Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 4 - Evidence - October 2, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 2, 2014
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9 a.m. for the consideration of administrative and other matters.
Senator Noël A. Kinsella (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call the meeting to order. The first item on our agenda, which is heavy this morning, is the adoption of the minutes from our last meeting. The minutes have been circulated. Are there any errors, omissions or corrections? Is there a motion to adopt the minutes?
Senator Lang: Chair, I just want to register an observation because I wasn't able to attend the last meeting. I notice with the Pages the fact that some areas aren't represented. I know it's a concern to the Black Rod. It's a concern to us who represent regions that aren't represented in the Senate Page Program. I intend to follow up on that to see what we can do to resolve that. Thank you.
The Chair: Is there further comment? Is there a motion to deal with the minutes? Moved by Senator Doyle, seconded by Senator Marshall, that we adopt the minutes. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item No. 2 is the deployment of the new Debates Search Tool. I'll ask the Clerk to address that.
Gary W. O'Brien, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments: Honourable senators, this is a project that has been in the works for some time to allow a searchable engine for our Senate Debates. I would like to ask our Director of Information Services to describe it for us, please.
[Translation]
Hélène Bouchard, Director, Senate Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada : Honourable senators, in September 2011, as part of a pilot project, we began developing a software program geared to making searches of Senate debates on the parliamentary website easier and quicker, and to offer users more relevant and useful results.
A working group from the legislative section was created in order to issue guidelines to the development team and to carry out functional testing throughout the design process. The pilot project was a success. We thus decided to pursue development of the tool in order to make it available to the community in both official languages.
Here with me today is Christine Burbridge, from the Debates Services, who will give you an overview of the new tool in a moment. Christine's participation in the working group was of the highest value.
[English]
The tool was developed between projects, which explains the length of time it has taken to finally deploy. The tool is a good compromise between the current parliamentary website search tool, Google, which is a keyword search, and the web searching capability developed by the House of Commons for their publications, which is a structured database search tool.
The new debates search tool is to be considered a temporary solution. It will be replaced when an improved product is developed that will leverage the implementation of the new legislative system, IRIS.
[Translation]
Note that the search engine works within the current structure of Senate Debates; there are some inherent limitations in how the information is structured. The search engine will only work with debates from the third session of the 40th Parliament and later. That is because the internal architecture of how Senate debates are stored has slightly changed with time, and each session requires separate programming.
[English]
I invite Christine Burbridge to give you an overview of the application. I want to say that the application is in both languages. It's hard to see because we have two presentations and only two screens. It's available in both English and French. Christine will demonstrate the application in English on the right side for you.
Christine Burbridge, Assistant Managing Editor, Debates Services, Senate of Canada: This is the look of the search engine. You can see that it appears like the rest of the documents in that parliamentary publications suite of documents on our website. We're using the same headers. It has the same look and feel as the other documents.
The working group was made up of clerks from Committees, representatives from Journals, from Communications and me from Debates. We're all used to looking for things in the debates at other people's request. We felt we had a good knowledge of the kinds of things people would be looking for.
This is the French application that I am showing you on this screen.
Right now the search tool is in a development web base. I'm going to switch back to the English because it's easier to speak and click in one language.
We've developed a list down the side of keywords that you can use to refine your search. You can search by parliamentary session or by calendar year. There's a complete list of senators who were active during this time. You click on these and can see, for example, any time that Senator Angus spoke or was mentioned in debate. Our document is fairly flat with not a lot of metadata behind it; so it's doing an exact word-for-word search. We had an issue whereby if someone referred to a senator from 100 years ago, they were being listed with the active senators; so we programmed it for people who are active as senators during this period.
For the subject index, we borrowed taxonomy from a library of basic subjects covered in Parliament. We used that as a starting place for the words that we would use in this application. We also have our different series of headings. Because we don't have the metadata, the programmers were able to use each item of business in the debates document as an event. Where we have a heading, that's where the extract will take you. It looks for that heading and then, when you get there, a CTRL-F search will find the exact word you're looking for.
You can see the headings that we've used; the subheadings, which are usually the disposition of the item of business and the bills, which are mentioned by frequency. For the bills, we added the Parliament and session to make sure the right bill was found. There's also a list of procedural words that people might be looking for. Again, there were limitations in this approach. For example, the word "vote" usually means a recorded division, but many senators mention the word "vote" when talking about the estimates. The word comes up often, so there is still some legwork to do. Once you get your search results, you can review them to determine the actual item you're looking for.
I can do a sample search for you. Senator Furey spoke in one sitting about a Mr. McGrath. If you wanted to go back to that, you could enter his name here, and it comes back with four results. I could further refine this search and I can find it right here. We know now that he was talking about Lieutenant-Colonel McGrath. The tool works in that way.
Obviously, that's a one-time hit. There will be things like "vote" that will require more searching.
We have advanced search features here where you can search for a particular thing but add qualifiers to it. For instance, if you wanted to look for something about Minister Blaney but not include his time as Minister of Veterans Affairs, I've asked for this word, "Blaney," and none of these words, "Veterans Affairs," in the search.
There is a help document that helps people perform a Boolean search, which I admit I wasn't too familiar with, looking for specific words with different kinds of qualifiers using quotation marks and ways to specify the item that you're looking for.
Ms. Bouchard: Basically, we are ready to launch. I think it's an improvement. I know it's not perfect, but I think it could be helpful. What we need to do now is to move the application to the production servers, so we will probably need about a month. We will have a communication plan to inform the users that it's now available on the website.
The Chair: I'll give an opportunity to the honourable senators to ask questions.
Senator Doyle: Is that the same system that the House of Commons would have in place as well?
Ms. Bouchard: The House of Commons has an application called PRISM, which is a system to manage all their legislative activities. They have built-in processes in their application. Right now, we are developing an application. We've asked permission to move ahead with it. Our application is called IRIS. We're moving towards the same type of system that will provide more capability in terms of searching, because what we have right now in terms of our documents is static. The format is integrated in the document. We wanted to go with XML, where the format is not integrated in the information. It will be more of a database structure so there are more possibilities. This is what we want to do.
We wanted to improve the searching capabilities with the documents that we have, with the information we have and the way our information is structured, but we're moving towards the same thing as the House of Commons.
Senator Doyle: I know very little about all this. It's quite confusing. There's no way we could integrate what we're looking for with what they have and piggyback on what they're doing?
Ms. Bouchard: We are piggybacking with them, absolutely. We're trying to share as much as we can with them. The problem is, within their application, they built their own process. Our process is a little bit different, so we have to be careful. As much as we can, even though we're not sharing the same application, we're sharing the technology and the expertise. Everything they have developed in terms of structure, we're using the same structure. We understand that we have to keep the business separate but our information must be structured the same way because we are sharing the same parliamentary website. We work very much in collaboration with the House of Commons. They are very helpful to us.
Senator Dawson: Ms. Burbridge used the CTRL-F for search. Will this application be iPad friendly? We don't have CTRL-F on iPads.
Ms. Bouchard: I'll have to explore that, senator, in terms of how we could make sure that the search will work with the iPads. I understand that it's not easy. They are two different technologies. It is a challenge.
Senator Dawson: As you can see this morning, I think most of the senators have an iPad in front of them and don't come in with their computers. It would be important if we're going to have a search engine that it be adapted to the tools we're using and not the tools we used to use.
Ms. Bouchard: We'll explore that, senator. It is a challenge for us with the iPad technology. The House of Commons invests a lot of time in that technology, so we're trying to piggyback on what they're doing.
Senator Marshall: Hélène, did I understand right that we'll be able to use this search engine in a month's time?
Ms. Bouchard: It might be less. We have to move the application from the test server to the production server, so we want to make sure that things are working perfectly.
Senator Marshall: When will we expect IRIS to come on-stream? IRIS will replace this, right?
Ms. Bouchard: The way the information will be structured, we'll be able to build an application. We'll take advantage of how the information will be structured. As you know, Phase II already started. Phase II is for about two years.
Senator Marshall: So we'll probably be using this —
Ms. Bouchard: For the next two years.
Senator Marshall: The funding in our briefing document shows $95,000. Was that budgeted, or is this from within existing resources?
Ms. Bouchard: It was existing resources. First of all, we're using an application called FAST. We already had the licence, but we didn't have the expertise when we started the project. It was very important for us to get the expertise from external consultants. That's why you have the $25,000. They really helped us to understand the application.
The $85,000 is internal resources. You have to understand that our developers, when they work on projects, sometimes have a week to do so because we're waiting for the clients to come back to us, so we have some free time, and this is where our people were working. We just say that's what it costs in terms of time from our resources since 2011.
Senator Marshall: That money is spent?
Ms. Bouchard: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Because it's almost ready to go.
Ms. Bouchard: Yes. I just wanted to demonstrate the time they spent to work on the project.
Senator Cordy: I'm not too sure about this. Will this work on iPhones and iPads?
Ms. Bouchard: The application is available now on your computer, but Senator Dawson was wondering whether some function that is available in the computer is going to be available on the iPad. It's two technologies, and at this point our focus was on the computer, but we will look at how we could make it have full functionality on the iPad. We will explore that. Sometimes the functions that you use for the iPad are different than the ones on the computer, because it's two technologies. You'll still be able to see it and do some search, but some functions may not work, like the CTRL-F. That's what we'll need to explore.
Senator Cordy: So university students can't use their iPhone, for example.
Ms. Bouchard: They'll be able to use the application the way it is, but there might be some little functionality, like CTRL-F, which is specific to Windows and how the technology is used. The iPad is different. That's what I'm saying. This tool wasn't built for the iPad technology; it was built for computer. There's a lot of investment that has to happen to make it work for the iPad. As I mentioned, the House of Commons is looking at this right now, so we can benefit from their research.
Senator Campbell: The computer in my office is an Apple. I have some real trouble with this. We're using outdated Windows technology when the rest of us are using iPads on a daily basis. How long will it take for this to become fully functional?
Ms. Bouchard: I have paused because that's a lot of investment. When you build an application, you want to make sure it's available in different formats, and I do understand. It's where we have to put the priorities and say we need to invest and need the resources to really build the application in all these different formats. I have a team of four people for programming. My development capacity is about 20 per cent. It is a challenge right now. We've explained that to steering in terms of resources and budget constraints. At one point, we'll have to determine where our focus will be. It is a challenge, absolutely. You're right, and I know that's where we are, but it's the capacity that has become very difficult.
Senator Campbell: It just feels to me like you're going backwards in a time when we're moving forwards. I understand constraints and all the rest of it, but why would you be building something that can't be used easily? Lots of people are running Windows, I get that. But if you take a look around this table, we've all been given iPads. We all use iPads. We've accepted it, and we're moving into that. Maybe we should be issuing everybody with tablets that work on Windows. I don't know, but this doesn't seem to make any sense. I'm sorry.
Ms. Bouchard: As I mentioned, you have to build the application. You build the application for the Windows environment, but you also have to build the application to work with other technology. So you always have to take that into consideration. Yes, you're right. I feel that sometimes I'm going backwards, but it's really tough these days to try to move forward because you have to double the effort to support all of these technologies. At one point, we have to make a choice.
Senator Campbell: Maybe we need to make a choice about what our technologies are going to be because we can't keep running parallel systems. That's very expensive.
Thank you. I appreciate your effort in this. I think it's a great tool. There's no question about it, but, at some point, everybody is going to have to decide where we're going, what systems we're going to use on this. Thank you very much.
Ms. Bouchard: I totally agree.
Senator Lang: I share some of the concerns that have been expressed around the table. I think we all find it somewhat difficult to fully understand the consequences of how you do one system versus the other for many of us who are not necessarily that computer literate. I have a number of questions that concern me, and I've raised them a number of times. Once again, we have $95,000 that's being allocated — "found within existing resources." We also now find that, in order to be able to proceed with this and to be able to go into a parallel system, there will be more investment needed once we get there, and we don't know what that number is. I have a question on the financial side, following up on Senator Marshall's question. Where are we with our budget? Are we able to do this comfortably with respect to what we're doing? Going forward, what further costs are related to this with respect to finding out that we have to do a parallel system? Those would be two of my questions to begin with. One is an overall financial question.
Ms. Bouchard: The question is to me?
Senator Lang: My question is: We have an ask of basically $100,000. Every time we come here, or fairly regularly, we have an ask for various programs that we would like to expand or begin or initiate, and it will be found within the budget. Next year, what will it do with respect to going forward with respect to our overall financial plan? That's my question.
The other question is: If we're going to do this project, how does this relate to the tablet? Quite frankly, that's what I use, and I won't use that the way it's been demonstrated to me. It's of no value to me, personally. Maybe it is in my office, but not to me.
Ms. Bouchard: I just wanted to mention that the application is already developed. As to what I'm showing there in terms of costs, I wanted to show you the time that the internal developers spent on that project since 2011. As I mentioned, our focus was not on that application. So we used the resources to work on that application only when they had the free time to do so because, when they work on priorities, sometimes there's a week or two where we're waiting for the client to come back to us because they are in a testing mode. So this is why we're using that time to work on small projects. This was really the cost of the resources that were used to do that project.
So we're not asking for additional costs. Right now, it's already built. We don't have to spend more time on that application. Right now, it's automatic. It's just going to be fully operational.
Am I answering your question, Senator Lang? It was done internally. It was an internal resource, and we've used it when our programmers had available time, waiting to move on to the other priorities.
Senator Lang: Just to get it clearly on the record, you're not asking for $95,000?
Ms. Bouchard: No, not at all.
Senator Lang: It's already been spent. I didn't understand that. I don't know if anyone else did.
Senator LeBreton: I had the same question as Senator Lang about where we are with the budget, so you were not the only one, Senator Lang.
Going back to Senator Campbell's point about the technology, I'm amazed, actually, that I can use the technology to the degree that I can because I always consider myself a little bit of a technological Luddite. We're all using iPads. We've all gotten used to this. In the document, you actually do state that the new debates search tool is to be considered a temporary solution. So my question is: How temporary is it, and was this a necessary step in order to get where you want to go eventually? If it's temporary, as Senator Campbell points out, it's a system that's going to be accessed, but we can't access it because we've got different equipment. You may have already answered this, but what will the end cost finally be when we get to where you want to go?
Mr. O'Brien: Honourable senators, a frequent criticism has been — it's been voiced over a few years now — that our debates are not searchable. So this project is not a great investment to allow our debates to be searchable, at least by one tool. It is temporary. Thank you to Internal Economy for supporting the IRIS project, which looks at all of our legislative systems' technology, which will, in two years' time at least, provide a much more comprehensive searchable engine. So it is responding to a need that senators have expressed many times, that our debates are not searchable, and that is why it has taken even this long, among all of the other technology projects that we're doing, to be able to present this to senators as at least one tool in their bag.
The Chair: Senators, I think we've had a good discussion on this, and there have been some really important suggestions and recommendations made. Obviously, the level of interest of honourable senators is clear, but it's equally clear that we have to develop something that meets the machinery. That will all change. This whole environment changes almost weekly, but I'm very pleased to hear of the technical collaboration with the House of Commons. They have much greater resources than we have, by far. But you've heard the message, which is loud and clear: We are operating, in this house, in an economically sound fashion. It's great to know that we're able to do a lot of stuff within our limitations, but, I think, with highly qualified, technical and human resources that we do have available. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you, honourable senators.
We'll now move to the proposal concerning the tenth report of the Subcommittee on Budgets. We'll have a presentation by our colleague Senator Smith, and Dr. Lank will provide assistance.
Senator L. Smith: Good morning, everyone. Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the Tenth Report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets. You will recall that, in March, the Internal Economy Committee agreed that, starting with this session of Parliament, the post-activity expenditure reports of the Senate committees should be tabled in the Senate in order to increase transparency and the public's understanding of committee budgets and expenditures, thus the report that you received. You received a new page for the second report because it had been fused with another report, so please bear with us.
Your subcommittee has carefully reviewed the reports from the five committee trips that occurred in 2013-14.
I'd like to thank Senator Cordy and Senator LeBreton along with Ms. Heather Lank for the great work done on this project. We are pleased to see that each committee identified the objectives, if you look at the report, and the results of the activity as well as accounting for their expenditures.
It is clear that the committees are demonstrating prudent stewardship of public funds. As was anticipated, expenditures were significantly below the allocated budget. You will see allocated budget, actual and a surplus. Basically, it shows that the people have managed their finances to maximize the trips and the work.
For the five trips collectively, the allocated budgets amount to $344,684. Expenditures amount to $145,331 or 42 per cent of the budget. People could say you had a big allocation but you only spent 40 per cent or 50 per cent so you may not be great managers. This is the opposite as these people have managed it very tightly to maximize their impact and do more with less, thus the surplus of $199,353 or 58 per cent of the allocated budgets. Details of each committee's budget and expenditures are included in the appendix to the tenth report.
This is the first time that these committee post-activity expenditure reports have been tabled publicly and pursuant to the decision of Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on March 27, 2014. They are to be tabled in the Senate as reports of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. We are confident that providing this information in this format is an important step forward, and we welcome your feedback.
As an aside, you might ask the question: How are we doing this year? Thank you for asking. Committee budgets for 2014-15 current status. Our opening budget was $2,382,100. We set aside $500,000 for witnesses and other miscellaneous costs. The available amount for committees was just under $1.9 million. The funds released or budgeted to date have been $1,893,736, which consists of travel for $1,777,028 and general expenses of $116,000. To date, 2014-15, committees have completed six trips together. The budget for these trips amounts to $777,692. While the final accounting for some of these trips is still to be completed, estimates are that the expenditures will amount to approximately 50 per cent of the allocated budgets, or just under $400,000.
I think we are on the right track. It's not to say we are being miserly but that we are becoming better at financial management. This is the first time that these reports will be made available to the public and to the media. We will do it on a yearly basis, but if people want more in terms of information, we can then decide whether we want to do it every six months. It's a start and it's a good piece of information. I will answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Smith and your colleagues, for developing this report mechanism that will be presented to the Senate chamber as the tenth report. It really speaks to another successful initiative undertaken by the Senate in the direction of not frugality but in setting the standard that we are going to control this budget. It's a good piece of work.
Senator Munson: Thank you for that report, senator. For the public report, what happens with the surplus? Where does it go? Does it stay with other committees? Will money that has been saved move around?
Senator L. Smith: My understanding is that it will go back into the coffers of Finance. We go forward from that position for planning the next fiscal year. Does it go back into the pot to be spent some place else? Probably it could, but from our perspective we've budgeted and spent and this is a savings. If Finance and Internal Economy decide to spend the money somewhere else, that could happen also.
Senator Munson: It goes back into a big pot if it does not stay with the committees.
Senator L. Smith: It goes into the committee budget, but if we don't use it, it will then go into the overall available funds of the Senate, if I understand correctly.
Senator Munson: I'm not being facetious but I would like to see more Conservatives travelling on these committees. We seem to have a system of nine-member committees. It's a bit of a lottery for our colleagues sitting where you're sitting to go on these trips. For example, it can be six and three or five and four, et cetera. It denies senators on the governing side — and I'm being serious about this — the opportunity to share those moments of study on away committees to sit down and do reasonable work. When these committees come back to Ottawa, we have to go through all the information gathered and come to a decision on the study and what to recommend to government. I recognize that we are saving taxpayers' money, which is a good thing, but there does not necessarily have to be a locked-in system of one more Conservative than Liberal.
Senator L. Smith: I don't think that's the case. We take the historical average, which, in most cases, were between six and nine over time. There are available numbers that have the right to travel but when it all comes out in the wash, there are usually between six and nine people. That's historical data. I haven't been here as long as many of you but one thing I gleaned from working with Senator LeBreton and Senator Cordy is that these folks have a great understanding of the history.
We work on history not on trying to minimize the number of people from either side who have the right to travel. All senators have the right to travel, but let's do that in historical numbers. Sometimes some senators want to go and sometimes, for whatever reason, they cannot go.
Senator LeBreton: On that point, Senator Munson, and on our subcommittee, and Senator Cordy has spoken to this before, we budget for the full committee so that it does not deny any member of the committee the right to travel with the committee. Often, and I think the numbers reflect this, when the trip takes place not all senators are able to go necessarily. We always budget for the full committee because it would be unfair, as you point out, to exclude people with the budgeting process. That's why people are not denied the opportunity to go if they so wish.
Senator Cordy: The committee work being done now and in the past, and I have been fortunate to be on committees that have done outstanding reports, is the first thing we have to look at. It's really important that committees travel to other parts of Canada. Sometimes in Ottawa we are in a bubble. It's important to hear from the people in Atlantic Canada, for example. When a Senate committee goes to Halifax, Cape Breton, St. John's or Charlottetown, people are very much aware of their presence in the community. I recall going to Halifax and all three television stations in metro were there. The two newspapers at the time were both there. You get a tremendous amount of coverage. It is important for people in all parts of the country to realize the great work done by the Senate.
I would like to thank all committees, and I know sitting around this table are some chairs and deputy chairs. I have noticed over the years a tremendous difference in how committee budgets are being presented to the subcommittee. People are clear and focused on their objectives when they want to go on a trip to Atlantic Canada or to the West Coast or to the Prairies, wherever it happens to be. Committee chairs and deputy chairs have been extremely clear, which is important. It has come a long way, so I would like to congratulate those who presented before our subcommittee. The money not spent will go back into committee budgets. Committees that might not be able to travel will find later in the year that because of money clawed back they will be able to travel to Saskatoon or Calgary or wherever. I congratulate committees for the great work they are doing and the focus they have been presenting to us.
Senator L. Smith: If you do take a quick glance at the reports, and this is to support what Senator Cordy just said, one of the keys has been the completion and the clarity of the objectives and the results. It's right on the top page of each report. Again, we're really pleased with how people are conducting themselves. It is a cultural shift, and a positive one but, more importantly, for the people who are normal citizens who want to have access to what we do in committees, it gives them clarity of thought and clarity of information.
When you see the actual expense, i.e. the first report on agriculture, allocation of $22,500, the actual spent $5,600 and a surplus, people could say, "Well, they didn't spend the money but, more important, what they did do is spend the money required to fulfill the objective and achieve the results." That's what is important in any of these activities.
Senator Lang: First, I have been here going on six years in January. I have to say that any of the committees that I've participated on, and I think I can probably speak for most members here, were done in such a manner that, in my judgment, overall, met our financial objectives. I know we're refining them, but I think the reality, and it is a good thing, is the procedure of having to come before a subcommittee on Internal to outline basically as a chair and a deputy chair in respect to what your objectives are and what your intentions are so it identifies what you're doing and why you're doing it. I want to go back in history here. We've done fairly well as the Senate in respect to our previous reports before we implemented this.
I want to make one point here, and I'm not clear on this. I get quite concerned when we say there is extra money that's available and that if we don't use, it's going to go back in and be utilized somewhere else. I would like to get some assurances as a member that the monies that have been set aside and clearly identified for the purpose of committees will stay in that particular area of concern unless there is a vote taken by Internal Economy to move it elsewhere. I find it very difficult to understand that we vote money and then we can move it over somewhere else and we're not really clear where it went. My understanding from the answers we have this morning is that it is both ways. It goes back into the committee allocation, but it can be moved at the same time. I want assurances, if I could, that that will not happen unless we give authority to do that, because this is very important to all of us.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Lang. On your last point, indeed, it will require a decision of the Internal Economy Committee to allocate any of the funds that are available in our Senate budget to whatever sector. Should there be, for whatever reason or another, maybe a machine that was going to be purchased not available, it requires a decision of the full committee on, if you like, reallocating any resources available. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say this.
Procedurally, could we have a motion, then, to table this tenth report in the Senate? Moved by Senator Marshall, seconded by Senator Doyle. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Before we leave it, the chair would like to exercise the prerogative of a chair just to build on Senator Cordy's point about the importance of the Senate's presence across Canada. I wonder whether we might reflect on this. I'm glad Dr. Lank is here. As the various committees, depending on studies, are planning to do fact finding across the country, could we have sort of an operating principle? We would try to have committees go to the Atlantic division, if the Fisheries Committee is planning a visit to Newfoundland and Labrador, or if Legal and Constitutional Affairs is going to conduct a study and visit the Atlantic region, Maritime division, we would say the Senate had a presence, which Senator Cordy rightly points out is so well-known in the region when you go there. It's front-page news. If the Legal Committee went to Prince Edward Island, or if Agriculture is going out, the Senate committee could go to two provinces, or that we would go to another province. It would not be a strict rule but a sensitivity to the reality that if we can be present doing the work, all of the committees, globally, try to cover, in the run of a year, every province and the territories.
Let's then put the question: Is it agreed that we table this report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. The next item is Senators' Basic Information Policy.
Lucie Lavoie, Senior Executive Assistant to the Clerk of the Senate, Senate of Canada: The purpose of the new policy is to establish rules and practices for the collection, management and use of basic information that the administration requires of senators. The new IRIS legislative system now contains all senators' information, and this collection of information ensures that there is data integrity and quality and avoids overlap in administrative processes.
This policy, together with the new system, also protects against unauthorized access to senators' confidential information.
Senator Tkachuk: I'm sorry. So I'm clear: I know we adopted the motion to table the report, but did we adopt the budget? Didn't we have a budget here? The subcommittee on budgets. I don't think we had a motion to adopt it. I thought we tabled the report.
Mr. O'Brien: I think we were trying to do two at one time, that you concur in Senator Smith's report and that we table it in the Senate this afternoon.
The Chair: Is that okay, Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: I'm good. It seemed odd.
The Chair: On the item that we're dealing with, circulated was a form that speaks to what Ms. Lavoie is describing. It's that form.
Ms. Lavoie: The proposed policy identifies what information is needed, and it will allow the administration to have access to a main database with accurate and reliable information. Access to senators' basic information within the database will be managed by the Clerk's office, and the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and members of the procedure team have been consulted.
If the policy is approved, a memo will be prepared for the signature of the chair and deputy chair of Internal to inform senators. A memo will also be prepared for the Clerk's signature to be sent to the administration, and the policy and guidelines will be published on the Intrasen.
Senator Marshall: I wanted to speak about the security of the information. I'm not so much concerned about things like your address and phone number, which would be in a phone book, but section 14 is talking about disabilities. I know there is reference in the briefing document that information will be available only to authorized users. I'm wondering who the authorized users would be. What kind of controls or procedures are there going to be over the maintenance of this information, and how are you going to detect if there is unauthorized access to this information?
Ms. Lavoie: First, the Clerk's office will manage the main database, and we will give permission only to authorized users for specific areas of information.
Senator Marshall: Who would be the authorized users be? Is it 100 people or three people?
Ms. Lavoie: For example, with section 14 talking about disability, probably HR will have access to it, but only for reporting.
Senator Marshall: Everybody in HR?
Ms. Lavoie: No, only those authorized, probably the manager and one other person.
Senator Marshall: In the media, you hear issues about access to confidential information from people's medical records where you have unauthorized people going in and just browsing through people's medical records to see what their medical problems are. I'm curious as to exactly who will have access to this information and exactly how you will pick it up if someone is accessing information.
Ms. Lavoie: The Clerk's office will give permission for certain users, and we can certainly check with Information Services for periodic searches on who has been accessing within those permissions that were granted.
Senator Munson: These go to all senators, right, the ones we got, the validation form of who you may think you are?
Ms. Lavoie: Yes.
Senator Munson: Section 12, ethnic origin, optional. Section 13, visible minority, optional. Section 14, disability. You don't have to fill those three parts in if you don't want to?
Ms. Lavoie: No, it's optional.
Senator Munson: Yes. It is what it is, right?
Senator Marshall: When you want to provide the information, you want to make sure that there is security, that access is restricted.
Senator Munson: We are doing this why, again? We have given so much information about ourselves. That's everything there. What is the rationale behind this?
Michel Patrice, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: Actually, it is information that is already collected, and that happened at your initial meeting with the Clerk when you were appointed. We are trying to standardize and ensure that we have one set of accurate information. What happens is that there are so many publications in the Senate and so many documents that, sometimes, we could find ourselves with discrepancies, in terms of designations, names and so on, between, for example, the committee minutes, the Senate Debates and other types of information and documents. In relation to the information where there is a self-identification process, which is voluntary, an individual senator decides whether they want to self-identify and whether or not they would want that information to be disclosed.
So all of that information is collected or maintained either in the Clerk's office or the other place. For example, if the information was to be kept confidential, it's one person at Finance who holds that information, for example, for senators, a sessional allowance and all of that. For senators who wish to self-identify and want to make that information known, then it could be used in terms of our equity report and so on, but that's a personal choice of the individual, as it is with all Senate employees.
Senator Munson: I'm not so sure of my ethnic origin. It depends on the day.
Senator Lang: Mr. Chair, I have a number of questions about this, and I know time is marching on here. I'd like to know if this has been sent out as a draft so that other senators are aware of what would be requested of them prior to us dealing with this. Second, I would like to know, on the section 3(1) compliance, why a senator would be reporting to the Clerk of the Senate as opposed to the Speaker because the Speaker is our chair. I think that should be considered.
I notice that there is a penalty section, but I don't know quite what the penalty is. "Noncompliance with a policy can result in lack of data integrity and an administrative process that is inconsistent. . ." What happens if a person does not apply when we put this new rule in? This is on page 18 of 26 of the document.
I think that we should know exactly what the implications are of that. I get very concerned with more rules, more rules, more rules. I want to understand why we are doing that, and what, then, the implications are for a senator if he or she does not comply?
Senator LeBreton: We got that the declaration of qualification. When you read the wording of it, it's very archaic wording. I think it goes back to 1867. It mentions $4,000 worth of property free and clear, but there is no mention in the declaration of qualification that you have to own property when you sign that declaration that you do and that you can, therefore, take the seat in the Senate representing the region. That was the source of a lot of misunderstanding. That declaration of qualification makes no mention of residency or expenses or anything like that, and then there are other rules, of course, that deal specifically, through Internal Economy, with residency as it pertains to claiming expenses in the National Capital Region.
If this were to be implemented, will that, therefore, require that that archaic declaration of qualification that we all sign be updated? Is it going to have more information? Because that declaration of qualification was the source of a lot of misinformation and a lot of misunderstanding when we were dealing with issues in the last year.
Mr. Patrice: In relation to the declaration of qualification that a senator signed when he was appointed or at the beginning of every new Parliament, this is basically the text that you are required to sign by the Constitution Act of 1867. Obviously, it was an Imperial Act of 1867, and it represented the language at that time. To change that text needs a constitutional amendment. What the Clerk's office tries to do is, basically, when he meets each senator, to explain more, give more in terms of information, in terms of the text that you are required to sign. From memory, it says that I'm duly qualified, and, obviously, that makes a reference to the text of the Constitution, the relevant provision of the Constitution. We are in no position to change that text.
Senator LeBreton: Because of the misunderstanding and the belief of some that the declaration of qualification — and it is — is what it says it is. It qualifies to sit in the Senate to represent a particular region. I would not suggest going back and rewriting the Constitution as it was in 1867 but ask if there is some way, in future, that that document could be more realistically linked into present day requirements. There is nothing in it about residency, as you know, and nothing about expenses. It is just a straight qualification, so I'm just asking if this is going to be linked into the declaration of qualification so that there can be no misunderstanding of what the declaration of qualification means and what the responsibilities of the senators are vis-à-vis the claiming of expenses.
The Chair: Honourable senators, this is just to open a discussion on whether or not we want to improve the database of information. Let's encourage all of our colleagues to reflect on it. No decisions are being made immediately around this kind of thing.
With that, if we can move to the next item, members of the Joint Advisory Working Group on Canada 150, we have a recommendation. Senator Smith and Senator Furey have consulted and were proposing that, on this committee — and they will join with members from the House of Commons — from the Senate, the members include Senators Seidman, McInnis, Johnson, Furey and Downe; am I correct?
Mr. O'Brien: Yes.
The Chair: Senator Seidman from Quebec, Senator McInnis of Nova Scotia, Senator Johnson of Manitoba, Senator Furey of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Senator Downe of Prince Edward Island; is it agreed?
This is going to deal with the plans, and we'll collaborate with colleagues from the House of Commons, for parliamentary involvement in the celebration of Canada 150.
Senator Tkachuk: Do we have a list of the members from the house?
The Chair: Not yet.
Senator Tkachuk: We have one Western member from the Senate.
The Chair: We have one from the West, yes, Johnson; and one from the East.
Senator Tkachuk: Out of six.
The Chair: Five.
Senator Tkachuk: Out of five.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Furey: I'm counting six, chair, not five. Did I get that wrong?
The Chair: Senators Seidman, McInnis, Johnson, Furey, and Downe.
Is there discussion?
Senator Lang: I want to take Senator Tkachuk's comment. Is this an allocation of money? What will the committee be doing? What's their role?
The Chair: They will meet with colleagues from the House of Commons and think about and make recommendations as to what Parliament as a national institution might consider doing as initiatives for the celebration of Canada 150. That whole plan is very much in the early stages. Heritage Canada, no doubt, will be, from the government point of view, a lead agency. The National Capital Commission will be involved. We just thought that Speaker Scheer and I, in consultation with leadership on both sides, should have a few members from this house and the other house reflect on this purely from a parliamentary point of view so that we're not left out. That's the idea.
Senator Manning: My question goes back to what Senator Tkachuk asked concerning the composition of the committee and whether we knew who was going to be there from the House of Commons. If we're going to have five or six people from the House of Commons, it's important we ensure that at least every province and territory be represented on the planning committee. Maybe instead of jumping the gun, we should wait to see who the House of Commons will put on the committee first and we can fill in the blanks after.
The Chair: Is it agreed that we share these nominations with our colleagues in the House of Commons to give them the chance to look at the regional participation?
Senator Manning: I would suggest that we wait to see who they have first, and we can fill in the blanks after. That's just my opinion.
The Chair: Okay. What's your guidance?
Senator Tkachuk: I think we wait.
The Chair: We'll table the matter. Is it agreed that we table the matter?
Senator Wells: Chair, if I could have a comment on it. Rather than us doing it first or them doing it first, is there a possible way to develop a coordinated list with the House of Commons?
The Chair: Sure. I'll undertake as chair of this committee to speak with the Speaker of the House of Commons to see who he comes up with; and I'll bring back the full list.
Moving to the next item, the steering committee is recommending that we establish a subcommittee to work on the building of the Main Estimates for the next fiscal year. We're recommending, through the consultation of Senator Furey and Senator Smith, that on this committee we would have Senator Larry Smith, Senator Nolin, Senator Wells, Senator Furey and Senator Cordy. The idea is that this committee would mine down in the budget preparation as it's being developed so that people who would have the time to concentrate on that would then come to the steering committee, who would bring it to the full committee. We wanted to have a working group available to work with the administration as they are engaged in the preparation of the budget proposal for next year.
We wish to have senators actively engaged at the ground level working with the administration in the preparation of the budget for the next fiscal year. Is there agreement on those senators on the subcommittee?
Senator LeBreton: Chair, I'm not necessarily against an advisory working group on the Main Estimates but for my edification, I inquired about how many subcommittees and special advisory committees we have for Internal Economy. There are 14, I'm advised. The Internal Economy Committee has a very important role to play; and it's clearly stated what that role is. By the time it gets filtered through advisory committees, subcommittees and steering committee, I often find myself not being generally aware of some of the work that's being done. I'm a member of the Internal Economy Committee, which is supposed to be the oversight committee. There are important issues like the Main Estimates that perhaps the whole committee should be involved with. No wonder some of us are in the dark about some of the things that go on, because it's done by a small committee, then it's sent to steering committee and presented here as a fait accompli. Fundamentally I have a problem with that.
Senator Furey: Senator LeBreton raises a good point in terms of the number of subcommittees. We do have a fair number of them. I disagree when it comes to the full committee being kept in the dark in that the mandate of any subcommittee or advisory committee is to report back to the full committee. In particular, I understand that this particular committee or subcommittee is an initiative of the Leader of the Government in the Senate; and I think it's a good one.
The Chair: Senator LeBreton raises a critically important point. This committee has the mandate and responsibility for full administration of the institution. We must make sure that we provide the fullness of data and the fullness of opportunity for members of this committee to be able to deliberate on matters that are for this committee to decide on. It has come up several times that whatever recommendation might come from the steering committee to the full committee, with the aid of other senators, the data has to be made available in the fullness of time so that there's time for members of this committee to really mine down into what the issue is.
We're desirous of having full Senate involvement in the development of our next Senate budget, but having 16 members engaged in it wouldn't work. The senator makes an important point: How do we plan it so that members of this committee are able to do their due diligence, and you can only do it if you have the data? If we agree that when recommendations are brought to this committee on things as complex and as serious as many of the things that we have to deal with, we really have to have the data well in advance so that members of this committee can meet their responsibilities for due diligence.
Senator LeBreton: I started off by saying that this is a very important subject matter. I was raising the issue of yet another subcommittee. I didn't necessarily say that this was a bad idea, Senator Furey. Again, the people who serve on these subcommittees need more active involvement in making sure, especially on a matter as important as this, that the documents and the information are given to the full committee. Even if the subcommittee meets with the full committee before it goes through steering, there has to be more in-depth drilling down of the information so that when we come to the full meeting of the Internal Economy, we're not just rubber-stamping process that have gone through various subcommittees and then steering committee. That was my point.
Senator Furey: I couldn't agree more, Senator LeBreton.
The Chair: Can we have an agreement from the members?
Senator Tkachuk: I so move.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: No. 7 on SARs.
Mr. O'Brien: Honourable senators, before the summer adjournment, we agreed that a joint working group to review the SARs would be the same members who had done the travel policy review. Senator Smith would like to notify the full committee that, once again, this advisory working group will be beginning its work shortly, and those members are Senator Smith, Senator Marshall, Senator Lang, Senator Tkachuk, Senator Furey, Senator Downe and Senator Cordy, seven members.
Senator L. Smith: So everybody understands, what we've done to this point is we've had a couple of sessions with Michel and the Finance group to go over the last document. Just as a bit of history, which is history for me also, in 2004, the SARs rules were written, and then around 2009 there was a review of the SARs rules. There was new wording that was red-lined in that document. Then, I guess with all of the activity within Parliament and elections, et cetera, it didn't fall by the wayside but it was put on hold. We have an opportunity now to review these rules. What we've done initially with George and myself and with Michel and the group is had sort of an introduction to them, and what we're doing is going over what we see. Michel will take the comments of the initial discussion, which is more of an overview, not in-depth digging, and rewrite the SARs rules so that when the committee sits down, then we can go into the depth required to say: "Is this the right word? Is this the right idea? Should there be modifications? Is it modernized? Is it up to date? Does it comply with some of the new travel rules?" We'll be properly organized.
Therefore, Michel has been tasked, and we have one more meeting left to get this done as expeditiously as possible so we can start sometime after Thanksgiving. Within two to three weeks, we'll get that information back from Michel. Michel is excited about the time frame that has been put on him. We'll get our group in place, if that's okay with everyone.
The Chair: Agreed. Next item.
Mr. O'Brien: Honourable senators, as the last item, up on the screen you will see an e-book, electronic book, which has been developed by the Senate Administration with respect to the parliamentary treasures that are in our Senate archives. As you know, the Senate Clerk, Clerk of the Parliaments, is by statute given custody for safekeeping of all the Acts of Parliament, both before Confederation and after Confederation.
The genesis of this e-book was the work done in the United Kingdom. Some of you remember Lord Falconer came here in October 2012 on a visit to look at the decanting of the Parliament Buildings, thinking what they can do. Anyway, as a gift to us, he presented us the book of the archives of the Victoria Tower treasures. This gave us the idea that if they can publicize their treasures, we can certainly do that, because just a few feet from us are the most extensive legal archives in the country.
We've had tremendous support from our Senate Communications group and our graphic artists and our former Law Clerk, Mark Audcent, assisted by Michel, to proceed to give a description of the various themes of Canadian history as we move through the development of our archives. We're very proud of this book. This is something I think we want to feel good about the Senate. It's embedded with a lot of the history of the Senate. There's a picture of the old Senate chamber before the fire of 1916. You don't see that too often. Various anecdotes and various other treasures are in there besides the legal bills. There are many communications from monarchs. There's the letter of abdication of Edward. Also embedded within it is our own architecture, our stained glass window.
We're very proud of this, and we would like to do this as an outreach program. It will be published as an e-book, but we thought senators themselves would like perhaps to have hard copies. Others may like to have hard copies. So what we're proposing is to print 500 copies, in total, to last us for the years to come. Every senator would be given a copy. Obviously, it's a tumble version; it's in both languages. If senators would wish to have additional copies, they could pay $25, which would cover the cost of production, as they buy additional photographs of the Senate. Every Parliament we have an official photograph of senators in the Senate chamber.
We would recommend that 100 copies be given freely to every senator, 100 copies be given to the Speaker in case he would like to give this to visitors who come to Parliament, and it would leave a little reserve that other people, including the public, if there are additional requests, could purchase copies so there would be a bit of a cost recovery. The production cost of this book is approximately $5,000 for 500 copies, and we propose that the book be distributed to all senators the week of October 20.
Senator LeBreton: I think it's a great idea. I would suggest that you provide copies to the parliamentary boutique. I often go in there and buy multiple copies of the book that shows the paintings in the Senate to give to people when they come in. I would recommend that you make it available for sale in the parliamentary boutique as well.
Senator Tkachuk: It might make the New York Times best-seller list.
Senator Lang: Mr. Chairman, I think the administration should be commended for the work they've done. I haven't seen the document, but I'm sure it's very well done.
In view of the fact that it is a historical document and it's going to endure the test of time, would it not be more feasible to go with 1,000 copies on one printing as opposed to go to two printings? Would that not save money and give a volume of copies that could be utilized, say, 10 years from now?
The Chair: I think the fact that it's an e-book really speaks to the universal accessibility of it. We are moving into that age, and it will be more widely distributed through that vehicle. We thought the 500 would meet immediate needs. Should there be a great demand for more, we can look at it. We expect that the electronic copy will meet the needs on a nationwide basis. There are depository libraries, all kinds of libraries across the country, that might like it. It's accessible to them. Some libraries not only in Canada but around the world now are using not purchased hard text but the electronic text.
Senators, I apologize that we've gone well beyond our scheduled, allotted time. Another committee is moving in here. I thank you for your work this morning. The meeting stands adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)