THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 6, 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 Sabi Marwah (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration. My name is Sabi Marwah, and I have the privilege of serving as chair of this committee.
For the benefit of those on the webcast or on the phone, I would ask the senators present to introduce themselves.
Senator Munson: Jim Munson, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Mitchell: Grant Mitchell, Alberta.
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, Ontario.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Claude Carignan from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Wetston: Howard Wetston, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Tkachuk: David Tkachuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Thank you.
The first item on the agenda is the minutes from last week, November 29, 2018. They are in your package. Are there any questions or changes? If not, can I have a motion to adopt the minutes? It was moved by Senator Munson to adopt the minutes. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
The next item is a report from the Joint Interparliamentary Council. I invite Ms. Hedy Fry — I believe she’s not well, so she may not be here — Ms. Yasmin Ratansi, Member of Parliament for Don Valley East; and Colette Labrecque-Riel, Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs. Senator Plett, you are already there. The three of them will give a presentation, followed by questions from senators.
Hon. Donald Neil Plett, Senator, Senate of Canada: I will make two very brief introductory remarks and then turn it over to my colleagues.
As senators are aware, the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association held a special general meeting on October 30, 2018, to discuss matters related to the confidence in the chair. A number of issues arose at that meeting, which resulted in a question of privilege being raised in the Senate. A point of order was also raised in the House of Commons. In line with the Speaker’s ruling, the Joint Interparliamentary Council met twice to discuss these issues.
The second of these meetings was held late yesterday afternoon, and I’m happy to report that, following these discussions, the council has adopted a specific procedure for the consideration of non-confidence in the chair of an association general assembly. This was done by consensus, and I’m very happy that I think we reached a very fair and reasonable conclusion.
There are two key elements to this new procedure. The first is that when a matter relating to the confidence in the chair of an association arises at a general meeting, then one of the two JIC co-chairs will preside over that meeting. The second element is an appeal process with specified timelines whereby if at least 10 per cent or no less than 10 members of an association are of the view that a decision relating to the confidence did not respect provisions of the association’s constitution, they could appeal that to the JIC. The intent of this new procedure is to improve the governance of parliamentary associations, and the council is satisfied that this is definitely a step in the right direction.
I think we have resolved, at least as well as we could, a difficult situation. That plays into the rest of what we need to discuss today. That’s why I thought I would pre-empt the next report with that.
Having said that, colleagues, I want to begin by thanking Ms. Ratansi and Colette. Unfortunately, as the chair said, Ms. Fry is not well today; she won’t be here. Ms. Ratansi is the chair of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Ms. Fry is a member of Parliament and the director of the Canadian delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Europe Parliamentary Assembly. I believe Colette will be presenting on her behalf.
While they will each provide a detailed presentation of the request before you for the Parliament of Canada to host two large international conferences, I would like to confirm that the Joint Interparliamentary Council did indeed study these two proposals at its meeting of May 30, 2018. During that meeting, the council had discussion in terms of timing of these conferences, and it is satisfied that the administration is in a position to be able to appropriately support these two large conferences.
Furthermore, members of the council were also satisfied that the budget proposals presented to them were prepared in line with past practices and parameters for previous comparable conferences hosted by the Parliament of Canada. As such, it was agreed that these two proposals be brought to both this committee as well as the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy.
It is my understanding that while the house board did consider these proposals at its meeting of November 29, it will continue those discussions later this morning.
With that, colleagues, I invite Ms. Ratansi to proceed with her presentation.
Yasmin Ratansi, Member of Parliament for Don Valley East, Ontario, House of Commons: Good morning, senators. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the opportunity to present to you our ask for hosting the sixty-fifth Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in 2021.
I’d like to provide a brief history of our ask. In July 2017, in Winnipeg, the Canadian Regional Council of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which is made up of the provinces, territories and federal representatives, discussed the possibility of hosting the 2020 Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference if changes were adopted to the conference model and hosting parameters.
Canada had hosted this conference in 1994 in Banff, and in 2004 hosted the executive committee. The conference was split between Quebec City and Toronto. Canada has since refused to host a conference until such time as changes were made to the hosting parameters.
Unlike other associations, the CPA conference hosting parameters require the host country to be responsible for the accommodation and meal costs for all delegates. After several years of negotiations, in November 2017, at the Bangladesh conference, Canada, with other like-minded partners, succeeded in introducing a new conference model. This is a two-year pilot project. Under this new model, the host would no longer be responsible for the accommodation and meals of all delegates.
In July 2018, in Ottawa, the Canadian Regional Council of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association accepted to offer to host the conference in Halifax in January 2021. As there will not be a conference in 2018, the first conference using this new model will take place in Uganda in 2019. Two weeks ago, the CPA International Executive Committee accepted the proposal by the Canadian region to host the conference in January 2021 under the terms of the new funding model.
Having succeeded in bringing these major changes, it is important for Canada to organize this conference in 2021, since we have not hosted it for 16 years. As well, being the architect of this new model for the conference, we would like to test it and help improve it where necessary.
The hosting of this conference by Canada will help demonstrate our leadership role within the Commonwealth. Approximately 500 participants are expected in Halifax in January 2021.
The conference will consist of six elements: the executive committee meeting, small branches conference, Commonwealth women parliamentary steering committee meeting, plenary and workshops, a general assembly meeting, Society of Clerks-at-the-Table conference.
The estimated budgets before you have been reviewed and approved by the Joint Interparliamentary Council and by the Canadian Regional Council of the CPA. Efforts have been made in the budget to reduce the cost.
The funding model for the Canadian region involves a 50-50 sharing between the federal branch and the 13 provincial and territorial branches. As part of the funding model, the Parliament of Canada provides the secretariat for this conference.
Our ask for the fiscal year 2019-20 from the House of Commons is $77,081, or 35 per cent of the total budget; and $426,971 for the year 2020-21, the implementation year. The total of the House of Commons’ contribution would be $504,052.
The provinces and territories will also have to do a similar approval process.
This completes my presentation. I’m now prepared to answer questions.
Senator Batters: Thanks very much to all of you for being here. Have these requests for these two conferences gone to the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy?
Ms. Ratansi: Yes, they have.
Senator Batters: And did they approve them?
Colette Labrecque-Riel, Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs: If I may, the discussions will be continued later this morning. The board is having a second meeting on these conferences at 10:30 this morning.
Senator Batters: Was that the brief mention that Senator Plett made to in his opening statement?
Senator Plett: Yes, it was. I have had some discussions with the people of that board, and I don’t want to pre-empt anything they’re doing, but I’m confident that we should be able to make a positive resolution.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: If I may add, Senator Batters, the discussion at the board last week was a public meeting. The discussions were such that members of the board were not comfortable in moving ahead with these requests until, as Senator Plett reported, the NATO PA matter was resolved. That’s why they were waiting for a report on that issue before pronouncing themselves on the two conferences. However, the board members did indicate that they were favourable to these requests.
Senator Batters: Ms. Labrecque-Riel, given that the Senate for quite some time has been disclosing online our hospitality expense, as I’ve asked you the last several times that you’ve been here on these types of requests, both these conferences have pretty specific protocol, ceremonial and hospitality expenses — one is $459,000 and the other is $417,000 — could you give us a breakdown for that?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Yes. If you’re looking specifically for a breakdown under the hospitality category, for meals for the executive committee, we have $22,000. We have refreshments and health breaks, $5,000; lunches, $10,000 — these really are a question of meals — a dinner reception, $63,000. These are obviously dependent on the number of delegates, and we do apply the cost of meals as per Treasury Board figures. For refreshments, we have a contingency of only $5,000. There is site enhancement of $40,000, because we have to set up a reception area, enhance the actual on-site —
Senator Batters: That was for?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: That’s for hospitality.
Senator Batters: For one conference or both?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: No, this is just the one conference.
Senator Batters: How about the other one?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: I’ll be doing the presentation that Ms. Fry would have done. I can answer that question after that presentation, if you like.
Senator Batters: Sure.
Senator Dean: First of all, thank you for bringing this information to us. I’m a supporter of the work of the Commonwealth and its institutions and have some sense of the role of the Commonwealth Secretariat in London and its work in member countries.
Like other international organizations, the Commonwealth is going through a period of turbulence and change. My sense is that, within that, there are some member countries — Canada is one — which play a very significant role as an even-handed, I’ll call it, donor country.
I think that this initiative is terrific. I support it. I’d love to see that conference come to Canada and Halifax. I’m doing no more than thanking you for bringing this to us and indicating my support of this initiative.
Senator Wetston: Like Senator Dean, I think these are important initiatives, obviously, but you mentioned six elements. Can you give me a sense of what they are relative to the costs associated with hosting the conference?
Ms. Ratansi: In all conferences, the Executive Committee comes first, so they discuss the parameters and any hiccups that might happen to the conference. Of the six elements, the Executive Committee is first. It consists of members from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Malaysia, Singapore, all regions of the Commonwealth. I’m trying to figure out how many there are. There are about 33 members of the executive. We have one representative. As a chair, I have to choose a representative to EXCO, and that has been Alexandra Mendès. In Bangladesh, she was elected as the executive vice chair, which helped us with the governance structure as well.
I’d like to give everyone a picture. This governance model has been worked through since 2007. Russ Ebert, Joe Preston and I worked on it, and the fruition came during my term. It has been a long, drawn-out process. We have ensured that whatever we do, everyone is in line.
The second one is the small branches. The small branches are islands like Kiribati and the Caribbean islands, et cetera. That component meets to talk about elements of climate change, governance, whatever we can do. It is really the sustainability of the Commonwealth in governance structure in ensuring that we exchange ideas. To that extent, we in Canada follow a twinning model. The twinning model helps Canada twin with the Caribbean countries. We’re following the same model that Australia is following.
The third one is the women parliamentarians. The Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians have done a lot of work in gender equality and violence against women. There are other organizations that have zero parliamentarians, so we working at ensuring, and I am one of the steering committee members on that.
The plenary and workshop sessions are depending on what subjects the EXCO has decided, and there will be discussions on that. The general assembly is where we vote. In 2016, in Bangladesh, we were the ones that promoted the Rohingya crisis. It was Mulcair that helped draft the resolution. We do a lot of work in that area.
Does that answer your question?
Senator Wetston: Yes. It sounds like a good-value-for-money proposition.
Ms. Ratansi: Thank you.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much for your presentation.
I just wanted to comment that there’s going to be about $86,000 that will have to come out of next year’s budget, and I wanted to mention we haven’t approved our budget yet.
The other comments I have regard the operating costs for both proposals. I would like to see a further breakdown, especially the section on protocols, ceremonial and hospitality. That looks to be about one third of the budget. I would like to see a further breakdown on that.
My last question relates to the twenty-ninth annual session proposed for Vancouver. We’re saying it’s been 25 years since Canada hosted. It’s an annual conference, but there are 56 parliaments that take part. Does every parliament take a turn? It seems like we should get a turn every 56 years.
Ms. Ratansi: Thank you for that question. I’ll answer the CPA portion of it.
In my funding model, the Senate is paying 15 per cent in the planning year, or $33,000. I have no idea where you got the $83,000 from.
Senator Marshall: I took the Senate share of the $53,000 for 2019-20.
Ms. Ratansi: $33,000.
Senator Marshall: I got that. And I got the 53 from the twenty-ninth annual session of the OSCE.
Ms. Ratansi: Okay. I’m not doing a presentation on OSCE. That would be Colette.
Senator Marshall: I have the same comment and question to both of you.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: I’ll try and answer all of those questions.
I want to take a step back and pre-empt a bit of the presentation that Dr. Fry would have done on the OSCE. With the funding requests before you, it would have been helpful to do a comparison of the two conference requests. The one thing common to these two requests is that for the planning year, which is 2019-20, the amounts that are being requested for both of these conferences are not additional funding. They are not requests to be put forward in the Main Estimates process. The proposal is that the planning year be funded through anticipated surpluses from the associations and exchanges budgets. We’re trying to use current funding.
For 2019-20, no additional funding is being requested, simply permission, if you like, to use the anticipated surpluses from those two envelopes. The 2021 request for the two conferences is essentially for temporary additional funding through the Main Estimates process.
Senator Marshall: Okay. I’d still like to see the breakdown of the operating costs, especially the protocol, ceremonial and hospitality section.
I don’t know if my question was answered with regard to the 56 years.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: I’ll try and reference that. I’m going to try to do Dr. Fry’s presentation in her absence as soon as we’re done the CPA questions.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
The Chair: If there are no other questions, we have a motion that I will read out. The motion is that the recommendations and the reports of the Joint Interparliamentary Council be adopted. Can I have a mover for the motion? Senator Dean. Is it agreed to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: As I mentioned, Dr. Fry is ill this morning so I’m going to try to run through the different points she was going to present for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly conference.
Again, the request is for Canada to host that parliamentary assembly, the twenty-ninth annual session. The proposal is for Vancouver in July 2020. Canada last hosted this conference in 1995 in Ottawa.
The hosting parameters are comparable to other international conferences hosted by Canada, which are similar to the new parameters that the CPA, if this is agreed to, will be using in hosting in Halifax in 2021. The CPA would now be in line with the other types of conferences that Canada agrees to host. The OSCE is already in line with that.
It is anticipated that approximately 700 participants from 56 countries will be attending this conference in Vancouver. Dr. Fry wanted to mention that the OSCE is the world’s largest regional security organization under Chapter 8 of the United Nations charter and spans a vast geographic area from Vancouver to Vladivostok.
There are three annual conferences for the OSCE parliamentary assembly. The first is the annual conference, which is the largest of the three. The second is the autumn meeting, which Canada last hosted in 2008 in Toronto. The third conference is the winter meeting. Our Canadian delegates usually attend these three activities.
The funding formula being proposed again is a 70-30 House-Senate formula. As I mentioned earlier, the funding request for the 2019-20 fiscal year is for the use of anticipated surpluses of the associations and exchanges budgets. The Senate portion of that planning year funding would essentially be $53,000. On the request for the implementation year for the 2021 fiscal year, the Senate portion would be $418,314. The total cost of this conference over the two fiscal years, with the various funding arrangements for the first year and the implementation year, amounts to $1.5 million, essentially. The total Senate portion is $471,000, and the House of Commons portion would be essentially $1 million.
I explained the funding strategy.
In terms of the question for the 56 parliaments, I was at the presentation that Dr. Fry did last week at the board on the house side. She mentioned that, yes, there are 56 parliaments. However, not all of these countries are in a position to host such a large international event. Comparable countries that have the capacity to host these international conferences have hosted once, twice and some countries actually three times since Canada last hosted in 1995. In Dr. Fry’s opinion, her view is that it is very much Canada’s turn to host this international conference.
She would have gone into a lot of the content and the rationale for the importance for Canada to host this international conference in terms of the mandate of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the topics that are under consideration currently for that international association, the question of security and the question of election observations and the idea that Canada very much would like to be able to put forward its views on many of these important issues before that international association. By hosting the conference, obviously, Canada has a very significant influence on the direction and topics this conference will be dealing with.
On that, I’ll end the actual presentation on behalf of Dr. Fry and attempt to answer questions, if there are any.
The Chair: Are there any questions to Colette on the second conference?
Senator Batters: Hospitality breakdown, please.
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Again, with the hospitality breakdown, similar to the CPA, we’re discussing meals as well as site enhancements. We have a welcome dinner reception, $88,000; lunches for the different specific groups, $7,000; a dinner reception, $88,000; a farewell reception, $88,000. Again, this is based on an anticipated number of delegates of 700. Refreshments are $100,000; site enhancement, $60,000; and a contingency of $5,000 for Vancouver.
Senator Batters: Those are all based on Treasury Board guidelines?
Ms. Labrecque-Riel: Yes.
The Chair: Any other questions of Colette? If not, we need to have a motion on the second part of the presentation, and the motion reads the recommendations in the OSCE conference, as presented by Colette, be adopted. Could I have a motion to approve that? Senator Wetston.
Is it agreed to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division. Thank you again to the witnesses for coming today.
Honourable senators, the next item is a report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates. I invite Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, and Nathalie Charpentier, Comptroller and Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, to the table.
Senator Moncion will begin the presentations, which will be followed by questions from senators.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: The Subcommittee on Senate Estimates of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration is honoured to present its ninth report.
Your subcommittee has the mandate to review the proposed Senate estimates, keeping in mind the necessity for the Senate and its administration to demonstrate responsible management of the public funds that are allocated to the institution.
[English]
Your subcommittee, composed of Senators Dawson, Marshall, McCoy, Moncion and Tannas, held two meetings in November 2018 to review the funding requirements for the Senate Main Estimates for 2019-20. Any funding increase from the previous year had to be supported by detailed documentation and submission to the committee to justify new spending.
Your subcommittee received 20 presentations and heard testimony from 14 individuals representing all directorates. They submitted their operational and financial requirements, as well as their justification for the changes, if any, to their budget for 2019-20. Your subcommittee is thankful to all of these individuals for their presentations.
[Translation]
Throughout the course of its study, your subcommittee took into account the ongoing changes in the Senate and the additional requirements related to the physical move of the institution. Each budget proposal was reviewed based on the following principles: Financial prudence; support for Senate activities; value for money; and work-life balance.
As part of its deliberations, your subcommittee has identified some key elements that it considers worth highlighting to provide continuity when preparing and reviewing future funding requirements.
[English]
Strategic planning: Your subcommittee recognizes the importance of governance and the development of strategic priorities for the institution. It encourages the administration to bring forward a new strategic plan, identify key priorities and elaborate the business plan to better align the funding of new initiatives with the annual budget planning cycle.
[Translation]
Learning centres: Your subcommittee notes the importance for the Senate to have a talent management program and ongoing development of its resources, supported by a better framework that is more responsive to the organization’s needs.
[English]
Administration: Your subcommittee recognizes that the Senate is now operating at full capacity, with fewer than five vacant senator positions. To deliver the services required to carry out the parliamentary and constitutional functions of senators and the Senate, and considering the growth and complexity of operations, your subcommittee recommends the addition of 27 new permanent and temporary positions, which are listed in an appendix to this report. These 27 positions, dedicated to Senate operations, represent a 6.7 per cent headcount increase.
[Translation]
Broadcasting: Your subcommittee notes the significant increase in funding requested to cover the operating costs of broadcasting, web streaming, and the supporting infrastructure required by the Senate and committee meetings. The substantial increase requested is the result of the negotiations of a new permanent television broadcasting contract with the House of Commons.
[English]
Caucus and parliamentary group budgets: As part of its study of the estimates, your subcommittee also took note of the leaders’ and facilitators’ letter of understanding on the overall amount required to operate, while recognizing that the Standing Committee of Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration approves the funds allocated to the different recognized caucuses and parliamentary groups.
[Translation]
In its review of the Main Estimates, your subcommittee examined the resources available to senators to conduct their parliamentary and constitutional responsibilities. With respect to the statutory budget, the increase is $884,685. This includes: A net budget increase to the senators’ basic and additional allowances and pension contributions of $275,177; an increase of $440,700 for allowances and a decrease of $165,533 for pension contributions; and an increase of $723,270 to the employee benefits plan resulting from the adjustments to the overall personnel cost and changes in the Treasury Board contributions rate.
[English]
The voted budget that pertains to the work of senators will be increased by $487,500. This amount includes an increase of $487,000 to senators’ office expenses budgets, which takes inflation into account, and will therefore increase from $225,372 to $230,105.
[Translation]
As part of the voted budget, funding for the Senate administration represents an overall increase of $3,736,471. Key elements of the budget include: An increase to the Senate-wide personnel budget of $1,337,587 to provide for the economic increases of $968,012 for unrepresented and unionized employees, and for personnel expenses of $369,575 that vary from one year to the next, such as maternity and paternal benefits, severance pay, injury on duty, and vacation payouts; a temporary increase to the budget of $315,727 to continue the human resources transformation initiative; a permanent increase of $496,636 for the delivery of its programs, including the annual processing fees of $173,000 for payroll services; an increase to the Communications and Information Services Directorates’ operational budgets of $673,375 and $89,525 respectively for broadcasting, web streaming and infrastructure support required for the Senate Chamber and the committee meetings; an increase to the Chamber Operations and Procedure Office’s personnel budget of $233,957 for additional resources to support the mandate of Debates and Publications; an increase to the Finance and Procurement Directorate’s budget of $205,307 for procurement activities; an increase to the Committees Directorate’s personnel budget of $167,288 for one additional procedural clerk and one administrative assistant to allow the assignment of a clerk to each Senate committee and subcommittee; an increase to the Property and Services Directorate’s maintenance budget of $121,814; and a temporary increase to the Corporate Security Directorate’s budget of $120,400 to upgrade high security locks.
[English]
Therefore, your subcommittee makes following recommendations:
That the Senate’s 2019-20 budget be $114,188,759, which represents an increase of 4.7 per cent from the previous year; and that the 2019-20 budget adjustments listed in the appendix be approved.
It’s respectfully submitted by me. And I would like to ask Pierre and Nathalie to provide any answers to questions that might be asked by senators.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much.
Could you please tell me what the breakdown is of the caucus parliamentary group budgets? It just lists a total amount of $5.6-odd million, but it does not specify the breakdown of that amount.
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: For 2019-20, we have a total budget of 4,895,000. The budgets are consolidated —
Senator Batters: Could you repeat that? It was a little difficult to hear.
Mr. Lanctôt: The total budget for leadership caucuses and groups is $4,895,300. This is the budget for 2019-20. There is a consolidation in the last few years on the leadership budgets and the caucuses into one category of budget for all those groups.
Senator Batters: What is the breakdown?
Mr. Lanctôt: The government is 1,628,150; opposition 1,347,150; ISG 1.5 million; and the independent Liberals are 410,000.
Senator Moncion: It is written in the report that the committee approved the overall amount but did not approve the breakdowns. That needs to be approved here at CIBA. It will be looked at, because we were not in a position to approve any of the amounts for any of the groups.
The Chair: I received a letter from and signed by all the leaders, giving an individual breakdown for this year and next year. I provided the letter to Senator Moncion. What I would suggest is that if there are any questions on the individual budgets of each of the caucuses, we invite the leaders to come to a meeting of CIBA and we can ask questions about the increases or decreases, as the case may be.
Senator Batters: I wanted to know what the breakdowns were because I see that the Independent Senators’ Group has gone up $310,000 in that amount. So the totals that you were listing, what did you say, $4.8 million or something? In the total amount here, it lists almost $5.6 million, so where is the remainder of that amount? Is that the Speaker’s? What is the amount for the Speaker?
Mr. Lanctôt: I don’t have the exact amount with me right now.
Senator Batters: I think we need to have that.
Okay, I will move to another category I’m wondering about. In this particular estimates amount, there is reference made to the fact that we’re now at almost a full complement of senators — 105 senators — and it seems to be justifying the large increase in Senate administration employees, which, of course, is not for senators directly. Those are separate positions. What was the comparable total Senate budget amount the last time the Senate had almost a full complement of senators? That was the case in early 2013 when I was named to the Senate. I don’t know if that has been the case since early 2013 but, if that has happened since, I’m wondering what the total budget amount is, because I see the amount being requested is $114 million, which is quite a large increase.
Mr. Lanctôt: We budgeted for the full complement of senators because we may have new senators coming soon. We never know, so we budget to have the full complement of senators.
When I look historically at 2013-14, there were 99 senators. It went down, and starting in 2017-18 it started to increase again.
Senator Batters: So in 2013-14, what was the total budget amount?
Mr. Lanctôt: The budget back then was $85 million.
Senator Batters: $85 million.
Senator Tkachuk: Did that include security?
Senator Batters: Did that include the Parliamentary Protective Services? Was it under the Senate at that point?
Mr. Lanctôt: There are a lot of pluses and minuses. I looked at the last 10 years of the Senate. As you know, I started a few months ago, and I was curious to understand the numbers. When we look over the last 10-year period, there are many pluses and minuses. Broadcast is new, and security was partly moved and partly remained within the Senate. But there was a budget increase at an average annual growth rate of 3 per cent in the budget, and actual expenses was 2 per cent. When we look at the last 10 years, the first few years were no increase or slight decrease. In the last few years, the Senate administration has picked up a bit as there are more senators; as I mentioned, it started ramping up in the last few years.
We are also refreshing our infrastructure. For example, on the corporate systems side, we have resources to address that, and the HR transformation, so there has been an increase in the last few years to address very specific initiatives. When we look overall at 10 years, we have a growth rate ranging from 2 to 3 per cent for the Senate.
Senator Batters: When I look at the number of different positions that are being requested here to be added to the already numerous Senate administration positions, three of those are labelled as junior interior designers, two permanent and one temporary. Why will those be needed? This will be in place after our move to the new Senate building — which would be a timeframe when I think that might have been needed for that — but what is the rationale for requiring those types of positions for the Senate?
Mr. Lanctôt: I had a similar reaction when I saw the request a couple of months ago. We discussed specifically when we did the review with the executive team as well as with the subcommittee. Essentially, I reacted, and we’re moving in November or December, and everything will be done, but it’s really a 10- or 15-year project because the people continue to work on the LTVP project for the next 10, 15 or 20 years, so these resources will be used to continue to work on the continuous efforts.
Senator Batters: What sort of duties would they be doing in a building in everything that is already complete? I’m not sure.
Mr. Lanctôt: The effort will not be so much in the buildings that are complete. They will support the future changes. They have to look at the new premises. There is a lot of work that needs to be done in order to plan what will happen in the new premises and working with the project teams for the long-term vision.
Senator Batters: I don’t imagine the Senate has ever employed interior designers before this particular request?
Mr. Lanctôt: I don’t know historically, but I know the work they are planning on doing for the next few years supported the request.
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, Senate of Canada: Senator, I could add that we do have interior designers, and they assist in reorganizing any senators’ offices when senators are moving to the Chambers or Victoria Buildings. This is not a new position.
Senator Batters: I’ve never encountered them in my moves, but thank you.
Senator Tkachuk: You list 27 new positions for the upcoming year. Didn’t we have an increase last year, or the year before, as well?
Mr. Lanctôt: Yes. Last year there was an increase of 32 FTEs for the administration.
Senator Tkachuk: That’s 59 positions over two years that are brand new. Could you tell me how many employees the Senate now has in administration?
Mr. Lanctôt: There are 412.
Senator Tkachuk: And that 412 does not include our security personnel?
Mr. Lanctôt: It does include corporate security but not PPS.
Senator Tkachuk: What do you mean by corporate security versus PPS?
Mr. Lanctôt: We have a corporate security group with corporate policies who handle all the security clearances for our staff, senators’ staff and information security. There are a lot of activities that are outside of the physical security. PPS is responsible for the physical security of the building, but we have a group that takes care of all our security needs within the Senate.
Senator Tkachuk: Not too long we had about 400 employees, and then we lost 100 because the security people went to a separate operation that, when combined with the House of Commons and the Senate, were removed from the payroll of the Senate and went to this new organization that asked for a separate budget through the consolidated funds and had their own estimates budget. Now we’re up to a larger number of 412. We had 400, we lost 100 and now we’re at 412. When the Senate was decreasing in size, I don’t remember that we had layoffs, so why would it be increasing in size because we have more people?
Mr. Lanctôt: I don’t think there was necessarily a wave of layoffs, but through attrition. As I mentioned earlier, I was curious and looked at the last 10 years, and we saw a slight decrease in resources and with the PPS transfer. It was not all the security employees that were transferred, but a portion. Also, there are new activities that have come on board. Broadcasting is a new activity that didn’t exist.
Senator Tkachuk: We don’t have employees there, just so that’s clear. We don’t have employees in broadcasting. We contract that out.
Mr. Lanctôt: There is some work being done here — not a lot because most of the work is contracted — but there are still some resources that have to coordinate and manage the broadcasting aspect. For corporate systems, we have a group now and we’re doing more sophisticated things.
One thing we have to remember, and I’m jumping a bit, but I was amazed when I started with this organization how small, complex and sophisticated we are. I worked with other organizations where, when you have a lot of resources and you do sophisticate things, it works well.
If we compare ourselves with a larger organization, we do proactive disclosure, we do property management for our internal part and we do a lot of the work that other organizations have to do but with a much bigger pool of resources. I’m not surprised to see that when we want better disclosure of information, a more sophisticated way of making decisions and better support to senators, we have to have the staff to support that.
I mentioned earlier, as well, we’ve seen an increase in the last few years of roughly 10 senators, and that may increase a bit. For each senator, we still have to support the contracts, the claims and the staffing of the people, so it does actually generate additional activities.
Senator Tkachuk: When you were discussing the increase in costs, you used a 10-year average. You went back all the way to 2008 versus 2018. Could you break down what it was per year? You just used the average of 2 per cent. What would it be per year, from 2008 to 2018?
Mr. Lanctôt: I don’t necessarily have the details per year, but I can certainly find it and get back to you. I have some graphs that show a decrease between 2013-14 and 2015-16 and then a pickup after that, but the exact percentage for each year —
Senator Tkachuk: And then you divide by 10, and we lost 100 people.
Mr. Lanctôt: It was not 100 people. It was less than that because there was a portion that remained within the corporate security group.
Senator Tkachuk: How many did we lose? And then I’m done. This is not acceptable. We should have those answers. These are professional people getting paid a lot of money, and we have a budget here. We’re asking questions, and we’re not getting answers. It is not acceptable when they say, “We’ll send it to you later.”
Senator Moncion: I’m sorry, I don’t agree with you. You’re going back 10 years. Geez, we are looking at a budget for 2019-20.
Senator Tkachuk: I didn’t go back 10 years. He went back 10 years. So if you go back 10 years, you had better have the numbers.
Senator Moncion: Then you went back five years. Anyways, he was able to provide some of the information.
The Chair: Senators, a lot of information is being requested, but we should note that every year’s budget has been approved by this committee. It is not as if this committee has not approved these budgets. Every budget, every year, is approved by this committee. In a way, we all have approved it.
Senator Tkachuk: I know we have approved it. But, chair, I’ve only asked questions here. I’ve asked them before, and I usually have had them answered. That’s all I’m saying.
The Chair: Fair enough.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My questions are along the same lines. For your information, the 2009-10 budget was $90 million, but it decreased in 2014-15 to $85 million and was $88 million in 2015-16. Averaged out over 10 years, the increase is about 2.6 per cent. However, we mustn’t forget that the budget decreased in 2015-16 and that a smaller portion was dedicated to security services. You are talking about fewer than 100 employees, but what is the funding in terms of the reduction of security services?
Mr. Lanctôt: I talked about increases to provide some background. If we consider the Senate’s trend, we were at 2 per cent or 3 per cent. I did not do a comprehensive assessment of all the details of those years, but it is important to understand the trend. I wanted to show that the increase was not necessarily an anomaly. To answer your specific question regarding security services, the Senate went from a budget of about $7 million in 2013-14 to about $8 million in 2014-15. We then maintained a budget of $2 million to fund certain security activities at the Senate.
Senator Carignan: So an amount of $6 million should have been removed. For example, for an amount of $114 million compared to about $80 million, we are talking about an increase of $34 million in five years.
Mr. Lanctôt: Yes, but we must take into account activities that were added. Even if we use subcontractors for broadcasting services, we still pay them. That is part of our budget, even though those are not our employees. Historically, a total amount of $3 million was used for those activities. It’s a little less than that now. However, as activities have been added, it is difficult to focus on a specific element and say that the budget should have been reduced. Yes, the budget was reduced for that activity, but something else was added.
Senator Carignan: I understand, but more than that is felt. We feel a change in attitude, and that is what worries me. After all, we are talking about a fairly significant increase in positions: 32 plus 37 equals 59 additional employees over two years. That’s not a minor change.
Mr. Lanctôt: Yes, and as chief financial officer, I’m also concerned by that. We will look into it.
Senator Carignan: I’m happy to hear you say that because I am also worried about it. All that also does not take into account senators’ staff; it only takes into account administration staff. Senators’ staff also contribute to an increase in the number of employees and the Senate’s overall payroll.
Mr. Lanctôt: Yes, I share your concerns and those of all of my colleagues here. That is why we have carefully reviewed what has been proposed. We will also conduct more extensive studies in the future to understand our costs and understand how the resources are being used to determine whether better efficiency can be achieved.
Senator Carignan: You are talking about effectiveness and efficiency. Is there a multidisciplinary committee that looks at gains in efficiency regularly to determine how improvements can be made? For example, in a given month, that group could target in each of the directorates three or four minor issues that are easy to improve to achieve efficiency. Afterwards, other issues would be targeted, at least to help processes constantly improve. Do you have that kind of a committee in place?
Mr. Lanctôt: We don’t have any committees for the Senate as a whole, but every directorate has a group and reviews its processes and procedures. Over the past few years, changes have been made to Communications, Human Resources and Finance.
Senator Saint-Germain: I would like to begin by saying how much I appreciate Pierre Lanctôt’s being here. His father passed away a few days ago. On the committee’s behalf, I offer you my condolences. You are supposed to be working on his funeral arrangements, but you came here this morning. I want you to know how grateful we are.
I really appreciate the committee’s report, which was prepared with a great deal of professionalism. We have a lot of administrative details. I would not want to let something that was said about governance that I find unacceptable go unchallenged. A few minutes ago, someone said that the budget is not for the senators. First and foremost, the administration’s budget is the budget that enables the Senate and senators to do their parliamentary work. I would like to congratulate you on the consistency in terms of decisions made by senators, especially by the committee on internal economy. Those are the main decisions that help justify the budget increase.
I will not provide all the details. They are clearly outlined on pages 5 and 6, which focus on the financial impact of decisions. I would specifically like to highlight the salary increases approved based on the budget of the federal public service’s purse. Like all public service employees, our employees deserve salary increases. Issues related to decisions we have made, including on the audit, broadcasting of proceedings, issues in IT security and strengthening of technologies, and all related decisions of CIBA’s Subcommittee on Communications that have significant impacts on the Communications Directorate. I really want this to be on the record.
I have only one question. On page 4, you highlight the financial impact and talk about expired funding — $600,000 when it comes to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Conference, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for its fifty-sixth conference, and ParlAmericas. Will that expired funding be included in the surplus of parliamentary associations and be able to contribute to the funding of the two conferences? Mr. Lanctôt, could you clarify, as I do not understand?
Mr. Lanctôt: Funding was set aside specifically for weighted activities. Those activities were funded and are now completed. The funding will not be renewed for next year. That is what our colleague was saying earlier when she mentioned that the budget was indeed reduced.
Senator Saint-Germain: That will be going to our surplus. It is a like a reserve we have.
In conclusion, I am very happy about the transparency of our work and the fact that, if we had to ask the leaders of various parliamentary groups to come explain the breakdown of spending, that would be done for each leader. I think that is a nice gesture of transparency and I want to acknowledge it. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Moncion, do you have a follow-up question to that?
Senator Moncion: No.
Senator Dean: First, thanks for the terrific presentation, and thank you to my colleagues for their sharp eyes and deep scrutiny of the estimates. I’m sure this is something that has been a practice here going back many years.
We’ve given some tough questions and lots of questions to our administration colleagues here. I have no doubt that we’ll receive fulsome answers, as we always do. Not all questions can be answered in the moment, and we all understand that. I think it’s important that we are as patient as we can be as we go through this process.
I think it’s important to note that there are large parts of this proposal that are non-discretionary, such as benefits, changes from Treasury Board, pension costs, wage inflation, the upsizing of the Senate, the costs of running our own offices and maintaining our own budgets to do our work. I just note that.
I want to go back, though, to pages 12 and 13, the first two pages of this document. I know we’re going to talk about HR later in this meeting. I see the reference to strategic planning, which is very important. This is kind of higher-level stuff that is appropriately mentioned at the beginning of this report. Regarding the reference to strategic priorities, I ask those joining us from the administration that I’d expect to see human resources as one of those strategic priorities when we see further iterations of this.
I then see it move right into the concept of a learning centre, which I fully support and I think should be a priority. I want to note that this refers to ongoing development of staff. I’m sure that implicit in this it would include the recruitment and on-boarding of Senate staff as well as having an eye on retention of Senate staff. I do no more than flag, as I will do continually, the importance of human resources development in any organization, especially this one.
Thank you. Those were my comments.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I want to begin by telling you that I think your committee has done amazing work. I think the colleagues from the subcommittee are very serious and dedicated to the task. It was said earlier that, in 1994, the Senate’s budget was $85 million.
Senator Moncion: 2014.
Senator Forest: You mentioned 1994 in the beginning, if I understood correctly?
Mr. Lanctôt: 2014.
Senator Forest: As for core expenditures when it comes to increases to the inflation level set by the Treasury Board, for the entire budget, what is the percentage of those core expenditures?
Mr. Lanctôt: This year, about 1 per cent of the expenditure increase is related to previous salary increases. We have recouped four or five years of salary increases allocated this year, so that creates an increase of about 5 per cent to 6 per cent in terms of salaries. That accounts for 1 per cent of the total budget.
Inflation in everything consumed represents about 2 per cent. The largest portion of the cost increase unrelated to the hiring of additional staff is mainly related to inflation.
Senator Forest: And to salaries, so about 3 per cent out of the 4.7 per cent.
Mr. Lanctôt: About 3 per cent to 3.5 per cent.
Senator Forest: As for work related to the Senate’s relocation, in terms of retransmission services and so on, that represents an impact of 0.7 per cent.
Mr. Lanctôt: This year, there has been an increase of about $700,000 for broadcasting. That is a pretty significant portion of the overall budget.
Senator Forest: There is an increase of $440,700 for allowances. I would like to get more information about that.
Mr. Lanctôt: The $440,700 for senators’ allowances represents the allocated amount. Only inflation is included in the allowance increase.
Senator Forest: Thank you. Congratulations on your work.
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Munson: Briefly, I want to thank you for this very detailed and complex report. I want to congratulate you and your team for the work that you have done. It should be put on the record in this very public forum, at a board of Internal Economy where we have oversight into what administrative officials do, that I think at the end of the day we have to have confidence in the work that you do. I think in that regard that we have to remember a little bit of our history — this report and that detailed scrutiny through our subcommittees where all parties were present. We went through this at that particular time.
In terms of the subject matter that we have in front of us today, yes, of course, there’s always room for improvement. But I think it’s important, as a member of this board, with the way that we sometimes micromanage issues, that we have to retain and keep our trust and confidence here in what you do and what your colleagues do. Thank you.
Senator Wetston: When I look at these numbers and I look at the categories in which the increases are being requested, when I examine them, I see nothing in them that would suggest that these are not areas that require support or potentially increases. In budgeting, I think we’ve all gone through this, pick a number and tell me what’s wrong with the number. I think that’s the problem with budgeting. You focus on the number, but you don’t focus on what we’re going to achieve with the number.
I have no problem whatsoever, chair, with trying to unpack numbers. For example, 27 new positions. “Well, I think it should be 40. Tell me why not.” Or, “I think it should be zero. Tell me why not.”
The difficulty I have — it’s not a difficulty. I see nothing in this to suggest that the approach being taken here is unreasonable, given the nature of the Senate today — both by way of complement and additional requirements to the public and the kinds of things that senators have talked about.
My only question is this, really, following up a bit from Senator Dean’s comments. Will you be able to provide, in the future, performance measurements to the committee to support any increases that might be approved by the committee so that we can assess in the future metrics or performance criteria associated with the increases? It’s like the value-for-money proposition, not getting into the audit. Have you thought about that? Are you able to focus on that, should your budget requests be approved?
Mr. Lanctôt: Actually, that’s a good question. We have an internal project within the administration to develop — for example, in finance, we have our own performance measures that we’re tracking, but we have initiatives to actually create formal measurements and performance metrics that we’ll be able to bring to this committee in the future, I’m assuming.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: It is no coincidence that the numbers dropped in 2014-15. The Senate took the bull by the horns and conducted a zero-based budgeting exercise. That was an extremely serious exercise where each expenditure was analyzed by raising questions to reach a budget of about $85 million.
Have you kept that process? Is there a monitoring committee or have you raised question seriously, as was done in 2013-14, on each expenditure and its usefulness to the Senate administration?
Mr. Lanctôt: We follow a rigorous process for our budgets. We regularly monitor our real expenditures for every quarter of the year. Should improvements be made? Always. This year, we will focus more on certain groups to understand the link between costs and benefits for the Senate. We are developing performance indicators or improving them. We know that we must continue to make improvements.
We also have to look at additional activities. We sometimes forget that tasks are regularly added and that more accuracy may be needed when requests are made. We must pay attention to the additional work that needs to be done to meet new needs or expectations. For example, Bill C-58 will lead to more work if it passes. We will have to take that into account going forward. Many additional requests arrive regularly, and they are taken into account.
Senator Moncion: There are different definitions of a zero-based budget, and we must be careful when a budget is re-created from the first dollar and a thorough analysis is done of each directorate to achieve efficiency.
We discussed this in committee at the relevant meeting and agreed that it should be done on a directorate-by-directorate basis over several years. That is a much more in-depth exercise then simply starting from a zero-based budget.
I would like to thank everyone we have met with over the course of all the presentations the committee has heard. Everyone who has participated has really presented the needs of each of their units and the number of additional positions. Those are all points that have raised questions. I thank each and every one of you personally.
I want to thank the senators who participated in the exercise. People really did a good job, in particular Senator Marshall, Senator Tannas, Senator Dawson and Senator McCoy. I want to thank Mr. Lanctôt and Ms. Charpentier for all their work, and all the people who helped develop the budget. I want to thank Ms. Belzile, who was the clerk for the exercise and who also provided excellent support, and our advisors who support us and help us with the processes. We have a very good team. I think that the exercise was done rigorously. Comprehensive work was carried out, which produced excellent results.
[English]
The Chair: Do you have another question?
Senator Batters: I was just going to propose that, given we have some pretty significant information that we need to receive, perhaps we postpone the decision on this particular item until next week when we have all of that information.
The Chair: What’s the view of the committee? Do you want to defer or have a vote right now?
Senator Forest: No, no.
The Chair: What does “no” mean?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: We’re voting on the committee’s report today. We’re missing the preceding information, because we need to make sure that it doesn’t affect the fiscal year. I’m asking for a vote on this proposal.
[English]
Senator Batters: I asked for the breakdown of how the $5.6 million amount came up that wasn’t in here. Last week, the deputy CFO talked about 32 employees, but we still don’t have a breakdown on that. That’s in addition to the 27. There are other questions that colleagues had that indicated that it needed to be received before we have an appropriate decision made here. We’re talking about a $114 million budget. I don’t think waiting one week is a difficult scenario.
The Chair: The only problem is, if we wait one week, that’s next Thursday. Next Thursday we won’t have time to table it in the Senate. That’s the other issue. This does need to be approved before the next fiscal year begins. Otherwise, we are approving the Budget 2019 when the budget has already started.
Are we all comfortable with that approach? That makes sense. I don’t know whether we have done that in the past or not.
Senator Batters: When does the new fiscal year start?
The Chair: I think January 1, isn’t it?
Senator Batters: I think April 1.
The Chair: So we have some time. What’s the will of the committee?
Senator Batters: We can’t be jammed in on a $114 million budget when we didn’t receive —
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: We have deadlines to meet and the document must be presented to the Treasury Board of Canada in the coming days. We have no choice. The $5.5 million is exactly the same amount as last year. There’s no change in this area. No increase is being requested. The only thing missing is the breakdown according to the different documents. The information on the 32.5 positions comes from the Audit Subcommittee, and the positions are already included in the budget.
Mr. Chair, I believe that we can and must vote on this budget. Information will be provided, in other words details that have very little or no impact on the budget presented.
[English]
Senator Plett: I’m not sure if this question is appropriate, but I’m going to ask it. If it’s not, Senator Moncion, you can say you can’t answer it. You have a committee that is recommending this budget, and I looked at the names on that committee. Was there consensus, or was there some form of unanimity on your committee in presenting and recommending this?
Senator Moncion: It was unanimous. Senator Marshall can —
Senator Plett: In that case, chair, I would agree with voting on this now.
Senator Marshall: I’m a member of the subcommittee. I talked to Senator Moncion and the entire subcommittee — I was concerned about the increase in the number of positions and did raise it several times, but at the end of the day, I did support.
The Chair: I agree with Senator Plett. I think we should go for a vote.
Senator Dawson: I’m also a member of the subcommittee, and I can assure everybody that this was unanimous. I want to join in congratulating Senator Moncion for the work she has been doing. It is very time-consuming, and time is of the essence. I believe we will not learn anything between now and next week that would make it a better or worse budget. I think that we should move ahead with the adoption of the budget.
The Chair: I think that seems to be the will of the committee.
Honourable senators, it is moved by Senator Moncion that the report be adopted and that it be presented in the Senate. Is it agreed to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
The next item is the subcommittee memberships.
Honourable senators, pursuant to the motion adopted in the Senate on November 28 pertaining to a new order for committees, it has resulted in five vacancies in the following subcommittees: The Subcommittee on Communication, the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan, the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates, the Subcommittee on Human Resources and the Subcommittee on Diversity. A motion template was distributed in your package. Can I have a motion to fill the vacancies?
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I move that the Honourable Senator Dawson be added as a member of the Subcommittee on Communication.
[English]
That the Honourable Senator Dean be added as a member of the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan.
[Translation]
That the Honourable Senator Wetston be added as a member of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates.
[English]
That the Honourable Senator Munson be added as a member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources.
[Translation]
Lastly, that the Honourable Senator Munson be added as a member of the Subcommittee on Diversity.
[English]
The Chair: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
The next item is a global update on the work of the Subcommittee on Human Resources. I invite Vanessa Bastos from the Human Resources Directorate to the witness table. It is my understanding that Senator Saint-Germain will speak first, followed by a presentation by Vanessa.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I’m presenting a verbal report on the work carried out by the Subcommittee on Human Resources since the adoption of its first report on June 14.
In the report, the subcommittee made four recommendations. One of the recommendations is a directive to the Human Resources Directorate to provide mandatory training on the prevention of harassment in the workplace for all senators and Senate employees, including managers.
I can inform you that two sessions were held on November 20 and 27 for senators. The subcommittee also recommended training for Senate administration managers, which took place on October 26 and November 2 and 16.
Our Human Resources team, represented by Ms. Bastos, will soon be providing more details on the outcome and assessment of these sessions. In the meantime, I want to thank Diane McCullagh, Chief Human Resources Officer, and Vanessa Bastos, People, Culture and Inclusion Lead in the Human Resources Directorate, who worked hard. I can personally vouch for this. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the subcommittee members, namely, Senator Tannas, Senator Jaffer, who worked remotely, Senator Moncion and Senator Tkachuk. We have a serious and dedicated team. I’m grateful for their participation and for the time that they spent on this issue. I also want to thank the clerk and the analysts from the Library of Parliament.
Mr. Chair, after Ms. Bastos’ presentation and the question period, I want to finish my report by providing some brief additional information.
[English]
The Chair: Vanessa, be brief, please, because we are running out of time.
Vanessa Bastos, Lead, People, Culture and Inclusion, Senate of Canada: Absolutely.
Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to be here today to provide you with an overview of the training that’s been recently completed for senators and Senate administration leaders.
[Translation]
The training was developed in partnership with ADR Education, a company that specializes in dispute settlement, conflict resolution and mediation.
[English]
Some of the primary objectives of the training were, first, to familiarize senators and Senate leaders with the Senate’s harassment policy; to strengthen the skills of our leaders in being able to effectively manage conflict and other issues that could potentially lead to harassment; and to provide insight on the resources available to help address issues, should they arise.
[Translation]
The sessions were designed to be highly interactive, by giving participants the opportunity to explore diverse and realistic scenarios. These scenarios helped them understand how to better manage the team during conflicts that could sometimes lead to harassment.
[English]
As the senator mentioned, on October 26 and 27, we held seven sessions — four for the senators — and we had a full attendance of 90 senators. There were 11 senators who, for a number of very valid reasons, were not able to attend, but they will be part of a makeup session that we will be hosting in February of next year. That represented a full participation of 89 per cent at the senator level. In terms of the Senate administration, we had the full participation of our leaders, which was 41 employees.
Overall, both groups of participants found the training extremely valuable: 37 per cent of the 51 senators who responded were extremely satisfied with the session, its content and value; and 59 per cent indicated being fully satisfied. On the Senate administration side, we had a total of 31 respondents, of which 74 per cent were extremely satisfied with the content provided and 26 per cent indicated full satisfaction.
Several participants also commented on the fact that it is important for the Senate to continue to hold regular sessions on similar topics to really permit the organization to continue to make concerted efforts to strengthen our workplace culture.
[Translation]
We’re very satisfied with the results achieved to date and we hope to achieve a similar level of success with the employees whose training will begin next year, in February.
[English]
Thank you, senators, for the opportunity to present to you. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Do you have anything to add, Senator Saint-Germain, before we ask questions?
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I want to briefly inform the CIBA members that the subcommittee’s second report on the Senate’s policy on prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace is almost complete. We still have some alignments to confirm with the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators. I intend to present this report when the Senate resumes in early 2019.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions for Senator Saint-Germain or Vanessa?
Senator Tkachuk: I know she thanked all the other senators on the committee, as Senator Saint-Germain would do, but I’d like to congratulate her. This was a very difficult process, full of debate, but she was able to steer it in a very positive direction. In the end, we came up with a policy we all were in favour of. I don’t think we had any dissenting voices — not even me, which is really kind of strange. So it was very good.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. Coming from you, that’s high praise.
Are there any other questions? Thank you, Vanessa.
We will move on to Item No. 6. The next item in the agenda is a report from the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets. I invite Blair Armitage, Principal Clerk of the Committees Directorate, to the witness table. I think the report has been sent to you for information. Senator Verner will make a presentation, followed by questions.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Honourable senators, I’m honoured to table the twenty-second report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets. This document provides a summary of the travel activities of the Senate committees for 2015-16 and 2016-17. Mr. Armitage, Principal clerk of the Committees Directorate, will also be available after my presentation to discuss the process of preparing this report and to answer your questions.
In 2007, the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration decided that the Senate committees would prepare detailed reports following each travel activity. These post-activity reports include a breakdown of the amount requested for each line object in a committee’s budget, with the corresponding actual expenditure.
These documents are first reviewed by the chairs and deputy chairs of the committees that incurred the expenses, then by the Principal Clerk of the Committees Directorate, and lastly, by the subcommittee members. Once these three steps have been completed, your subcommittee then tables a summary document, such as today’s document, with the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. The document includes the post-activity reports of each committee. In March 2014, the Internal Economy Committee decided to table the post-activity expenditure reports in the Senate, in order to better inform Canadian taxpayers about the committees’ budgets and actual expenditures.
For information purposes, the subcommittee’s last committee post-activity expenditure report, which concerned the 2014-15 fiscal year, was presented to the Internal Economy Committee on September 29, 2016. Today’s report contains a summary of 21 post-activity reports for 2015-16 and 2016-17. In these two fiscal years, 21 travel activities were carried out at a cost of $934,251, out of a total of 23 that had been approved by the Senate for $2,548,188. This resulted in a surplus of $1,613,937, which was returned to the central budget. Approximately 37 per cent of the approved funds were actually spent.
You’ll note that there’s a significant gap between the amounts approved and the amounts spent by the committees. However, I want to point out that the approved budgets included travel funds for a total of 234 senators, and the actual number of travellers was 126. This is equivalent to a participation rate of just over 60 per cent. This had a significant impact on the committees’ actual expenditures, as stated in the report. In addition, other factors related to travel planning and the budget approval process, which are also highlighted in the report, explain the discrepancy.
In closing, I want to inform you that the committee post-activity reports for 2017-18 weren’t included in today’s summary, since the Committees Directorate is currently conducting a final review of the documents. The reports will be presented to the subcommittee in early 2019.
Thank you. I’m ready to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions for Senator Verner or Blair Armitage? If there are no questions, we will go to Item No. 7, other matters. Are there any other matters? If not, we’ll go briefly in camera.
Honourable senators, before we go in camera, may I remind you that, pursuant to the decision adopted by this committee in December last year, each committee member is allowed to have only one staff person during the in camera portion of the meeting? I hope you will respect that.
(The committee continued in camera.)