarters of travel. It's better to look at the global picture, the annual picture, than to just highlight quarterly or semi-annually. I like that.
Senator L. Smith: Thank you, Senator Furey. To be frank, what we're trying to do is provide information, but we're also trying to make sure we, as a group, have certain control over the information that we provide so that we can provide full information. We just want to try to avoid, "Senator Fraser did this; Senator Smith did this; Senator Marshall did this." If we have all the nine people that travelled times the cost equals, then we have provided that information.
Reporters will dig in, as Senator White said, to more in-depth questioning, but we would like to try to do something that is new and on an annual basis. Let us try to get it started, do it well, and then we will welcome all the feedback we can to modify, change or adjust so that we can move forward.
Senator Downe: It seems to me that the problem we have is that unlike parliamentary associations, which we have just heard report the actual cost, our problem is we announce publicly what has been approved and then a year later the actual cost. I used to be on the subcommittee, and in my experience it has always been dramatically lower. I'm not sure why we don't adjust the rules to show Canadians what we actually spend.
Senator Tkachuk: That is the idea.
Senator Downe: We are also still going to put out what the budget has approved. The first story will be Foreign Affairs approved $440,000 for a trip on a study. A year and a half later, the budget will come in that we actually spent $140,000. Is that addressed in this? Like everyone else, I have not received the document ahead of time, and I want to add my complaint to that.
Senator L. Smith: We don't take it as a complaint; we take it as a valuable piece of information that you're suggesting.
My understanding is that the budgets are approved, and we have to work on a budgeted basis. Historically, the budgets were approved on twelve senators travelling. Historically, it's been somewhere between seven to eight or nine. Now that there are fewer senators and nine becomes potentially the new norm, we sometimes have four or five or six travelling. The budget is submitted and agreed to, and we need to have that budget as our starting point. Then the actual comes in lower. It may not necessarily be a negative to show that the actual was lower than the budget because of the fact that, in reality, we were able to do more with less.
Senator Downe: I appreciate that and I appreciate the work the committee has done, but another argument could be that we are, in a sense, misleading Canadians because we are announcing a budget that will never be spent. I don't understand why we don't do what the parliamentary associations do, actually announce what the budget was that was spent as opposed to imaginary figures that will be reported but will never be spent. I don't think anybody here can report to any committee that had a budget approved that met or exceeded that target.
Senator Cordy: As a member of the subcommittee, it's really interesting because the issues that are being raised are all issues that we discussed at the subcommittee, including that one. We had lengthy discussions about it, and whether it should be annual or twice a year or four times a year was something we discussed. We thought, let's start with annual. If we find this is working smoothly, we may move to twice a year, but let's start with annual. Let's get it right and work out any problems that we might have and see if we feel the need to move it to longer.
Senator Downe's comment was something we discussed at great length. How do you highlight on the budgetary report that in fact it's not all being spent? I'm a firm believer that if you are a member of a committee, then you should be able to travel and you should have the right to travel. That does not always happen. We know that. I'm not sure I have seen as a member of the subcommittee on any occasion that every member of a committee travels, but I do think that they have the right as a sitting member to engage in the purposes of travel to find out what is going on, the same as every other member, and not that a select few be chosen. That's why we go with twelve or nine or however many there should be.
We tried doing things; you can see the highlight. I guess it doesn't show up very well, but it is in fact highlighted, the actual expenses. We do have a section put in for surpluses so that people can see. We have to give the public some credit for looking at it and seeing that not all of the money has been spent. If they phone and say, "Well, it was budgeted for," I think we can give them the explanation that the budgeting is for the entire committee and that, in fact, that didn't happen. This is what has been spent, the actual; this is the surplus, and we have kept very accurate records of it.
The challenge sometimes with some of the committees that travel — and I would look at Foreign Affairs as a prime example — is that it's not easy to get all the receipts in within a month. Sometimes it's two, three months later before all the tallying has been done for a trip to China or India or Turkey, or wherever it happens to be, that all the final figuring is completed for that.
I think this is a great way to start. I think the suggestions that have come up this morning are excellent. As I said earlier, they are things that we discussed at the subcommittee.
Unfortunately, Senator Lang, there is not much we can do about a reporter phoning individual offices. I understand your challenges as chair of a committee because you are going to be the first one who is going to be called. I guess if Finance is getting inquiries, maybe they could give you a heads-up. I'm not sure that could be part of a report, but just as a courtesy, because you are definitely put in a position where you're getting calls.
I think we have tried and will certainly continue to take into consideration the comments that have been made this morning, but I think this is a step forward.
The Chair: I have three other senators who wish to engage in our general discussion. I'm going to propose that we hear from our colleagues and consider this our introduction to the topic. We'll have a week to analyze in greater detail the written documents and discuss among ourselves. If you are agreed to that, let's hear from our colleagues who are on the list. Then we'll move on to another item, with this item to be back on the agenda at our next meeting. Agreed?
Senator Fraser.
Senator Fraser: I have a small question and a small suggestion. The question is: What are we doing about the joint parliamentary committees? I know the Library and Scrutiny of Regs don't travel much, but it's still possible that they might. We will just be posting for the Senate's share on that?
The suggestion is that not everybody understands why the full committee is budgeted for and then almost never goes on the trip.
I would suggest that when we roll this out, part of the material provided to explain it include a passage to explain precisely that. Then that passage would be available when people call to say, "How come?" and we wouldn't have to go through the seven-step approval process. The person responding could just say, "Here's why."
Senator Furey: I really like the format. You present the budget and then you present the actual expenditure. We all know that you can't overspend, so the worst possible question you're going to get at the end of the day is, "Oh, you were budgeted for $400,000 but you only spent $200,000; how come?" I think in the present climate most senators would welcome such a question.
The Chair: Senator Lang?
Senator Lang: Mr. Chairman, I'm fine in view of the fact that a final decision will be made.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. This matter, then, will stand until our next meeting.
Senator Fraser: Can I get an answer to the question about the joint committees?
The Chair: I think at the next meeting there will be —
Senator Fraser: An answer on that one?
Senator Tkachuk: In reference to Senator Downe's point, the budgets are made public only because we have to go to the Senate to ask permission to spend the money. There's not really much we can do about that as far as the numbers are concerned, but on the parliamentary groups' travel, the budgets are also made public. We have the same issue where the budgets are made public, but instead of eight going they have maybe six or four going so they don't spend as much money. At the end of the year we reallocate the money if we need to do so; otherwise, it goes back into the consolidated fund.
The good thing is that there are a few reporters here who have started to take a permanent interest in the Senate. Hopefully, it will help on the reporting.
Senator Downe: After the discussion this morning, they may not come back again; it's so boring.
Senator Tkachuk: That's life in the fast lane. This is normal.
The Chair: Senator Fraser and colleagues, Dr. Lank can give us some information on the joint committees.
Ms. Lank: Senator Fraser, as you can probably imagine, joint committees rarely travel. They rarely have activity-based budgets. In the situation where they would have such an expense, then there is no reason why an equivalent report could not be reported back to this committee for public disclosure. At this point we have no history of either of the joint committees undertaking travel, but it could certainly be reported back nonetheless.
The Chair: Colleagues, thank you for that.
We will now turn to Item 2, the adoption of the minutes of the proceedings of February 6. The collection of documents is in the binder. Is there a motion to adopt the minutes of the last meeting?
Senator Cordy: I so move.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Cordy. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Minutes adopted.
Item 3 is the report to the Clerk of the Senate from the Advisory Committee on Diversity and Accessibility. As we know, honourable senators, in the month of March, on March 21, we give special attention to an element of diversity, namely the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, but there has been great sensitivity on the Hill on issues of gender equality. Quite frankly, some of our colleagues are providing great leadership in that field as well as some of our colleagues in the field of persons with disabilities.
This is an item that honourable senators are not at the surface level but are very much in the cellar of this element of equality in Canada.
Darshan Singh, Director of Human Resources, Senate of Canada: This morning we are presenting the annual report on accomplishment of the Senate administration's Advisory Committee on Diversity and Accessibility and to seek approval to communicate the report to a wider audience.
The mandate of the Advisory Committee on Diversity and Accessibility is to advise the Clerk of the Senate on programs and policies affecting the recruitment, renewal and retention of all employees. Committee members provide leadership to the Senate administration and its work to develop an environment that is diverse, respectful, inclusive and equitable.
The Advisory Committee on Diversity and Accessibility is comprised of 10 members representing all sectors of the Senate administration. In 2012, the Human Resources Directorate and the Advisory Committee prepared a three-year action plan to implement the recommendations of the Special Subcommittee on Diversity of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Guided by this plan, the Advisory Committee on Diversity and Accessibility established activities and strategic initiatives that were designed to build a workforce that would be representative, well trained, productive and inclusive.
The following accomplishments were realized during the last fiscal year and are further described in the annual report. I will only list a few of them: the Diversity Award and selection of the 2013 recipient; the launch of a self-ID campaign throughout the administration; a review and recommendations of the committee concerning the Senate administration policies; and a focus on internal communications of diversity matters.
We had several events as well, such as Diversity Week, Black History Month, International Women's Day, Asian Heritage Month, Aboriginal Day, Persons with Disabilities, and seasonal spirituality and wellness seminars.
The following initiatives and activities are part of the Senate administration's diversity and accessibility action plan, which we will be talking about in the next item. We will be reviewing the mandate and terms of reference of the advisory committee. We will be providing an update on the policy framework on IntraSen to reflect the list of IEE criteria to consider when developing new policies. We will identify three new community organizations interested in collaborating with the Senate. We will conduct an annual analysis of the workforce data and produce a report as part of the Senate Administration Performance Report. We will review and revise the post-employment self-ID program. We will examine the impact of offering English and French language training to those whose first language is not English or French. We will train managers and selection committee members on employment equity and diversity, and that has already begun. We will maintain recurring activities of the committee.
In conclusion, employment equity representation in the Senate administration is high given the recurring efforts of the employees in the Senate administration, with support from senior management.
Before I finish on this subject matter, I would like to recognize the efforts of the entire committee. At this time, I would also in particular like to recognize D'Arcy McPherson, the gentleman sitting across from me, who served as the chair of the committee for the past few years. His contributions and the contributions of the entire committee have served the Senate very well and have been very numerous. Thank you, D'Arcy.
The Chair: D'Arcy, could I ask you to brief the honourable senators from the point of view of having served as the very effective chair?
D'Arcy McPherson, Managing Editor, Debates Services, Legislative Systems and Broadcasting Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, initially I would like to say that the committee has been very effective in terms of leveraging the various directorates. In particular, I would like to thank the Communications Directorate, the Information Services Directorate, as well as Legislative Systems and Broadcasting, for being able to accommodate us in the various events that we have put together and to ensure that the quality of what we were able to do was as high as it was. I think that we met most of our objectives and exceeded expectations in most regards, and I'm thankful to the committee and all those who participated.
The Chair: Colleagues, I'm going to suggest we have a general discussion. There are recommendations. I'm going to suggest we not take any decisions but that, at our next meeting next week, we'll get the chance to analyze it and give our thoughtful decision on a going-forward basis as a detailed outline as to our next couple of years of activity.
Senator Marshall: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to mention the Senate subcommittee that worked on this a couple of years ago. Senator Stewart Olsen and Senator Jaffer were on that subcommittee. I did want to mention them because they put a tremendous amount of effort into the initial work, along with the staff. I want to make the other senators aware of that.
I'd also like to know what happens to the proposed report. You're saying it will be distributed to the staff employees, but does this get tabled in the Senate? Does it go on our website?
Mr. Singh: The process for this, once it's approved for distribution, is that typically a message is prepared for the Clerk to send to the entire administration. Once he has done that, we will also post it on IntraSen via the HR Directorate link. It will be available on IntraSen.
The Chair: But we can also table it in the chamber.
Mr. Singh: Yes, of course.
Senator Fraser: I have two questions, at least one of which betrays my ignorance.
The first is that in the objectives for fiscal year 2013-14, then we have initiatives and activities for the action plan 2014-16, somewhere in there, number 6 refers to examining the impact of offering English and French language training. I would like assurance that that's not the thin edge of the wedge saying that we shouldn't be offering training in the second official language to people who need it.
Mr. Singh: Thank you for the question, senator. Of course not. The reasons for the differing dates in the two briefing notes, the first one saying 2013-14 and the second one saying 2014-16, is that we thought, for the benefit of this committee, it would be better to present — fiscal 2013, as you know, is almost completed, so 2014-16, many of these actions have begun already, such as the one that you've just mentioned, but there are many more to come, so we wanted to make sure you knew that.
As for the language training, I'm going to turn that over to the manager of HR operations who also deals with official languages, Angela Vanakiotis, who can address that question.
Angela Vanakiotis, Manager, Human Resources Operations, Diversity and Official Languages, Human Resources Directorate, Senate of Canada: Over the past years, we have received several requests for individuals whose first official language is neither English nor French, so we have been working to offer training to those individuals in either or both languages.
Senator Fraser: And we're not proposing to change that policy?
Mr. Vanakiotis: No.
Senator Fraser: Second question, if I may: I realize that this is the report of the advisory committee, but where do I go to find data to show how we're doing in terms of actual employment of the various groups covered by diversity policy?
Mr. Singh: Thank you, senator. That is actually the information I'm going to be presenting in the next item. If you ever need that information, it will be also available on IntraSen. You can also call the Human Resources Directorate which has that information available on a daily basis. We can provide you with that information.
Senator Fraser: Thank you.
Senator Lang: I'm not going to prolong the debate here because we'll have another time to discuss it more fully, but I would like to have an understanding of exactly how much this program is costing and what are the proposed costs and how many staff positions are allocated to this particular program so that we have a full accounting in respect to what is there today and then, with the plan going forward, what increases we are expecting and where we are getting that money.
Mr. Singh: As I mentioned in the briefing note, 10 members of the administration are part of the committee, but in terms of budgeting for the committee, I'm going to turn that over to Angela Vanakiotis.
Ms. Vanakiotis: Aside from the very minimal advertising that we would do internally and the time we would spend to develop something for our IntraSen content — the most recent example is Black History Month, the collage we put together online, and for International Women's Day — the time we spend is basically energy and time. It's the individuals from each of the directorates that attend monthly meetings, if they occur, for an hour at a time.
The Chair: Colleagues, with that, this will be on the agenda at the next meeting. If you would give some focus to the recommendations that are there, if it's your wish, we would turn it into a motion.
The next item is the action plan on diversity and accessibility, 2014-16.
Mr. Singh: Thank you, chair. This is very similar to the last item. It's going to have a similar flavour.
As set out in the Senate Administrative Rules, the Senate is an equal opportunity employer. In addition the Senate administration is committed to the equitable representation of women, Aboriginal Peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities in all occupations at all levels in the organization.
[Translation]
On March 26, 2010, the Human Resources Directorate presented to the Senate management committee its third employment equity report (2006-2009) describing the representation of the four designated groups within the Senate administration, the efforts to improve the representation as well as the achievements and challenges.
[English]
The report was subsequently tabled to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, along with a revised Senate administration policy on employment equity.
On May 27, 2010, a special subcommittee on diversity was created to review the report, examine the draft Senate Administration policy on employment equity and consider recruitment and retention strategies that would enable the Senate to reflect diversity in its workforce and workplace report back to the IEC.
The Special Subcommittee on Diversity issued their final report in 2012 and all nine recommendations were approved by the IEC.
The implementation of a new two-year action plan on diversity and accessibility, increasing awareness and communication in order to maintain an inclusive workplace is a strategic priority of the Senate administration.
The HR directorate is proud to present the 2014-16 action plan. We are indeed on track with implementing various initiatives from the action plan. For example, in response to recommendations 7 and 8 of the special subcommittee, the Senate administration implemented a self-ID campaign in 2013 in order to educate employees on the importance of self-identifying, and to update current information on our workforce in our HR systems for planning purposes. The campaign was extremely successful with an 85 per cent rate of return. The workforce data now shows that the representation of members of visible minority groups, Aboriginal Peoples, and persons with disabilities is approximately 25 per cent of the total Senate administration workforce.
As of March 1, 2014, the approximate numbers for the four groups are as follows: Approximately 6 per cent of our workforce is persons with disabilities, approximately 15 per cent are visible minorities, and a little over 3 per cent are Aboriginal Peoples. Women make up over half of the administration's workforce at over 52 per cent.
As you can see, diversity, representation and inclusiveness remain strong in the Senate administration. The 2014-16 Senate administration employment equity action plan has been tabled through this briefing note for the committee's consideration and approval. As I've already mentioned, the plan incorporates nine recommendations in the final report of the Special Subcommittee on Diversity and Senate administration's policy on employment equity.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Discussion?
Honourable senators, for the recommendation, again I think we should take quality time between now and the next meeting, which suggests that we've got a few minutes left, and we table this item.
Let's see whether we can have a brief update on the work that's being done on the senators' travel policy.
Nicole Proulx, Director of Finance and Procurement, Senate of Canada: I'm happy to provide you an update as to the senators' travel policy revisions. The adoption of the nineteenth and twenty-fifth reports led to a number of changes to the policy.
[Translation]
The Senate administration undertook to review the Senators' Travel Policy in order to reflect the changes resulting from the adoption of the nineteenth and twenty-fifth reports.
At the same time, it took the opportunity to include the needs or the situations that had been raised since the policy was approved in June 2012. When it was adopted, the intent was that the policy would be reviewed in due course. Other changes have been made to accommodate the feedback received about the current policy, whether from senators or from their staff members.
Lastly, given the adoption of a development and management framework for revised policies in September 2012, we made the changes necessary to bring us into compliance. A number of those changes are in form only. For example, some sections in the 2012 policy deal with the number of points allowed for substitutes. We therefore chose to present the various categories and restrictions in a table. In our opinion, this allows us to more easily see the points allowed for each type of traveller and, at the same time, to include the restrictions arising from the twenty-fifth report for certain kinds of trips. This refers to the 52 points and the 12 points.
[English]
We also took the opportunity to develop what we called a guide to Senate travel for senators and senators' staff. The guide is meant to be a user-friendly guide that provides an overview of the travel policy. It will also be available electronically and contain links to the relevant parts of the policy. This should help users zoom in on the key policy provisions and ensure that they have the exact wording.
As agreed by the steering committee, consultation with some senators' offices was undertaken. This has been very helpful and we are integrating comments received so far. I'm happy to say that the response was quite positive.
As well, another initiative we'd like to do is include on IntraSen a section called "Questions and answers." We have been receiving questions, and we think it could be useful to have a compendium of those questions. Naturally, that would have to go to steering before. We will be ready to present the documents very soon. We are incorporating the last suggestions that we got on the guide.
For the policy, we will be reflecting all changes in a manner that will make it easier for you to zoom in on those changes. So we have margin notes, which will indicate whether it's because of the nineteenth report, twenty-fifth report, other revisions or just realignment. The changes will be highlighted, and whenever there are sections taken out, like international travel, it will just be shown as deleted.
This should help you focus on the changes and then be able to make a decision easily.
That's the update for today.
Senator LeBreton: With regard to the guide, when will that be available?
Ms. Proulx: The idea is to present it at the same time as the policy. So it will be brought to this committee at the same time as the proposed revised travel policy.
Senator LeBreton: Of course you mentioned having standard Q and A's, and that it would have to go to the steering committee. That actually leads into my specific question, which is with regard to the decision making of this committee.
I would like to know — and I'm a new member of the committee, as I've said before — what level of decision making falls within the purview of the steering committee, and what procedures are followed so the decisions of the steering committee are presented to the full committee for ratification?
I get the sense, as a result of some recent news stories, that it appears to be that decisions were made that were not really known to the rest of the committee. We're the Internal Economy Committee of the Senate, and we're sort of like a board of directors trying to make these decisions, but it's rather hard to make or defend decisions when they're obviously made without our knowledge. So I would like to know what procedures are in place. If there are no procedures in place, I would like to suggest that any expenditures or any approval for Senate travel that are made by the steering committee, they cannot make them on behalf of the full committee. They have to be brought to the committee for ratification.
Senator Cordy: My comment is related to Finance. My assistant was talking to Finance last week and was told that the 20 days that you can stay over and above times when you have committees, Senate sittings or caucus meetings, that if I fly up on Monday, which is when I would fly up, it would count as one of the 20 days. Is that correct or not correct? That was not my understanding when we agreed to this package.
Ms. Proulx: For the 20 days, the way the recommendation has been written, accounts for when senators attend a Senate sitting, attend committee meetings, or attend caucus. Days of travel are charged to the 64 points. If a senator is travelling on Monday, it would not count towards the 20 days. The Senate then sits on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and flying back is on Friday; so nothing would be charged to the 20 days.
If a senator comes in on a Sunday and does not attend any Senate committee or caucus, and obviously the Senate is not sitting, then that Monday would be charged against the 20-day limit.
Senator Cordy: That was my understanding.
Senator Fraser: I have a question with regard to the 20 days. I do not attend committee meetings on Monday. I do attend a regularly scheduled leadership meeting on our side every Monday afternoon. Does that get taken out of the 20 days or is that included? Could that be under the rubric of caucus activities? It's not caucus, strictly speaking.
Senator Cordy: That's a travel day.
Senator Fraser: No, I come in on Sunday, usually.
Ms. Proulx: The way the provision is written — I will read back to you.
Senator Fraser: I can leave that for consideration.
Senator Lang: I want to follow up on Senator LeBreton's comments or questions in respect of how the decision making is made. This very important document affects every senator equally, maybe some more so than others because of where they live. I think that before the final decisions are made, a draft copy should be made for every senator and time given to reflect on it as well as time for the administration and Internal Economy to determine exactly what the implications are and perhaps what other changes should be made. I can see some glaring questions in respect of how it affects especially people in rural Canada, while expecting us to do our jobs and meet our obligations.
Senator Furey: Senator Lang, you make an excellent point, but that's exactly how things happen here. The steering committee will look at the possible changes to a policy, like the travel policy, they will bring that report to the full committee and give the committee time to review it and then have full debate on it.
Senator Lang: I'm talking about the caucus as a whole, too.
Senator Furey: Usually after it comes to the full committee, one member of steering from either side will present it to their caucuses for input to bring back to the full committee for discussion. That's normally how things happen.
Senator Marshall: Nicole, you're going to come back for the 20 days. My understanding is that it applies to all senators regardless of whether they're part of leadership on the government side or the other side. It's across the board. I raised this point a couple of weeks ago.
Ms. Proulx: Yes. The recommendation in the report does not make any distinction.
Senator Marshall: That's right; that's my recollection.
Do you have a date as to when will we get that travel policy and guide? Do you expect to have it to us by the end of June?
Ms. Proulx: Yes. It's almost ready.
Senator Marshall: It's imminent.
Ms. Proulx: Yes.
Senator Charette-Poulin: My question was the same as Senator Lang's regarding the review of the application of the rules.
Senator Downe: I want to return to the 20-day policy. It doesn't affect those of us who live reasonably close. In my case, I travel on Monday. If people who live a distance from Ottawa, like Senator Lang and people from Newfoundland and B.C., travel here on Sunday and have no committee meetings on Monday, after 20 days they cannot claim any per diem. I don't think that was the original intent of the committee.
I remember when Senator Marshall or Senator Stewart Olsen — I'm not sure which one — introduced it. I clearly recall the discussion was that we didn't want to have a situation whereby when we're not sitting in July and August, somebody comes here for 30 days or something. It was not to punish the people who live farther from Ottawa. The same principle applies to the 64 points for travel as opposed to a budget. If we had a $20,000 travel budget, Senator Lang would run out of money much more quickly than I would. I think this should be revisited to get to what we were trying to prevent in consideration of those who have to travel in many cases on Sunday to be here for the week.
Chair, maybe you could take that under advisement for your subcommittee.
The Chair: It's important to make it clear that this was a progress report of work going on in the administration. Obviously, it ends up here if there is any kind of a change. All decisions of this committee have to be made by the committee.
Senator Tkachuk and Senator Furey could give us a better description of the past and the kinds of mandate and delegated authority given to the steering committee for certain decisions. We'll clear that up. I can't tell you off the top of my head because I don't have the depth of experience of my colleagues.
Senator Johnson: In part my question has been answered because you're going to review it again. Those of us who have to fly on a Sunday for an early Monday meeting will very quickly run out if we're sitting every Monday and coming in Sunday night. This all has to be really carefully defined.
The Chair: As well as other issues that you can think of as part of what was said just before Christmas. We have a working group doing this work and I'm sure they'll welcome a phone call on the fruits of the work done here. It impresses me that an awful lot of work is going on. We want to make sure that not only honourable senators but also staff who are working assiduously know that we are aware of the preparatory work. I think we are in a good place and, as Senator Smith would put it, we're trying to go to a better place.
Senator Munson: I would like to see if, in the very near future, we could get an update from Jill Anne Joseph, Director of Audits. We haven't heard very much in the last little while and we'll want to know where the Auditor General is at and to be fully informed as the Internal Economy Committee.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator White: I have a quick question. I saw a document yesterday on pay increases for senators' staff. I'm trying to figure out what process that took to defer those compared to others. Most have received those increases. Who made the decision to defer them, if I may ask?
Mr. Singh: Thank you for the question. This was presented to the steering committee. The basis for the presentation made to the steering committee was that we have been in contact with our partners at the House of Commons as well as Treasury Board Secretariat. As you know, the increases for senators' staff have always followed what has been given to the administration.
In terms of the administration, our collective bargaining is scheduled for October. The House of Commons is scheduled for next month. There is a fear that — and Treasury Board has told us that they are very fearful — we on Parliament Hill would set a precedent or something that they would have to follow to which they would not agree.
The recommendation put forward to the steering committee was that we would wait until we find out what the employer, Treasury Board Secretariat, has planned as a mandate. Once they have decided on a mandate, we will of course present it to the committee for adoption.
Senator White: Maybe that explanation going around to senators who are asked by their staff what happens next might be helpful as well.
Senator LeBreton: Following up on Senator White's question about the staff, at the December 9 meeting Senator Fraser raised the issue of what she called — and I'll quote her — "very senior staff" being paid more than the current maximum. I went back and read the minutes of that meeting. Apparently this is something that was in the hands of administration. I was wondering what the status of that is. I don't know how people could be designated as "very senior staff" and paid more than their colleagues in other senators' offices. To me that would create a situation of inequality.
I would like to know whether you have looked further into that request by Senator Fraser and what, if anything, you're doing about it. I don't believe that, speaking as one member of the committee, we can decide amongst ourselves that there are six or seven people here who fall into the category of being very special at the expense of other staff in other senators' offices.
Mr. Singh: Thank you, senator. This is a question that relates to our currently ongoing compensation study for senators' staff. I'll forward it to Senator White for comment.
Senator White: We've been working — me, Senator Cordy and Senator Verner, I guess — on the classification. We will be bringing something forward in the next couple of weeks with the results of the classification study. It won't answer, to be fair, and it wasn't designed to answer the concerns of Senator Fraser around having a new category of employee that would have a higher number.
Senator LeBreton: The super six.
Senator White: Yes. It will at least identify and clarify how much our staff are being paid in comparison to some others that we believe are fair comparators. Hay has done a very good and comprehensive analysis on those pay scales.
I think at that point this committee can then make an educated decision as to whether or not they would like to pursue a higher salary for individual staff. I think that's when a discussion will be helpful.
What we are doing will not come out and recommend a pay structure for an individual employee that is higher than the comparators.
The Chair: At this moment in time there has been no change.
Senator White: None. We'll bring that forward next time.
The Chair: I apologize for going beyond our allotted time, but I think it demonstrates that a lot of work is going on, and I thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)