Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 19 - Evidence - March 1, 2018
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 1, 2018
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:30 a.m., pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Larry W. Campbell (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration committee. My name is Larry Campbell, and I’m a senator from British Columbia.
We will go first to the adoption of minutes. A copy of the public minutes from February 15, 2018, is in your package. Are there any questions or changes to that document?
Can I have a motion to adopt the minutes, please? Senator Tannas, thank you very much.
Let’s not be long here. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Item No. 2, it’s our practice, following international trips by a senator that a report is tabled with the committee. On behalf of Senator Harder, I have the honour to table his report. A request was made to invite the Government Representative in the Senate to answer questions on his report. Do you have any comments to make, Senator Harder?
Senator Harder: No.
Senator Batters: Senator Harder, I had a couple of questions. This was for your trip to London in, I believe, November, and your airfare cost for that. There is a bit of confusion on the document talking about the actual cost for the airfare, and it lists $5,468.16. Was that the actual cost of the flight from Ottawa to London? There is a reference that the conference reimbursed the cost of an economy fare ticket of $1,000, or was it originally $6,400 and then lessened to $5,400, or was it $5,400 and the $1,000 will come off that?
Senator Harder: I have to verify that. What I know is it was below what we anticipated because of the timing of the purchase of the ticket and the reimbursement.
Senator Batters: This conference you went to attend, it was a public policy group. I know you certainly had significant involvement with public policy groups prior to your appointment to the Senate, and I was wondering if this organization that you went to speak at was one you had previous involvement with?
Senator Harder: No, it is not, although I’m familiar with the Canada-U.K. colloquialism because it has been going on for many years, and it’s supported by the foreign ministries of both governments. As the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, I knew about the conference, but I never participated myself.
It was the subject matter that was particularly relevant for my job. I should mention that one of the outcomes of every one of these conferences has been a significant report to both governments on the proceedings of the conference, irrespective of what the subject is.
Senator Batters: Great. I hope you enjoyed your trip to the Mother Parliament and maybe even took in a bit of the Westminster system in action. Thank you.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I table the report in the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you very much for coming today, senator.
Item No. 3, it is our practice that following international trips by a senator that a report is tabled with the committee. On behalf of Senator McPhedran, I have the honour to table her report. Is it agreed that I table her report in the Senate? Carried. Thank you.
Item No. 4, colleagues, is a request from Senator Cools for international travel. As was agreed, a request for an exception to the senators’ office management policy for international travel is considered by this committee.
Senator Cools has made a request to attend the International Bomber Command Centre opening ceremony in Lincoln, U.K., and use her travel points for the cost of the trip. I invite Senator Cools to make a short statement, and after that senators may ask questions.
Senator Cools: Thank you very much, chairman, for your gentleness and perennial good-spiritedness.
I would like to say to all the members of the Senate in this committee, this subject matter is something with which I’m very well acquainted. You could say that the phenomenon of the veterans and the sacrifice of 10,000 Canadian and 55,000 Commonwealth boys was one of the prices we paid to win World War II.
I have been loyal and dedicated to this group, who have something out in a small town, Nanton, Alberta, that is largely a voluntary project called the Bomber Command Museum of Canada. If you ever get the chance to go there, you should. I go every summer, and I speak to the guests in some of their special events.
Perhaps I should tell you what Bomber Command is. I would like to begin with Mackenzie King, who was the Prime Minister of Canada at the time of World War II. As you know, Prime Minister King did his best to avoid conscription. His expression was “Conscription if necessary… not necessarily conscription” because the notion of conscription around World War I was disastrous.
In any event, as it turns out, Mackenzie King never had to conscript because the wonder of Canadian young men was there was never a shortage of volunteers for the task at hand.
As I said before, my interest is Bomber Command. Let me tell you what that is. For those who follow the history of World War II, we will quickly notice that very early the Brits and the Allies were driven off the continent right to the water. It took large voluntary efforts to rescue and save lives from the beaches of Dunkirk.
Now, it took a few years before the Allies could really figure it out, to catch themselves because you can’t fight Germany, the Nazis. You have got to get there to fight. One of big players was a man named Arthur Harris, and they came up with the concept that the only way they could fight was to fight from the air. They set out on a scheme where they would build bomber planes and try to bomb out the Nazi’s fantastic, large, massive war production of equipment, machinery.
Now, you must know that Canada was a great place for training these bomber guys. They called them “the bomber boys,” and they were known always as that. We had these training bases all over Canada, and young men came from all over the Commonwealth — from Australia and New Zealand — to be trained in Canada.
The cost was enormous. You have to understand what bombing means. For your information, from the bases of England, they used to launch 60 planes an hour, a plane a minute, until the sky was just covered with bomber planes. Every night one in four of those young men did not return. The fatalities were large.
Whatever the reasons are, this particular subject, I first discovered from a senator. When I came to the Senate in 1984, there were several senators who had served in World War II. They are now long dead, but I learned of these events and of the importance of Bomber Command from a Conservative senator named Orville Phillips. He had served in Bomber Command, and he was a bomb aimer. The Americans called them bombardiers; the Canadians called them bomb aimers.
I used to serve on the Veteran Affairs Subcommittee with him, and every now and again he would reveal the horrors of being shot at every night. He himself, as a bomb aimer, had an experience in his plane, and I don’t know if you know those planes, but they were not very comfortable. What happened is his rear gunner was killed. The gun is moving back and forth, and they are being shot at by one of the hefty Nazi night fighters, and they were specialized planes intended to bring down these bombers as much as they could. Somehow, Phillips was able to crawl back there through the blood of the gunner who was killed. It is very hard to realize this stuff is reality. He grabbed the gun and shot down the night fighter. Because his buddy went down, this experience haunted him forever, and I want to put this into your head, the experiences of these young men.
One in four did not come back every night and 55,000 Commonwealth fellows went down. If you go to the Bomber Command Museum in Nanton, they have built a wall called the Memorial Wall, and in that wall they have engraved the names of the 10,000 young Canadian men who perished. This new memorial is being opened in Lincoln, England, and they are doing the same thing. They are going to engrave in stone the names of the 55,000 young men who fell.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. We have a couple of questions.
Senator Cools: I would love them.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, senator, for your presentation. I want to be reminded of the criteria for us today to approve or not approve such a request. I believe it is on an exceptional basis. Would you remind me of the criteria?
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Committee: There is no specific criteria for international trips. They are not permitted under the current senator office management policy. It is an exception. This is why it is being entertained by this committee and not the administration.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you.
Senator Tannas: Senator Cools, you might not know this, but the Bomber Command Museum is 20 miles from my house. I have been there many times. Sadly, you didn’t stop by for coffee on the way to the Bomber Command Museum in the summers.
Senator Cools: I will come then.
Senator Tannas: We get requests in Internal Economy from senators who have a particular interest and commitment in something where the weight of their position and office is helpful. I think about Senator Munson and his recent trips in support of the Special Olympics as being a great example. We heard from Senator Harder, although that was related to his specific administrative job, I guess.
I know this organization, and I know that they rely very little on government money. They are avid volunteers. They have totally restored a Canadian Lancaster bomber, and it’s in their museum, and there are thousands of Canadians who go through that museum every summer. It is great that we would have a parliamentarian accompany them to this kind of a ceremony with all the memory and solemnness that goes with it. Thank you for your efforts with respect to the museum. I appreciate it.
The Chair: Senator Cools and Senator Day were instrumental a few years ago when there was a movement to, in my opinion, defile the people of Bomber Command. I was not happy about that because my father flew 26 missions in Bomber Command in those Lancasters. I want to thank you for reference to that.
Could I have a motion to approve? Senator Tannas? All in favour? Opposed. Carried.
Senator Cools: Every one of those men who served, it was a phenomenal sacrifice; the cost was extremely high. Maybe that’s why I support it. There was a time when every block of every city of Canada had a relative in Bomber Command.
The Chair: Thank you, senator, as always.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I am flabbergasted to hear that there are no criteria for international trips and that such requests are handled on a case-by-case basis. There are no criteria in place to determine whether, for example, I would be entitled to a certain status for travelling more than a certain number of hours. Given what history has shown us, this is something we should think about.
[English]
The Chair: There is criteria, senator. The criteria is there is no travel. If there is going to be travel, you have to come before the committee and justify that travel. Every senator has a different reason for wanting to go and bring different expertise and significant knowledge from these trips; so we took it right out.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: With all due respect, we are dealing with two elements here: the relevance of the trip, and the conditions. I agree that we need to consider the relevance of each trip. However, once the trip is authorized, certain administrative criteria should apply to the associated decisions on things like the type of accommodations, the mode of transportation, and the type of ticket. The relevance and conditions of the trip are two different principles. That is my humble opinion. Since I’m still new, I was just wondering about this.
Senator Moncion: On the subject of international travel, I have a question about the price of the plane ticket. I think it’s astronomical. The trip itself costs less than $2,000, but the plane ticket costs $8,415. That’s a factor we need to consider. It has been pointed out to me that the money comes out of taxpayers’ pockets, but I would not feel comfortable spending $8,415 on a plane ticket.
[English]
The Chair: We voted for Senator Cools.
Senator Moncion: I understand. The problem we have here is that Senator Cools was still in the room, and this was brought to a vote; so it’s very difficult and uncomfortable for us to ask questions or make comments.
The Chair: I can’t accept that. This is in public, it’s transparent, and this is what we do. Sometimes we have to make choices that people are not happy with. What is our option? To go in camera? I don’t think that’s an option for us.
Senator Moncion: Not necessarily. But a vote like this could have been deferred to a time when Senator Cools was not in the room to give us the time to ask questions.
My comment goes with what Senator Forest just said about the criteria. The criteria is important. You might not agree with me, but I have questions and there is a discomfort here.
The Chair: Okay.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I agree with Senators Moncion and Forest. We have a report from Senator McPhedran on her trip to Bangkok over the holidays to promote women’s rights. Fortunately, she was able to save money by staying with relatives. I think we should set more specific criteria before authorizing trips.
[English]
Senator Housakos: Colleagues, a while ago, there was a policy in place where we allowed no international travel under any circumstances. Internal Economy basically practised that for the longest time. Once you open a door of what criteria is acceptable and what isn’t acceptable, it’s pretty tough, when you have 105 senators applying all over the world for various conferences and trips that fit within their point of interest, for steering or Internal Economy to decide unilaterally, “This senator’s request fits into their work. This one a little bit. This one less.” It will be an 18-month exercise to try to develop criteria, and it has been tried in the past. You will never be able to satisfy a consensus amongst our colleagues. Many of us at steering, for the longest time, said, “Once you start opening the door to an exception, it will become a runaway train, as it has been in previous years.” We are at the point, right now, where it is about to become a runaway train. What I suggest is that maybe we should thoroughly consider going back to the practice of applying the rule as it was. The rule was no international travel.
The Chair: Well, I suppose that should be a motion if you want to do that. I have no problem one way or another, quite frankly. The easiest way is no. That’s the easiest and simplest way, and then nobody finds themselves in a position of justifying what is important to them but what, to others, may not seem as important or as relevant.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I just want to point out that specific rules and criteria do apply to trips taken by members of parliamentary associations for the purposes of parliamentary diplomacy. I think it would be neither effective nor fair to systematically deny exceptional requests that may be justified for senators acting as representatives of the Senate. In my opinion, there is no difficulty about drawing up criteria. They already exist. I could do it, and there are others with that kind of expertise. We could use these criteria to ensure that when trips are authorized outside the context of parliamentary and interparliamentary associations, we can allow senators to represent the Senate, where appropriate.
I think that if we don’t have any criteria and proceed on a case-by-case basis, we could end up with anarchy, and it would be hard to justify it. We have a duty to ensure that public funds are managed fairly. I propose that we take some time to prepare criteria to guide our decisions on whether to approve or deny senators’ requests for trips to be taken outside the context of interparliamentary associations.
[English]
Senator Tannas: As we consider that, I guess we will still come back to the issue, unless we want to spend millions and millions. We will still say, “This is the criteria. However, it doesn’t guarantee you that we’re going to approve it.” Right? Because, if we lay out criteria and every senator is now guaranteed, if they tick that box, that they can go around the world, we will spend millions. That is not what any of us want, but every one of us has an important meeting that we could attend somewhere around the world once, twice, three times a year. If we could meet the criteria, then we’ll have an expectation that it will be approved. This is the rabbit hole that we are talking about, that our predecessors, going back many, many years, probably to the beginning of the age of jet travel, have fought with. On the one hand, I think we should give some criteria that will then perhaps weed out certain kinds of activities. I’m not sure. That will be a mind twister, but you’ve done this before. So I’ve got lots of faith, but, at the end of the day, unless we are going to have an unlimited budget for this, we are still going to have to say yes or no to trips. Right? Then we’ll still be back here. We’ll still be back here with people justifying one trip over others.
Senator Tkachuk: We should have a discussion on this, put it on the agenda another time. We have a big agenda to get through. I have meetings at 10:30. I think we should roll along. We should have a discussion when we come back. I’m of the view that we don’t have any international travel individually by senators. There are lots of parliamentary options. There are cabinet ministers travelling around, and everybody has got — so there is lots of international travel. I think we get rid of it. Then, there’s no problem. We don’t have to waste time in committee meetings deciding whether someone should go on a trip somewhere.
The Chair: We’ll bring this to steering at the next steering meeting and bring it forward. In the interim, I have a request for travel from Senator Neufeld. He couldn’t be here today. This is a dialogue session at Stanford University on the topic of North American Hydro Power: Climate Solutions and Conservation Challenges. Needless to say, being from British Columbia, this is incredibly relevant to us right now, with the Site C dam and all the rest that is going on. He has been invited to go down there. It is quite a list of people who are going. Is it agreed that Senator Neufeld’s request be approved?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Any disagreement? Carried. Thank you.
Item No. 5. The following item has been added to the agenda by the steering committee for your consideration. On January 31, 2018, Senator McPhedran made a request to the Senate administration for a contract of service using her office budget. Due to statements made in the media related to this contract, the Finance and Procurement Directorate sought direction from steering on the issuance of this contract. The administration has a duty to advise steering if there’s a perception of noncompliance with any rules, policy or practices on service contracts, travel expense claims or any other expenditures charged to office budget. After initial review, the clerk of the committee wrote to Senator McPhedran for clarification. On February 12, 2018, she revised her contract request. Both contracts are in your package. The steering committee is seeking direction from the committee on the approval for the second request for a service contract in the amount of $11,000.
We have invited Senator McPhedran to speak today on her behalf. The subcommittee has not taken a collective decision on the request. I wish to indicate to senators my support for the revised contract, dated February 12, 2018, based on the additional information that Senator McPhedran provided to us. Senator McPhedran is before us today, with Mr. David Taylor from the law firm Conway Baxter Wilson LLP. I invite Senator McPhedran to make a short statement and we will proceed with any questions. Thank you for coming today, senator.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for the invitation, Mr. Chair, I welcome the opportunity to have this discussion in public. I won’t take much time. I’m not here on appeal. I’m responding to the notice from the CIBA steering committee to appear before the entire committee, and I’m very pleased to do so. I would ask that you make the decision in response to my presentation this morning in public.
I would also like to introduce, on my right, David Taylor, who is a lawyer at Conway Baxter Wilson LLP, and he is attending to assist me. But he will not make submissions to the committee this morning, and, on my left, with great appreciation, is Katrina Leclerc, of my office.
As stated in my original and revised request for services contract forms, this contract is for research regarding Bill C-65 and a related review of the Senate statements, policies and procedures on preventing harassment and responding to complaints and to make suggestions as to constructive changes to any of the above if needed. All requests by the CIBA steering committee by confidential letter to me, on February 10, were met on the first possible business day thereafter, and a revised contract was submitted on February 12, which was the first possible business day to do so after receiving the letter.
To be clear, my request, dated February 12, 2018, for Ms. Levesque’s assistance, is to support me in my role as a senator as defined in Division 1, Chapter 1:02 of the Senate Administrative Rules. Ms. Levesque will not be providing services under this contract to the direct benefit of any third party.
We have agreed that safe, confidential legal consultations requested by survivors who have experienced harassment in the Senate environment will be handled on a pro bono basis by Ms. Levesque to a point. After that point, I will hold myself personally responsible to pay any fees that may be involved.
Ms. Levesque’s advice to me will assist me in my participation in debate on Bill C-65, captured by section 4(a)(i) of the SAR and will also assist me in my ongoing participation in efforts to ensure that the Senate provides a safe and harassment-free workplace, captured by section 4(2)(ii) of the SAR. This is also the focus of my ongoing inquiry in the chamber, initiated in May, 2017.
It is my understanding that CIBA’s consideration of my request for services contract of February 12 will be a de novo consideration. Neither the Finance and Procurement Directorate nor the CIBA steering committee have rejected my request.
Bill C-65 is almost through hearings in the House of Commons. January 31 to March 1 is a considerable period of time, during which my work on Bill C-65 has been affected in a negative way. I will be happy to answer any questions regarding the proposed contract with Ms. Levesque, taking into account that solicitor/client privilege exists, and I am not prepared to waive it. I welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, senator.
Senator Batters: Senator McPhedran, your first request for services contract, the Senate of Canada document you completed on this matter, was dated January 31, 2018, correct?
Senator McPhedran: That is correct.
Senator Batters: That is the two-plus-page document we have in front of us this morning, and that is your signature at the top of the third page on that document?
Senator McPhedran: That is correct.
Senator Batters: And you submitted that contract request to Senate Finance right around that January 31 date, correct?
Senator McPhedran: Yes, on January 31.
Senator Batters: This contract request is for $7,000, with a requested start date for services of February 1, 2018, and a requested end date of March 31, 2018. The person that you requested to contract was Anne Levesque of Juristes Power, correct?
Senator McPhedran: Correct.
Senator Batters: This original contract request listed this under the Senate document’s Statement of Work: “Objective: What is the Purpose of the Contract? Provide procedural advice and draft scenarios for the senator’s consideration on legislative and other matters.”
“Responsibilities: What tasks will the contractor perform throughout the contract? Draft technical memos and meet with the senator regarding advice on legislative and other matters.” Then it listed deliverables, including meetings and memos to be provided to you, which included “to provide an overview of systemic issues in Senate policies, practices and procedures, as well as recommendations to address sexual harassment and harassment of Senate staff, students, volunteers and administration.”
The Chair: Just a question, senator. Are we still dealing with the first contract?
Senator Batters: That was the first one, yes.
The Chair: Well, we’re dealing with the second one for approval here.
Senator Batters: I realize that.
The Chair: The first one is basically gone because we asked for a clarification. So let’s deal with the second application, please.
Senator Batters: All right. Fine. So, on February 1, Senator McPhedran, you did a national TV interview with Carole MacNeil on CBC News Network, correct?
Senator McPhedran: Yes.
Senator Batters: And Ms. MacNeil started out that particular segment by saying:
Independent Senator McPhedran is looking to tackle the issue of sexual misconduct in the Senate. She set up a confidential email address where past and present staffers can report experiences of harassment. The senator has also allocated $7,000 of her budget to hire a human rights lawyer. Complainants would be able to seek free legal advice and remain anonymous.
Near the beginning of that news segment, you said:
It seemed timely to make this opportunity available where I could be sure that a safe and confidential space could be offered to survivors to come if they wished and share whatever information they wished and to be able to get advice from someone who is a practising lawyer.
In that particular interview, you didn’t say anything, in that interview that aired, indicating that the Senate contract request was for policy research.
You did another interview on February 6, a national TV interview with Don —
The Chair: Sorry to intervene again, but we’re dealing with an issue of a contract that was submitted on February 12.
Senator Batters: This is relevant to it.
The Chair: Let’s deal with February 12 and this contract. The other contract is gone.
Senator Batters: Correct, but I’m just pointing out some media that was done dealing with this subject matter of this particular contract, and this is relevant to it.
Senator Housakos: Can I ask a supplementary question? I will be a little bit more concise and precise than Senator Batters. If I may ask the chair for your indulgence. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran, I think what we really want to know, at the end of the day, it’s been well documented the reasons why you wanted to hire a lawyer. And that is to pursue your attempt to create a parallel system of a harassment complaint process. So the question I think we all have in the back of our minds is: Is the second request just your way to basically go around the first request that was refused in order to do what you couldn’t get done with the first contract?
Senator McPhedran: No, Senator Housakos. No.
Senator Housakos: It’s not?
Senator McPhedran: My answer to your question is no.
The Chair: Just a clarification there, the first request was not refused. Clarification was requested on the first request. It was not refused. We asked for clarification.
Senator Housakos: I’ll just get on the list to continue my questioning on why they both should be refused later on.
The Chair: Okay. Senator Carignan, followed by Senator Marshall.
Senator Batters: I’m not finished my question.
The Chair: Oh. Senator Batters is not finished yet.
Senator Batters: Thank you. There were three different national media interviews that you did, where it spoke about the subject of that. In all of those, you indicated that you were using Anne Levesque, from that particular law firm, for services to provide legal fees for people who were contacting you, and in none of those did you talk about the policy research thing.
So, moving on to the February 12 contract, that revised request for services contract you completed dated February 12, that’s the two-and-a-half-page document we have in front of us this morning and your signature on the third page. You submitted that to Senate Finance around that February 12 date, correct?
Senator McPhedran: On February 12.
Senator Batters: Okay. On February 12. This particular Senate contract request is now for $11,000. It has a requested start date of February 19 and a requested end date of March 31. Again, it’s with Anne Levesque, the same Ottawa lawyer you spoke about in those interviews, correct?
Senator McPhedran: That is correct.
Senator Batters: And that one lists similar deliverables, but now it also includes reference to Bill C-65, which is at the House of Commons second reading committee stage, correct?
Senator McPhedran: Correct.
Senator Batters: So, on February 13, then, the day after that, J.P. Tasker, of CBC national news, wrote an online article about these particular issues, and part of this article states:
McPhedran said she was told Saturday the Senate would not allow her to use her office budget to cover the costs of a legal consultation.
McPhedran said she still believes she has the right to use her Senate resources for this purpose. “If I had the time, and if I were prepared to step away from the promises I made to survivors, then I’d go back into full appeal mode, because I think they’re wrong,” she told CBC News.
Also on February 13, Joanna Smith, of the Canadian Press, wrote an article about this issue. Part of this article states:
The clerk of the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has asked McPhedran to clarify the proposed $7,000 contract for the lawyer, because Senate policies do not cover expenses for the type of work she has described to the media.
The original contract, according to a letter from the clerk that McPhedran provided to The Canadian Press, described the activities as providing procedural advice and drafting a memo regarding harassment of Senate employees, students and volunteers.
So then, Senator McPhedran, with all of that national media on this issue, how do you square that circle? Because both of your Senate of Canada contract requests were to contract that same Ottawa lawyer, Anne Levesque, for policy research on the issue of harassment in the Senate. The second request included Bill C-65. Yet, you stated several times to the Canadian public, in national media interviews, that the legal services you were using your senator’s budget for were for those legal consultations by people potentially making harassment claims with that same Ottawa lawyer.
Only one of those scenarios can be correct. Why have you allowed both of those fact scenarios to stand: one to the Senate stating it was for policy research and one to the Canadian public through the media stating it was for third party legal fees?
Senator McPhedran: Let me begin my answer by saying, with all due respect, Senator Batters, I don’t accept your characterization of the totality of the interviews that I gave in responding to questions about the January 31 request.
Time obviously doesn’t permit you — or you choose not — to reference other parts of the interviews. I talked about the work that I’m trying to do in the Senate. I talked about my concern as a senator about how survivors of harassment, to the best of my knowledge, have been treated. I talked about the need for more fairness.
Yes, I acknowledged that I was prepared to use up to the $7,000 figure as part of what I had asked Anne Levesque to do with me. I need to note that, although a number of survivors have responded to the confidential email that I sent out and made available, no one has yet asked for legal consultation. They have all been asking to meet in a safe and confidential space with me.
There was no way of knowing, going into this, the extent of response from survivors to have those consultations, but the fact that the questions in the interviews were directed primarily to that, I was answering those questions. But in the fullness of my responses, I was certainly speaking much more broadly than simply talking about the potential safe and confidential consultations that could be made available.
I would like to say to you, though, that I really appreciate the reminder from the chair to which you appear to have chosen not to respond, which is that I would like to be discussing the request that is before this committee, which is February 12. I would like to invite questions to focus on that, please.
But please be very clear that I reject your characterization. Therefore, I’m not going to go into any more detail in trying to clarify for the record. I’ll just say that I don’t accept your characterization of what has happened here.
Senator Batters: But you didn’t answer my question. Why did you allow those two fact scenarios to stand?
Senator McPhedran: Because I reject your characterization that it’s two scenarios. I think in the interviews in relation to the January 31 request and February 12 that there’s consistency and there’s more detail. I have much less time now to do the work that I want to do. Because I reject your characterization, I’m not answering your question in the way that you would hope I would.
Senator Batters: That’s very interesting, but had I been allowed to read the full quotes from your interview and provide transcripts, you would have seen that in all of the interviews, you talk about legal fees for third parties. In none of the interviews do you talk about policy research.
Senator McPhedran: I talked about my work as a senator, which very much includes policy and research.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Senator McPhedran, you say in your letter:
I would be happy to answer any questions regarding the proposed contract with Ms. Levesque tomorrow, taking into account solicitor-client privilege, which I am not prepared to waive.
I seem to have heard you say in an interview that you were no longer a member of the bar. Does the privilege apply to you as a lawyer or to Ms. Levesque?
[English]
Senator McPhedran: I seek to retain Ms. Levesque.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Because you are no longer a member of the bar?
[English]
Senator McPhedran: No, because I am a client of Anne Levesque, and it’s not about whether I’m a member of the bar. It’s about the fact that that’s not my work anymore. I’m still a lawyer. I’m still a specialist in many areas, which I’ve been able to bring into my work as a senator.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: But are you a member of the bar?
[English]
Senator McPhedran: No, I am not.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: So you cannot say that you are a lawyer.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Oh, I think I can. Yes, I think I can. That’s a difference of opinion that I think we can have, senator.
Maybe I didn’t understand your question, so let me just state clearly —
Senator Carignan: My question is very clear. Are you a member of the bar?
Senator McPhedran: But you had a previous question, and let me respond to that. I’m the client, potentially, in this situation and I’m claiming the privilege. I think my letter was fairly clear on that.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: If I understand correctly, your request for a service contract is even vaguer because you are seeking the services of a lawyer.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: My interest in Ms. Levesque is that, as a practising lawyer in this field, she has practical information and expertise that I don’t consider myself as having anymore. My work has been at the policy level and much more internationally, and my work in the area of sexual abuse and sexual harassment has been mostly focused on professionals in health care.
Senator Marshall: Thank you. I have two general questions. The first one I direct toward officials, but thank you, Senator McPhedran, for appearing here this morning. I’m not ignoring you. I’d like to get an answer from the officials.
Do all requests for service contracts come to CIBA for approval?
Ms. Legault: No. Basically, the vast majority of requisitions are assessed directly by the procurement team.
Senator Marshall: And there’s an assessment and analysis carried out?
Ms. Legault: Yes.
Senator Marshall: So why is this one coming to us?
The Chair: Because a member of the steering committee asked that it be brought here.
Senator Marshall: This is a point I’ve brought up several times over the years: Some issues come with a nice briefing note with an assessment of the pros and cons and the analysis, but this service contract is coming to us and there’s no briefing note and no analysis, so there’s no indication that it’s gone through a process similar to all other service contracts.
I find that this was just dropped in our lap and into my lap without going through the proper process. That’s my first comment. I do have a problem with that. I think that’s a bit unfair to the members of CIBA.
My second question relates to the deliverables. This might not be a question for you either, Senator McPhedran, but for whoever wants to answer it.
We received a memo from Mr. Charbonneau a couple of weeks ago advising us that a request for proposals is currently being drafted to review and renew the Senate policy on the prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace. That’s something that we’re doing internally or we’re hiring somebody outside to help us.
In Senator McPhedran’s request for services contract, there’s also a reference to the parliamentary work environment, and a particular reference to the Senate. Under memos 3 and 4, it refers to Bill C-65 — that’s fine with me — and the possible impact on Senate policy and procedures in relation to prevention of workplace harassment.
Are we going to be having two reviews of our harassment policy taking place at the same time? That’s the concern that I have. I would like some assurance that we’re not going to have two sets of people or two people doing the same thing. If we’re looking at the Senate harassment policy, I think that should be done internally. The Senate should do it.
I have a little bit of concern about that reference in the deliverables because if you’re doing that, Senator McPhedran, we could possibly have another senator who wished to do the same thing. That’s an issue for me and it’s probably something that could be addressed by the chair of the Human Resources Subcommittee, whether or not they feel it’s an issue. But it’s an issue for me.
Senator Housakos: I have a number of concerns. First and foremost, I want to echo what Senator Marshall said. The Senate has a code of ethics. We have a code on harassment. We happen to have a pretty damn good code of ethics, and it has withstood the test of time in the last few years because we’ve seen this chamber has not tolerated behaviour not becoming of senators. We’ve taken unprecedented steps, as we’ve seen just a few months ago, where a senator was pretty much encouraged to resign because of that ethics code we have.
We had instances where victims had come before the senior administration leadership of the Senate, and we had conducted investigations in confidence. As a result of those investigations, there were severe repercussions for misbehaving in this institution. We’ve seen the Senate Ethics Officer on a number of occasions conduct outstanding investigations to get to the bottom of harassment complaints and other breaches of the code of ethics.
The point is we have a code that all of us have approved and we’re all bound by it as senators in the chamber. We live by that code, including yourself, Senator McPhedran. If you have, as Senator Marshall said, concerns with that code of ethics, you have to work within the confines of the rules of this institution to change it, hopefully to strengthen it and to make a contribution to it. That’s why this committee a number of months back took a decision to review that code, not because we think it’s not sufficient, but given the context of what’s going on today, we want to always be ahead of the curve, as we have been in the last few years when it comes to accountability and transparency. I won’t repeat all the things we’ve done in the last few years.
We have a subcommittee in place now. I believe it is chaired by Senator McCoy and other capable colleagues around the table reviewing the policy. Any and all senators are welcome to participate. Any subcommittee and any standing committee is not exclusive to only its members. Any senator has a right to articulate their point of view and make a contribution.
So I’m perplexed why you have shown a lack of confidence in your colleagues, in the institution, in the code of ethics we have and an arm’s length Senate Ethics Officer that is already in place.
The other thing concerning to me, in answering Senator Batters’ question, with all due respect you were not very clear answering any question. On one hand you insist today this contract has to do with research on a particular piece of legislation, but in your responses all you talk about is victims and people that have come to you and you have taken on this compelling need to be a type of Senate Ethics Officer. With all due respect, that’s not a role that you’ve been assigned at this particular time. You might earn that down the line, but I don’t think we’re quite there yet.
I’ve had some experience as chair of Internal Economy and we’ve had requests for legal fees over the years. There’s a rigid criteria. At the end of the day, as per the testimony of our colleague, this is a request for legal fees. As Senator McPhedran said, “I am the client.”
The Law Clerk of the Senate has always given guidance on the rigid criteria on what constitutes fees that senators are entitled to and what fees they’re not entitled to. We’ve had senators come before this board on a number of occasions in the past to make those points. I made the comments and I stand by those comments.
My last question to the chair, has the law clerk been consulted if the request for these legal fees for senators falls within what is the confines of an approved request? Or has this request just simply been treated as a request for a consultant contract? It seems to me what I hear from Senator McPhedran is that it’s a request for legal fees.
The Chair: It’s being treated as a consultant contract. This is the first time this issue has been brought up.
Senator Housakos: So, chair, it seems there’s no privilege?
The Chair: No privilege with what?
Senator Tkachuk: Solicitor-client privilege.
The Chair: I’m not a judge or a lawyer, but if I was sitting there, I believe I have the privilege.
Senator Housakos: I appreciate you judged it based on the premise of what was being presented, but here it’s not being presented as such in terms of the responses we’re getting from Senator McPhedran. Thank you.
Senator Mitchell: I see this very differently than Senator Housakos and others. I see a request for a contract to hire a contractor. It happens to be a lawyer. I’m sure there are lots of people in the Senate who have hired lawyers to give them advice.
If it weren’t for the first contract application, this one wouldn’t even be before us. She had every right to hire this person straight up, do what she wants to do. None of us would ever bring a contract like this or be required to do that.
I can agree there’s some sensitivity, but to say this is qualitatively different and we have to make a ruling on it is to explicitly impugn the motives for a Senate colleague which we have no right to do. She made an application for something before that was clearly confronted by a good deal of resistance. She came here and fought that resistance. It seems to me that she’s accepted that resistance. She’s accepted that implicit or explicit decision essentially not to give it to her, although she did have the opportunity to give us some extra input, but she’s been required to come before us for something nobody else would have to get advice for.
There is an idea that she is doing parallel work. If the Senate Finance Committee is looking at corporate tax, and I want to hire a CA to give me advice, I would be his or her client to study corporate tax in a parallel way, I’m perfectly entitled to do that.
I’m sorry we’ve had to bring Senator McPhedran before us. I would simply say thanks for bringing us up to date on what you plan to do. You have every right to do it. You’re not going to be giving third party advice. Why would I think you would? It doesn’t say so in here. I don’t doubt your intentions or your word and I think we should just say thanks for much for your presentation and get on with some good work on a tough issue. I look forward to your input on Bill C-65.
Senator Tkachuk: I have a couple of questions. I agree that she has the right to have a contract. The only confusion is Senator McPhedran, what you’ve been saying publicly on some of these matters and what we now have before us.
Maybe the law firm you’re hiring could tell us, what professional knowledge do they have about harassment policies? Maybe they can tell us about whether they’ve done this kind of research before or whether they have represented clients on these matters. Do they expect that they’re going to get references from clients who come to see you on these matters?
Senator McPhedran: I really question whether I should be required to answer any of those questions. This contract request is comprehensive in relation to the issue of harassment. The short answer to your question, senator, is yes.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, what?
Senator McPhedran: Yes to all of your questions about expertise. I can answer those because that was the basis on which I sought out the expertise of Anne Levesque. The request that followed my first request from CIBA steering, that followed my first request of January 31, was for a letter. You have that letter from Ms. Levesque that makes it very clear in responding to the questions.
I really do feel the need to remind all of you senators who have been following this line of questioning that in the Senate Administrative Rules, Division 1:02, section 4 says:
It is recognized that the role of a Senator includes the carrying out of. . .
(c) other activities in the public interest, including the following activities
(i) participation in educational activ,
(ii) development in regard to matters relating to the Senate or specific areas of interest to the Senator that are in the public interest.
The work I have asked to be able to conduct will assist me in understanding that part of the ongoing review by the new subcommittee from CIBA. I’m not able to be on that subcommittee. I very much appreciated consultation that Senator McCoy has undertaken with numerous senators who have some expertise and concern in this area but I’m not on that subcommittee. I want to be able to make very sincere and substantive contributions to this. This is not a parallel process. This is me following the Rules of the Senate to be able to seek the kind of advice that I need in order to make my best possible contribution to the process that this committee has established.
Senator Tkachuk: I’m not sure about all of this, but I know that when I have had contracts in the past I’ve always been asked by procurement to provide professional information. You are signing this contract with someone. What is their professional knowledge about the work that they are going to be doing? We’ve had to supply that in the past. We don’t just hire anybody to do this. All I asked was what knowledge does a law firm have? Have they done work like this in the past? Are they the same law firm that you’re referring clients to?
Senator McPhedran: I’m not referring any clients, senator. I’m not sure how you get that characterization.
Senator Tkachuk: Well, from your TV interviews.
Senator McPhedran: Let me read to you the letter that was requested by the CIBA steering committee. This is a letter from Anne Levesque to Ms. Pascale Legault on behalf of the steering committee. It is headed “Re contract request to Senator McPhedran dated January 31, 2018.” It states:
Senator McPhedran shared with me your letter dated February 9, 2018, regarding the services contract requests she submitted on January 31, 2018. In this letter, you expressed concern regarding the scope of the services to be provided under this contract. In particular, you reference media outlets that reported that Senator McPhedran will be paying from her office budget legal fees of survivors of harassment who come forward. You state that expenses to benefit a third party are not permitted under Senate policy. In light of the concerns expressed in your letter, Senator McPhedran has clarified the nature of the services to be provided by the proposed contract. I —
— this is Anne Levesque speaking —
— will provide these services to Senator McPhedran only and bill my services through. . . a law firm that has agreed to provide me with support during this contract.
In order to support Senator McPhedran’s objective of helping survivors to make the Senate a safe and harassment-free workplace, I have also agreed to meet with survivors who will come forward on a pro bono basis. To be clear, the proposed contract as amended will only include services to Senator McPhedran and will not include any time spent providing services to a third party including survivors of harassment.
I trust that this addresses your concerns.
It is signed by Anne Levesque.
Senator Tkachuk: I’m glad she got that on the record, chair. I’m done.
Senator McCallum: I wanted to make a few comments about what is happening here. I’m a new senator. I came here looking at the Senate as a chamber of sober second thought — that’s what people practice here — and as a place of fairness. That is, people listen and deliberate and then they decide fairly for everyone. Consistently, that is not what I have seen. I don’t know if this is out of order, but this comes from my heart.
As a previous victim, the Senate is a powerful place. Sometimes victims don’t want to go to through the existing system because they see that as a threat to their safety. If people want their voice heard, they go outside the system. That is their right. If there is a problem and people aren’t coming to the Ethics Committee — and this is not a criticism of the Ethics Committee — then sometimes systems need to be looked at and addressed.
The Chair: Senator McCallum, I would like to try to pull this back to the contract that is before us on whether or not we are going to approve it.
Senator McCallum: That’s where I’m coming from with my question with Senator McPhedran.
When you are looking at the contract you’ve put before us, that contract is solely to hire someone to help you in the work of your office, is it?
Senator McPhedran: That’s right.
Senator McCallum: That’s what we’re looking at right now?
Senator McPhedran: That’s correct.
Senator McCallum: Thank you; that’s all I wanted to confirm.
Senator McCoy: Thank you, Senator McCallum, for putting one of the most crucial issues on the table in such an elegant manner.
This is a contract request. It falls within the policy and there is no reason for it to be here. I entirely endorse that point of view. It should be simply accepted.
I’ll get all the small things out of the way, if I may. Following up on a comment from Senator Carignan, I am a lawyer, but I’m not actively practising law. The distinction is one of being an active member of the bar in whatever province, or provinces, or territories, I choose to apply to and be accepted to. That does not negate the fact that I have a law degree and therefore I’m trained as a lawyer. In the common law system, that is how we would characterize it. I want to make sure nobody is misled by that. Nobody needs to be misled by the policy on legal fees. Our policy on legal fees is reimbursing fees paid on my own defence. If I go out and hire a lawyer to defend myself and then come back, because I was put in the position of needing to defend myself, and I apply to be reimbursed, that’s what those legal fee policies are about at the Senate. This is nothing of the kind.
Having swept those red herrings off the table, I hope, I will address the process we have through the Subcommittee on Human Resources launched. I am pleased to point out the presence of the deputy chair of the subcommittee, Senator Tannas; Senator Tkachuk and Senator Moncion are members — I have not been told any differently — as is Senator Jaffer.
The process as I explained before that we want to launch is to hire an external consultant to help us have a thorough renewal and review of the harassment policy that we have in place.
The Chair: Senator, I would like to get back to the contract again.
Senator McCoy: There are two pieces to that policy, just to make it clear. One is that 2009 policy, which applies to staff — and, incidentally if senators are involved — and our ethics code, which was modified in 2014 subsequently without any cross-reference to the two.
We are also facing the issue of Bill C-65 which will apply to the Senate in some form when it is passed.
We are also dealing with a change in society standards from even 2014, let alone 2009. We are looking for a fulsome process. We want this to be completely interactive and consultative with all senators and all staff of senators’ offices and with all staff in the Senate administration.
Senator Dawson: You made a request that we get back to the contract. I would appreciate that.
Senator McCoy: Someone has said that this contract would set up a parallel process, and I am trying to put out the point that when we consult with senators or senators’ staff or staff of administration, we are hoping to get informed advice and points of view either based on experience or expertise or both.
I would hope that every senator in this place reaches out and informs him or herself —
The Chair: The contract, senator, please.
Senator McCoy: — of what current policies should or could be.
Coming back to this contract, it is a perfect example of a senator undertaking her duty as a senator in a most thoughtful way, using the resources to inform herself and ultimately the rest of us as to what could arguably be an excellent policy for the Senate of Canada. Thank you.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the request for a service contract be approved?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: We will have a recorded vote.
Colleagues, before we proceed to the roll call vote, I would like to remind senators that the Rules indicate that ex officio members enjoy the same status as other members of the committee, including the right to vote. There is currently a convention that ex officio members do not vote in committee by mutual agreement. I ask that any ex officio committee members who wish not to vote please indicate it now.
Senator Mitchell: I wish to vote, but there is a practice —
The Chair: No, senator, we have a process.
Senator Mitchell: I can’t break that arrangement so I won’t. If I could vote, I would vote in favour.
The Chair: You’re not voting; is that correct, senator?
Senator Mitchell: I can’t, under the circumstances, vote.
The Chair: Thank you. Any other ex officios?
Ms. Legault: I will call the members’ names beginning with the chair and going in alphabetical order. Senators should verbally indicate whether they vote for, against or abstain.
Honourable Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Honourable Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: No.
Ms. Legault: Honourable Senator Carignan.
Senator Carignan: No.
Ms. Legault: Honourable Senator Dawson.
Senator Dawson: No.
Ms. Legault: Honourable Senator Forest.
Senator Forest: Abstain.
Ms. Legault: Honourable Senator Housakos.
Senator Housakos: No.
Ms. Legault: Honourable Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Honourable Senator McCallum.
Senator McCallum: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Honourable Senator McCoy.
Senator McCoy: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Honourable Senator Moncion.
Senator Moncion: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Honourable Senator Saint-Germain.
Senator Saint-Germain: Abstain.
Ms. Legault: Honourable Senator Tannas.
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: No.
The Chair: Yes, 6; no, 5; abstentions, 2. The motion is adopted.
Thank you very much for coming today, Senator McPhedran. It’s appreciated.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
The Chair: Item No. 6, Senator Moncion, as chair of the Audit Subcommittee, will table for information its ninth report dealing with the Senate quarterly financial report for the quarter ending December 31, 2017.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Honourable senators, as chair of the Audit Subcommittee, I am pleased to table, for information, the Senate’s quarterly financial report for the third quarter of the 2017-18 fiscal year, namely, the period ending December 31, 2017.
The committee was diligent in reviewing the report, and we received satisfactory answers to several of questions that were asked of the finance team. As for 2017-18 budgetary authorities, the Senate has a total budget of $103.9 million. We estimate the expenditures will total $96.6 million in 2017-18, for an anticipated surplus of $10.3 million.
[English]
A total of $5.8 million would come from senators’ and house officers’ office budgets and caucus group budgets. A total of $2.7 million would come from senators’ salary, travel and telecommunications budgets.
The surplus would materialize if the 2017-18 average spending trends in senators’ offices is consistent with past experience. The Senate administration is projected to show a surplus of $912,000 mainly because of vacancies. Finally, there is also a projected surplus of $941,000 at Senate committees.
[Translation]
The largest unplanned spending for 2017-18 relates to the human resources transformation initiative. The total planned amount of $1.1 million is included in the administration’s forecast. However, the initiative will be funded by the surplus from the senators’ voted budgets.
[English]
The second part of the report compares the expenditures of the first nine months of 2017-18 to the first nine months of 2016-17. At $63 million for the first three quarters, actual spending increased by $8.2 million, or 15 per cent, compared with the same period last year.
We found the most significant changes occurred in four categories: Staff cost increased by $6 million, or 13 per cent, due to a larger number of seated senators, from 89 to 97, which had a direct impact on senators’ indemnity payments and senators’ staff payroll. Furthermore, the amount includes an overall increase of $1.9 million and the Senate administration is attributable to now fill the positions that were vacant in the same period of the previous fiscal year.
[Translation]
Spending on transportation and telecommunications increased by $1.1 million or 22 per cent due to a greater number of senators compared to last year. Expenditures on professional and special services, increased by $467,000 or 29 per cent. This increase is mainly attributable to the contract with Deloitte Canada for the human resources transformation initiative. Equipment acquisition expenditures increased by $312,000 or 42 per cent due to the purchase of digital press equipment. It should be noted that this equipment is the property of the Senate. The Senate was able to recover an amount equivalent to its value from Public Services and Procurement Canada because of the forced move of 45 Sacré-Cœur, warehouse and printing services.
[English]
Consistent with past practice, our quarterly report lists the key risks and uncertainties that must be monitored and mitigated.
The Chair: Are there any questions?
Senator Marshall: Could someone give us some information about that human resource transformation initiative? I can remember Deloitte came in for an in camera meeting, and I have to look at the transcript, but I was surprised when I saw the $1.1 million figure. I certainly didn’t think it would cost that much. I went back and looked at the minutes. The only thing I could find in the minutes is something that approves it in the amount of $338,000.
I don’t know if there is some other approval in some other minutes. Can someone explain to us what it is and how much it is going to cost? My recollection might be wrong, but I thought that I asked that question when Deloitte was here for the presentation. I wanted to know how much this would cost and what impact it would have on our budget. Can someone tell me? That’s a big initiative. I was surprised when I saw that number.
The Chair: Two things: on March 23, Deloitte will be back. And Ms. Dodd is here. I wonder if you could add anything to it. Should we be waiting for the update from Deloitte?
Linda Dodd, Interim Director of Human Resources, Senate of Canada: I would assume Deloitte is here today, but I would recommend waiting until the presentation from Deloitte because they will be giving a progress report and the next steps for the new fiscal year.
Senator Marshall: When are we going to hear from Deloitte?
The Chair: March 23, when we get back.
Senator Marshall: I will wait. Can someone bring in some information on the money? What exactly is the initiative, what exactly did we think it was going to cost and what exactly do we now think it is going to cost? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Legault: Senator Marshall, without getting into the detail of the scope of the transformation, I just want to mention that the contract was originally done through a competitive process and the original contract came in a little over $300,000. That was last year during the summer. All of the work was done and since then there have been a number of amendments and this is why the contract is now at the level it is.
This is to explain it was not the original contract but it was a number of amendments to include additional work related to the overall transformation.
Senator Marshall: Did the amendments come back to CIBA or just the original contract?
Senator Tannas: We did not pay Deloitte $1.1 million. There was an original contract from Deloitte. I came before the committee in November, I believe, asking that we retain Deloitte on a monthly basis until we could get the new people in place.
Senator Marshall: That was the in camera meeting?
Senator Tannas: Yes, it was, I believe. That was approved with extensions through to the end of March and that’s where it sits right now. If there is any more funding, we have to come back and ask for it. But as part of the recommendations, and I think this is where we are getting to $1.1 million, there are a number of staff members that need to be hired. Some are permanent, some are 18-month staff members, but they would actually be paid civil servants who would be part of the human resources transformation, so they have been included in this cost, but it is not $1.1 million to Deloitte.
Senator Marshall: I would like a breakdown because my recollection of that in camera meeting is that I had asked for a dollar figure and I couldn’t get it. So I’ll go back and look.
Senator Tannas: We’ll make sure that we get it for you.
Senator Marshall: Let me know what is in the $1.1 million.
The Chair: Are there any other questions on this issue?
Item No. 7 is the confidentiality of committee documents. During a previous meeting, a question was raised about the confidentiality of committee documents. You will notice that all documents sent to senators prior to the meeting are listed as “restricted.” A briefing note was prepared to provide clarification related to the confidentiality of committee documents for public portions of meetings. The briefing note has a recommendation for a sessional motion dealing with the committee’s documentation. I assume that everybody has had an opportunity to review this. Are there any questions or debate on this?
Seeing none, can I have a mover for the following motion:
That, for the remainder of the current session, documents distributed to committee members receive the following information classification:
1. Restricted until adopted by the committee:
- Public minutes;
2. Restricted until the item is called:
- Presentations from external witnesses;
3. Restricted until tabling or moved:
- Draft motions;
- Subcommittee reports;
For any other documents, from public portions of meetings, not listed above, including briefing notes prepared by the Senate administration, presentations from internal witnesses, correspondence from senators, financial reports, these documents be considered restricted unless made public by the committee; and
That all documents from in camera portions of meetings remain confidential and be classified as restricted, unless otherwise determined by the committee.
Do I have agreement on this?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Moncion: My question is about the availability of the documents. We usually get them the day before the committee. Could we get them a few days earlier?
The Chair: Believe me, senator, I try every week to have them out for you on Tuesday. It’s like a tree growing: a branch springs out here and there, and the next thing you know we’re getting documents overnight. The only thing I insist upon is that all documents that before us are in both official languages. If this committee decides there is not enough time to look at it, we will push it to the next meeting. Otherwise, we will be in gridlock.
Is everybody okay with this?
Senator McCoy: I have another question for clarification. I have no difficulty withholding the documents from distribution, but from time to time I seek advice on the issue at hand and I take it that this does not preclude me from having discussions. But it does preclude me from circulating the document to all members of the Senate or all members of ISG or something of that nature.
But certainly it doesn’t stop me from having a learned discussion with you, Senator Campbell, as esteemed chair of the committee, before we have the meeting.
The Chair: No, I don’t know about learned discussion, but you can certainly talk to me. I don’t think that is any part of the meaning of this. This is just to lay it out because of the ongoing question of what is private, what is restricted and all the rest of it.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Here in the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, I am impressed that the documents are circulated in both official languages. I think it’s strictly observed, but clearly, that is not the case in other committees. At the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, we receive briefs in English only with a lovely note indicating that French will follow. The French version follows after the testimony. I’m getting tired of this. I would like us to study this issue. Allocate some resources, please. We send people to Bangkok. We could hire more translators to have the documentation in French. I understand that it cannot always be done at the same time as the English document, but it should be done as quickly as possible before the committee meeting, as the Standing Committee on Internal Economy does. I’m starting to feel that this is a breach of privilege. Before this becomes a bigger crisis, I urge you to allocate resources, because I’m about to get angry.
[English]
The Chair: I can assure you, senator, that this committee will not accept documents that are not in both languages. I don’t accept that we have to wait, down the road, for a translation to come. They are either both here or it doesn’t go forward. If that’s not happening in other committees, then I suggest that you deal with that in those committees, but there is an inherent right for them to be in both languages.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: It is the responsibility of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy to ensure that the Senate administration allocates the necessary resources to provide senators with documents in both languages. Clearly, we are not getting translated documents in a timely manner because of a lack of translation resources.
[English]
The Chair: Quite frankly, I don’t think it is a lack of resources. I think it’s a lack of bringing things on time or not realizing how long it takes to have it translated. The bottom line is we should not be accepting documents, period, if they are not in both official languages. It’s as simple as that.
Some of it is about timing, some is about length. The difficulty with receiving a document in another language after the fact is there is no way of knowing that the translations mesh. We see that all the time where the French does not mean the same as the English, and we have to deal with that. But I wouldn’t say that we have a lack of translation. I think it’s a matter of volume and timing. But it should be a concern of all of ours.
Senator Housakos: I was just wondering, chair, if you have an update on the committee we put together a while back — a working group led by Senator Ringuette and Senator Maltais — to look at just this issue. They were supposed to sit down and review our translating capacities, in terms of timeliness and effectiveness, because it has become an ongoing complaint from a number of —
The Chair: The report is due March 31, I believe. We should have a fulsome discussion within this committee once we have that report, because I don’t consider it acceptable.
So we have agreement on this. We’ll go to Item No. 8, a great story. It’s my pleasure to announce to you the return of the beautifully restored train station bench, which will be displayed in its former home, the Government Conference Centre, once called the Ottawa Union Station.
This is a great story because this is in part a story of our employees finding out about this beautiful piece of furniture. Tamara Dolan and Natalie Whidden did so. They’re present today at the back here. They’re with the Property and Services Directorate. I wanted to make sure you knew they were not cruising Kijiji while they were working. Tamara read a CBC article about this vintage piece of furniture. They had discussions with the Canadian Museum of Science and Technology, which agreed to transfer it to the Senate to return it to its former home. This type of bench was historically used in the former Union Station. In fact, there’s a black and white picture that shows these benches.
This is a great initiative on behalf of our employees that happens all too often that we don’t recognize, and we should be doing that. First of all, I want to thank the Canada Museum of Science and Technology. They were actually selling this, and they gave it to us, so I want to thank them. And I want to thank Tamara Dolan and Natalie Whidden for going that extra mile.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McCoy: Mr. Chair, for the record, let it be known that today is World Compliment Day, so it’s particularly fitting that we should compliment these folks.
The Chair: Senator, I’m sad you didn’t bring this up at the start. I think we could have had an easier time here today.
Senator McCoy: I was remiss. I apologize.
The Chair: We will be moving in camera. We have about six minutes. I would entertain the idea that six minutes won’t be enough time for us to discuss the next item. Therefore, once we go in camera, I would ask for direction from my colleagues. I don’t want to get started on something and then not finish.
Senator Carignan: I move that we adjourn.
The Chair: I have a motion to adjourn. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Carried.
(The committee adjourned.)