Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 12 - Evidence - May 11, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 11, 2017
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day in public at 9 a.m., 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. I would like to advise members that Senator Frum is here with us this morning, replacing Senator Tannas, and we have Senator Moncion replacing Senator Marwah. And we have Senator Boisvenu replacing Senator Tkachuk.
We’ll get to item 1 in the agenda, which is adoption of the minutes of proceedings of May 4, 2017, public portion. Do I have anyone moving the minutes?
It is moved by Senator Jaffer. All in favour? If there are no questions, carried.
Item 2 is membership of Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedures. When the steering committee is established at the beginning of each session for Internal Economy, the Opposition Whip authorizes the designate for substitution, from time to time, the third member with a member from the main committee on the subcommittee. This section permitted the Opposition Whip to make a membership substitute to the seat currently held by Senator Wells.
The motion before you now extends the same ability for the ISG to group to make a substitution to the seat currently held by Senator Campbell.
Senators, this is a motion of housekeeping measure to align our practices in an equitable manner. I was wondering if anybody would be kind enough to move the motion. Before that, we can go on debate.
If there’s no debate, it’s moved by Senator Plett. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Agreed, carried.
We also have item 3, a membership change, Subcommittee on Communications. Senator Plett, of course, has been given the nod to replace Senator Wells on that committee, and I’m looking for a motion to confirm that.
It’s moved by Senator Jaffer and seconded by Senator Cordy.
All those in favour to have Senator Plett be a member of Communications?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Carried.
We’re really making progress this morning, uncharacteristically.
The Clerk of the Parliament seems to be missing and he is a key element of this next item. Item 4 on the agenda, of course, is the Canada one hundred and fiftieth medal celebration, which we have approved, and we have some information.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Mr. Chair, I would just like to understand: are we on point 4, dealing with medals? On page 9 of 11, the matter for decision is about the finish to be applied to the medals: option 1, at the current price, or option 2, which would need $58,500 more. Is that the decision we are being asked to make this morning? We had decided to reduce the cost of this operation. In fact, a majority passed a motion to reduce the cost. I do not know whether it is because the person who prepared the file, Mr. McCreery, was misinformed, but, if I understand correctly, we are not looking to add any costs. Can you enlighten me on that?
The Chair: I will let Senator Wells answer that question.
[English]
Senator Wells: I believe we talked about this last week when we touched upon it. We were hoping Charles would be here last week; he wasn’t.
The presentation of this decision was a decision for the working group, not for CIBA, and we decided not to go this route.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Thank you very much. That answers my question exactly.
[English]
The Chair: Given the fact that Charles is not here, I will ask the committee to be patient. Maybe we can swap item 4 for 5. We can go right to item 5 and then go back to item 4.
Senator Batters: I think that’s a good suggestion. But what is the remaining item for decision on this item?
The Chair: I think Senator Wells and Charles need to inform us of what that would be.
Senator Wells: There are, from my understanding, no decisions, but we committed during the approval process to give regular updates. This would be one of them.
The Chair: Colleagues, do we agree to swap 4 for 5?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We’ll go to item 5, which is an update on the Phoenix pay system. I will ask Mr. Luc Presseau, Director of Human Resources, Human Resources Directorate, and Ms. Pascale Legault, Chief Financial Officer to go to the front of the meeting.
As promised, they will give us a presentation.
Sorry, colleagues, the chair is a bit discombobulated this morning. We had made a decision on this item — I apologize, Luc and Pascale — to defer to next week. The reason is that we were given a briefing this morning at steering, but the documents had not been distributed to all members of Internal Economy in time for this meeting. We thought it prudent to make sure that you all have the documents in advance, peruse them, and put them on the agenda next week.
I apologize; that’s my mistake. Sorry, Pascale and Luc. That’s why you had that stressed look on your faces. I’m just keeping you guys on your toes. Colleagues, you’ll be receiving that documentation in the next bundle. We’ll have that discussion next week.
Charles is here, so we’re going to revert back to item 4, which is the Canada one hundred and fiftieth medal update, and get back on track here.
Charles Robert, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments and Chief Legislative Services Officer, Senate of Canada: The working group met last week to discuss the rollout and the work that had been accomplished so far. A contract has been signed with the Royal Mint and they committed to having 150 medals ready with their boxes by the end of June. The balance, the 1,350 medals, will be ready by sometime in October. That’s the current commitment.
The initial trial strike will be performed by the Royal Mint in about two weeks, and that will be the final opportunity to make any minor changes to the medal that we might feel are necessary.
The issue about the finish and everything has been discussed and it’s approved, and through those negotiations we were able to determine that in fact the Royal Mint can meet our deadline, which is very tight from their point of view. They’re committed to doing it because I think the project is so worthwhile.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much. Charles, the document that we have says “for decision.” I want to make sure I understand what we’re doing.
We’re not going with option 2, are we?
Mr. Robert: We’re going with option 1.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much.
Senator Downe: Charles, could you tell us what is the status of the medal? I recall, when I was in government, there was a procedure to get medals approved, certified, call it what you will, as opposed to XYZ corporation announcing they’re issuing a medal.
What’s the status of the medals for wearing it and protocol?
Mr. Robert: This is a table medal. There’s nothing to wear. Because it’s not a medal that would be worn, there’s no approval by the sovereign with respect to it. This is a table medal that has an institutional base. It is the Senate sesquicentennial medal. It is something that is actually being created through the authority of the Senate itself.
That’s why we were able to do it in such a quick time, because there is no approval process as there would have been for the Golden Jubilee and the Diamond Jubilee medals, which you do wear on your chest.
Senator Downe: Because it’s not approved, I must say I had never heard of a table medal before. I’ve heard of medals where you would have one to wear and one to display but I never heard of a display-only medal.
Mr. Robert: It might be better if I described it to you as a medallion. It’s like a large coin.
Senator Downe: So if someone tried to wear it, would it be inappropriate and against protocol?
Mr. Robert: You would probably need some crazy glue to stick it on to your chest.
Senator Downe: The protocol has no ranking? It’s just a table medal? It’s similar to what XYZ corporation could produce for the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary? It has no status. Thank you.
The Chair: Any other questions, colleagues?
Senator Munson: I’m just curious and I don’t know if Senator Wells can answer this, or Charles. When will we get them?
Mr. Robert: As I mentioned, 150 will be available at the end of June.
Senator Munson: We’ll have them in our hands?
Mr. Robert: One hundred and fifty will be available because, again, the Royal Mint is trying to meet our very tight deadline. They will be able to produce the balance. We’ve commissioned 1,500 to be made and the balance will be ready sometime in October. They cannot be ready before then, according to the agreement we have.
Senator Munson: Each individual senator gets a medal to hand out around July 1? How does that work?
Mr. Robert: I don’t think that the distribution of that has been resolved entirely. We know that there will be special guests who are coming as part of the celebrations in July. I guess it would be decided by Internal Economy and others that they would be the appropriate recipients. What we want to do with the others is still to be decided.
Senator Wells may have more information than I do.
Senator Wells: I’d also say the working group will look at not just the schedule of when they will be ready in the different tranches and how they will roll out, but we’re happy to take any suggestions, recommendations or advice from any of our colleagues on what that should look like.
Senator Munson: I appreciate that. I think a few senators would like to have a few of those, since it was the idea that came from here. I understand the hierarchy and how that works, but it would be nice if senators had them to hand out a couple.
Senator Wells: Senator Munson, at our next working group meeting, we’ll discuss this and at our next update to CIBA we’ll bring a couple of options.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I just have one suggestion for you. I think it would be a good idea for the first 150 medals not to be given to sitting senators, given that the objective is to serve and honour our fellow citizens with meritorious service to the country. In my opinion, it would be inadvisable for sitting senators to receive these medals first.
[English]
Senator Munson: I’m not saying that. I’m talking about a senator having a medal to hand out to a citizen.
Senator Saint-Germain: I wasn’t responding to your comment. I do agree with you. I think that it might occur, and I do not believe that senators should be the first.
The Chair: I agree wholeheartedly with that comment. If I could make a suggestion, Senator Wells and Charles, maybe for the first 150, if we can find a system where we can identify some of the worthiest and most prominent Canadians across the country, we could have a ceremony on the Hill for Canada Day, here in the Senate Chamber, to launch the commemoration of the one hundred and fiftieth medal.
It would also hammer home the point that the idea here is to reward distinguished Canadians from across the country who have made great contributions. I’m putting that out there as a possible idea. Any other questions on this, colleagues?
If not, thank you, Charles.
Boy, we’re moving along. Senator McCoy, it seemed like you had an issue that you wanted to bring up.
Senator McCoy: It’s for other business.
The Chair: Now is the appropriate time, because we’re still in public.
Senator McCoy: As you are all aware, I’m sure, the seventh report of the Rules Committee was tabled on Tuesday this week, and it brought forward a recommendation to the Senate to change the definition of “caucus” so that it includes both political caucuses and also parliamentary groups.
The recommendation, which is still on the floor of the Senate from the Modernization Committee, invited Internal Economy to make a similar change so that we have consistency across the rules of procedure and Senate Administrative Rules in terms of the definition of caucus.
I understand that the steering committee from Rules, of which we have two members with us today, and the steering committee of Internal, did meet together to discuss this prospect. I wondered, Mr. Chair, if you would care to share with us what came out of that meeting, if I could put it that way.
The Chair: It was a good exchange. The steering committee of Rules brought us up to speed on the process that was conducted at Rules in reviewing this particular issue. They mentioned to us that a final report was around the corner. We had met with them a few weeks back and I understand a report was tabled at Rules last week.
As many senators might recall, the deadline that Rules had to report back to this committee was May 9, I believe. So the Rules Committee, because of time constraints, was not able to meet that deadline.
Senator McCoy: They did meet it.
The Chair: They met it but the report hasn’t come to this committee in time for May 9.
What I’ve been asked by Rules, essentially, is that we extend the deadline for us to receive and discuss that report, to which I think we will be amenable to do, and it’s reasonable.
What I’ve asked that committee to do is to provide us, I believe — I forget the number of the report.
Senator McCoy: Number 7.
The Chair: We would distribute that seventh report to everyone for perusal and then put it on the agenda here for discussion over the next few weeks.
Senator McCoy: Could it be on the agenda next week, then?
The Chair: It could be on the agenda for next week. I just think that it’s a document that requires some discussion amongst caucuses as well. I don’t think that members will be comfortable here taking a decision in a vacuum or unilaterally. Again, I’m open to guidance from the committee if they think that would be sufficient time to review the findings of that committee on an individual basis and have your discussions with your caucuses and bring it back in time for next week. If the committee feels that could be done in such a short time frame, who am I to question that?
Senator Lankin: I’m laughing with you.
The Chair: As long as you’re not laughing at me. We can laugh together, but never at each other.
Senator Lankin: I want to recall that from our discussion of the two steering committees —
Senator McCoy: Rules.
Senator Lankin: Yes, I’m sorry. From the Rules steering committee discussion with the Internal steering committee discussion, we did give a progress update. I did come away from that believing that both of you, Senator Housakos and Senator Cordy, felt that the work on the definition of parliamentary group and the definition or the inclusion of the facilitator alongside leader was really the purview and the role of the Rules Committee, and that that would be reported out and would be voted on at some point in the Senate.
People certainly need to look at this. I’m not disputing that at all, but the report, when it’s sent to you, I didn’t know that was given its been tabled in the chamber, I didn’t know that had to be formally sent. But I’ll talk to the chair, and we’ll get that done. We have another steering committee meeting today.
It was my understanding, with respect to the definition, that you didn’t think that would be the purview of discussion here. It was more the application of that in the SARs and whether there were any wrinkles there that needed to be brought forward and talked about.
That may or may not be the case. Of course, it’s up to the members of the committee, as you indicate. But, for people’s edification, we had many weeks of discussion at Rules, and we really worked through what some of the stumbling blocks were. Even as late as last week, after first agreement, a couple of new stumbling blocks came up, and we worked through those.
So I think that it is a clean document that will come that simply adds “parliamentary group” to the definition of caucus and adds “facilitator” to where leaders are. So if that gives people, for the discussion that they’re going to have now, any information or comfort that’s helpful. I think the people can review it quite quickly. There are probably already discussions happening or that will happen in caucuses with respect to the Rules report, which we will have to vote on soon as well.
The Chair: Just to be clear, I’m not questioning the work or the recommendations. We had a good meeting, and all I simply said is that, as chair, I don’t want to speak on behalf of the committee until the committee has the ample time to review it. And we have the benefit here of having a number of members who are on Rules and on this committee, but, just out of courtesy for those that aren’t, give them the ample opportunity also to get a grasp of the issue.
Senator Plett: I think it’s entirely appropriate that the rest of us who haven’t seen the document have some time to look at it first. I also think, on your suggestion of us taking any recommendations to our caucuses before they are discussed at length or certainly any decision made here, we need to take them to our caucuses. If we want to discuss or look at something, fine, but I would certainly not be prepared to take any decision here before we’ve had a chance to share it with our groups.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Mr. Chair, to prepare for this discussion, I quite agree with senators being able to see the report because it was tabled in the Senate; they may want to analyze the report of the rules committee in more depth. Could we not be provided with the current Rules of the Senate and the proposed amendments, in the same way as we were provided with the current policy? We already have the working document. Can we ask them to go through the same exercise so that, when we go to examine it all, we will be able to see exactly where things have to go in the Senate Administrative Rules? In that way, we will not be left to imagine what the sections mean. For next week, it would be very useful for us to have the same document that has been distributed to us, the Senate Administrative Rules, with an indication of which sections are to be amended according to the decision made by the rules committee.
The Chair: Are there any further comments?
[English]
Senator McCoy: I am pleased to have the matter come before this committee, but I recognize that this committee needs both information and time to consider. But I would like the matter to keep moving now that Rules has done the heavy lifting, if I can put it that way, the initial lifting.
The other matter that remains outstanding is the motion on the floor, which is amended. The motion was to adopt the fifth report of the Modernization Committee, which asked Rules and Internal to report back to the Senate by May 9. Rules did do that. Internal has not. So it would be, it seems to me, seemly, to amend that date — just the date — and not have it on the Order Paper in so far as Internal Economy has not reported back, and I would hate to see this committee on the record as not having managed to get back in time, if I can put it that way.
To save embarrassment, it would be, perhaps, helpful just to change that reporting date so that it gives the committee some time to do what it needs to do.
The Chair: Colleagues, on the first item here that Senator McCoy has brought up, it’s reasonable, if the committee agrees, for this committee to amend the date to extend it. I think that would be only fair.
On the second request, I think Senator Dupuis is actually right on that we need to prepare the appropriate documents, get them to all members around the table, give them the appropriate time — it doesn’t have to be months but a couple of weeks to digest them — and then bring the issue to the agenda here.
My question is then: Michel, how quickly can you prepare a SARs document like Senator Dupuis is talking about? Could it be done by next week?
Michel Patrice, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and Chief, Parliamentary Precinct Services Officer, Senate of Canada: I don’t think it can be done by next week. I just became aware of the fact that Rules has reported on the issue. So, in terms of looking throughout the SARs and seeing all of the necessary adaptations that would be required if we were to follow the model presented by the Rules Committee, that won’t be possible to do by next Thursday.
The Chair: When can it be done?
Mr. Patrice: We’ll obviously make it a priority to do it as soon as possible, but I cannot make a commitment in terms of next week.
The Chair: So a week and a half?
Mr. Patrice: We’ll see; it depends on all the other events.
The Chair: Can we get a commitment that it will be done as soon as possible?
Mr. Patrice: As soon as possible; that’s for sure. You always have that commitment.
The Chair: Colleagues, just to conclude on this issue, we have consensus that I will move the extension of the May 9 deadline. Can I have a proposed date that the committee is comfortable with?
Senator McCoy, is there a date you are comfortable with?
Senator McCoy: Today is the May 11. Would a month be adequate?
The Chair: Keeping in mind, colleagues, that we don’t sit one of the weeks in May. So the week of the May 15, if I remember my dates, May 19? One those weeks we don’t sit as well. So keep that in mind.
Senator McCoy: June 15?
Senator Wells: June 15, I think, is appropriate.
Senator McCoy: The Ides of June.
The Chair: So I have consensus that I will move the extension date to June 15, 2017, and we have a commitment from the Law Clerk to prepare the documentation as soon as possible, at which point we will distribute it to colleagues and put it on the agenda for discussion.
Any other business for “Other Business in Public,” colleagues?
(The committee continued in camera.)