Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 9 - Evidence - February 2, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 2, 2017
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9 a.m., in public, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters; and in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, colleagues. A belated happy new year to everyone. I'd like to welcome everyone back to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration. We'll get right to work with item 1 on the agenda, which is the adoption of minutes of proceedings of the December 15, 2016, public portion of the meeting. Are there any questions, colleagues, on those minutes?
If not, maybe somebody can move them. Senator Cordy moves them, seconded by Senator Wells.
Item 2, adoption of minutes of proceedings of December 15, 2016, in camera portion. Are there any questions on that? If not, maybe somebody can move it. Senator Jaffer moves it, seconded by Senator Wells. Thank you, colleagues.
Item 3, we have the cost of IT equipment. Before we start with that item, I would like to highlight that it will probably be the last meeting that Peter Feltham comes before Internal Economy because I understand he will be retiring, unless he changes his mind between now and mid-April.
Peter joined the Senate in 1993 as a consultant, and he has been the architect who oversaw the installation of the first campus-wide computer network in the Senate. He became an employee of the Senate in 1994, and he helped Hélène Bouchard build the IT team to what it is today, a department that we're very proud of.
We can say that Peter and Hélène are the founding partners, or the founders, of ISD and the IT department, as we know it. They installed the initial generation of many of the corporate systems currently in use within the Senate. They designed and developed the first webcasting environment in the Canadian legislature. They designed and developed the closed and open caption systems currently in use in the Senate.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Peter for his outstanding service and dedication to the Senate and all that he has done. We will sorely miss him when he goes. Thank you on behalf of Internal Economy.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Peter Feltham, Acting Director, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you very much, senators. Good morning, honourable senators. I am Peter Feltham, Acting Director of Senate Information Services.
Currently, ISD sets a charge-back to senators' research and office budgets for IT equipment, purchases from senators. Beginning April 1 this year, ISD will be responsible for all costs related to IT equipment within the Senate administration and senators' offices, including mobile devices for senators and their staff. An increase to the ISD budget to acquire IT equipment for senators was approved by this committee in December 2016, effective April 1, 2017.
In your reading material for this meeting, senators, you will find a guiding principles document which describes considerations for establishing the IT requirements for a senator's office, as well as the parameters surrounding the ever-greening and replacement of this equipment over time.
There are a number of subtle efficiencies that will be realized in moving to a centralized acquisition model, which includes, among others, the ability to leverage the benefits of bulk purchasing in addition to reducing the administrative overhead surrounding the existing charge-back system.
I am here to seek approval from this committee to apply this new practice from January 1, 2017, instead of April 1, 2017. This means any IT-related equipment purchases from senators through the month of January until the end of March 2017 will be paid out of the central funds envelope. In short, any pending charge-backs for these purchases will not be processed, and ISD will immediately proceed with fulfilling IT equipment requests under the new centralized system.
Thank you, senators. At this time, I'd be pleased to answer questions.
Senator Jaffer: I don't have a question, but I want to second what the chair said. I have probably been a real pain in your side throughout the time you've been here. I want to say when we were in a very different era, you led us and thought outside the box and made things possible that sometimes you had to stretch, so I want to thank you for all the exceptional services you provided that brought us to where we are. Thank you very much.
Mr. Feltham: Thank you very much, senator.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Peter. What is the approximate cost for that one quarter between January 1 and March 31 that will be paid out of the allotment of the Senate administration versus senators' offices?
Mr. Feltham: I don't have an accurate figure right now. It's going to depend on the decision this committee makes because it could deliver an onslaught of requests to us. If I had to guess, I would probably say — I can go back and do some math — but let's say about $30,000.
Senator Wells: $30,000 total?
Mr. Feltham: Total, yes.
Senator Wells: That would be for the full complement of senators' offices. Obviously, some senators aren't going to spend any money on IT?
Mr. Feltham: That's correct, yes.
Senator Wells: Here's what I'm trying to get at: Over a year, what is the average or typical range that a senator's office would expend in the IT costs you're referring to in this instance?
Mr. Feltham: If we do the math and take a new senator's office — we can start with that — you're looking at about $6,000 in tablet-type equipment. That would be for, let's say, two Surface Pros; at least one desktop computer is going to be another $1,200; a couple of iPhones, probably about $800 each — or an iPhone and Android device somewhere between $500 and $800 apiece. That will give you a rough idea of the start-up cost.
Then, depending on how long the equipment has been in the office, that can vary quite a bit. Say you're changing a piece of equipment out every year, it could range from an additional $2,000 to $4,000.
Senator Wells: Per year?
Mr. Feltham: Per office, yes.
Senator Marshall: Peter, what surplus are we anticipating? In responding to Senator Wells, you spoke about the cost, but what surplus are you anticipating? You're saying "senators are anticipating budgetary surpluses in 2016-17.''
Mr. Feltham: That question should maybe go to Pascale.
Senator Marshall: So this is not just IT surplus? Maybe I can just make this other comment I have. I found the briefing note wasn't robust enough. The attachment was fine. I've made this comment during previous meetings that this proposal here, there's no letterhead or anything, but there's information missing like the cost of the IT equipment, plus the dollar value of the surplus. I'd like to see what the financial implications are of this initiative.
I would like to know what surplus we're anticipating and then I have one other question. Will I go with the next question first?
The Chair: Maybe Pascale can address that.
Pascale Legault, Chief Financial Officer, Finance Directorate, Senate of Canada: For the overall surplus for the Senate, we are working currently on the Q3 financial report, which will be presented at the Subcommittee on Audit later on in February, so I wouldn't want to advance the information on that. With respect to the ISD surplus, yes, an analysis was done before Christmas to ensure there was sufficient surplus in order to allow for purchases of IT equipment. More than $100,000 was available. Therefore, the decision was made to make a recommendation, even though we don't have the information finalized for the entire Senate at that point.
Senator Marshall: My last question: With the guiding principles, Peter, that you spoke about, under the standard network computer desktop/laptop part, why is it a choice between a desktop or one portable device? I wasn't aware of that. Don't some senators have a desktop and one portable device?
Mr. Feltham: Yes, they do. In moving toward the Surface Pro, we're recommending that people don't have a desktop. With the Surface Pro, we can attach a regular monitor and keyboard to the docking station, and it is effectively just as powerful as the desktop computer. If people choose, they can have both devices, but we would much prefer users to have just one, if they are going to select the Surface Pro, because they are or want to be more mobile and do their work anywhere.
Senator Marshall: So this policy has been approved by Internal Economy, has it? Where did the policy originate? Who's deciding —
The Chair: We took a decision that we would do this a few months back. The only thing that's changed right now is the administration has the resources to do it for this fiscal year, starting in January. So the reason it has come back here is to get approval in order for them to proceed as of January instead of April 1.
Senator Marshall: I'm trying to determine who decided that a senator can have either a desktop or a Surface Pro? Why is there that restriction? Did we decide that?
The Chair: Internal Economy decided that.
Senator Marshall: Oh, we did? Okay. Thank you.
Senator Batters: I want to get something clear. Previously, for a new senator, if you were going to acquire these types of mobile devices — iPads and that sort of thing — to acquire that device, that came out of a senator's individual budget. Am I understanding correctly that now it will come out of a centralized Senate administration budget?
Mr. Feltham: That is correct, senator.
Senator Batters: So by back-dating this, in essence, each of the new senators appointed in this latest large batch will receive an additional, basically, several thousand dollars that they have access to in their individual senators' office budget because they won't have to pay for those significant costs out of their individual budget; it will come out of the centralized budget; is that right? Did you say it was about $6,000 average each?
Mr. Feltham: It's $6,000 for printer, cellphone — between $6,000 and $8,000, I would say.
Senator Batters: I was understanding that correctly?
Mr. Feltham: Yes, I guess that would happen in that case.
Senator Batters: Okay. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I am still trying to understand the rules, to distinguish between a regulation, a rule, a policy, and the application of a policy.
I just wanted to reassure my colleagues and tell them that, as a new senator, the information I had was that I had no choice, I could take either the Surface Pro or the office computer. I have no problem with that. I chose the Surface Pro, which is a very helpful tool to work with. I also want to assure myself that we are not getting gifts because we are newly appointed. We were given no choice.
I have no idea of what the policy is or how it is applied. But I can tell you that, in my case, how it was applied was that I had no choice, and I have no problem with that. I am very satisfied with the choice I made.
Thank you.
[English]
Senator Lankin: I'll resist the whine and the critique about the performance of technology. The Surface Pro didn't work for me at all off site. It was fine here but not off site.
The question Senator Batters was asking raised for me the question of fairness of application. Having said that, most of the new senators, save one or two, already have all of their equipment and offices set up — so there may be two senators and those who come in the future.
My question about the timing and the change in the timing of this is more so from a policy of how we treat year-end dollars. I've seen often in the past a tendency to want to spend dollars to secure allocations against future years. It seems to me that's not a wise use, unless they are extraordinary one-time capital costs or something. I realize this is a capital purchase; I'm assuming it's treated that way under our budget. I haven't seen the financials yet to assume that. That gives me some concern.
I'm wondering what the impact of this policy is on an ongoing basis, and because it's a centrally allocated resource, paid-for resource, whether we will now have a strict policy about what the central dollars will pay for. Maybe that was included in the previous motion some time ago when you approved moving to this. I have two concerns. One is to know that there will be a policy; the second is to know that individual senators and their budgets, if they feel they need more technology, are able to use it for that purpose. I think some of that should be clear.
My primary reason for intervention is I'm not sure I support the idea of using year-end dollars. I'd rather have a clear sense of what our annual allocation is and to be making expenditures within that, with good rationale and good policy.
The Chair: Colleagues, if I may address that. First, this is not an attempt to have a free-for-all on surplus budget. Keep in mind, colleagues, that all additional expenditures, in addition to going to this committee, are thoroughly reviewed by the Estimates Committee. They're brought there for thorough discussion.
There was a decision taken by this committee that made a lot of sense, and especially as it was precipitated by the new technologies coming out, like the Surface Pro. A lot of senators thought it would be useful for them and their staff to have those technologies at their disposal.
In the previous policy in place, senators with a desktop computer would ask for a Surface Pro and they would be charged I believe a buyback on the equipment they would be sending back. In many instances, senators who are very busy, their budgets were limited; they would be prohibited from having access to that technology.
The decision was taken in order to guarantee fairness that all senators would have access to technological resources in their office to do their work. This committee thought it would be prudent — we had a long discussion last year — and there was a decision taken in order to transfer the cost of technology and electronic office equipment to central budget rather than take it out of senators' budgets. That was the premise. It wasn't to give any unfair advantage to you senators, and certainly there was no attempt to pillage and raid surpluses that we have worked hard to accumulate. We have those surpluses because we were prudent.
The administration came back and said there was an overwhelming demand late in the year, early this year, from senators' offices to acquire these technologies, and they said these senators can wait until April or we have the surplus budget to do it now and satisfy those needs.
In good faith, we brought it before this committee, and there's basically nothing more, nothing less to it. I don't know if that addresses most of the questions.
Senator Lankin: I understand better the history of the approval and I appreciate that. I appreciate you reminding us that this has come through estimates already. That's important. This is going to happen with some of us who are new and engaging on this committee, so I appreciate that.
The issue of why January and not April. It's always dangerous to make assumptions, but in my assumptions, most of the new senators who have arrived have got their equipment. Are we saying there's a demand for the Surface Pro from a lot of senators' offices, not just new senators' offices? Okay. I understand that. Thank you.
Senator Downe: I'm interested in the home regional office, the desktop or laptop, are they connected to the Senate computer system? I'm concerned about security. Is it the same level of security protection?
Mr. Feltham: That's a good question, senator. Yes. We have two ways that we can connect with the Surface Pro because it has certain features built into it. We use a technology called DirectAccess. It basically allows you to connect securely into the Senate network, and it's the same thing as sitting at your desk. You have access to your shared drives. Everything is encrypted and secure, and that is based on you maintaining your passwords properly.
With older laptops, we are still using a VPN, a virtual private network connection. Some of you are familiar with the secure ID cards, and you might have that on your BlackBerry. That also is another secure network that allows you to come in without being compromised.
Senator Downe: And on desktops?
Mr. Feltham: Desktops and laptops would be the same technology, a VPN network and using the secure ID card. Once that connection is established between your Wi-Fi in your regional office or your home to the parliamentary network, everything that happens across that network is encrypted. It's the same technology that is used in online banking.
Senator Cordy: Thank you for all the information this morning. The reality is that in 2017 technology is not an extra, as it was many years ago. Having it come from the central budget makes sense.
Currently we have a policy that you have to keep your BlackBerrys for two years or else pay for it out of your own funds. I'm assuming that one would not be able to trade in their technology every year, that there would be a two-year minimum?
Mr. Feltham: No. In the guiding principles document, which was prepared by Hélène, you will notice in the first part we lay out what we expect the life cycle to be for this equipment. For example, the standard network computer desktop is five to six years. In fact, we've actually kept them running longer in many cases. We would not expect to see a request for a new computer before five years.
Same thing with the Surface Pro, three to four years. The Surface Pro is a very new device, so we may find that they last longer than that. Again, we would not expect to see a request if you have a Surface Pro that is only two years old or two and a half years old. That request would be questioned.
Senator Cordy: That makes sense. Extenuating circumstances.
Mr. Feltham: Exactly.
Senator Omidvar: On a point of clarification. Is this policy proposal now going to be a proposal that endures, or will it come back based on future surpluses?
The Chair: No. The decision to transfer the budgeting of IT equipment and electronic equipment to the administration was taken by Internal Economy last year. Again, strictly that we've had an overwhelming demand for this technology by all Senate offices and the administration felt that we can start. They're equipped and ready to do it, and we had this available surplus so we thought it would be prudent to start it right away. It is much more efficient.
Colleagues, if there are no more questions, maybe we will have a motion by someone.
Moved by Senator Cordy that from January 1, 2017, all computer equipment purchases, including mobile devices for senators and staff, be paid from a central fund and that a pending charge-back to Senate research and office budget not be processed. Thank you, colleagues.
Item 4 is staff attendance and in camera meetings. As we have traditionally had here, whenever we go in camera, we ask staff to vacate the room, except the staff who work for members of the steering committee and also the staff representative from the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition.
Given the changing context of the chamber and the committee, essentially we are proposing that going forward we would allow for staff attendance in in camera meetings of officers of the Senate, a representative of all officers, including all caucus leaders. That's on the floor for discussion.
Currently you would have staff allowed from the steering members and the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition. We're proposing to extend that to the leader of the ISG and the leader of the independent caucus, which we did in the last go-around, we made that exception for the leader of the Liberal caucus as well. Just to extend that same privilege to the ISG leadership.
Senator Tkachuk: You said "all officers.'' You don't mean all officers. You mean the leader of each caucus?
The Chair: Of each caucus, yes.
Senator Mitchell: I appreciate this a great deal. Can we tweak the wording with respect to the Leader of the Government in the Senate to make it more generic, as is the case with the opposition caucus and the Senate Liberal caucus? If it is that the representative or the staff member from the Government Representative in the Senate can't make it, my staff member might make it.
Could we say Government Representative team, or if we have to be consistent with the Parliament of Canada Act, government leadership team? It gives a little more flexibility, as is the case with the opposition caucus, so it doesn't have to come from the leader's office.
The Chair: I understand. It could be from the deputy leader or the whip's office.
Senator Tkachuk: How many people are there in Mr. Harder's office, 12 or 14? We have a big budget for Mr. Harder, and you tell me that no one can make it from his office?
The Chair: I think what he is saying is they would designate one person from one of the three leadership offices.
Senator Tkachuk: Someone from the whip's office and someone from the —
The Chair: No, one would represent that leadership.
Senator Mitchell: It's a matter of continuity. We have Lucie Lavoie, who is from the leader's office. We have Greg Kolz, who is from my office. If we go in camera, Lucie will stay and Greg will go. If Lucie can't be there —
The Chair: Senator Tkachuk is saying it would be one from the government side.
Senator Mitchell: In camera, it would just be one, absolutely. That allows us to do it if Lucie is not available.
The Chair: I don't think that's unreasonable.
Senator McCoy: I appreciate the continuing accommodation of the Independent Senators Group. I have a question to help me understand the basis of this motion. What happens with Senate administration staff during in camera meetings? Is there one representative?
The Chair: The committee determines who would be allowed and who wouldn't be, depending on the issue.
If it was a human resources issue, we would make an exception for the Director of Human Resources. This committee would determine, depending on the subject matter, who from the administration we would allow, who we would ask to leave.
Senator McCoy: As well, I have a request to tweak the wording here. In our case with the Independent Senators Group, we don't have any political staff.
The Chair: This has —
Senator McCoy: We will have staff in —
The Chair: You currently do have staff.
Senator McCoy: Yes, we do have staff. It says that "the following political staff be authorized to be present.''
The Chair: We can remove that.
Senator McCoy: Could we wordsmith a little? That would be helpful.
Senator Tannas: I think my question has been answered, but I want to make it clear that this is simply so we don't have to spend a lot of time figuring out who should be in the room and who shouldn't. If we have something, we can add to it. And if we want, there is nothing here stopping us from having a senators' only, in camera session any time we want.
The Chair: Exactly.
Senator Downe: New senators should be under no illusion about what "in camera'' means. I have participated in in camera meetings, senators only, in this room. The Senate overruled and tabled the minutes of the meeting on the floor of the chamber and it became a public document. So proceed with caution.
The Chair: Colleagues, I do remind you all that we made a decision a number of months back that the vast majority of the issues we're discussing will be in public and they have been, minus the sensitive issues with human resources issues and questions. Obviously, this will become, and has become, less of a factor as we go forward.
The motion moved by Senator Munson is as follows: That notwithstanding the motions adopted by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on Thursday December 10, 2015, and Thursday April 21, 2016, the following political staff be authorized to be present during in camera meetings of the committee: one staff member of the four senators on the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure; one staff member of the Leadership of the Government in the Senate/Government Representatives; one staff member of the Opposition caucus; one staff member of the Senate Liberal caucus; and one staff member of the Independent Senators Group.
All in favour, I suspect, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
We move on to item five, the advisory working group on diversity proposals. We'll move quickly to constitute that committee. I have a motion, or I will move —
Senator Jaffer, will you speak to this motion?
Senator Jaffer: As we had decided that we would have a diversity subcommittee, we're now forming the committee. We will have five members, two from the Conservative side, two from the independents and one Liberal.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Jaffer: That the Subcommittee on Diversity be authorized to examine the findings contained in the fifth report of the Senate administration's Advisory Committee on Diversity and Accessibility tabled on December 15, 2016, and issues of diversity in the Senate workforce.
We move that the membership of the subcommittee as follows: the Honourable Senator Jaffer as chair of the committee, if colleagues agree.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Would I have any other nominations for deputy chair?
Senator Jaffer: For deputy chair, I move Senator Marshall.
The Chair: Senator Marshall, do you accept? I get an enthusiastic nod. All in favour of Senator Marshall as deputy chair?
If we could nominate the rest of the candidates —
Senator Jaffer: The other three would be Senator Omidvar, Senator Dupuis and Senator Tannas.
The Chair: I suspect we have consensus on those nominations.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I would like to say that, unfortunately, I will not have time to be part of this group.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Dupuis does not accept the nomination due to time constraints. Are there any other volunteers rushing to the gates from the independent caucus? Maybe we can go forward with the members of this committee —
Is this a subcommittee or a working group?
Senator Jaffer: Subcommittee.
The Chair: So it has to be a member of Internal Economy.
I suggest that we move on the motion and ISG —
Senator Wells: To make it a little easier for the process, because we would like to have people on this subcommittee who are dedicated to it and want to be there, would there be any appetite to change this to a working group and someone from the ISG —
The Chair: I understand from the chair and the deputy chair they would like this to be a subcommittee. So my suggestion is with the issues that are being dealt with here, with the consent of this committee, we allow the subcommittee to function as a group of four until such time as the ISG group wants to add another member.
Senator McCoy: I think we need some gender balance, so we will be looking for a male member.
The Chair: Senator McCoy, are we in agreement that we will let the committee commence and pursue its work as it stands right now? Is everyone in favour of that? Thank you, colleagues.
Item 6 is the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates, proposed mandate.
Senator Wells: Thank you, chair and colleagues. You will recall that the last order of reference that the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates performed was the consideration of caucus and ISG budgets that we completed just before the Christmas break.
It has been proposed by Senator Jaffer that our next order of reference — and I appreciate the suggestion from Senator Jaffer, it's a good one — be that the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates conduct a study on living expenses while in the National Capital Region. For some time, there have been perceived or actual inequities among the various accommodation models that we employ — and that the Senate estimates would look at this.
The proposed motion is as follows: That the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates be authorized to study the issue of living expenses while in Ottawa, including the current practices and possible replacement models that considers fairness, equity and responsible use of resources.
And we would report by March 31.
The Chair: Are we all in favour of that motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Item 7, the Joint Interparliamentary Council membership.
JIC has been in the process of reconstituting its membership, so I would need a meeting to name the representatives. Senator Manning is no longer a member of this committee. He was replacing me as co-chair of Joint Interparliamentary Council while he was a member of Internal Economy. I have the great honour of taking back that responsibility and adding it to my list, so I have been co-chairing that committee. I propose to have, as has been the tradition, the two whips of the Liberal caucus and the Conservative caucus as the two other members of JIC, which are the two spots available.
I and steering have engaged in discussions going forward how we can make accommodation for all senators in a fair and equitable fashion to make sure that parliamentary association trips are available to all senators who want to participate from all groups and all caucuses. We, in discussion with leadership, have a commitment to find a way to accommodate that new reality we have in the Senate of the Independent Senators Group. The independent senators are not members of any group — going forward and figuring out how there would be a system in place that respects the traditions of the institution while taking into consideration all the new demands that we have.
It's going to take a few weeks for us to resolve all that, but there is a willingness to come to some kind of consensus.
Senator McCoy: Thank you for your continuing courtesy as we go forward and adjust our working ways. As a matter of information, the parliamentary associations are being equally accommodating and the annual general meetings are rolling out now in February, March and April. They're adjusting their proportionality on the executive committees to designate one or two seats for members of the Independent Senators Group. So that step is being taken.
Senator Raymonde Gagné is our lead from ISG's point of view on these issues. On her behalf, a meeting is in the process of being arranged with the whips of the two political caucuses and the liaison of the Government Representative team — I think I have all that correct. So we will begin a discussion of how the working ways of the Senate might move forward in terms of ensuring everyone gets a fair share of the delegations and the missions. We will keep you advised of all of those discussions.
The Chair: Great.
I want to move the motion that Senators Plett and Downe will be our representatives on JIC. Colleagues, all in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
On other matters, I will go to Senator Tannas. Then I have an issue to add to the agenda.
We have a number of issues. Let's go to Senator Tannas and one by one we will go down the list.
Senator Tannas: There is a small matter, colleagues, coming from the Subcommittee on Budgets to do with travel for the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. They are travelling to Montreal next week. One of the chairman's staff has travelled with him on his own points as opposed to the committee budget process, which has to come through us. He has run out of points in his own office, so he's looking to pick up the permission of Internal Economy as per our policy that any senator's accompanying staff that will be part of the budget has to come through our committee. It's a small amount within the budget but we need to grant an exception to allow Senator Neufeld's staff to travel with the committee.
Our subcommittee met informally, the three of us, and we are prepared to recommend this.
Senator Wells: When you said "we need to approve this,'' my question was going to be "do you recommend that we approve it?''
Senator Tannas: We do.
The Chair: Any questions on that issue, colleagues? Are we granting approval? Thank you, colleagues.
Before I move on the list, I will interject with my issue. The Subcommittee on Communications, an operations group that manages our communications structure and is chaired by me, with deputy chair Senator Cordy, and composed of Senators Batters, Wells and Jaffer as the other representatives, Senator Jaffer I think from the independent Liberal group. I understand Senator Mitchell has been an informal but active member of that subcommittee and has made contributions.
I think it's imperative going forward that we add a couple of other seats to that group from the ISG. It has to be members from this committee. I know I've caught everyone off guard a little bit, but I think we're all in agreement there have to be two seats at that table from the Independent Senators Group. It's incumbent upon you to determine which two members of that group from this committee has an interest in working with that group.
Senator McCoy: We will have a conversation among ourselves and we will bring back two names.
The Chair: First, I need approval from the committee to expand that group by two and to make room. I assume we have consensus.
Senator Jaffer: I move that.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Jaffer. All in agreement? We will await Senator McCoy's instructions as to who those individuals will be.
Senator Mitchell, you're always an honorary member, representing the independent Government Representative — whatever the title is — but I call it the "government group,'' so you're always welcome there as well.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, I will ask the clerk to send out a list, particularly to the new members of the committee, of the subcommittees that exist and their roles. It will give you an opportunity before the next meeting to peruse those committees and see what interests our new colleagues on this committee might have. You can get back to the clerk with some of the committees that might interest you. Then we can rejig the composition of those committees as well.
Again, they're not committees where there are a lot of votes and decisions but where a lot of heavy lifting and work is being done.
Senator Munson: Not to be discussed today, but I would like to know how the communications committee works with our communications SenCA Plus, with the communications director for the Speaker, with the communications person for the Government Representative in the Senate. Is something going to be put in place? We know who the communications team is for the Senate, and they've done a tremendous job, but there are other communications going out through the Speaker, through the Government Representative and so on.
The Chair: I can briefly address that and give a little refresher update to this committee of the structure that this committee put into place not too long ago. All roads lead to that Subcommittee on Communications, so the Director of Communications reports and is a member of that committee. Media relations go through the Subcommittee on Communications. The administration's internal communications, indirectly, is also guided through that committee.
But if colleagues wish, I can put it on the agenda for the next meeting and give a little 10-minute briefing with Mélisa Leclerc and with Jacqui as to exactly how we intertwine.
Senator Munson: Yes, what page we're on so we are communicating.
Senator Cordy: For Senator Munson, the communications people for the Speaker and for the Leader of the Government are invited to all communications meetings. They are in attendance so everyone knows what everyone else is doing.
The Chair: On most days.
Senator Cordy: We're all human, are we not?
I wanted to remind everyone about the new SenCA Plus website. It is amazing, and the communications department did a superb job. That notice went out yesterday. The official launch is March 1, so the website is up now so that you can try it out and look at it. We'll have a bit of time to tweak it before the official launch. If you find any typos or have any problems navigating, let communications know, but they have done an exceptional job on this website.
The Chair: I want to echo that. They have put out one of the most impressive websites I have seen in a long time. I went through it and did a very detailed check last week and it is very impressive. I've gotten so many comments from our colleagues on the other side who are saying, "How the heck did you guys do that?'' They are scrambling to catch up. Very impressed, Lisa, with the end result of that. Excellent job.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: For our next meeting, can you include on the agenda the matter of the operation of the communications system so that we can continue the discussion that arises from Senator Munson's comment?
What is not clear, in my opinion, is the role of the Senate's institutional communications vis-à-vis strictly personal communications. The matter seems even more important to me, given the one hundred and fiftieth celebrations. We are also observing a lot of misunderstanding about the role of the Senate and the amount of work that it means for senators. I think that we have some work to do institutionally and in the way we bring the two together. I think that would be useful.
The Chair: I will try to work that into my presentation at the next meeting and I will try to answer those questions.
[English]
Senator Munson: It's a small matter, but it does reflect upon the staffs of senators, and it has to do with senators' signatures. We have a specimen that is there, our signature, but when you're asked to sign for an expense claim, or anything at all, sometimes it's on your desk and you sign your name. It doesn't quite match what your specimen looks like, and the signatures have been called into question.
Just to go through that process, it's kind of, I don't know, to be polite about it, it's challenging your staff member, and all our staff are very honest, good-working people, and I wanted to know if there is a specialist that can understand signatures to take a look at it. It does delay the process of getting remuneration.
I don't know if it has happened to other senators. I see some nods. I have a scrawl, one that I don't know even who that is signing, and then I have my nice specimen; so I would like to bring that to the attention, because some senators have been questioned by that.
Ms. Legault: We do have a specimen signature card for each senator, and we use it to confirm that it is the senator who is signing on claims. In instances where this signature differs significantly from the original we have on file, we would confirm with the senator to ensure that it is. This is to protect the senator that someone has not imitated his signature. It is a control to protect the senators.
If we need to update the specimen card because the signature has changed, we offer that as well because some people are saying they no longer sign a certain way. If you feel that the scrutiny is too detailed and not justified, I would be happy to look into a specific situation, but the control is in place. It has always been in place, and it is consistent with best practices in other organizations.
Senator Munson: I understand that, Pascale. You always have my back; you have it right now. The checks are good, and I commend that, but as long as it doesn't delay by another month or a few weeks, so it happens quickly, I will accept that. I know it has happened to other senators.
Senator Batters: Briefly, I'm glad they're checking. It's important when we're dealing with these dollar amounts, and just a small issue on a signature issue as well. I suggest to senators that they exercise caution. If they ever post a photo of a letter that they've signed, or something they've signed, on their website or social media, be careful about blacking out your signature because then somebody could use your signature in a way to potentially access other things that you can, as your own specimen signature allows.
Senator Jaffer: I have an issue that's sensitive, and I would appreciate as it would the last item if we could go in camera. I don't want the staff to leave; that's not what I'm saying.
Senator Marshall: The first one relates to the point I raised earlier during the meeting, is there a standard format for proposals that come? Is there a background, financial implications, human resource implications? Is there a standard format that should be followed?
Nicole Proulx, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, Seante of Canada: There is a briefing note format. In this case, because the decision had already been taken that this was happening in April, the standard format was not followed.
Senator Marshall: Could I get a copy of the format?
Ms. Proulx: Yes.
Senator Marshall: During the break, I saw an article in some media outlet, Senator Harder was commenting on an internal audit. Can we get an update at the next meeting as the status of an internal audit? It would be beneficial.
The Chair: We'll do that. Is there another issue?
Senator Downe: I would like to see as part of that update how much the Senate has spent on all audits in the last five years.
The Chair: We'll gather all that information.
Are we in agreement to go in camera as per the request of Senator Jaffer?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)