Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 21 - Evidence - June 14, 2018
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 14, 2018
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:30 a.m., in public and in camera, 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 Thursday meeting of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration committee. My name is Larry Campbell, and I’m a senator from British Columbia. I would ask senators, starting on my right, to introduce themselves to the committee.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Tkachuk, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Senator Josée Verner from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Senator Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia.
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Senator Éric Forest from the Gulf region of Quebec.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Item No. 1, a copy of the public minutes from May 31, 2018, is in your package. Are there any questions or changes?
Senator Tkachuk: I move the adoption.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Tkachuk. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Carried.
Item No. 2 is the move to the Government Conference Centre.
I invite Brigitte Desjardins, Director General, the Property and Services Directorate; Julie Lacroix, Acting Director of the Corporate Security Directorate; and Charles Nahimana, Deputy Director, IT Project Office to the witness table. They are there.
Senator Tannas will give a presentation, which will be followed by questions from senators. Senator Tannas, you have the floor.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, chair. Colleagues, there is a slide deck in your packages, and we have, I think, extra copies if you need one. I’m going to ask that you follow along, and I’ll give my comments on each slide, starting on slide 1, the Senate Relocation Update.
We’re here to discuss when the Senate should move to its temporary accommodations at the Government Conference Centre, located at 1 Wellington Street, and the Chambers Building, located at 40 Elgin Street.
We’ve all been following the progress of Public Service and Procurement Canada’s work very closely. The work at the GCC, in particular, is really starting to take shape, and I am confident that all senators will be able to take pride in the new home. Canadians, I think, will be pleased that we undertook this project, which, in the end, saved taxpayers roughly $200 million from the original plan.
That said, there is much work that needs to be done, and I’d like to show you why our subcommittee recommends against a move in September 2018.
Slide 2: This is just a quick overview of the project we started five years ago and includes extensive renovations to the GCC and 1 Wellington Street. It includes broadcasting, a decision by the Senate in 2016, and office space at 40 Elgin Street, all at a cost of approximately $241 million.
Slide 3: Here you can see why we’re reluctant to commit to a September move. The latest timeline foresees a handover of August 1, which would give us less than two months to make the very extensive preparations required to ensure that senators have the resources we need and that parliamentary business can continue uninterrupted.
Slide 4: There are three main areas of concern: IT integration, committee space and security integration. The latest from our IT people is that they can have the GCC and its three committee rooms ready to go in October, but not before. There are several reasons for this. For one, there’s an enormous amount of technology that our staff have to install, even after Public Works turns the building over to us. These systems then have to be extensively tested so that we know that it is reliable. Staff also have to be trained and need time to conduct dry runs so that everything runs smoothly when senators move in.
IT integration affects some key items. We will not have full connectivity. Interpretation and transcription services require IT infrastructure to be in place in order to perform reliably. Then there’s the television broadcasting of the Senate Chamber. I don’t think any of us wants to invite the country to tune into our first broadcast only to see it cut out.
These photos in slide 5 give you a look at the progress of the GCC control room. As you can see, there’s much work that needs to be done.
Side 6, the committee rooms. This page shows you our current and future committee room spaces. Right now, as we are today, we have access to seven rooms with audio or video broadcasting capabilities. At Victoria Building, the technology in those two committee rooms is at the end of its lifecycle.
Since the GCC committee rooms would not be operational for the end of the summer, a fall move would leave us with just one room in the East Block and the two somewhat decrepit rooms in Victoria Building, as opposed to the seven that we have now.
Transparency is paramount. It’s a value of this institution, and I think it’s important to all senators that Canadians see the work that we do.
Turning to slide 7, seen here, there’s work to be done on the GCC and 1 Wellington Street committee rooms. We should be able to have the three GCC rooms and two Wellington Street committee rooms ready to go for January 2019, which would give us one more broadcast-ready room than we currently have.
Slide 8, security. To ensure the safety of staff and senators, the Corporate Security Directorate requires sufficient time for the installation and commissioning of security equipment and the training of protective staff.
The work continues in order to complete the installation and commissioning and testing of all doors. Work on the perimeter fencing and its integrated security components, as well as construction of interior and exterior security posts, is ongoing. A September move poses an unacceptable risk to the operational readiness and to the safety and security of senators and staff.
On slide 9, you can see how work is ongoing at security posts at this time.
Slide 10, operational risks. In a nutshell, there are significant operational risks that are associated with a September move. Technological failings could disrupt chamber operations or our interpretation services, which are mandated by law.
Our first foray into broadcasting Senate proceedings could result in technical difficulties if our staff don’t have enough time to make sure everything is working properly. In the event of an emergency situation, the safety of senators and our staff could be at risk without the complete security infrastructure in place.
Honourable colleagues, your subcommittee is, therefore, recommending a phased move, which would see the Senate be fully operational and secure in the GCC in January 2019. Of course, we are assuming that the House of Commons executes the same plan that we do of a phased move.
The phased move would consist of the Senate continuing to sit in the Centre Block through the fall, with the full transfer of the Senate Chamber and Senate leadership to take place after the last sitting of the Senate in December 2018.
Integration of IT and security, including all necessary testing and training, would take place between July and November 2018. The relocation of approximately 15 senators’ offices and members of the Senate administration would take place, as scheduled, this fall of 2018. Some senators have already vacated Centre Block at this time.
Investigation work on the Centre Block would continue through the fall of 2018, but it would consist only of work that does not interrupt the work of the Senate.
The relocation of the Senate archives and other heritage assets that will not be exhibited in the GCC would take place over the course of the fall of 2018.
Those are the recommendations, and I’m happy to make a motion for acceptance here. Colleagues, proceeding in this fashion, the Senate will be fully operational and secure, with confidence, in January 2019 and all without incurring additional costs.
I want to mention the tremendous work that’s been done over the years by all of the partners involved in this endeavour. All of these dedicated professionals have contributed tirelessly to this complex, one-of-a-kind and logistically challenging project. I’m happy to answer questions, along with our colleagues at the end of the table.
Senator Plett: I will second that motion.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett. We have a question from Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much, Senator Tannas, for the update. What you’ve given us now, with regard to the recommendations, is very high level. Is there a lower-level, more detailed plan? For example, in the first bullet, you’re saying with full transfer of the Senate Chamber and Senate leadership. Is there a plan that would indicate exactly whose office would move when, what the date will be and when we expect to see them over in the conference centre?
Senator Tannas: Yes. The reason that leadership stays here is because the leadership offices in the GCC, where they’re moving to, are not ready either. We have a full list that Brigitte can supply to the committee of senators who are exiting Centre Block, who are not leadership, who would go this fall.
Senator Marshall: That’s my next question.
Senator Tannas: As well as the leadership people.
Senator Marshall: How many senators would be in Centre Block? You’re saying the relocation of some senators’ offices. How many are there in total and how many have moved?
Senator Tannas: Brigitte has supplied me with that number but she’s probably got it at her fingertips.
Brigitte Desjardins, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: There are approximately 13 to 15 senators, around that amount, who are non-leaders, not part of the leadership and who would be impacted by this move.
What we will be doing, senator, is focusing mostly on the fourth and fifth floors as a sequence of moves. There are about four senators on the fifth floor and four on the fourth.
Senator Marshall: So who has moved? I just want to get a handle on this. You’re saying at a high level this is how people are going to be moved. I’d like to know, okay, the four on the fifth floor, are they gone?
Ms. Desjardins: No, the four senators on the fifth floor are still there and the same thing for the fourth floor.
Senator Marshall: So who’s moved? Nobody?
Ms. Desjardins: As of today, none of those senators has moved.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Are you able to tell us when the four senators on the fifth floor are going to move, the week of October 5? Is it all planned out like this?
Ms. Desjardins: This is something we are currently organizing as this is fresh news for us. We are starting to do the sequence and this is something we can share with you, senator, once we have the sequence.
Senator Tannas: The first step is we make the decision here. Then we go visit with the 13 senators who are still in this building. The space will be ready for them in Chambers this fall. In addition, there are still a few rooms left in East Block. So based on the formula that was approved at selection committee, the senators will have a choice between East Block, the few rooms left there, or moving to the brand-new buildings at Chambers. A number of them have already moved out of Centre Block over the last number of months and into East Block. There are 13 on the list still to go and we will approach them and get them organized to move either to East Block or Chambers.
Senator Marshall: So we have the high-level plan and we’re going to fill in the low-level plan. Is there a risk there when you start filling in the low-level plan that the high-level plan is not going to succeed? Is there a risk there?
Ms. Desjardins: There’s always a risk to these types of moves, senator. What we’re trying to do now is to sequence the move with the completion of the Chambers Building. In addition to the East Block, we do have space in the Victoria Building. I’m confident in terms of those types of moves and making sure that our senators are in place in time to let Public Works do their investigative work. I’m confident we can find a solution.
Let’s not forget, it’s not only the senators . We’re talking about administration as well as operational staff. That is an area where we do have some space here and there. We can do a sequence of moves into pockets of space to temporarily accommodate these people.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Can I suggest, Mr. Chair, that a detailed plan be prepared to make sure that we’re going to meet these dates? It would be embarrassing if we’ve established these as our new dates and then find, once we start working on the new plan, that we’re not going to meet our revised dates.
The Chair: I believe that there is that plan in place and that will be ongoing. It’s a fluid situation that we have here. I think that the staged move is an elegant way to do this. As we move forward, we’ll make sure that we stay on target. This gives us lots of time to ensure that everything that we need to have done is done, everybody is safe and we can communicate with the rest of Canada. So I believe that’s ongoing.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Tannas, what is the house doing?
Senator Tannas: We understand, and they will make their decision later on today, but the same recommendation is being made to the Board of Internal Economy there. They have 36 MPs in Centre Block and 30 cabinet ministers who need to move. They have a larger job at this stage to move. It is being recommended that the House of Commons chamber and leadership offices would stay until we rise at Christmas.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I am not a member of the subcommittee, but I have had the opportunity to attend to replace my colleague Senator Forest. I would also like to highlight the rigour and quality of the work that has been done. I attended a meeting with officials from Public Services Canada. I can tell you that they had to answer many very probing questions. It is a complex project with a number of stakeholders. The Senate does not control all the decisions. In terms of the budget and timelines, when they left after that meeting, they had homework to do.
I want to acknowledge the quality of the work of Senator Tannas and all the members. I am confident that the deadlines will be met, and let me reiterate the importance of closely monitoring the work. I don’t think we should take anything for granted.
I have one concern about the installation of electronic voting equipment. I know that it was not considered. In preparation for television broadcasting, we could modernize our equipment, which would make our work more efficient. It is not expensive or complicated to install. Could we take action, consult or do preliminary studies? A number of parliaments in Canada have electronic voting equipment.
Senator Tannas, what do you think about that?
[English]
Senator Tannas: I think it’s definitely worthy of consideration, and the timing of a move like this is the right time to consider some of these things. I think it’s a question for modernization first, Rules Committee second and then ultimately for this committee to execute based on the decisions and recommendations from those two committees and the Senate itself.
I do not volunteer for the job of convincing senators that electronic voting is the way to go, but I do agree with you that that, and possibly other things, should be considered when we’re undertaking a big change like this.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: May I move an amendment?
[English]
The Chair: I’d suggest the proper way is to take that to the modernization committee, get their read on it and then come back.
Senator Saint-Germain: Let’s work together.
The Chair: You just got volunteered, Senator Tannas. Congratulations.
Senator Batters: I wanted to make a brief comment on the idea of electronic voting. I think it should have been factored in much earlier than this late stage of a move. Maybe I can get a brief comment from the people at the table there about that. Also, I think there are very good reasons that we still have the procedure of standing in our place, hearing the debates, as we did this week in votes where occasionally people’s minds can be changed by hearing the speeches in person. So I’m not in favour of changing to that method.
Senator Saint-Germain: I have a small answer. Senator, you would receive a breakdown of every senator’s vote in the minutes. For your website it would be very efficient.
Senator Batters: It’s pretty good now.
Senator Moncion: I have a comment. I really enjoyed visiting the centre. It’s really nice. I saw one little problem. There are a lot of offices where there are no windows. That’s going to be a health issue at some point along the way. It’s something to think about.
Senator Tannas: That’s a good observation. Ten years is hardly temporary. Thank you.
The Chair: I have a motion from Senator Tannas:
That a phased move take place beginning in the fall of 2018 with the Senate becoming fully operational and secured in its new spaces in January 2019; and
That this decision be contingent on Public Services and Procurement Canada meeting its most recent commitment to hand over the Government Conference Centre on August 1, 2018, 40 Elgin Street, again on August 31, 2018, and 95 Noël in mid-August 2018.
This was moved by Senator Tannas and seconded by Senator Plett.
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Plett: I was going to make a comment before the vote, but that’s fine. I would like to, chair, take 30 seconds to, number one, echo what Senator Tannas said about all of the people involved and the professionalism. I would also give a special shout-out to the three people we have at the end of the table here. I believe in my heart of hearts that if it hadn’t been for them, we may well have made a decision that we would have been very sorry about. They kept us abreast of some of the problems that we were not being told by the people who should have been telling us that we had the problem. Without them, we could well have gotten ourselves into a lot of trouble. So I would like that on the record for Charles, Brigitte and Julie.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Jaffer: I agree with Senator Plett, but I think there were four people, Senator Tannas and his committee. The three have been exceptional. Senator Tannas on our behalf has carried a heavy burden, so all four should be thanked.
The Chair: Thank you. Moving on to Item No. 3. With the adoption of the Senators’ Office Management Policy, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure was authorized to clarify and determine any ambiguous, uncertain or challenged interpretation of any part of the policy, as necessary.
It is my honour to present the eleventh report of the subcommittee which deals with proposed changes to section 7.4.6 relating to travel costs for employees.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Following various discussions and the review of the Senators’ Office Management Policy, I am of the opinion that this policy should be amended with respect to the eligibility of travel, transportation and living expenses, meaning per diems and accommodation expenses for senators’ staff. Unequivocally, sections 7.4.6 and 7.8.5 of the policy were adopted with the best of intentions.
Clearly, preference for the expenses for travel to Parliament Hill was for employees whose duties are usually and mainly performed in the province or territory represented by the senator. Such duties may in fact mean that, exceptionally and at the senator’s request, those employees are called upon to support them in their duties in Ottawa.
The spirit of the sections on transportation expenses from a residence, incurred by employees who usually and mainly work in a senator’s office in the Senate buildings is not covered by those sections of the policy, regardless of where the employees live. The same applies to the living expenses in the national capital of those same employees. Clearly, transportation costs to get to the Hill can be a legitimate expense for employees whose duties are usually and mainly performed in the senator’s province or territory. This is clearly not the case for employees who choose to live more than 100 kilometres from the Hill, even though this is their primary place of employment.
That said, to provide greater clarity and certainty in terms of consistency, and fairness in practice, and to promote the appropriate use of public funds, I recommend amendments to sections 7.4.6 and 7.8.5 of the Senators’ Office Management Policy, as outlined in the eleventh report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.
[English]
The Chair: Could I have a motion to adopt the report?
Senator Batters: May I ask a question?
The Chair: Yes. Always.
Senator Batters: Senator Saint-Germain, I was wondering if you could let us know whether this particular suggested change is anticipated to be effective going forward from this point on, not to be retroactive in any way?
Senator Saint-Germain: Well, it is a clarification to the policy. It should be retroactive if some expenses have been paid that were not allowed, but I do not believe that many senators have done that. I should say it differently.
If, in good faith, a senator has paid or agreed by contract, we should, perhaps, take this decision later. It’s a matter of clarification. Clearly, the spirit of the policy was not to pay in such circumstances. So if the policy was wrongly applied, public funds should not be paid to these employees. Are there special situations? Let’s see and perhaps revise these situations. But normally it should not be retroactive.
Senator Batters: Normally it should not be. Yes, I agree. If it’s a clarification, I think it should be a going-forward thing.
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: You answered my question indirectly. I understand that you are looking for some clarification about the retroactivity. Those who did not make the claim will not be entitled to do so, but those who did will not have to reimburse the expenses. Is that your recommendation?
Senator Saint-Germain: My suggestion is that it not be retroactive. There is no vested right for someone who has misinterpreted a procedure. However, if there have been formal contractual agreements contrary to the policy, those situations will need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. If a senator has formally entered into a written contract with a person who lives more than 100 kilometres from Parliament Hill where they usually work in the senator’s office, such situations should be examined. Clearly, misunderstanding a policy does not create a right.
Senator Carignan: Your answer is not clear. Some employees, who have been working here for a number of years, have seen this policy come in, have made claims and have been paid without their contract being changed, because it was simply an application of the rule. In a situation like that, given that there was no change to their original contract, but simply an application of the policy, should they repay or not?
Senator Saint-Germain: What rule are you referring to when you say that it is an application of the rule?
Senator Carignan: The rule you want to change, unless we’re talking about something else.
Senator Saint-Germain: The spirit of this management policy was clear: it should not apply to employees who choose to live more than 100 kilometres from the Senate, even if they are working on regulatory policy.
Senator Carignan: I’m sorry, but it wasn’t supposed to be that clear. The administration said that that was the rule and repeated it over and over again to some of our employees. I asked the question myself to several members of the administration, who replied that it was the rule. It wasn’t supposed to be that clear.
Senator Saint-Germain: Mr. Chair, I think we have to ask the administration staff who would have confirmed the information if that was indeed the case.
[English]
The Chair: Might I suggest that if a payment has been paid, it has been paid; if it hasn’t been paid, it doesn’t get paid. I’m disappointed that people would have read this policy in that manner.
But it has happened, and I believe that if it has been paid, it’s been paid in good faith; if it hasn’t been paid, it’s not going to be paid. That’s up to senators, of course.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: There is an issue of justice. The case was presented to us when an individual made a claim under the policy that appears to have been implemented last November 1. So that would mean: “I waited before processing the claim, so my employee would not be entitled to the money, while someone else who submitted a claim would be entitled to the money.” That’s not fair. One person waited for the policy clarification; others paid. I feel that we can’t have two rules. Either we pay or we don’t.
[English]
The Chair: No, we don’t have two rules, but it’s time we started to set the table here, in reality. If it’s been paid, it’s paid; if it hasn’t been paid, it doesn’t get paid. I don’t see that as unfair.
Quite frankly, I don’t know how we even got to this situation, in reading this rule, but we have and the rule has changed. If honourable senators want to do something different, fill your boots.
Senator Saint-Germain: I want to be sure if it has been paid under the instruction or in the agreement of the administration, it is paid, so we agree. But if it’s not the case, I don’t see any reason why the Senate should pay.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Actually, this is embarrassing. Between the spirit and the letter, there is room for interpretation. If I look at my own case, I have had my employee read the rule to me and tell me that I would be entitled to travel reimbursements for per diems. I thought that was an exaggeration, and she made a claim only for the accommodation allowance. In good faith, we sent in the claim for reimbursement. I think, once the letter and the spirit are clarified, the claims no longer qualify.
However, in terms of the claims approved and forwarded to the administration, we cannot go back to them today, because they were not made with the intent to circumvent any rule whatsoever; it was really the most logical interpretation we could come up with based on our reading of the new rule in November of last year.
[English]
The Chair: I’m at your will, senators. What would you like to do with this? Can I have a motion to adopt the report?
Senator Cordy, seconded by Senator Moncion. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Passed. Thank you.
Item No. 4: Honourable senators, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure received a request from the Senate co-chair of the Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, Senator Moncion, seeking authorization for the joint committee to reimburse witnesses for child care and/or personal attendant care expenses, order working meals, and have the Senate’s 30 per cent share of witness video conferences and catering expenses paid from the existing central envelope administered by the Principal Clerk of Committees. It’s my honour to present the twelfth report of the subcommittee with its recommendations. Debate?
Seeing none, can I have a motion to adopt the report? Senator Tannas, seconded by Senator Batters. All in favour? Opposed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
Honourable senators, the next item is a report of the Artwork Advisory Working Group. This item will be delayed until the next meeting so we can have a representative from the working group here to explain their report. They were unable to make it today.
Item No. 6. The next item is leases and allowance for secondary residences. I invite Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, to the witness table.
[Translation]
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: Senators, the Financial Services team and the Senate administration in general are constantly looking for new approaches to improve its service delivery and effectiveness. We are also responsive to the needs of senators.
[English]
We have recently reviewed our process and procedures related to the reimbursement of rent and allowance for secondary residence to senators, which represented approximately 575 transactions in 2017-18.
Although 97 per cent of these claims were processed within the operating target, we think we can still reduce the financial burden on senators who have to fund these expenses while waiting for repayments and also to improve the efficiency of the administration in your offices.
We are proposing two main changes to our processes, and one requires a minor modification to the Senators’ Office Management Policy, or SOMP.
The first change is related to payments of a leased accommodation. Based on the current policy, rent is reimbursed after a senator submits a claim and required documentation. We are proposing to modify the policy to allow for direct payments to the lessor on a monthly basis on behalf of the senator.
Once all documentation and information is provided to Financial Services, they will pay directly to the lessor the monthly rent on an automatic basis. It is important to note that the lease agreements will remain between senators and the lessor, and senators will remain responsible to provide required information and documentation on a timely basis.
[Translation]
The second change has to do with the monthly payments for allowances to senators who own a secondary residence in the parliamentary district. Under the current process, senators must submit a claim at the end of each month, after previously submitting the required information and documents. We are proposing to amend the process so that the reimbursement is automatically issued at the end of each month, based on the rates in effect and, of course, after all the information required to process the claims has been submitted. This is a change to the process only and does not require changes to the policy.
The proposed changes will reduce the financial burden on senators who must assume the cost of a secondary residence and wait for reimbursement. It will also improve the efficiency of senators’ offices and administration.
Finally, I want to stress that the proposed changes respect sound management practices and will not increase the financial risks to the Senate.
I look forward to your questions and comments.
Senator Verner: Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt. I need a clarification. You say that, for rental accommodation, the cost of rent shall be reimbursed upon submission of a copy of the lease — I actually have two questions, because in my case, I have a five-year lease — and proof of payment or, at the senator’s discretion, the lease shall be paid by the Senate directly to the lessor upon submission of a copy of the lease and a request for direct payment.
When you say “and proof of payment,” is that the cheque I write?
Mr. Lanctôt: Right now, the process requires proof of payment. What we are proposing, instead of you paying your rent and submitting a claim, is to pay the lessor directly at the beginning of each month. When you submit a claim, we receive it, process it and reimburse you. Your bank takes a few days to process the reimbursement, and you receive your money between five and 15 days.
Senator Verner: That’s right. But you say “upon submission of a copy of the lease and a request for direct payment.”
Mr. Lanctôt: The request for direct payment is an option we want to offer you, not an obligation. There will be a form to allow you to ask the administration to make the payment for you.
Senator Verner: At the beginning of each month to the lessor.
Mr. Lanctôt: Once you submit your lease. Right now, it’s September 1, because it’s set up at the beginning of the parliamentary year. We already have a copy of your five-year lease, you will submit a request to us saying that you want the administration to pay directly for you, instead of submitting claims for reimbursement each month.
Senator Verner: So only one formula will be valid in my case, for example, or in the case of any other senator who has a lease of more than one year; you will proceed like that until the end of the lease.
Mr. Lanctôt: Exactly. And if you decide to terminate the lease before it expires, just let us know and we’ll make the changes.
Senator Verner: Okay, thank you.
[English]
Senator Marshall: What’s the problem that we’re trying to solve? How many days does it take to process a payment?
If a senator is renting an apartment and sends in a claim, how long is it before they are reimbursed?
Mr. Lanctôt: There are two things we’re trying to improve. One is the efficiency. We have almost 600 claims that need to be processed. If we’re making recurring payments, that reduces the burden on your office staff and also for us in processing the claim. Those are regular payments that we make monthly, so we can automate that process.
With respect to the payments, our objective is to process a claim within 10 business days. That’s 10 business days. We’re achieving that 97 per cent of the time. However, once we’ve processed the claim, it goes for payment to Public Services and Procurement Canada and then it goes to the compensation payments and your bank, and it is two to three more days after we process. So very often, even if we’re within target, it still takes 15 to 20 calendar days in order to get the payment.
Senator Marshall: So the payments will be made and the senator doesn’t have to certify anything?
Mr. Lanctôt: We will be paying a third party, and we’re doing it for other types of expenses today. When we have a contract and we have a lease agreement, and as long as you stay there and you confirm that you’re using this property, we’re going to be making the payment as we do for other types of recurring payments.
Senator Marshall: There will be no certification required? We’re talking about lease payments or large dollar amounts. I have to certify my telephone bill, which is $30. Is this going to be paid without certification by the senator?
Mr. Lanctôt: Well, there’s a contract in place.
Senator Marshall: There’s a contract in place for the telephone, too.
Mr. Lanctôt: The telephone is not necessarily a recurring amount. It depends on consumption and how much you’re using. That’s why we want certification. In the case of leases, the same amount is paid monthly. We also look at your travel. If you come to work in Ottawa and you don’t claim for hotels or other subsistence fees or accommodation fees and you have a lease and we’re making the payment to the third party, we’re assuming there are enough checks in the process.
Senator Marshall: My final comment is this: Some of us went through a horrendous audit by the Auditor General, so when I see changes being made to processing, especially expenses that are attributable to the senator, I do look at it with some apprehension.
Those are my only comments. I will abstain from voting on this, Mr. Chair. I don’t feel comfortable with it. But if that’s the direction administration wants to go in and everybody is agreeable, that’s fine.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: You have considered adding the Internet for the same types of transactions. Even online, you have to submit documents. Claims must be completed and sent. Then there is a transaction. The transactions that are always the same and that come up month after month are considered in order to increase efficiency and to reduce the administrative paperwork.
Mr. Lanctôt: As I mentioned, we are looking at all the ways in which we handle claims and payments. Right now, we are focusing on this aspect, because it is a specific process for us with specific features and documentation. In the coming months, we will continue to review options for other types of transactions. But our goal is to simplify the work. The computer system allows us to make recurring payments more easily while maintaining controls in place. We will continue to think about ways to improve ourselves and improve the service.
Senator Carignan: I agree with Senator Marshall. You say it’s mechanical and routine and we are always doing the same thing, but every month, when we sign, we don’t just make a simple claim. In my case, I own the place. That’s about $1,000, which is $40 a day. I don’t just make claims. I declare that the facts are accurate, that I did not sublet my accommodation on Airbnb, and that the accommodation was available for me for 30 or 31 days. That’s why I’m claiming $40 a day.
So there’s a risk. I can do it now, once, and you won’t see me again for the next 10 years — because I’ll probably keep the condo for the next 10 years — and at some point, I might forget, not think about it and sublet it to friends, lend it to someone else, and lose track of making claims. For good auditing and accounting reasons, and so that people who claim money are aware that, each month, they are declaring that the housing is available to them and that they have not sublet it, I think we must keep this exercise.
Waiting four days or two weeks for a rent reimbursement is not a concern for us. If money is that tight for some people, I don’t make personal loans, but I can give them a hand.
Mr. Lanctôt: Yes, for the next 10 years, payments will not be issued on an ongoing basis without auditing. In our process, we’ll have all the information required for certification, but the notion of monthly claims will be replaced by other processes to make things easier and make some functions automatic where possible. We wouldn’t be paying people for 10 years, because then we would be dealing with allowances and we do not want to have an allowance that is not validated. We want to have validation mechanisms in the process.
Senator Carignan: How often will you issue the payments?
Mr. Lanctôt: Every year, we will require a confirmation that you are still the owner of your residence. All the certifications shall be required, and there will be annual confirmations on an exceptional basis to certify that you did not sublet.
[English]
Senator Cordy: Following up from Senator Carignan’s excellent point, there would have to be something every year that you would sign to say that you haven’t sublet or if you’re an owner or if you’re renting you haven’t sublet it. I think that would be extremely important.
Normally, for the month to month, waiting two weeks is not a big deal. The challenges come when it’s January, July, August, September, and you’re not in your office. So by the time you actually sign it, it could be three weeks later by the time your office sends it to you, you sign it and send it back. I think those are the months where, if you’re particularly paying rent, that you’re waiting, perhaps, a month and a half after you’ve already paid for what is a routine, regular procedure.
I’m an owner, so it’s the same thing. They’re not the concerns. It’s the months when we’re not here. And because it’s automatic, I think it would be time-saving for those who are doing it. I think it’s extremely important, following up on Senator Carignan’s words, that there is some type of a document signed, either on April 1 every year or January 1 or whenever, but at least once a year.
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you.
Senator Marshall: One last comment. Has the Audit Subcommittee looked at this?
Mr. Lanctôt: No, it hasn’t.
Senator Marshall: Have we got any internal auditors now?
The Chair: We don’t have an internal auditor right now.
Senator Marshall: I suggest that we run it by the Audit Subcommittee. I’m apprehensive. When the Auditor General did his audit, I had rented an apartment for a year, and that was audited by the Auditor General. The questions and everything that came back as a result of that audit were absolutely horrendous, and that’s when we had to certify.
I’m very apprehensive about making changes like this. I think we’re running a risk. Let’s make sure that this system that we’re going to revise is a good idea. I think that we should have someone take a look at it.
The Chair: My comment is this: The Auditor General spent $23 million on a terrible job, and we’re still running around here being scared of that person. I think it’s time that we move forward from that, and I think we have moved forward from it. I don’t take any comfort from anything that was in the Auditor General’s report, quite frankly.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: First, I completely disagree with the idea that Senator Carignan could help out a colleague in need of money. I believe this is inappropriate in today’s context. I do however agree with the idea of verifying quite regularly, no matter the frequency, that contracts between lessees and lessors remain valid. For example, if I choose to leave my residence next fall, even if I have a five-year lease, I must at least tell you that this contract is no longer valid. I believe that one simple measure could be implemented. I believe we could verify the contracts in the same way as we annually confirm senators’ eligibility by asking them to present their driver’s licences or health insurance cards in order to verify their place of residence.
For telephone and Internet charges, I would simply like to remind my colleagues that there were questions on this topic, and that it is a monthly contract. My Internet bill can be modified for a few months if I want. For example, I could decide to suspend my service during the summer, when I am not here. In that case, automatic payments would not reflect that reality. Anyone can decide to change their telephone and Internet plans, and that would complicate things. It is not a question of the amount of money, but rather the duration of the contract. It is a monthly contract. That is what I wanted to say.
[English]
Senator Plett: Chair, I want to echo the comments that you made about the Auditor General. We spent $23 million, and the Auditor General found there had been a few mistakes made, not that anybody was trying to steal or be dishonest. There were a few errors made, to the tune of a couple of hundred thousand dollars for a $23 million study. It has nothing to do with helping; I think Senator Verner made the comment about us helping somebody. It is unnecessary for us to have to finance our operation here. When I pay rent, it should be paid for in the most efficient manner possible. When I rent a hotel room, I have a corporate credit card that is being paid by the Senate. I don’t pay for my hotel room at all. The Senate pays for my hotel room immediately.
I don’t think we can compare this with a telephone bill. A telephone bill changes every month. There’s a different number on the telephone bill every month. It makes sense that we would have to certify that every month.
A lease is the exact same payment every month. As long as the senator is still a senator in good standing in this place, we would trust that that senator would be honest and upright and would be continuing to lease that suite. I certainly agree that, every year, we need to certify, just like I, even now, need to certify where I live every year.
We’re doing all of these things every year, and we need to continue. But we are trying to make things efficient — and I don’t nearly often enough get good ideas here in making things efficient — and then when we get somebody who has a good idea for efficiency, then we question that in some manner, chair. I find this ridiculous that we have spent an hour discussing an absolutely fabulous idea, and I will certainly be voting in favour of it.
The Chair: It was just a half hour.
Senator Moncion: Senator Plett has eloquently stated what I wanted to say. Thank you, sir.
Senator Batters: Excellent. I wanted to point out a few things. The primary purpose of this revised procedure is better efficiency and adhering to good business practices. I will remind everyone that we always have, right now, openness and transparency by having our online disclosure of expenses so that the public and media are very well aware, as they should be, able to see all of those it types of things.
I wanted to ask Mr. Lanctôt, who is relatively new to the Senate but has a considerable amount of experience in the private sector with all of these types of functions, for your confirmation that you’re confident with the scenario you’re proposing, particularly for rental situations — the payment is not made directly to a senator; it’s made to the landlord — that the proper controls are in place to assure us that things are going to be handled appropriately.
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, Senator Batters. I’m absolutely confident of the process we’re proposing. I didn’t come and talk about all the details, but I was mentioning required information. There will still be requirements for exceptional cases or confirmation that apartments are not rented or used for other purposes. I’m absolutely confident.
In my previous career as consultant, I would have recommended that change to my clients. We also looked at maybe an additional piece of information. We also looked at the exceptions. We barely have five exceptions a year in terms of people who will confirm that their apartments were not available or that there was some form of exception when we had to make changes. We need to deal with the exceptions on an exceptional basis and deal with the 95, 98 per cent of regular transactions in an efficient manner. I’m totally confident in what we’re proposing.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I agree with the amendment. There is a level of trust to consider, and I agree with the automatic rental payments, because it is a contract signed by mutual agreement between two parties for a given period of time. However, it does not apply to Internet and phone bills, because they can vary with use. There can be fluctuations. For rental payments, we need controls to determine whether residences are sublet, but there is a degree of trust. I am not asked every month to renew my ethical commitment as a senator. I believe that there must be controls. It is a question of efficiency and keeping up to date. I am ready to support the proposal.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for coming, Mr. Lanctôt. Welcome to the Senate.
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you.
The Chair: Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Finance and Procurement Directorate be authorized to pay senators —
Senator Plett: So moved.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Plett, seconded by Senator Forest. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Against? Senator Carignan, Senator Marshall. The motion passes. Thank you very much.
Item No. 7 is a report from the Subcommittee on Human Resources. Senator Saint-Germain, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Following the consultations and with the approval of the members of the subcommittee, I would first ask the committee for permission to substitute the report you received with a new version that will be distributed now.
[English]
The Chair: Can you explain why we have a new version, Senator Saint-Germain?
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: It is because the version that the members of the subcommittee approved after review had two pieces of information that seemed incorrect to us. The most recent version corrects these elements.
Do I have permission?
[English]
The Chair: Yes. Go ahead, please.
Senator Carignan: Question.
The Chair: Senator Carignan, we will hear from Senator Saint-Germain first and then we can take a question, please.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, it is my honour to present the first report of the Subcommittee on Human Resources. Let me remind everyone that the subcommittee was established in December 2017, and the Committee on Internal Economy gave it the mandate of conducting a review of the Senate Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace. The subcommittee is composed of the Honourable Senators Jaffer, Moncion, Tannas and Tkachuk, and it is my honour to chair it.
Your subcommittee held two meetings in camera with senators, union representatives and Senate staff representatives on May 29 and June 5, 2018. During the second meeting, the subcommittee also heard from an expert witness on the subject of sexual harassment. In addition, it held a public meeting with independent experts on June 12, 2018. On June 19, 2018, the subcommittee will next be hearing from other experts to assist members in presenting to CIBA and the Senate recommendations on necessary updates to the Senate harassment policy.
In accordance with its proactive approach and based on the witness testimony it received, the subcommittee believes that there is an immediate need for mandatory and customized training in the prevention of harassment and violence in the Senate. This training should take into account the harassment training program provided by the House of Commons.
The subcommittee therefore presents this interim report with the following recommendations:
That the Human Resources Directorate be instructed to coordinate mandatory training on the prevention of harassment in the workplace for all Senators, which takes into account the training provided to Members of Parliament, to be conducted by December 31, 2018;
That all individuals who have supervisory or managerial responsibilities within the Senate Administration attend mandatory training by December 31, 2018;
That Senators’ staff, along with employees of the Senate Administration, also attend mandatory training by the end of the fiscal year on March 31, 2019; and
That the Human Resources Directorate report back to CIBA on the participation rate, including the names of all participants of the mandatory training sessions, by April 30, 2019.
Your subcommittee submits that these recommendations are in accordance with the framework proposed by Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, which, as currently written, would require the training of employers as well as their employees in the prevention of workplace harassment and violence.
Your subcommittee acknowledges that further guidance with respect to training may be provided by regulatory amendments intended to come into force concurrently with Bill C-65 in the fall of 2019.
This is all respectfully submitted on behalf of the members of the subcommittee.
I move the adoption of the report.
Senator Carignan: My question was answered.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you very much, Senator Saint-Germain. Could please tell us about the different methods available to senators or employees and Senate administration that we have in place now in the Senate to deal with the very important issue of harassment, where people can go now?
Senator Saint-Germain: For the time being, with regard to the policy, the HR directorate is responsible for the implementation and administration of the policy. There is a special officer, a councillor, who is responsible of receiving requests for information or complaints. She will, if needed, take advice with external consultants. So far, that is the process that has been put in place.
Senator Batters: As we have talked about, I think at this committee before when we were first going to get into this review of the policy that exists, there are also processes in place through the Senate Ethics Officer, as we’ve seen in a recent case that was before the Senate where a senator was dealt with very strictly, as should have been the case, through the whole process of the Senate Ethics Officer and the committee that deals with these issues as well, as well as whip’s procedures. There are procedures dealing with that.
Senator Saint-Germain: That’s not the policy. That’s procedure.
Senator Batters: That’s right. I wanted to make sure that everyone was aware that we do have considerable procedures in place, and I’m happy to see a review and renewal as necessary.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for your question, senator. If I may add two comments.
First, the Senate Ethics Officer is only with regard to a situation that would involve a senator, and normally that would have been assessed as being harassment, whatever type of harassment, either psychological or sexual, under the procedure; so there’s a specific role for the Senate Ethics Officer.
The other point is that it is very important that each and every member of the Senate is aware not only of the policy, but as well as what does “harassment” mean and how do we prevent it? The members of the subcommittee, with regard to what we’ve heard, are determined to be proactive and to act in a very positive, constructive and supportive way. That’s why we deem it necessary to have this special training for all members of the Senate.
Senator Batters: Great. The mandatory training that you’re seeking to have approved here today, who would be carrying that out and what sort of process is in place for that?
Senator Saint-Germain: I’m pleased to tell you that we have involved the new Chief Human Resources Officer, and she is currently looking at the best practices, the best programs.
The one at the House of Commons has been very well evaluated. Senator Jaffer, a member of the committee, suggested it and all the members agreed. It is in place. It is adapted for Parliament and our specific situation.
At the same time, the Chief Human Resources Officer is working on a way to adapt it to the Senate. I’m pleased to tell you that it won’t be very expensive. We were preoccupied by the cost, but at the same time, this is a priority. We’re working closely with the new Chief Human Resources Officer.
Senator Batters: I know in the House of Commons structure and for certain groups here, perhaps for senators, assuring the mandatory participation of senators might be the responsibility of whips. But what about for people who are not subject to a whip, how do you intend to assure that people complete the mandatory training?
Senator Saint-Germain: Well, it’s in the report. It is mandatory; so you don’t have to be whipped. It is a decision of CIBA. Furthermore, we put on pressure because in the report we want to have the name of the senators and all managers who would have followed. We will be in a situation to make sure that everyone is there.
There might be good reasons for a senator or any members of the Senate not to attend before the deadline; so we’ll take specific measures. But it is important and most people are in good faith. I’m speaking personally here, not as the chair of the subcommittee.
My conclusion with some witnesses who came to us, some privately in my office, is that very often there is a misunderstanding of what harassment is. Times have changed. What wasn’t considered harassment 20 years ago, such as a senator saying to his staffer, “Hi, honey,” is harassment for some today. So these professional development courses on harassment are adapted to new situations that we want to prevent, so it is important we go that far now.
Yes, it is mandatory, but we’ll keep an open mind to specific situations.
Senator Batters: Just briefly on this mandatory aspect. I can see for senators that there would be public pressure, if they are named and if they have not attended the training yet, but what about for a Senate employee? What would be the consequence if a Senate employee refuses to attend?
Senator Saint-Germain: Well, they have managers. It will be the same. It’s mandatory, so they will have time during working hours to go there and they will have to go. Like it’s mandatory sometimes to have development courses on IT. So I don’t see it as a big problem. There is goodwill. The employees, it’s part of their recommendations, the ones we receive from the unions, from the senators’ working group, so I think it will be well received.
Senator Batters: I’m hopeful, too.
Senator Cordy: I’d like to thank the committee members very much for the work you’re doing and that you’re going to continue to do. It’s extremely important. I was pleased to see that your training is on the prevention of harassment, not just dealing with the aftermath of harassment, because we really have to change the culture on Parliament Hill and in society overall. I think the training will be beneficial for those who don’t understand that they are being harassed and that they can take action to deal with it.
I’m wondering, as the committee continues its work, if you will be looking at timeliness of complaints. One of the things that we heard on the Human Rights Committee, including in camera meetings — I know you had in camera meetings with staff and officials — is that complaints are raised and people are waiting a year and a half, two years, three years, I’ve heard up to 10 years, and that’s unacceptable for somebody who is dealing with a harassment issue. Will you be looking at that in the future?
Senator Saint-Germain: We are looking at it, for sure. It is a recommendation that we will make.
I want to add, chair, that the training will also involve how to settle situations where there’s alleged harassment and how to cope and be able to work together. It’s part of the training as well.
Senator Cordy: Great. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I did not hear you talk about the annual commitment people would have to sign when they take the training, and that could be part of the employees’ files.
There is also the fact that there would be annual training. The training would probably be longer the first year, but it could then simply provide policy updates. There are also the aspects that are currently missing from the policy as it stands, such as some of the testimony we have heard so far.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank for your question, senator. The subcommittee agreed that it was going to proceed along the lines of the issues raised by Senator Moncion in its future work, since this is not the subject of the current report. We also agreed that it is important not to come along in eight months with a 150-page report with 4,222 recommendations, but rather to continually study measures that could improve the situation, prevent harassment, and even eventually reach our objective of promoting a workplace in the Senate that is free of all forms of harassment. We will be working accordingly.
However, thank you, senator, for pointing out that we will be asking each Senate employee for a written confirmation, after the training, indicating that they have taken it. That completes my answer to Senator Batters’ question.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much, Senator Saint-Germain. Most of my questions have been answered.
The training, the schedule you gave us brings us into the spring of 2019. As new staff come on and new senators come on, will there be a provision in there to have that training continue for the new people?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes. First, they will be offered this training immediately. After that, as Senator Moncion said, for the newcomers it will be part of the welcome training. Probably each year, when needed, they will have additional training when there are some developments. We have to take into consideration that, with Bill C-65, the Senate will have to cope with new regulations. Most likely these regulations will be tabled in the fall of 2019, and then we will have to adapt and incorporate them, yes.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
The Chair: Seeing no further questions, it was moved by Senator Saint-Germain that the report be adopted.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Thank you.
Is there any other business?
Senator Dawson: I think there had been correspondence between the leader of the independent Liberals and the leadership of each party concerning the notion of keeping our funding until the end of the year, even though we might be losing members. I think it was submitted to Senator Moncion for debate at the subcommittee.
If you agree, I would move that notwithstanding the amount listed in the schedule, Senate Administrative Rules, finance rules, 2018-19, the Senate Liberals continue to receive research funds for caucuses for the fiscal year of 2018-19 in the amount of $460,000 even if the caucus has fewer than 11 members.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I would like to correct something Senator Dawson said. That issue was not discussed by the subcommittee. The file has now been sent to the leaders so that they may come to an agreement amongst themselves.
We received a first letter from Senator Day, which was given to me, and which I gave to the leaders so that they may come to an agreement amongst themselves. As the policy is currently written, the subcommittee cannot go against it. The leaders can come to an agreement amongst themselves, and get back to us on this. The leaders agree with this arrangement, and I have letters from Senator Smith, Senator Woo and Senator Harder. These three letters confirm that they agree with extending the funding of the Liberal caucus until the end of the 2018-19 year, and that the review of this funding must be studied before the next budget is brought down.
[English]
The Chair: Perhaps I can ask a question. Do the leaders even have the power to do that? I don’t know. I’m asking the question.
Senator Dawson: If it’s ratified by CIBA, yes.
The Chair: So they can bring a motion before CIBA?
Senator Dawson: Theoretically, the motion was supposed to be submitted to the subcommittee and then submitted to you for approval. It was not put on the agenda because I understood there are too many items on the agenda, but it was planned that it be adopted by CIBA — not by agreement, by a resolution.
The Chair: I think what needs to happen — I can be corrected — is the leaders need to bring this to the subcommittee, the subcommittee looks at it and the subcommittee brings a recommendation forward to CIBA to decide on this. I think we’re moving outside the parameters. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that there is a process and we’re not following it.
Senator Moncion: I go back to what I was saying, Mr. Chair. If this comes to the subcommittee, we cannot do anything with it because of the rules. So we’ll bring it to the subcommittee. The subcommittee will say, “Well, we have to bring it back to the leaders.” It’s just going around in circles. That is why it went directly to the leaders. Then, Senator Dawson is presenting it to CIBA today and is asking CIBA to agree to the agreement that the leaders came to.
The Chair: Okay. We have a motion from Senator Dawson. He has read it out, and now we will have a debate on it.
Senator Batters: I wish to refer to the comment that Senator Moncion just made. I think sometimes there’s a reason for circles, and we need to have the proper procedure followed, especially on an item like this. I think that it shouldn’t go forward before next week, and I would prefer to see the proper procedure followed so that we can have a fulsome discussion about this and not have something —
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor right now.
Senator Batters: Yes. Well, it wasn’t even on the agenda.
Senator Tkachuk: Well, it just seems to me that we do have a process. So it should have gone to Estimates. Is that what your committee is called? Did you make a recommendation to the leaders, or did you just throw up your hands and send it off?
Senator Moncion: I threw up my hands and sent it off because it’s a waste of time. It’s a waste of time bringing it to the subcommittee because we had the same problem when there was the amount that was asked for for the ISG. We went around in circles because the recommendation was that the subcommittee cannot recommend anything outside of the policy that is in place. So, from there, we brought it here. It was approved by CIBA.
So the next situation, where we had the Liberal caucus, we had the exact same problem. So, instead of bringing it to our committee, because it’s the same situation as the ISG, we asked that the leaders have an agreement between themselves, and that agreement comes to CIBA.
Senator Tkachuk: So the leaders make the decision and say, “Well, this is what we want,” and then Senator Dawson comes to us and makes a motion. This is an odd way to do business, I think, and I don’t quite understand it.
Senator Dawson: This is the same way it was done the first time around.
Senator Tkachuk: I didn’t agree with it then.
Senator Dawson: I’m just saying that that’s the only procedure.
Senator Tkachuk: Anyway, I made my point.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I believe, with all due respect, that we must be consistent. We know that we are going in circles on this file, and we used the same procedure as the one we adopted ourselves, that is, handing the issue of eventually redistributing the budget next year over to the leaders and, basically, asking them for instructions.
The logic behind this motion is the same: By the end of the financial year, the leaders will have given us instructions. The coordinator told me that all the leaders agreed, last week I believe, to maintain the budget of the caucus of unaffiliated Liberals for the current year.
I believe that we must be consistent. Previously, things were referred to the leaders, and, when that didn’t work out, they said so. But, at the same time, if I understand correctly, the Subcommittee on Estimates does not have the authority. I believe we must act in good faith.
[English]
The Chair: We have the power to act.
Senator Plett: You’re correct with the last comment, chair, that we have the power, but it has to be done in the proper process. Senator Smith may well have written that letter; I’m not sure. It was not discussed at our leadership, so he may have done that.
But, chair, you say there’s a motion on the floor, and I agree. But I think it’s also in order — and correct me if it’s not parliamentary procedure — that I make a motion that this be tabled for next week because I don’t think we’re prepared to deal with it this week, and, rather than turn it down, why don’t we see that we have those letters for the leadership and have them tabled at the appropriate time so that we can look at them and make a decision before we rise next week? I’m not prepared to vote in favour of it today.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett.
Senator Tannas: I think we’re almost to the right spot in getting leaders engaged on this. When we had the spectacle of approving the request from Senator Woo here, a number of us — me included — said leaders need to lead. This isn’t the place to have us all shooting at each other about how much money the budget for each individual group is. That’s something that leaders ought to lead on, and then we can come here and judge all of the changes, based on good, sound governance and with an eye to the taxpayers’ money.
So, in this case, it sounds like the leaders have heard what we wanted, which was something that they would have a consensus on and be prepared to support as we considered it. It sounds like it’s there, but there has been a little communication shortfall here that we need to fix. My question is: If we do table this for next week and we’re not here, is there a way we can do a round-robin resolution or something to deal with it?
The Chair: We will be here next Thursday, I believe.
Senator Tannas: Then I support tabling.
Senator Dawson: I wanted to add: Let there be no doubt; there’s no new money here. It’s just a question technically speaking. If Senator Eggleton leaves before we have another Internal Economy meeting to ratify, we would be in a situation where we would be artificially reducing the amount. There is no new money. It has been agreed upon, but I understand.
If you are sure that there is a meeting next week, I have no problem tabling it. If it’s going to go to the month of October, by then, it will be too late for us, and we have the plan of hiring people and keeping people on. As you know, during the summer, you have major problems with staffing on the Hill. I’m just asking to be sure that there is an interim situation where this will not go to the month of October if we do not sit next Thursday.
Senator Tkachuk: I think steering has all the power of Internal Economy, so we never have a lack of decision making. So, if we’re out, steering can make that decision.
Senator Cordy: It’s so great to be back at Internal Economy.
Senator Dawson: I’m glad you’re back.
Senator Cordy: And I thank everybody for the comments that they’ve made. I forget whether it was Senator Tannas or Senator Plett who said that we’ve been asking our leaders to get involved and to make discussions together. I think, in this case, they have all agreed that this funding would be in place. We’ve done it in the past for independent Liberals, the ISG, the government representatives. The leaders have all gotten together and worked it out and brought it to Internal to be ratified, which is, I think, the process. I think Senator Moncion is right; let’s not go in circles by sending it to a committee that doesn’t have the power to make those decisions. So I think it’s important that it come back here.
To reiterate what Senator Dawson said, this is not new money. I think the concern is just that it be ratified before we rise. So, if we’re not sitting next Thursday, that steering make the decision or that the committee — Because we can meet at any time. So, if the Senate were to rise on Wednesday, in fact, Internal could meet on Wednesday, for 20 minutes, to deal with one item. I thank you all for the comments that you have made. They’ve been very helpful.
Senator Moncion: May I ask that we have an engagement or an agreement that the rules are going to be revised before we start working on the estimates? We’re going to be working on the estimates, I think, starting September. So we need the rules to either stay the way they are or be changed, but we need that before we even start the process of doing the estimates.
The Chair: Might I suggest that your committee goes to the Rules Committee with your proposal and have them deal with it, the rules that you believe should take place, so that we don’t find ourselves in this circle at least once a year?
I have a motion from Senator Plett that this item be adjourned until the next sitting of CIBA or, in absence of that, that the steering committee make a decision.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cordy: Can we put a date on that before the end of the session?
The Chair: It will be done before we rise, or Christmas, whichever, comes first.
(The committee continued in camera.)