Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 14 - Evidence - September 21, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, September 21, 2017
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met in public this day at 8:30 a.m., pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for consideration of financial and administrative matters; and in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, good morning, and welcome back from the summer break. I hope everyone had a warm and sunny summer, depending on where you were in or out of the country.
Before we start, I would like to point out that we had a little problem with the agendas we sent out this week. There were no minutes of the previous meeting is incorporated in the agenda. That issue is being addressed as we speak, so with the consensus of the committee, we will put the approval of minutes a little bit further down in the agenda. Minutes will be distributed during this meeting by the clerk and his team. They are being printed as we speak. I apologize for that omission in the agenda when it was sent out.
As well, there was a discrepancy with regard to the section on decisions taken this summer by the steering committee. A couple of things were put in the original mailout that shouldn’t have been, because they were HR-related issues. Of course as we all know, those decisions are taken in camera, not in public. Again, it was a clerical mistake on the part of our team, and they distributed that information. So the second copy that went out is the accurate one.
Colleagues, if anyone has questions on those two items on the original one, we will be more than happy to answer them. We can only do that in private or in camera because, again, they are with regard to HR issues, particularly in a senator’s office.
The other thing I want to do this morning before we get into the agenda is to introduce, for a second time, Jacqueline Kuehl, who is our acting interim law clerk. As everyone has read the memos over the summer, she was our recommendation from the steering committee as the new law clerk. Everyone met her a few months ago. She is a new member of the team yet has extensive experience in justice and government, and here she is with us this morning.
On an equally happy note, I also want to point out that today happens to be a very big and important day for someone who has served the Senate for many years. I hear Nicole Proulx, apparently, is turning 40 today, I understand. Congratulations, and happy birthday, Nicole.
Nicole Proulx, Clerk of the Committee and Interim Clerk of the Senate: Thank you.
The Chair: You’re too young to retire.
We’ll get right to item 1 on the agenda, which is the East Block rehabilitation work. We have Brigitte Desjardins with us and, of course, Senator Tannas to brief us on that.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We’re here today to provide background information about the East Block rehabilitation program of work, which is under the Long-Term Vision Plan, which I’ll call the LTVP from here on forward.
This Long-Term Vision Plan is the plan for the entire rehabilitation of the parliamentary precinct and covers decades. Some of you will recall that the initial plan for the East Block under the LTVP was to complete all of the rehabilitation work on the exterior of the building in what they call in situ: With all of us still in the building, they were going to wrap the entire building and do the complete exterior restoration of the East Block.
However, given the recent experience with the work that was done in the Centre Block east pavilion over the last couple of years, where there were ongoing interruptions to Senate proceedings and health issues with Senate staff that were in the offices around the east pavilion related to the work that was being done, we approached Public Services and Procurement and came up with an agreement whereby they would work to complete only the urgent health and safety repairs to the exterior of the East Block that are needed. They would defer the balance of the work until 2025, where all of us who are in the East Block, with our offices and staff, will vacate the building and move to alternate accommodations.
Under this new approach, the rehabilitation of the East Block will consist of two separate phases. The first phase will involve critical masonry work to four areas of the building that pose the greatest health and safety risk to the 1867 wing. This includes urgent repairs to the southwest tower; the southeast tower, which is known as the agricultural entrance; the south entrance and then the Governor General’s entrance, which is the main entrance we all typically use that faces the lawn.
All of this phase one work will be completed with occupants in the building, and the timeline for this is as follows: The southeast entrance — and this is an important piece of work — will be done between fall 2017 — so they will be starting shortly — with a scheduled completion of March 2019. This will become an important entrance. It’s not in use at the moment, but this will be the closest entrance to those of us heading to the new Senate building; it’s in the southeast corner of the East Block and that’s the one that would be the most logical functioning entrance for us as we make our way back and forth between our offices and the new Senate building. That will be scheduled for March 2019. Brigitte is urging the folks at Public Services to get that done as quickly as possible.
The south entrance is scheduled for June 2018 to September 2018.
The southwest tower is the one that, if you have been in it, has all the scaffolding inside of it at the moment, where there is protective work going on already. The exterior of that will be done from April 2018 to December 2020.
Then the main Governor General’s entrance will be June 2018 to September of 2020.
Once that is complete and starting in 2025, then the second phase of the exterior work will be completed, which includes the upgrade of the whole building, inside and out, as well as connection to the welcome centre complex through a new tunnel that will be constructed.
For the first phase, the temporary health and safety work, there will be some impacts on occupants as a result of this work. A small number of senators will require some kind of privacy film on their windows because there will be hoarding outside and people potentially working on brickwork, and that would facilitate construction workers being able to see right inside the office. So this is all in keeping with the security standards of the Senate.
We are working closely with Public Services, based on our previous experience, to ensure that we have clear protocols in place to control noise and other potential invasive aspects of the construction work. These protocols dictate that all noise-causing work must be complete after hours, and this includes after committee meetings and other meetings that might extend beyond normal business hours. In addition, all hot work, like the grinding of stone, must be completed after hours.
We also have an escalation process in place to report any noise that does occur so that it can be addressed in a timely manner.
We’re happy to take any questions, colleagues.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Tannas and Brigitte.
Will these restrictions result in a further extended period of delay on the renovations, the fact that they have to work after hours on certain tasks?
Brigitte Desjardins, Director, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: No. The timelines that Senator Tannas gave you are the timelines that we are abiding by with Public Services and Procurement Canada, so we are not intending to incur any delays with regard to the work at all. From a bigger picture point of view, with regard to the entire rehabilitation, we’re maintaining the year 2025.
Senator Wells: I have another question. Is it necessary to have additional security measures given that there will be non-staff on site performing this work? Has that been given any consideration?
Ms. Desjardins: Any additional security measures?
Senator Wells: I know that when phone lines are installed in an office, one of the Parliamentary Protective Service personnel stands with them at all times. Is this consideration given for workers that are coming in and out of the building?
Senator Tannas: I saw a number of things where there was a schedule for escorts from PPS, so I think that that has been taken into account. But we’ll check and make sure.
Senator Wells: Thank you.
Senator Munson: Thank you for your presentation.
The privacy film that you talk about certainly darkens an office. I had that happen to me and actually took some of it off because senators’ offices that are affected have to understand that you’re in a very dark, confined space, so, if any claustrophobic things go on, it’s just not very comfortable. So, senators, I’d like to know if it’s mandatory or whether they can actually not have it there. I know that in terms of health and for your staff and so on who have to be in that office eight hours a day, it’s not a very healthy environment.
Ms. Desjardins: I can speak to that, senator. That’s a very good point because we have experienced that with the Centre Block. Some of you actually removed the privacy film, and it didn’t make any difference in terms of the security of your documents because you were still a ways off from the actual window. This is something that will be taken on a case-by-case basis. We will be offering you the privacy film, and we will ensure that your documents are protected from view. Of course, this is going to be an inconvenience. We’re entering into an era where the Hill is going to be a construction site.
Having said this, Senator Munson, for sure, we will be consulting each office to make sure that you are comfortable with the privacy film. If not, we will look at other types of alternatives with PSPC.
Senator Tannas: It’s a surprisingly small number of offices that are actually impacted by this work, senator. It’s a handful, but we’ll make sure that that becomes a decision, ultimately, of the senator working with the security people.
Senator Munson: Thank you.
The Chair: Since there are no other questions, thank you, Senator Tannas. Thank you, Brigitte.
Colleagues, we’ll go to item 2 on the agenda. As per the practice when it comes to international travel for senators, we table reports, after the trips, to this committee and then to the Senate as a whole.
We have item 2, a report on Senator White’s trip. The report, of course, was reviewed by steering, and all of the pertinent information was there. It was on budget and a detailed report. Are any questions on that particular report?
Do I have a motion that it pass and that I present it to the Senate? Moved by Senator Marshall and seconded by Senator Downe. All in favour?
I also have item 3, a report from Senator Pate on her trip. That report, as well, is detailed and on budget. Are there any questions on that? There was an increase, yes. It was approved by steering before the trip was taken, so it was on budget. The increase was granted before the trip. It was done, so it is on budget.
Senator Batters: No, the budget was $5,400. The actual cost was $7,200.
The Chair: Yes, but the request before she incurred the cost came to steering and was approved.
Senator Batters: Yes, there is that note.
The Chair: If it was approved before she incurred the expense, it’s on budget. There was an original budget and then there was a revised budget. It came to steering. She didn’t incur the expense during the trip.
Senator Batters: I recognize that.
The Chair: Or post-approval, but feel free to ask any questions on it.
Senator Downe: I move acceptance of the report and that it be tabled.
The Chair: Seconded by Senator Plett. Thank you, colleagues.
Item 4 is the mandate for the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates oversight body.
Senator Smith: Let me just walk everyone through. After the Auditor General gave his report, in that report there was a recommendation that we create an oversight committee, if you remember, going back in history. At that time, the committee that dealt with the Auditor General for about 14 months was composed of our Speaker now, George Furey, chaired by Elizabeth Marshall, and I was the third member. Elizabeth stepped down after the Auditor General’s inquiry or investigation or study ended, and, of course, George moved on to be Speaker. Senator Batters joined, and then Senator Campbell joined the committee.
We then reviewed our options to start to put together a plan for an oversight concept, and we had many discussions. We talked to Senator Cordy. We talked to Senator McCoy. We talked to the people representing the various caucuses and parliamentary groups. In the spring, we decided that we should go to people who had slightly more time and technical competence to be able to complete the work that we had initiated.
To do that, we talked to Senator Wells about transferring this role to his committee in terms of estimates and came up with the following wording. Does everyone have a copy? The motion reads:
That, notwithstanding the motion of the committee adopted on Thursday, March 10, 2016, to authorize the Audit Subcommittee to examine the recommendations contained in the report of the Auditor General of Canada on Senators’ Expenses, tabled in the Senate on June 9, 2015, relating to the senators’ expenditures (notion of independent oversight and role of the AG in the future) and the monitoring of the senators’ expenditures (recommendations 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 57), the examination now be conducted by the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates;
I know that Senator Wells has a little addition to that, which he’ll add.
That the study consider industry best practices in establishing an oversight body, which would have an audit function, be of an appropriate structure and give consideration to the Auditor General of Canada’s audit oversight recommendations; and
That the subcommittee report to the committee no later than October 24, 2017.
The process and communications with Senator Wells began in the month of April. We came to an agreement that this would take place at a certain point in time. He did some initial work on the program. We talked in the beginning of July, and then the time frame fell into place as you see it today.
To give some background on the issues, and they will be debated, this comes down to what degree of our supremacy we, as a Senate, would be willing to give up in the form of a committee. So the structure of the committee will be the issue, and I’m sure Senator Wells will come back and we’ll have that discussion at the appropriate time.
However, I think what is important is that David and his group have done a great job with zero-based budgeting on their estimates. Not only dealing with senators, but dealing with the whole structure of the finance group and the finance body. So when we look at the capabilities of fine-tuning the basic ideas that we came up with, we thought it was appropriate to put it in the hands of the Estimates Subcommittee.
Senator Wells, if you want to add anything, I would leave that with you.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Smith. One thing is that I think that you may have read out an earlier version of the order of reference. I seek advice from —
Senator Smith: Did I get the wrong one?
Senator Dupuis: We don’t have that wording you just referred to.
Senator Smith: I guess I probably said it verbally.It is:
That the study consider an oversight body that would have the ability to:
a) develop an internal audit function structure;
b) develop annual audit plans; . . .
. . . report to the committee no later than . . . .
Those are two pieces that were in the original draft that we did, because it all ties into the issue of our supremacy. What will we be willing to give up in the number of senators versus independents? Your chair? Is it a senator or is it a third party, outside individual? Those are the issues that need to be debated once the wording is done.
Senator Wells: Colleagues, in looking at some of this, we tend to focus on the expenditures of senators through our expense claims. But I wanted to point out that that’s a very small portion of our $114 million budget. I asked Pascale to put together some of the data for me.
Senators’ travel expenses are approximately $4 million out of $114 million. I think that the creation of an audit oversight committee could look at far more than $4 million out of $114 million. There are other sections of the Senate expenses — Senate writ large expenditures — that the Estimates Subcommittee looked at over the past couple of years in their zero-based budget exercise.
There are many places where we could have oversight and not necessarily save more money but ensure that the money we are spending is spent efficiently, including the effectiveness and efficiency of the Senate staffing process, an audit of disaster recovery readiness, an audit of succession planning and risks surrounding the loss of corporate memory — that’s an expense we don’t even count right now — and the effectiveness and efficiency of the procurement process. If an oversight committee is established, these are some of the other things we would like them to look at, not just senators’ expenses, which seems to garner the most headlines.
Another thing I would like to point out is the recommendations that Senator Smith listed on his order of reference proposal. I’ll put in an amendment to that order of reference. There are some of the things that the Auditor General did that I believe, and many people I have spoken to believe, went outside his authority. The authority of CIBA is defined under the Parliament of Canada Act, section 19.1 to section 19.6. So it’s very unusual, colleagues, for the Auditor General to provide recommendations to change legislation, which is what he has done. In fact, on the Auditor General’s website, it recognizes that it should not audit policy decisions, which are the prerogative of Parliament and elected officials.
So colleagues, considering that, I would like to propose a small amendment to Senator Smith’s proposal. After the parentheses ending “57,” three quarters of the way down the first paragraph, after it lists recommendations 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, I would like to add “and any other related recommendations.”
Of course, colleagues, everything would be brought back to CIBA for approval prior to being executed.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I am trying to see if I’m using the correct terms. I am struck by the interest in the oversight body and external audit. Does the motion just deal with the internal audit function?
When the Auditor General was authorized to do an audit, the Senate did not define the scope of his authority or the functions of the senators. The Auditor General therefore exercised his authority and his usual rules without any institutional clarifications between the Senate and him. It is a special type of organization. These are our frameworks. In light of the frameworks, do we follow the rules that apply to all public organizations in terms of public funds?
My concern right now is about the Auditor General’s recommendations. Some people have been traumatized by those recommendations. In my opinion, there is a specific institution that has to take action and look at the recommendations in the context of its framework.
In that sense, I am a little concerned that we are rushing with measures and deciding that we must do such and such a thing because everybody says that senators do whatever they want. I know, I hear it every day. I am not a senator who spends public money willy-nilly, but I hear it every day, here, elsewhere, everywhere. I am also concerned about the use of public funds. I think we need to take measures, be it through the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, the Subcommittee on Budgets, or whatever way, but I think we need to take measures to ensure that any decision that will be made, any structure that will be put in place with respect to the audit, has been reviewed by us using the framework that we have defined. The Auditor General’s recommendations must also be considered in this context.
Thank you.
The Chair: I think Senator Wells would like to answer your question.
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Dupuis. You make an excellent point. You are correct, especially for someone who wasn’t here during the audit or the period leading up to the audit. And I was.
The Auditor General made a number of recommendations. In my opinion, sometimes it’s appropriate to look at some of those recommendations and address them as requested. Sometimes it’s appropriate to say, “Thank you for your recommendation. We disagree because it doesn’t fit our structure or our authorities, our processes.” And there are other times where the Auditor General might make a recommendation, and in this case has made recommendations, where we’ve covered the objective of the recommendation by doing other things not in the way he prescribed. So we have taken care of the objective-based response versus a prescription-based response.
Most of the communication things we’ve done, or the things that were done through the Subcommittee on Communications, address many of the recommendations that are not as he prescribed, but we’ve met the objective. So there are a number of ways to address the recommendations and sometimes it’s appropriate to say, “No, we disagree with that recommendation but thank you for it.” We’ll give consideration to that.
I don’t know if that fully answers your question.
With the Auditor General, because he made recommendations that went outside normal practice — I’m reluctant to say “authority,” but normal practice for the Auditor General — it’s important for us to give consideration to that aspect as well.
As an aside, but appropriate to the conversation, prior to being appointed to the Senate, I was deputy CEO of the Offshore Petroleum Board in Newfoundland, and we were audited by the Auditor General. I left there, having just completed the audit, and I came here welcoming him again.
Senator Plett: So you brought him here.
Senator Wells: I was trying to shake him.
The Auditor General’s Office expressed a shocking lack of understanding of the Offshore Petroleum Board, the legislation governing the Offshore Petroleum Board and the authorities that it had — a shocking lack of understanding. When I had my initial interviews, as a senator, from with officials from his office, there was a shocking lack of understanding about what a senator did, the authorities that we have and the practices and procedures that we conducted. It was shocking. They had dozens and dozens of individuals who had no experience and no knowledge of what the Senate did, and they were auditing us for our practices. It was shocking to me.
Senator Tannas: One of the themes of the recommendations of the Auditor General is that the oversight have an element of independence. Are we having to debate now? Is there anything in here that you would say would prevent your committee from considering what level, if any, of independence you want on this oversight board, Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Tannas. Yes, the committee will look at that and will give a full study, not just among senators, but we’ll bring in other people as well and look at best practices in other sectors, industry and government organizations and agencies, given we’re not an agency or department. We’ll do the full scope of what is best practice, what is the correct thing to do, and we’ll bring it back as a recommendation to this committee.
Senator Tannas: Excellent. Thank you.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you to Senator Wells and Senator Smith. I understand and I think I like it. I want to clarify a couple of things.
Maybe I wasn’t following carefully, but I have an original mandate document which has that the study consider an oversight body that would have the ability to do three things, a), b) and c). That’s what I think Senator Smith paraphrased and there was some clarification. In the clarification, I didn’t get the third, the c).
So now I’ve been handed a new motion which instead of a), b), c) says:
That the study consider industry best practices in establishing an oversight body which would have an audit function, be of an appropriate structure and give consideration to the Auditor General of Canada’s oversight recommendations;
Is that the new one that we’re considering or are they parallel? Are we going to have two?
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Mitchell. It’s the newest one. That encompasses a), b) and c) without being specific on c), but it does encompass it. In fact, I’m going to propose an amendment to the order of reference and add in after the recommendation numbers “and any other related recommendations,” just so we can cover things that we come across that were recommended in the Auditor General’s report. I can’t remember how many recommendations, but there were more than 60. We’ll come across others.
Senator Mitchell: I like that subamendment. I think the latest version, the more generic one, covers the a), b), c), and it covers 51 through 57. So we’re not limited in any way.
I think it’s important that it consider this question of dispute resolution, because we do have a mechanism with Justice Binnie. But that’s probably expensive and one-offish. Maybe we need to institutionalize this a bit more, but that can be considered.
Senator Wells: Can I just comment on that as you’re pausing for your second breath?
Before I looked at this, I did consult with Senator Campbell, Senator Tannas, Senator Cordy, Senator Jaffer and Senator Tkachuk, essentially the members of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates. I’m surprised it’s not generally understood that many mechanisms exist that allow for appeal that don’t have to go to Justice Binnie, specifically on senators’ expenses.
If you disagree with what a clerk in Finance has said, you can go to the CFO. If you disagree with what the CFO might rule, you can come to steering of CIBA. If you disagree with that, you can come to CIBA, and if you disagree with that, you can go to the Senate. There were four processes in place that are rigorous and based on precedent, not based on “He’s my friend, so I’ll let that go.” We have rigorous processes by professionals in place.
Senator Mitchell: I agree fundamentally with your point that it’s a very small part of the process and I’m not obsessing on it. I’m just asking whether it would be more efficient to have it brought under this group.
The next point is that I absolutely agree with your point that we don’t have to take every recommendation, and I particularly focus on recommendation No. 57, which I think is really problematic.
The last point is the distinction that you both have drawn between the nature of the board, its structure, and the nature of its direction to us. I think we can have a very comprehensive mandate for that oversight board. I think in fact it would relieve Canadians to know that there was a board such as that with a majority of powerful external people — that would be my preference, but certainly objective — not senators, but they can make recommendations. We don’t have to accept them. That’s critical. I don’t think we can be directed by an external board to do something, but I think there could be mechanisms by which they could put pressure on us to do something. If we accept it, fine. If we don’t accept it, that’s when they could go public with it. Those are the kinds of considerations I would like to see undertaken by your group. I’m sure you’re open to that and I just want to make that point.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I have two comments and one recommendation. I think one of the fairly well-kept secrets about the Senate is that a lot of effort has been invested over the past two or three years, and many decisions have been made. As a result, some of the best management practices have already been implemented in the Senate. I say this, because I don’t think we say it very often. I arrived less than a year ago, and I have seen that, in some situations, we have the most demanding and strict practices, which needs to be mentioned.
The Auditor General’s report is input, a tool that helps us further improve. However, as in a number of accounting reports, it is important to consider that some recommendations have a certain weight and may have a more significant impact than others. Ultimately, if all the Auditor General’s recommendations were implemented, there would be a cost, and we must ask whether it would be worth the cost in terms of budgetary risk.
Incidentally, I applaud the work that has been done and has led to this motion. It is clear to me that we need an internal auditor, as expressed earlier. We do not need to take a detour. We have set up an internal audit structure. I find the concept of an “oversight body” quite heavy. Are we talking about external experts who would be arbitrators in disputes? An “oversight body” seems cumbersome to me. I don’t think the choice is about an oversight body that would set up an internal audit structure. I think the idea is to have an internal auditor whose mandate would be to prepare audit plans for approval by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
My second question, which is of a different nature, is about the idea of an independent dispute resolution mechanism that can be composed of one or two external individuals on an ad hoc basis, perhaps under contract for disputes where a bias or a lack of internal objectivity may be perceived. In that sense, we could be more direct and decide, or not, to set the direction for an internal audit tasked with a specific mandate, particularly the mandate to develop annual audit plans.
[English]
Senator Downe: I have a concern about the cost, and I want to explain that.
When the Auditor General was first called in to audit the Senate, I was very supportive. In fact, I was at the time of the view that he should audit the House of Commons as well as the Senate. Then I went through the exercise myself where, like the vast majority, they didn’t name me for anything, but I was very unimpressed by the way the audit was done and the incredibly high cost at the end.
As we all know, there was lots of media coverage, but I believe the cost was over $23 million for an insignificant dollar amount.
Senator Smith: It was $900,000, net at $600,000.
Senator Downe: Thank you for those numbers. There was no return on investment.
When I go back to Prince Edward Island, when you explain a $27 million audit that employed a ton of people — I don’t know where they got them all on contracts. Retired auditors all came out of the woodwork for the feeding festival. It was important that the public understand that things were being done and rules were being followed. At the same time, in my opinion, my conclusion at the end of it was that it was far too costly.
I’m no accountant or auditor, but at what point did they — and I’ll pick Senator Marshall because I know she’s a former auditor. At what point did the auditors, looking at Senator Marshall’s accounts, conclude that there was going to be absolutely no problem ever with any of her expenses? But no, they carried right to the bloody end of every detail for every one of us. Colossal waste of money.
Over and above that, how much did the Senate spend? We had not only staff time, but we had all these audits we did leading up to and including this; well over another million dollars.
All this is to say that we need to do the right thing. There has to be a balance. We need to — for some reason I’m all choked up about this now on behalf of Canadian taxpayers.
I want to emphasize that, and I will come back to that again. There has to be a realistic balance between what we’re doing — having experienced the Auditor General’s office in full flight, they did not come down from the mountains with recommendations that are beyond question. We have to take them with a big grain of salt, given what they did to Canadian taxpayers when they did the audit of the Senate.
The Chair: I also want to weigh in on the debate, honourable senators.
At the end of the day, I think it’s important that we remind the public and we remind ourselves that the Senate wasn’t forced into doing anything. The whole idea of becoming accountable and transparent also started before even this Internal Economy Committee, this group, got together. It goes back to Senator Tkachuk and Senator Furey when they were running Internal Economy.
We were very proactive. When questions arose regarding expenses and issues, we were excessively proactive. We were the ones that called in the Auditor General. We were the ones that decided to give him no parameters.
At the end of the day, we were the ones that decided to institute really unprecedented steps as a legislature to put forward a platform like we’ve done or a template in regard to outlining our expenses on a quarterly basis, and we’re doing it almost by line item right now. The reality is we did that in order to avoid any possible question of impropriety.
The reality of the matter is the proof is in the pudding in the last two and a half years, and I know because Senator Cordy and I have the pleasure of sitting on the Subcommittee on Communications. We’ve never had fewer inquiries about expenses of senators in the history of this place, because it’s all out there. You don’t need an Auditor General to come and give his opinion. A journalist will give his opinion on our trips and a journalist will give his opinion on a contract the Senate office is going to put out there. They’re more vigorous, very often, than any Auditor General and less expensive.
We all saw the response from steering and we all saw the interview from the Government Representative last week on iPolitics in regard to the fact of our intransigence when it comes to accountability and transparency. We thought it was important to answer that because major steps have been taken, and I thank Senator Saint-Germain for pointing that out. Our platform on disclosure is one.
Justice Binnie is unprecedented. To have an independent arm’s-length arbitration system is unprecedented in any parliament in the western hemisphere. It doesn’t exist in any legislature in this country. With all due respect, Senator Mitchell, it is the most inexpensive way to have oversight, because at the end of the day, after all the various layers of appeal that we have at our disposal — and Senator Wells appropriately highlighted them — what would be better than to go before a former Supreme Court justice and put forward an opinion?
I remind people this Internal Economy Committee two years ago again did an unprecedented step which no other internal economy board has done, including the House of Commons, to say we forfeit our authority over sitting in judgment of our colleagues’ expenses and we turn over that authority to Justice Binnie. You remember the resolution we put forward. We said his decision is binding, and for any senator who goes before it, it’s binding for them, but it’s also equally binding for Internal Economy. That was unprecedented.
I take exception when the Government Representative in the Senate stands up and says we haven’t done enough in regard to oversight when he knows full well over the last two years we’ve been in in-depth discussions to go even a step further and look at the various models.
Let’s be careful. The House of Lords, I was there a year and a half ago or two years ago and sat down with the Speaker of the house. They have an oversight body which is independent completely from that chamber. It’s been a boondoggle. The costs have been enormous. They’re now looking at more cost-effective ways to achieve those goals.
Also, I want to address the last issue of Senator Saint-Germain’s good point about an internal audit practice. We have that practice in place. We have had that mechanism in place for years. It has been put on ice because of the discussions in the last couple of years of this oversight body, but it’s something that the audit committee has managed in the past. Senator Tkachuk can speak to that a bit better than I can, because I know that that internal audit process existed for many years. Again, the audit committee right now which is reviewing additional steps has just put that, I guess, on ice for the time being, but the process is there. If we deem it necessary, we can revive it. I think it is necessary.
Those are my comments on all those issues. Sorry for taking so much time, but I think it’s important to remind us of certain contexts.
Senator Marwah: I had the same concern that item c) had been dropped from the new mandate. I’m glad, Senator Wells, that you said it will be looked at maybe in a much broader context. We can outline the four steps that we have, but really none of those steps are independent except for Justice Binnie. Whether we have that independence expressed through Justice Binnie or through an independent oversight body is really irrelevant. Either one is good to me. As long as we have an independent body or person to look at disputes, I’m okay with that. But we should make sure — we should ingrain it and publicize it — that there is independent oversight on disputes.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I have a comment about two points in the order of reference. I think the wording before us, “that the study consider industry best practices in establishing an oversight body,” gives the impression that we have already made the choice between a body and an internal auditor. I will focus on the oversight mechanism, so that the analysis can determine whether an internal auditor is preferable to a body. First, in the order of reference, I would indicate that the study give consideration to the Auditor General of Canada’s audit oversight recommendations, and consider industry best practices. I would reverse the order of the wording in the order of reference to reflect the chronology.
[English]
Senator Batters: First of all, with Senator Mitchell’s comments this morning on this issue, I’m hopeful that maybe he’s going to try to get his Senate government leader on side with his position on this particular item.
Senator Wells, with the amendment to this motion that you added this morning and the new wording that was just provided as you started speaking on this item, you indicated that you’re also going to consider any related recommendations. So you’re going to look through all the recommendations of the Auditor General’s report, dozens of those, conduct a study on these particular ones and any other ones that may include, and then you will do all of this and come up with these recommendations within one month; is that right?
Senator Wells: That’s right.
Senator Batters: Okay. Good luck.
Senator Wells: Thank you.
Senator Batters: Also in the new wording you have the words that the study consider “industry best practices.” That wasn’t in the original wording. When you speak about industry best practices, are you talking about legislatures, businesses? What are you speaking about?
Senator Wells: Accounting industry best practices.
Senator Batters: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Marshall: I just wanted to elaborate on Senator Downe’s comments for the benefit of the newer members.
With regard to the process and the cost, the process was decided on by the Auditor General. He decided himself. He wanted to look at every transaction of every senator. He wanted to look at every dollar. So that was his decision.
Other Auditor Generals may have chosen a different process, because sampling is quite often used in auditing. So that was his decision, and that’s why the costs were so high and why the process was so painful. But there are alternatives, and it just depends on the Auditor General doing the work.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I would like to make sure I fully understand the mandate we have been given. When we say that the focus of the motion is on an oversight body, would it be possible to ensure that the work referred to the committee includes the issue of audit, from internal auditing, up to and including the possibility of the external oversight body?
In other words, I think we have to discuss this as a Senate, as the Internal Economy Committee in order to consider the audit function here in the Senate, both internally and up to a possible external arbitration or dispute resolution body or external oversight body.
My concern is that, if we now focus on an external oversight body, we are setting up a structure that raises the question as to why we put the internal audit function on ice. We know that’s what people will say. Is that what we want to hear? I don’t, not at all.
I would like the committee’s mandate to include the whole issue of audit, starting with the internal audit. Do you want to put it on ice or remove it from the ice, warm it up a little, and do something with it, up to and including an external oversight body?
[English]
The Chair: Senator Wells, I can answer that before I pass it on to you.
It is important to understand why it was put on ice, and don’t misinterpret the language I use. When the Auditor General came in to do the audit in this place, it was a three-year process just about, a two-and-a-half-year process. As a result, all resources were put behind that audit 100 per cent. Of course, right after the audit committee and all the various subcommittees of Internal Economy went right into the recommendations of the Auditor General. So that was the reason.
Again, going back to what I said earlier, many of the recommendations of changes we made we did before the Auditor General even made his report public.
Senator Wells.
Senator Wells: Actually, chair, you said essentially what I was going to say.
The Chair: I think it’s important. To follow up Senator Dupuis’ point, it’s important now that the Estimates Subcommittee, along with the audit committee, in addition to the oversight, make sure we look at the parameters in regard to the internal and external audits, as she mentioned, and wrap them up into one nice package when you guys report back here, taking under consideration all those elements.
Senator Wells: Thank you, chair and Senator Dupuis. It’s an excellent point, and I think that’s covered under the terms of reference.
The Chair: Does anyone move the motion?
Senator Wells: I also had an amendment to add the words, after the number 57 and close parenthesis, “and any other related recommendations.”
The Chair: Clerk, have we taken note of that?
Daniel Charbonneau, Procedural Clerk and Recording Secretary, Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, Senate of Canada: Yes, I have that one. Do you want me to read out Senator Forest’s?
The Chair: Yes.
[Translation]
The second paragraph will be divided into two. After the first paragraph, the text will read as follows:
That the committee give consideration to the Auditor General of Canada’s audit oversight recommendations
That the study consider accounting industry best practices in establishing an oversight body and an appropriate structure;
An Hon. Senator: Auditing.
Mr. Charbonneau: Auditing? So “an auditing and oversight body.”
[English]
The Chair: Is someone moving the motion? Senator Wells, seconded by Senator Cordy. Thank you, colleagues.
The fifth item is the third report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Pursuant to the order of this committee, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure is authorized to make decisions when the committee is not able to meet. It has an obligation to report at the first available time.
An incorrect version was originally sent out to you earlier, as I mentioned earlier. A revised copy was sent out to you yesterday and was again given to you this morning.
It’s my pleasure to put forward the report and answer any questions. Essentially, these were all decisions of various items taken throughout the summer by steering, and, of course, we’re reporting to members of this committee.
Senator Batters: I’m going from my last one, but I’ll be sure to keep looking at the new copy to make sure I don’t mention any of the other items.
The item about access to in camera minutes, which is at the top of page 2, is that a new initiative or was that done for other audits? If it is a new initiative, why is that being done for this particular one?
The Chair: It isn’t new at all. It’s been done before.
Senator Batters: So every single time, this type of motion needs to be made?
The Chair: That’s what we were informed.
Senator Batters: The item at the top of page 3 is about new members of the advisory working group on the review of human resources. How many are on this particular group as a whole now? Four members of the ISG are going to be added now?
The Chair: The members are Senator Tannas, Senator Massicotte, Senator Enverga,Senator Campbell and Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Batters: So five plus these additional four?
The Chair: Plus the additional ones.
Senator Batters: There was one ISG senator, the four out of the five, and now four additional ISG senators are going to be added?
The Chair: If I remember correctly — and I’m getting older, so sometimes my memory fails me — I think we had that discussion around this table before we adjourned for the summer. We felt it was not a committee like most committees, where votes take place. It was a working group or a subcommittee working on the particular issue that concerned a number of senators. The impression I got is that there was a consensus around this committee to broaden it. There seemed to have been a comfort level to do that, regardless of how many representatives were from the various groups. The objective, of course, was to add women on it.
Senator Batters: Those were my questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Any other questions, colleagues? If there are no questions, may we have somebody move a motion to approve? Thank you, Senator Forest. Seconded by Senator Cordy.
Item 6 is public accounts.
Senator Downe: This is a small but not insignificant issue. For years, we have been trying to get the House of Commons to use the same format as the Senate for public accounts. They have never done that. I am proposing we use the same as they use so we’re not mixing apples and oranges.
In the past, some in the media have simply added up the columns. There are three columns for senators and two columns for the house, and they come up with erroneous figures always showing the senators higher. Now that we’re more transparent and open online, it’s a bit academic, but the public accounts are still out there. I would propose we use the House of Commons’ format.
The Chair: Senator Downe, I’m going to give my thoughts on this because we received that request from you this summer and steering looked at it.
I understand your point of view. I really don’t have strong views one way or another, except that we have, over the last few years, as we said earlier, taken rigid steps to be more transparent and accountable than the other side. I think we’re proud of the fact that we can’t be compared to them, so I don’t know what we would achieve by going back to being like them. After all, they are the ones that had a new website put up similar to ours after they were a little jealous of our success. Now they are talking about having public budget and administration meetings over on the house side. And who knows: As you said earlier, maybe they will have the courage to do what we did and bring in the Auditor General and start building from that foundation, as we did.
Colleagues, I’m open to suggestions on this one.
Senator Batters: Senator Downe, thanks for that. That’s a good observation about those columns. I can see how the media would probably add the three up for us and just the two for them. Maybe this is more of just an education for the media to say, “Hey, by the way, our third column is the office expense column, and the House of Commons doesn’t have a similar column in that fashion.”
I wasn’t sure if you were aware, but what I wanted you to know is the House of Commons’ website for quite some time has actually been listing their office expenses in greater detail than ours, by line items. It’s elsewhere on the website. They don’t have it in a column like that as a total. I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
Senator Downe: Thank you for that. This is the only public accounts documents which are tabled in Parliament.
Senator Batters: I see, thank you.
Senator Marshall: I appreciate what Senator Downe is saying, but we just finished talking about the audit, transparency, the oversight committee and the results of the audit and I don’t think we should be rolling back any disclosure at this point in time. I think that would be seen as a regressive step. I would be reluctant to do that.
As a suggestion, now that we have former Senate staff over in the House of Commons, we could always write them and suggest that they improve their disclosure.
Senator Downe: That would be my preferred option, and it has been for years. We just haven’t got anywhere. If that is a consensus, I would much prefer that. I share your view: We don’t want to be less transparent.
The thing that annoys me is that, after years, the house won’t adopt our openness, so I think we should be uniform. I propose we write the House of Commons chair to see if they would do the same. If not, I’ll revisit it with a recommendation that we remove it so it can be consistent.
The Chair: We can even add a recommendation that they publicly disclose all contracts like we do and don’t have a threshold.
Senator Downe: You can draft the letter.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: In terms of the presentation, a picture is worth a thousand words. Our three columns are on the same line. I was thinking about my honourable colleague’s suggestions, which I thought made sense, and I was wondering whether there was a way to lay out the same information in the following manner, for instance: “Housakos,” “Quebec,” “sessional allowance,” “travel expenses” on one line, and under the senator’s name, we could have “office expense budget,” “personal expenses,” “other expenses.” It would be underneath.
Basically, the presentation would be different. I am more about the graphics than the slide is. The information was there, but instead of presenting them together, there would be the name of the senator, the allowance and travel expenses, which are more personal, and then under the name, the “office expense budget,” “personal expenses” and “other.”
The Chair: That’s a good suggestion.
A voice: We would have to check with the Receiver General.
Senator Forest: I did not speak to the Receiver General. I did not check.
The Chair: We can look into this and come up with a solution.
Are there any further questions on this issue? No?
[English]
Thank you, senators.
If I understand correctly, Senator Downe, what you would like as a course of action from us is a letter to the House side on this issue asking them if they can become uniform with us so we can have some uniformity. Is that correct?
Senator Downe: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, is there a consensus on that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Item 7 is advisory working group, parliamentary translation services. This is an item I added to the agenda at the last minute.
Over the last couple of years, I’ve been receiving a number of complaints from a number of colleagues with regard to our translation service, particularly when it comes to translation from English to French. At committee and in the chamber, sometimes even with simultaneous translation, it is amazing how the essence of the discussion is lost in the translation, so a number of my francophone colleagues have come to us.
Steering has taken the initiative in the last two years to have a couple of meetings, as has the Subcommittee on Communications with the service provider, which is Public Services and Procurement Canada. They provide the translation service for the House of Commons. I think the library might be in-house. No? Is the library also part of that service? The service is provided to the library, the House of Commons and the Senate.
I’m a little at my wit’s end with them. Every time I have had meetings with them, I keep putting forward the same complaints and they keep coming back with the same answers.
I was approached in the last few days, again, with some complaints from our colleagues, so I suggested to those three colleagues to create a working group under the authority, of course, on our behalf, and on behalf of the Senate to meet with the translation service and with Public Services. I figure a small working group of three senators will be easier to manage, and just basically say, “Hey, we need changes; these are the problems we’re facing, and it’s just not tenable any longer.”
So the three senators that I have spoken to and have spoken to me are Senator Ringuette, Senator Maltais and Senator Joyal, one from each of our caucus groups.
I have brought a motion here. Has everyone received the motion to create this working group? Before I put the motion forward, does anyone have questions, discussions or issues on this?
Senator Downe: I have a question, chair. I was not aware that we did not control our own translation services. Has that been looked at as an option?
The Chair: Only peripherally. The response is, and my suspicion is, it’s probably a very costly endeavour, given the fact that Public Services already does it for the whole government apparatus and all the ministries and agencies. I have been informed, without really looking at it in a very forensic way, that it would be a costly endeavour. But having said that, I think, as a Parliament, we’re obligated to have some accuracy when it comes to our translation services, given our official bilingualism.
Senator Downe: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I agree with this advisory working group as long as the group will promptly obtain a minimum level of service and competency. In other words, in the ruling by the Speaker of the Senate, when there is a serious mistake involving legal terminology, I think that’s a big problem. That happened recently. I don’t think a long discussion is needed. What is the level of competency? Do we need a special team for the Senate with specific skills and availability? I think so, and it has to be for both languages.
[English]
It has to go both ways.
[Translation]
In that sense, I have no objection to people meeting with the Department of Public Services as long as the mandate is clear in terms of wanting services. As you said, if we complain, we may be doing it for a long time. We need a minimum level of service and competency, and we have to see how it can be obtained.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: At the risk of telling the committee what to do — I don’t want to do that — in the years that I have been here, this is without a doubt, over the last number of years, a problem that I have seen. It was rare that we would have complaints from — I’m not bilingual, so I rely on the French-speaking members on committees that we’re on. I’ve been chair or deputy chair since I’ve been here. These issues were never really that problematic, but over the last couple of years, they have been. There have been a number of occasions in Banking where the French members — I mean, it has been really quite bad, actually.
My view is that this group work with the chairs and deputy chairs of each committee that when there is a problem, they be notified immediately so we have some evidence base when we go to Public Works, we can say that here is what happened in this report, here are the errors that were found, and that should be brought to their attention; so when they meet with Public Works, they can say, look, we had a Banking report, here is what happened. We go to another report, here is what happened.
It’s going to be a little longer process, but if we don’t have a bunch of evidence and just go there and complain, they write it off and say everything is good. So we never get anything done. But it has been two years now, and it’s come up over and over again.
The Chair: Make a note of it so whoever the clerk is on this committee, they will be cognizant of this. I think that’s a good point.
Senator Plett: I think I heard Senator Dupuis suggest that this should go both ways, and I want to echo that because I have been at a number of meetings where I have not been happy with the translation going the other way where I have actually gone and asked the person that was speaking, “Is this what you said?” Because this is what the translation was, and it was not what was said. So I’m not sure why we would have a committee that would work on translation in only one direction. If we have simultaneous translation, we need to make sure that it’s correct both ways.
The Chair: I think that’s well noted as well. Like I said, I’m just addressing the problems brought to me because I rarely use the translation.
Senator Batters: When I was the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee joint chair for a while, I experienced a similar thing. That committee has a lot of very technical language used throughout the meeting. My assistant at the time was fluently bilingual and almost translator quality herself. There was a point in the meeting where she brought it to my attention. She said she was listening to the translation, but she understood what was being said, and she said it wasn’t even close to what happened. I want to make sure in your discussion, and looking at the different committees, that you don’t forget about that particular committee because it is a joint one with the House of Commons, and obviously the Senate plays a major role there too.
Senator Cordy: I would like to go back to David’s point; I think it’s extremely important. We have all been at meetings where people give generalizations and nothing is going to happen.
Perhaps a good idea is, at our caucus meetings next week, that we each, when we are talking about the establishment of this committee — if, in fact, it is established because we haven’t had that vote yet — that we tell the chairs and deputy chairs of committees to give the representative from our various caucuses specifics about reports or at meetings where translation services were not provided accurately.
That’s much more productive and I think will result in a much better dialogue between the two parties at meetings because the generalization is that everybody goes home and says, “Oh, yes, okay, good.” But if it’s specifics — there have to be specific answers and responses by Public Works to that.
The Chair: Before I move the motion, and if the motion is agreed upon, be rest assured these points will be delivered to the three members on this committee that we want this issue, once and for all, dealt with in a serious way.
It is moved by Senator Forest:
That the Advisory Working Group on the Parliamentary Translation Services be established;
That the advisory working group be authorized to review the Service Agreement for Language Services with the Translation Bureau of Public Services and Procurement Canada in order to improve the service level and the quality of their translation and interpretation services offered to the Senate;
That the following senators be named as members: Senator Ringuette, Senator Maltais and Senator Joyal; and
That the advisory working group report to the committee no later than January 31, 2018.
Senator Plett: You just had a couple of suggestions that we make sure we do this both ways, and I haven’t heard that an anglophone senator was put on this committee. I’m not in favour of this unless we include at least one or two anglophone senators.
The Chair: I’m open to that.
Senator Plett: I’m willing to do this if we just simply amend that we will include at least two anglophone senators. They don’t need to be named today.
The Chair: I don’t have an issue on that. Don’t assume just because someone is a francophone that they will not have the capacity to make sure of proper translations in English and French. They are not there to do the translating; they are there to administratively have a discussion with the service provider. These are the three I’m putting forward because they have shown interest on the issue. If there are other senators that want to participate who are —
Senator Plett: Could I make an amendment to that motion?
The Chair: Sure.
Senator Plett: Simply that this committee be allowed to solicit or seek out two anglophone senators to join them on the committee.
Senator Saint-Germain: I support that.
The Chair: Let it be noted that this motion has been amended that the committee have the capacity to have space for two anglophone-speaking senators to be named by the chair.
Colleagues, do we have a seconder on the motion?
Senator Plett: I’ll second it.
The Chair: Seconded by Senator Plett. Thank you, colleagues.
Has everyone received copies of the minutes? Again, I apologize for the omission and discrepancy this morning.
We have the in camera minutes? No, there are none in camera. That’s good. We have achieved that level of success.
We have just the minutes of the June 15, 2017, meeting. Are there any questions on those minutes? Do I have anyone who moves the minutes? Senator Plett moves the minutes, seconded by Senator Dupuis.
Senator Plett: Well, Senator Plett wasn’t there so I don’t think he can move the minutes.
The Chair: You were not?
Senator Plett: I looked at it and my name isn’t there, so I must not have been there.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Dupuis, seconded by Senator Cordy. All in favour? Thank you, colleagues.
Are there any other matters in the public portion of the meeting? No.
We will go in camera for a few minutes.
(The committee continued in camera.)