THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 28, 2019
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:30 a.m., in camera and in public, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Sabi Marwah (Chair) in the chair.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Good morning. 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 for those watching on the webcast or online, I would ask each senator to introduce themselves.
Senator Munson: Jim Munson, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest from the Gulf region of Quebec.
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, Ontario.
Senator Wetston: Howard Wetston, Ontario.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Housakos: Leo Housakos, Quebec.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: David Tkachuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters, Saskatchewan, deputy chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Honourable senators, a copy of the public minutes from February 21, 2019, is in your package. Are there any questions or changes?
Can I have a motion to adopt the minutes?
Senator Saint-Germain: So moved.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Saint-Germain to adopt the minutes. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Colleagues, the next item is a report from the Subcommittee on Human Resources. Senator Saint-Germain will give us a brief overview of the main changes to the report from last week.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Following our constructive discussions last week on the draft policy, the members of the Subcommittee on Human Resources met this week. We’re proposing changes to six recommendations. I’ll refer you to the briefing book. These changes are specifically indicated in the English and French versions. I’ll briefly point out the main changes.
Recommendation No. 9 would be changed to take into account a comment that enables us to be more specific about how documents are released or distributed. The revised text specifies that we’ll make the new Senate anti-harassment policy readily available to everyone — employees and all Senate members — in printed and electronic form, and that we’ll incorporate the policy into every contract. This is the first recommendation.
For Recommendation No. 15, we’re proposing to change the first part to state that, in relation to all complaints of harassment and violence, the new Senate anti-harassment policy requires the appointment of an impartial third party to investigate the matter and produce a written report with findings and recommendations. We’ve removed the “assessment” and “decision” notions, as requested by the committee members.
The third change, which concerns Recommendation No. 18, is more technical. The words “which largely prohibits” in the original text have been replaced in the revised text with “and prohibit the disclosure of any information.” It’s the second to last line. The change has obviously been made in English as well.
The next change, which concerns Recommendation No. 22, is more substantial and takes into account the comments provided. In the revised text, we’re proposing that, when the impartial third party has determined that a harassment complaint made against a member of a senator’s staff is well-founded, the investigation report be sent to the senator and to the steering committee of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, and that the senator have two working days to communicate their observations and recommendations on the matter to the steering committee.
In the second paragraph of Recommendation No. 22, we’re proposing an addition to the following sentence: “That, taking into consideration the Senator’s observations and recommendations, the steering committee of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration be empowered to impose any necessary remedies and sanctions against a member of a Senator’s staff, in accordance with the new Senate anti-harassment policy, and that the decision by the steering committee of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration be subject to appeal or review by the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, which must meet in camera when considering the matter.” I repeat: which must meet in camera.
The final change that we’re proposing this morning concerns Recommendation No. 23. The revised text proposes, in the second paragraph of the change, in the second sentence, “that the decision by the steering committee of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration regarding the relevant sector chief — we’re talking here about sector chiefs in the Senate administration — be subject to appeal or review by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, which must meet in camera when considering the matter.”
Colleagues, the subcommittee members find that all the proposed changes to six of the report’s recommendations are in line with the comments and objective of the members during our discussions last week.
[English]
The Chair: We will open up for questions from senators.
Senator Marshall: I have a couple of comments.
Recommendation No. 15 — we may have covered this before — who’s an “impartial third party”? These would be outside firms, would they?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes. It is explained in the report. If you look at the text under this recommendation, it is clearly explained. It is an external expert.
Senator Marshall: So we’ll keep a list of organizations, companies or individuals with expertise in this area, and then we would tap into them. Okay, thank you.
When I look at Recommendation Nos. 22 and 23, I was just trying to run the two. Recommendation No. 22 is for senators’ staff, and then Recommendation No. 23 is for admin staff. I was trying to run the two processes parallel, but they’re different. When you look at Recommendation No. 23, all of the responsibility resides with the sector chief, the administration person in charge of that area. They’re going to impose the necessary remedies, et cetera.
But when you look at the senator’s office, it’s almost like the senator is outside the process. The report is going to steering. It’s the senator’s staff, but the senator only has input into the process. I can foresee, just thinking of my own office, that if there was a complaint within my office, and I felt that the person who was harassing should be terminated but steering says, “No, they should just be punished in some sort of way,” and then I have to go through this big appeal process but the administration people don’t have that same thing. The two systems aren’t lined up.
That’s a concern, from my point of view. It’s almost like the senator has very little authority or responsibility within his or her office when compared to the sector chief.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: First, it must be understood that CIBA is the official employer of all the employees of senators’ offices. In terms of administration, the organization, supervision rules and hierarchy are completely different. Senate employees have only one employer, which is CIBA.
When it comes to Recommendation No. 22, which we’re proposing this morning, Senators have an important role to play in terms of this policy. First, their main role is to ensure that their office has a harassment-free work environment. In this context, their role is to prevent harassment. Despite their efforts, harassment situations may still occur. Following an investigation, these situations would result in a complaint according to the independent investigator. In that case, Recommendation No. 22, as amended, would ensure that the senator whose employee is the subject of the complaint is informed, that the senator receives the report at the same time as the CIBA steering committee members, and that the senator submits recommendations and comments to the steering committee. In this context, CIBA isn’t bound, because the steering committee members will exercise their judgment. It isn’t binding on the steering committee members, but it’s an opportunity for the senator to exert significant influence. In addition, the senator could appeal the steering committee’s decision, whether the decision is a remedy or sanction, to all CIBA members.
The senators still have an important role to play. I want to reiterate the importance of having a fair process for all the senators’ employees, and a process that provides references that apply to everyone. During the subcommittee’s consultations, it was a key element brought to our attention by the employees in senators’ offices who were represented following formal consultations with each other. The recommendation is extremely significant, and the change that we’re making this morning reflects the role that the senators must play in the process.
[English]
Senator Batters: First of all, in both of the revised sanction elements, 22 and 23, in response to questions that we raised last week, I see that it says “Subject to appeal or review.” I’m wondering why you include both of those words. Why not use the word “appeal”? Does “review” mean something different there, or is it a synonym?
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Remedies are less formal than an appeal in the event of a sanction. It’s the link made. The term “review” would apply in the case of remedies, and “appeal” would apply in the case of stronger sanctions. For the sake of accuracy, it must be included in the texts. Senator Batters, I’ve noticed that, in a number of your comments, you focus heavily on the importance of word choice and accuracy. That’s why we insisted on including both words.
[English]
Senator Batters: I’m not sure I understand the difference because it was saying the decision of steering committee, and all steering is doing is deciding the sanction, not whether or not it happened. Whether or not it happened is decided by the impartial third party. Why is the decision of the steering committee then subject to appeal or review?
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Last week, after CIBA’s decision, we emphasized the importance of having another forum for the employee concerned or even for the senator responsible for the employee. This forum would give them another opportunity to express their point of view. The Subcommittee on Human Resources finds that the most appropriate forum would be CIBA. We refer to the terms “appeal” or “review” because we’re talking about a CIBA decision to impose a sanction, corrective measure or remedy. It’s the decision of the CIBA steering committee, which is a CIBA subcommittee. When employees or senators want to appeal a decision, they appeal to CIBA. Let me remind you that CIBA must meet in camera.
[English]
Senator Batters: I certainly raised that, as did others last week, saying there needs to be a right to appeal. I’m not convinced about the need for review.
Why is there the difference between, in Recommendation No. 22, when you’re dealing with senators’ staff, that particular appeal or review would be in front of CIBA? It says nothing about going further to the Senate. I’m wondering why that is not another option.
Also, why is that one not in camera but then it’s specifically stated it must be in camera for Recommendation No. 23, the sanctions for Senate administration employees. Why would it be required to meet in camera for CIBA for that appeal but not for senators’ staff appeals?
Senator Saint-Germain: If it’s not written, it is a mistake because the intent is that — it’s written. It’s there.
Senator Batters: Not in mine. Maybe in French. In English, it isn’t. The very last line of the text for each of those.
Senator Saint-Germain: You are right, and thank you for that. The intent is the same treatment. It’s a translation issue we had.
Senator Batters: What about if there’s a situation where one staff member of a senator is alleged to have harassed a staff member of a different senator, which senator would make the recommendation in that case? Would it be the senator who is the one whose employee has allegedly harassed, or would it be the senator whose employee is the one who has been harassed?
Senator Saint-Germain: It might be both.
Senator Batters: That might need to be cleared up in more detail of the policy.
Have these recommendations been approved by the Senate Law Clerk’s Office?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes. We worked with the Senate Law Clerk.
Senator Housakos: First, the changes are already a step forward. The only thing I want to point out is that I heard earlier Senator Saint-Germain make a couple of comments in regard to the status of our employees and the administration employees.
As some of us who are a little bit older and been here a bit longer remember that for the longest time we had an objective to try to streamline the border wall between administrative and Senate employees. I remind all colleagues that if you look at the SOMP, the rule is fundamentally clear, and has been for a long time, that when it comes to employment issues in a senator’s office, the ultimate authority is the senator when it comes to their employees.
Right now we’re certainly changing that. Senator Saint-Germain, you’re absolutely right, our employees are contractually under the authority of the Senate. That was a decision taken because, for administrative reasons, they’re there, but from the perspective of employer-employee relations, HR historically has always acquiesced to the authority of the senator when it comes to their staff. That has always been an important principle we have to maintain.
I also think it’s imperative that whatever changes we go forward with, be it harassment or anything else in the future, we need to create more parity between our political staff and the administrative staff. Right now, if you look at the way we operated in terms of overtime pay and benefits, there’s a complete divide right now between the political and administrative staff.
Right now, you see, again, in this harassment policy, one of the objectives of the HR committee was to create an alignment in terms of harassment in the Senate as an institution, and that alignment is still not 100 per cent there. You see there is, as Senator Marshall points out, a different approach when it comes to the final appeal process and when it comes to putting into place punishment or remediation of particular cases. There’s still a difference in how we treat these things.
We had a case a few years ago of a former director of HR that was terminated, for example. It’s not a harassment policy, but that individual should always have the right. I don’t care if it’s a political staff or if it’s an administrative staff, they should always have the right to go through an appeal process and that appeal process has always been in the Senate, steering, Internal Economy and even the Senate as a whole.
Something as critical as a harassment policy, sexual harassment or bullying or whatever, the appeal process has to be clear and I think it’s clear here, but it has to be aligned for administrative staff and political staff. I don’t necessarily have the solution, but I just want to flag that.
Senator Plett: I want to, in large part, echo what Senator Housakos has already said. I find it strange when I need staff in my office. I’m entitled by myself to advertise. I’m entitled to interview. I’m entitled to hire. I’m entitled to set the salary. And I’m actually, quite frankly, entitled to fire. And yet I’m not entitled to take action against somebody who, in my office, accuses another staffer of harassment that I have to turn that over to an impartial body, and I don’t have a part in that.
I think we dealt with this, again, as Senator Housakos said, when we dealt with SOMP and SARs, and I chaired that committee a year or two ago.
I really believe, chair, that our first step, if it’s in my office, should be that I have the right to address the situation, hopefully to the satisfaction of all parties, entirely. If I address it in an unsatisfactory manner, my staff should have the right of appeal somewhere. But it shouldn’t be me having the right to appeal something to CIBA, steering or some impartial body. Yes, they may be given the facts, but they haven’t been in my office. They haven’t seen the exchanges that are going on in the office. Contractually, yes, they are the employee of the Senate, but practically, they are the employee of my office or your office.
I, quite frankly, believe that we should in some way amend this, that the authority — I’ll read this here. I’m not making this a motion. It’s more for discussion to not give the authority to steering of CIBA, but instead state that the relevant senator to whom an employee reports has the authority, as per SOMP and SARs, and respectful of privilege, to impose any necessary remedies and sanctions in accordance with the new policy. However, senators are encouraged to consult with human resources at their discretion and are also free to refer the matter of sanctions to an agreed-upon, impartial third party, including steering.
If people aren’t happy with that, they should have the right to appeal. I’m not suggesting that. But to have to that the first step, I find this is really a Big Brother type of policy and I would respectfully ask that we consider Recommendation 22 and make some changes to it. I believe in my office, first and foremost, I should have the right to deal with my staff as I see fit. If that isn’t satisfactory, then it goes to an appeal, but it should not first go to an outside body and then allow me to weigh in after.
Senator Moncion: If you read the report, in French on page 42, when we talk about protection —
[Translation]
— with regard to reprisals, there are employee statements that indicate that there were situations where complaints were filed, and reprisals were then taken in the office. When you examine the exercise, if you take the recommendations out of the text, you don’t have all of the related context. In this case, I invite you to read what led us to propose that measure, which may explain what led us to recommend an impartial external process.
Yes, ultimately we agree that in normal circumstances, senators are responsible for hiring their employees or dismissing them, in the absence of any issues. However, in cases where there is harassment or violence, for instance when employees are shouted at or when there are other abnormal situations, and nothing is done for the employee but an analysis was done by a third party, especially when the employee feels wronged, then those circumstances fall outside any kind of normal framework. I urge you to read the text that accompanies the recommendation so that you can better understand the context.
[English]
Senator Plett: Chair, since she responded to me, I think I should respond. Maybe I lost some of it in the translation, senator, and if I did, I apologize. But what I’m hearing you say is that we’ve had situations where things don’t work and now we want to try to put some policy in that will be perfect.
We can’t put a policy in here that will be perfect. When we do this, there will be situations where steering or whatever body there is will make the wrong decision. This is not an accusation made against a senator. If the accusation is made against me, certainly I shouldn’t be the arbiter. I should have to stand aside and give my testimony to some impartial body.
This is an employee harassing another employee in my office and there is no accusation against me or against you. Then we should have the first right. You’re all saying that, “Well, if I don’t like the way steering handles it, I can go and say, well, you handled it wrongly.” That is what’s implied. That may not be what is being said.
I’m saying let me first make the decision. If I do it wrong, that staff should not be afraid to go somewhere else. That staffer should maybe say to me, “Senator, you made the wrong decision and I would like another party to deal with this,” and I should be fully allowing that, and maybe even the first time around. If my staffer says, “You know, Senator Plett, I think you have, over the course of time, sided with staffer A over me. I really feel uncomfortable with you dealing with this. I want to go somewhere else.” Then they should have the right. But not first right. It needs to be dealt with properly.
I am the employer, by all stretches of the imagination. I’m even entitled to fire that employee after the decision has been made and I don’t like the decision. In my office, I can release an employee because, quite frankly, I can say I don’t think you are doing a good job; you’re gone.
Senator Moncion: I agree with you. There is a two-day moratorium where you receive the report and you have two days to respond.
Senator Plett: I have two days to appeal a decision that I should have made in the first place. I’m sorry; your argument doesn’t change my mind.
The Chair: Senator Saint-Germain, do you want to respond?
Senator Saint-Germain: I want to suggest that we take all comments and then I will respond with the help of the subcommittee members, at the end only.
Senator Marshall: I had a second comment. You may have addressed it, Senator Saint-Germain, when you responded to Senator Batters.
In Recommendation No. 23, if the sector chief within administration imposes remedies and sanctions, should there be an appeal process? Was that the question that Senator Batters had?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes, and it’s the same.
Senator Marshall: It’s not there. So there will be one put in — it’s not there in the English.
Senator Saint-Germain: It’s supposed to be there.
Senator Marshall: No. What I read, there’s no appeal mechanism there.
Senator Saint-Germain: You are on Recommendation No. 23?
Senator Marshall: Yes. See the revised text? It says the relevant sector chief can impose the necessary remedies and sanctions. Then it doesn’t say anything about appeals process.
Senator Saint-Germain: Second paragraph. Do you have it?
Senator Marshall: The second paragraph in mine says that when the relevant sector chief is the subject. But what about if the relevant sector chief is not the subject of the investigation?
Senator Saint-Germain: An employee has a sector chief that will address within the administration the issues with regard to harassment. Are you suggesting that more than 400 employees of the Senate come to this committee?
Senator Marshall: No, I’m just wondering if the employee is not happy with the decision of the sector chief, should there be an appeals process?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes, there is one, but within the administration for the employees. Only the chiefs of sectors will come, if necessary, to appeal to CIBA. Because we don’t have to manage all the employees of the Senate. We have managers for that. We pay them. They are paid for that and they are doing their job. But the chief managers, it’s different, because we need CIBA, because they are in the management of the Senate. So this process is applying to them.
Senator Housakos: That’s the problem with this policy. Senator Saint-Germain, you just highlighted philosophically what the problem with this policy is. At the end of the day, every employee in the Senate, from PPS to the administration to our political staff, are accountable and work for the Senate and the senators. There’s no discretion and there’s no difference.
So, yes, the 400 employees of the Senate are accountable to steering, and the 300 employees that are working in senators’ offices are accountable ultimately to senators and to steering. The point I was trying to make earlier is that we create this discrepancy. Senator Dawson and I know we’ve been fighting this for a long time, that the Senate administration and the Senate offices and the Senate, they all are accountable to senators and not a parallel. We we’ve fought hard in the past to try and streamline that philosophy of them and us, and this policy, which I think is so fundamental philosophically to this place, has to be a policy that is fair, equitable and applies to everybody in the same way.
So what is going on with this policy, that’s not the case? You’ve confirmed that it’s not the case, that ultimately speaking, somebody who is harassed or going through a harassment process and happens to be working in HR or in Finance or in Communication, they’re accountable to the administrative heads. But yet a political staffer going through a similar type of conflict are not accountable to their heads, which are the senators, which is absurd.
Because ultimately, if you look at the SOMP and the Rules, every employee of the Senate is ultimately accountable to Senator Marwah, steering, Internal Economy and ultimately the chamber.
Colleagues, you laugh at this and you think it’s not important, but those of us who have been here for a long time and remember some of the problems we had in 2011, 2013, that spilled out to bigger problems that this institution had to deal with for two or three years is because senators did not have final accountability. And they didn’t have final accountability on expenses, they didn’t have final accountability on travel rules. There were other people taking our decisions. What this will also do is open us up to litigation on the part of employees who will say, “Wait a second. Why is there a double standard of how a political staffer goes about their harassment complaint when I, under Ms. Legault in Finance or the CCO’s office, don’t have the same particular right of appeal?” These are two parallel operations.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Mr. Chair and esteemed members of the committee, I want to remind you of an important word that Senator Housakos used, which was the word “institution.” The Senate is an institution. All of the employees of the Senate are paid from public funds, and the Senate will be subject to Bill C-65, which will govern labour relations in Parliament. The Senate is an employer that must provide a harassment-free workplace to its employees. That policy is necessary and mandatory if we are to implement and comply with the act passed by Parliament.
A very important distinction must be made between CIBA and the Senate administration as a whole, which is made up of employees who have managers, who are paid to manage. It is not accurate to say that the members of CIBA, who are parliamentarians, are responsible for managing all labour relations in the Senate. We have a Human Resources Directorate and managers whose job that is. However, issues that involve managers should come under CIBA, which is comparable to a board of directors. But we must not interfere, as has happened too often, with the internal administration of the Senate.
Secondly, every senator cannot make up their own rules with respect to preventing harassment and managing it when it occurs. Every senator is subject to the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. What we are proposing does not at all exclude management by senators. A senator’s first role is to prevent harassment and ensure that there are healthy working conditions in his office. When, despite his or her efforts, alleged harassment occurs, the senator has an immediate role to play. And let me add that the independent investigator is better qualified than any senator to conduct an investigation. When the independent investigator has properly carried out his investigation, he can then come to the senator’s office and question all of the victims, and the senator, whose point of view will also be taken into account. That independent investigator will prepare a report regarding senators’ employees that will be simultaneously submitted to the senator or senators, if more than one senator’s office was involved, and to the members of CIBA.
You will have an opportunity to make comments or recommendations to CIBA’s steering committee, and we are also adding the possibility of an appeal to the committee as a whole, which will have to meet in camera from time to time.
I think this is a process that encourages fairness and will mean that employees, no matter which senator’s office they work for, will be submitted to the same rules and the same investigation process, and will have an opportunity to have their voices heard. I think this process would be much fairer than the current one.
I want to reiterate that to the employee representatives, this was the most important point, the one they wanted to emphasize. The current system is unfair, because it takes place in the context of annual contracts, one-year renewable contracts, whereas senators are appointed for life, until they reach the age of 75. In that context, between the senator and the employee, the choice is often too easy. I say this with all due respect for the whips and liaison officers, for our leaders. This is an unfair context, involving a senator and an employee whose contract will end in a few months. It is important to emphasize that.
[English]
Senator Marshall: I didn’t finish what I was trying to say with regard to Recommendation No. 23. My question is really narrow. I just want to know, yes or no, if you have a sector chief that imposes a sanction and if either the complainant or the person who is being complained against does not agree with the sanctions, is there an appeal process? If there is, what is it? Is there an appeal process? There’s no appeal process?
Senator Saint-Germain: They don’t go to court.
[Translation]
Every employee may turn to the remedies of civil society and the legal system, notwithstanding this policy. An employee who believes he has a case that would stand up in court can launch legal proceedings, but that is not our topic here.
There are rules that apply to management within the administration. When an employee has a supervisor or section chief whose decision he wishes to challenge, he must address his request to a higher body. That higher body for the employees is made up of managers, the administration, and may go as far as the Clerk of the Senate. Employees who are not managers may avail themselves of that remedy.
As for managers, once again the policy is the same as for senators’ employees; the investigation report prepared by the independent investigator will be given to the manager and to the steering committee. But in the case of a simple employee — and I used the term with great respect — who is not a manager, there is a hierarchical mechanism which means that there is the immediate supervisor, the hierarchical supervisor, and the appeal process lies at that level.
[English]
Senator Tannas: The point has been raised that administration employees who are not sector chiefs and who are not senators’ staff need a right of appeal. Unfortunately, our Director of Human Resources is not here today. She’s away ill. But I suggest that they should have a right of appeal. I think we all agree to that.
We should, first, find out if there is a right of appeal. I suspect in the policies around here, in the government, there is some way in which you appeal that you got fired or that you don’t like your punishment. I’m virtually certain there would be, right? I’m sure here there is that, but if there isn’t, we should make sure there is. We should instruct administration, as part of this process, that there be an appeal process for people who are not sector chiefs, senators’ staff, employees, make sure that road is available. Some of it will be in union contracts. We have to make sure that every single employee has some path to an appeal, right? I totally agree with that. Then I’d like to go on the list for all the other things we’re talking about.
Senator Dean: First of all, it goes without saying that if the system that was previously and is currently in place worked, we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now. Partially it hasn’t worked because of the asymmetry between the employment relationships between regularly employed Senate staff and those who are employed under these kinds of marginal periodic contracts in senators’ offices.
Two points on that. The reason we have these sorts of policies in the first place is to encourage people to avoid the use of them. And to avoid the use of these policies, it’s incumbent on every person in every management and leadership position, and that especially includes senators, to establish a climate, expectations, to model behaviour in their offices that encourages respectful behaviour between their staff and other people in the Senate. That’s step one, being proactive and making sure these things don’t happen in the first place. That’s a primary role for senators.
Second, in those cases where something does occur — and we hope that it doesn’t — there’s nothing in this policy, from my point of view, that doesn’t preclude a senator from getting on top of it really quickly and avoiding this moving into a formal process.
I think all of this sort of latitude that we’re looking for is here. This is a backstop. It’s our job to ensure that issues don’t make it into this process. The way that you do that is to establish a climate of respect in our offices. I simply want to say that.
Senator Dawson: First of all, this is great progress. I’ve been here long enough to admit this is much needed and it is more of a warning than anything else, but I don’t want it to give the people listening the impression that there are dozens and dozens of complaints happening every week and no one is dealing with them. This is a solution to a problem that exists but let’s not take it out of context and make it something that has been happening. My comments are not meant to protect senators. If senators are accused of anything, I certainly will not hesitate in bringing it here as quickly as possible. But to make the distinction, if you can solve the problem in two working days, why continue debating the problem? That’s the rule for the senators. It’s not the rule for the administration. There’s no deadline for the administration to react. I think that is certainly a little bit of a distinction. I don’t understand why we’re making that distinction. But, again, let’s not exaggerate. Let’s be sure people understand that nobody who is complaining about some of the wording thinks that senators should be protected. It’s got nothing to do with senators. It’s harassment between senator employees or Senate administrative employees, not with senators.
In the debate that’s been going on, I think we’re amplifying a problem. We do have to deal with it. We need to adopt this policy. We have to give it as a warning that we will not tolerate harassment. But don’t give the impression that there’s something happening that we’re trying to hide. This is not the objective of this debate. Trying to improve it so that we don’t have to deal with it again, I think is much better than adopting it if we still have doubts. I don’t want to leave here having to vote on a harassment policy. We agree on our harassment policy. If we don’t agree on the wording, let’s clear the wording and get on with it. Please, we don’t want to give the impression, once again, of an amplified problem that is not there.
Senator Tannas: Here are my comments as a member of the committee and as one who worked to try to find some kind of a compromise, a balance, from the last time we discussed the issue of, particularly, senators’ staff. I’d like to say I think we’ve put away the administration and this idea that somehow they’re going to be treated without appeal. We’ll make sure that happens. I think we can make that instruction easily. We don’t have to amend anything. For all we know it probably already exists.
I want to talk about senators’ staff and I want to, first of all, emphasize the testimony that we heard from senators’ staff. The last person who, when they get to this level where they have been in the office, they have attempted to raise this issue — I mean, we all have to recognize that if something this serious is going on in our office, we know it and we’re ignoring it. For somebody to actually put themselves in a position, one of our employees, that they are going to go through this kind of a process and come out the other side with a finding that, yes, they were wronged, the last judge is the senator in that office, realistically. Now, we can all talk about our privileges, we can all think about what great managers we are, but the fact of the matter is that if it gets to that level, the senator is no longer in charge. We now have a reputational issue that affects potentially all of us. So, to me, the balance that we have now arrived at is that the senator has an opportunity at that moment to provide context, to provide recommendations, and the steering committee, in their wisdom, can balance that with the report they have about what happened and try to come up with the sage decision.
We then said, well, what if steering is political? What if there’s bad politics going on at the moment and it’s two against one with, and they don’t like that senator, so they gang up on them? Okay, we can go now to all of CIBA. If that doesn’t work, then a senator, of course, can go all the way to the Senate of Canada with their issue.
I think we have done yeoman’s work in trying to protect and achieve a balance between our privileges, our rights to hire and fire in normal circumstances, what the employee has told us, what the public expects of us and what we ought to expect from each other as colleagues.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I think we are working hard to modernize the Senate, to make it more transparent and fairer for our employees. The harassment prevention policy is a policy we need. It isn’t a recipe to bake a cake.
There is nothing in this policy that says that a senator who has a problem in his office should not intervene. It is entirely logical and it is the responsibility one has as a manager. That policy guarantees fair treatment for all of the employees who work here and with whom we have a relationship of trust. Our offices do not have 55 employees, but two or three, and in some cases five.
From the moment when an employee who is harassed speaks to us as responsible managers, and we undertake proceedings, but the employee is not satisfied, that person then has a security net known as the “harassment policy.” It is clear that he may use it to defend his rights. That is the policy. Do you agree, Senator Plett? That is the policy.
The policy means that everyone will be treated fairly. Without the policy, faced with the same situation, I may make decision X, whereas my colleague may make decision Y. I think this policy is a big step forward in ensuring fairness. However, it does not relieve us of our responsibilities as managers. It isn’t a cake recipe. We can’t start on page 1 and add a spoonful of sugar, or a spoonful of salt. It’s a policy that allows our organization to be more transparent, and we really need it in the current context.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair. I will, as well, try to be brief.
I want the members of the subcommittee that drafted this to understand that nobody is questioning whether they had tried to bring us a fair policy. I have the highest confidence in all members of the subcommittee for bringing this forward. That does not, however, mean that we have to just sit back and agree with every aspect of it. When Senator Forest says everybody is being treated fairly, that may be the case. I happen to believe that everybody being treated fairly, if they are being treated poorly, is not the best solution either.
Senator Saint-Germain says an independent investigator is more capable than a senator. I don’t buy into that. I believe that I can be a fair employer. I have five or six staff whom I have regularly talked to since we started the sexual harassment policy and so on and so forth, and asked them time and again, “Am I treating you fairly? If there is something I am doing, I want you to raise it immediately before it becomes a problem.”
And I think this policy takes away from that. Instead of somebody coming to me and asking me to try to solve the problem, we’re encouraging them to go to three other people who aren’t in my office and ask them to solve the problem. I have high regard for all three members of steering. Senator Batters has been put there as a result of her caucus having the confidence in her to be there and Senator Marwah because the group of ISG saw him fit, and Senator Munson the same.
Senator Saint-Germain talked about the whips. Right now, the whips have been appointed exactly the same way as the members of steering, but all of a sudden the whips aren’t good enough, they aren’t making the right decisions, so let’s get three other members to make the decisions.
I don’t want us to say let’s put things under the carpet. That’s not what I want to say. But I want to say if we can stop an issue from becoming public and becoming a bigger issue than need be, let’s do it. The best way to do it is in our own office, if we can do that. If we cannot do that, it has to get larger than that. But we are saying let’s immediately go to an outside group.
Colleagues, yes, it might be in camera, yes, it may be private for a while, but these things become public very quickly. So I’m sorry to the members who have drafted this. I do not believe that Recommendation No. 22 is the best recommendation in the world. I think it could be very easily solved by us first trying to deal with the issue in our office, and, if we don’t do a good job, that we move it forward.
As Senator Dawson said, just as my final comment, people watching this must be believing by now that this place is coming apart at the seams with all the harassment — I’m still speaking, chair — that is not the case. Thank you.
The Chair: My apologies. I’d like to give Senator Saint-Germain the last word, and then we really have to bring this to a conclusion. We have three or four urgent items to deal with left on the agenda.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: I have a very short question for anyone around the table who can answer it. I heard in the previous statements that, ultimately, an employee could sue the Senate. Is it accurate to say that it is not possible for an individual to sue the institution?
[English]
The Chair: Is that addressed to —
Senator Verner: Anyone who is able to give me an answer.
The Chair: The law clerk, Mr. Bédard?
Michel Bédard, Acting Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: To answer your question, senator, we’ll make a distinction if it’s an employee of the Senate administration or that are employees of the Senate. Employees of the Senate administration are covered under Part 1 under what we refer to as PESRA, so they have a right to file a grievance. If they are unsatisfied with the decision of the grievance, they can go to the Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board.
For other employees of senators, they can always go before the general court of law. The fact that they cannot sue the Senate as an institution; in this case the employer is CIBA and CIBA can go before the court and can be sued as well as any other employer.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Thank you very much.
Mr. Bédard: I apologize; I realized I answered you in English, but you had asked your question in French. There will be some very limited circumstances where parliamentary privilege will apply. In those cases, the decision of the Senate or CIBA will be final. However, the Supreme Court ruling in the Chagnon case was handed down recently, and the court determined that this would only occur in very limited circumstances.
Senator Verner: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: Just a couple of things. I’m also on the subcommittee. No amount of policy would have prevented the issue that we dealt with a while ago, where a senator was under investigation. No amount of policy would have done that.
I also know from life experience, the last time we did this was in 2008-09 and we put together a policy. Senator Furey was the chair from the Liberal caucus and Senator Stratton from our caucus. There was a committee that also produced a report, but it was very important that the Senate buy in. To me, that’s the most important thing, that we can pass a policy, but if people don’t buy in, the policy has no effect whatsoever.
I like the debate that’s going on here. I expected that we would have a debate, and I expected that there would be senators who would want changes. As a subcommittee member, I think that’s a good thing. There are only a few senators here and there are 100 that we have to deal with. A hundred senators have to buy in and I know it’s a slow process, but I’ll tell you what, we’re going to meet our deadline of April for sure. Senator Saint-Germain, that’s why we got this thing done in time so that we could have this discussion and make sure that we got it right.
Those of you who have been in public institutions or are running businesses know that if your employees don’t buy in, the policy will be a failure, that’s for sure. So we have two weeks off, and I’m going to ask the deputy chair to bring it to our caucus and we have a discussion in our caucus. Heck, the employees can read it because we made it public. The employees can read it and write their senator or talk to their senator in their office and say, “I like this, or I think there’s a problem here.” I think that would be a good thing. It’s transparent. It’s positive. Then we’ll have a policy that will work for another eight or nine years and somebody else is going to be doing it again.
Anyway, that’s all I’d like to say. I’m sure Senator Saint-Germain didn’t mean to leave the impression that senators don’t control their own offices. Those are senator’s employees. I think maybe it got lost in translation. The Senate administers the payroll and everything, but they are senators’ offices and senators’ employees. That’s all I wanted to say.
Senator Housakos: I will be uncharacteristically very short.
I think the changes that have been made vis-à-vis the Senate staff and senators are reasonable. I understand ultimately we cannot be the final authority on these issues.
My concern is still on the administrative side. I’ve had a lot of experience. Senator Marwah, I hope you don’t have a couple of the experiences I had as chair, where you have a senior administrative member of the staff coming to you and saying, “You know what, I was harassed and abused. I never got a fair shake or a fair hearing, and I never felt I had the opportunity to speak to the ultimate authorities.”
The administration executes policy that this body and the Senate Chamber puts in place. That’s their job. They’re an execution arm for directives and authorities made by the Senate and by senators. There has to be, in that process, an opportunity, just like we have between our employees and the senator, where the senator and the employee has an opportunity to appeal to steering, there has to be an opportunity for those employees not to feel — it’s not clear that they have the right to appeal right now. Once their administrative boss they report to comes down with whatever decision is taken, it seems, with this policy, that it’s firm, it’s final, and they don’t have that opportunity to go to the ultimate authorities.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: First, I can make the commitment on behalf of the members of the subcommittee. We have to remember that the purpose of this report is to allow us to make decisions to draft a new policy. So this new policy to prevent and counter harassment will be submitted to the Committee of Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, and it will then have to be approved by the Senate as a whole by April 30. That is what we wish.
It will be important to clearly define the role of the Senate executive committee in the management of Senate employees, and that committee is different from CIBA. I wish to remind you — I’m sorry, I hope my explanations were not confusing — that the first role of senators is to manage the members of their teams to prevent harassment and foster a healthy working environment. I think that is very important.
That said, we often presume that a harassment complaint is filed by an employee against a senator, but it can be a complaint about senators’ employees who may have harassed Senate staff. That has to be taken into account. We need a professional, rigorous and more impartial mechanism that will be the same for all employees.
In conclusion, we have heard several points. The subcommittee can work with the Human Resources Directorate to develop the draft policy and allow us to perfect the appeal mechanism for Senate employees, so that on April 30, we can submit a revised draft Senate policy to counter and prevent harassment.
[English]
The Chair: If I could conclude, clearly this is a subject where there will always be a wide range of opinions. I think this issue for me, as Senator Tannas very eloquently articulated, is one of balance.
In my view, we have to move forward on this subject. We cannot keep trying to achieve perfection. I think we’re reaching a stage where perfection is the enemy of the better. So many of the issues, I would hope, will be covered off in the policy that will have to be developed. I think we heard a wide range of opinions. I would hope they will be covered in the policy that we will all have to vote on.
So the question is do we have consensus to present this, to agree to table this report, that the report be adopted and tabled in the Senate, and then we work collectively to get the policy brought back to us and voted on in the Senate eventually? We have to adopt it. That’s really the approach we have to decide on. I’d like to know how members would like to proceed.
I think Senator Saint-Germain was going to move a motion that the report be adopted and the report be tabled in the Senate. Do we have consensus on doing that, or do we wish to vote on it?
Senator Tkachuk: What happens? I’m lost here.
Senator Batters: There were a couple of points, though, that Senator Tannas was indicating about that appeal process for the Senate administration employees that should be worked into this. Shouldn’t we have that before we agree to adopt the policy?
Senator Tkachuk: Once you adopt it, it’s done.
Senator Saint-Germain: No. The policy will be approved after.
Senator Tannas: I think that we should, as part of the motion, add that we want the policy to clarify the appeal process for administration employees, and that if there is not an existing appeal path, that this policy needs to include one.
Senator Batters: In addition, when I brought up there were a couple of errors in the English version, those would obviously need to be corrected.
Senator Tannas: I think we should include that in this motion and go ahead and pass this recommendation, which will become the policy, and it will come back here.
Senator Batters: Right, with corrections made.
The Chair: Maybe I can try to read the motion. Let me just take a stab at it.
It is moved by Senator Saint-Germain that the report be adopted and that the subcommittee include an appeal process and that corrections be made to Recommendation No. 1. Is that essentially what we want to say?
Senator Batters: It’s not Recommendation No. 1. I think it was Recommendation No. 22. I can’t remember if there were additional parts that needed to be corrected in 23 also, but those corrections that I suggested earlier, which I hope someone was taking note of.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Translation as well.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: And then it would be presented in the Senate after this is done, right? So it’s not presented in the Senate today, but it’s presented when the amendments are brought back. Is that what we’re doing? I’m not sure what we’re doing here. What are we doing?
Senator Saint-Germain: If I may, I have a suggestion.
Senator Moncion: We are making a motion for corrections to the appeal process and corrections.
Senator Tkachuk: We haven’t made them. We’re saying the subcommittee should make them.
Senator Moncion: I wasn’t under that impression.
Senator Tkachuk: It’s not an impression. It’s a fact. What we’ve done is said to the subcommittee, “We want you to fix this.” Meanwhile, we’re adopting the report that isn’t fixed. To me, I don’t see how it can be presented in the Senate until we have a final report. That’s what we do here. We don’t dump it on the Senate and say, “Oh, by the way, it’s not completed yet. We’ve got a subcommittee that’s doing some changes.” We don’t do that.
Senator Housakos: We do now.
Senator Saint-Germain: The motion refers to Recommendation No. 1 which will be amended by adding: For the revised anti-harassment policy based on the findings and recommendations contained in this report and based on the request of CIBA for clarification of the appeal process for employees.
The Chair: It’s very difficult. We can’t have such a long motion; it’s going to make it unworkable. This is becoming unworkable. Either we take the report as-is and make the changes later, otherwise it’s not going to work.
Senator Saint-Germain: But the impact is that the HR directorate has to prepare this new anti-harassment policy which we will have to approve, CIBA, and then the chamber. Each decision we delay is a delay for adopting a new policy and having it in place.
The Chair: I’m not in favour of deferring moving forward on this. We keep coming back, and every meeting there’s a whole range of new things, and there always will be. This will carry on ad nauseam. Whether we adopt the report as we have right now, and we can make the changes in the next version or in the policy, and we vote on that; otherwise, we never stop. This is not going to work.
Senator Housakos: Wait until it gets to the Senate.
Senator Plett: Chair, you’re making a fair observation, but we have a fairly significant change that needs to be dealt with here. I’m not sure what the absolute panic is. We have an end-of-April deadline to meet. Here we are at the end of February. There are three weeks until the Thursday we come back. These changes can be properly made by then, and we can adopt a policy.
We are now wanting to adopt a report with the proviso that we are going to make corrections, and it has already been adopted. If you want consensus today, chair, which I agree with you 100 per cent, that’s what we should have rather than have a vote on this, it’s very reasonable to say that the report be corrected, taking into consideration what has been said here today. And we look at that report in three weeks from now, and if the corrections have been made, we don’t open it up again and start talking about my issues, but we look at what has been — did you have something to say?
Senator Munson: Lighten up.
The Chair: Senator Munson, please.
Senator Plett: We then come back in three weeks, and we do this by consensus.
Senator Batters: I agree with what Senator Plett said. We are the Senate; we are the home of sober second thought. We should have a report that is correct before it’s tabled in the Senate. That can easily happen, and at the same time as the people who are working on the overall policy, which is to be finished by the end of April, they could be doing that now. That doesn’t stop the work on that.
Senator Tkachuk: There’s nothing stopping it.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I move that we vote on the policy which was tabled. Since I have been here, I get the sense that this is the chamber of postponement. All we do here is postpone things. This is a document that will be used to draft our policy. Right now, we really have all the time we need to analyze the policy that will be implemented to ensure that all of the employees will have a proper and effective policy at their disposal. It needs a few amendments, it isn’t perfect, I agree, but I think that the spirit that will allow us to draft that policy is there. I move that we take comments into account and vote on the adoption of the document that has been submitted to us.
Senator Saint-Germain: I do hope to conclude. I thank Senator Forest for his proposal. However, given the comments we have heard, I feel that there is a great wish to draft a policy by April 30. We have understood the essence of the comments made this morning, and it is possible both to work on drafting the policy and finalizing the report so that CIBA may approve it by consensus. I think that is the most important thing. We need a consensus that allows us to have a policy that will be accepted and respected by everyone; not a diminished or reduced policy, but one that has been improved to make it manageable, and respects everyone’s responsibilities.
In that context — as chair of the subcommittee, I think that I can speak on behalf of the members — we commit to amending the report by the next meeting by taking this morning’s comments into account. At the same time, we will support the administration and the Human Resources Directorate in drafting the new policy that will be based on the recommendations in the report. If there is a consensus, I recommend that we proceed without a vote.
[English]
The Chair: Are we all in agreement with that approach?
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I agree, but I would just like to make a brief aside. Last week you asked for a week to present documents and amendments. You presented your amendments, and now there is another two-week delay to make corrections. I agree, but when we return, will we have the same discussion again, and hear the same comments? Will there be another one- or two-week delay before we can adopt the report?
[English]
The Chair: We have to bring closure because we have items to vote on quite urgently.
Senator Batters: Just to address that point by Senator Moncion, we brought up the same issues last week, and I can’t help it that they weren’t corrected in the manner that would provide an appropriate solution.
I agree with Senator Saint-Germain. We don’t vote on that this week. We get these finalized parts corrected. This is the Senate. We should have a corrected report before it’s tabled in the Senate. Then we can go forward next time. Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain.
Senator Tannas: Just to be clear — and I’m sorry if I’m tilling ground again — but my understanding is that the two items that we need to include or fix are, number one, to make sure that there is a clear path to appeal for every single employee of the Senate. From wherever their decision comes from, whoever makes their decision, we want to make sure that an employee has a path of appeal. That’s number one.
Number two is that there was something in one recommendation talking about meeting in camera with CIBA and one that omitted that, and we want them both to say “meeting in camera.”
The third thing was that there was something about review and appeal, and we want to either have one of those words but not both of those words. We want to have “appeal.” Is that right?
Senator Saint-Germain: Let’s consult with the Law Clerk.
Senator Tannas: So we walk out of here with what we’re supposed to do. Those are the three things I heard that we all had consensus on.
Senator Housakos: Define the appeal process available to administrative staff.
Senator Tannas: Bingo. Thank you.
The Chair: We have a clear understanding of the changes that have to be made; so that’s a good way to go about it. It’s a good approach. Those I assume the steering committee will make, but let’s make sure we have a clear understanding as well at the next meeting of CIBA when it comes back that if we do not have consensus at the time, we’re going to go to a vote under any circumstances.
If a new issue has been raised, that’s fine, you are welcome to raise them, but we are going to go to a vote and move forward on this issue. Are we all in agreement, senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We have 15 minutes left. There are some items that need to be done and need approval. The first one, there’s a travel request in Item No. 11, which is a travel request. Senator Verner, if you could talk to that, please.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the twenty-third report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, which includes recommended allocations for two committee budgets.
Before we discuss it, I wish to inform you that since April 1, the subcommittee recommended the release of $1,270,053, to fund 15 committee travel activities, out of a total budget of $1,882,000. To date, 14 of those trips have been completed. As of February 21, 2019, these committees have spent or committed $729,235 to fund the bulk of these trips.
The subcommittee met earlier this week to review two new budget requests for a total amount of $72,308. We first met with the chair and one steering committee member of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, who presented a budget application which contained proposed expenditures of $66,308 for a fact-finding activity in southern Ontario. This is in relation to their study on how the value-added food sector can be more competitive in global markets, and includes funds for nine senators to travel. The committee also requested to include travel funds for two senators’ staff from the offices of the chair and deputy chair.
The subcommittee would like to remind committees that all senators are now able to have their staff travel with them to assist in carrying out their parliamentary functions, by using their own travel points.
However the SOMP also permits committees to include the expenses of the chair and deputy chair’s staff in their committee budget requests. The subcommittee indicated previously that they would consider each request on a case-by-case basis. Having carefully considered this particular request, the subcommittee feels that the interests of the committee will be best served by including the staff of the chair and deputy chair in their budget. The subcommittee therefore recommends the release of funds for this fact-finding activity in the amount of $66,308.
The subcommittee also considered a legislative budget request for the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, who presented a budget application which contained proposed expenditures of $6,000 for general expenses. This budget will be used to purchase books, such as the 2019 Criminal Code, for committee members and staff. Based on the information provided, the subcommittee recommends the release of funds in the amount of $6,000.
Your subcommittee is therefore recommending the release of $72,308 today. This would bring the total release to date to $1,342,361 of the $1.882 million set aside for committee expenses.
As in past years, the subcommittee notes that typically, committees’ actual expenditures are closer to 40 per cent of their total budget request. In addition we expect more than $550,000 to be returned or clawed back to the main budget before the end of the fiscal year. Unless there are further questions, I recommend the adoption of the report.
Senator Forest: I would like to add a comment. The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry will be travelling during recess weeks, which is very responsible given the number of weeks we have left. I just wanted to point that out.
[English]
Senator Batters: My question is about this agriculture study. It just says “southeastern Ontario.” Where are they flying to? Just Toronto? Because I’m surprised by the amount of airfare that’s proposed. Perhaps it’s because it’s on a break week, so they have to fly from somewhere other than Ottawa, potentially. But is that the only place also that this particular agriculture study on value-added food sector and how that can be more competitive in global markets — is that the only travel portion of that particular study?
[Translation]
Senator Verner: There are two destinations. They will be going to Toronto and then taking the bus to Guelph.
[English]
Senator Batters: Is that the only place they’re travelling to on the study? As a senator from Saskatchewan, I find it strange that an agriculture study on value-added wouldn’t go somewhere like Saskatchewan or Alberta, et cetera.
I was asking if they have other travel locations on their study.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: They have already travelled in the west, but they do not have any further travel plans.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Plett: Just very quickly, twice I heard — and maybe it’s translation — the number of $76,308, and when I look at the document, I see $66,308. I don’t know what Senator Verner said. Was it 66? It was 66. Translation both times said 76. So I hope the record will reflect that translation paid themselves $10,000 here somewhere.
The Chair: Seeing no other questions, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Verner that the twenty-third report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets be adopted.
Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
For the next item, I want to get the CIBA members’ direction on it. It’s not something we need to vote on. There was a motion raised by Senator Housakos and amended by Senator Saint-Germain that we have to decide on an appointment process for the Clerk of the Senate. We then report back to the Senate on what the appointment process is.
My question to members was whether we wish to call witnesses. The clerk had suggested a couple of witnesses from the PCO or maybe the Clerk of the House of Commons. But is there anybody else we would want to have present to us, after which we will formulate a process that will bring back to CIBA and then back to the Senate?
It’s really to have your input as to what process you would like and think CIBA should follow in responding to Motion No. 328.
Senator Housakos: My intention always was — not to complicate this any further than it needs to be — and I’ve had these discussions with Senator Saint-Germain as well. I think all sides should be comfortable with the current process we’ve had in place for a long time in selecting our CCSO and Law Clerk; namely, via the three members of steering. In this particular instance, given the fact that the Clerk, also, in large part reports to the Speaker, we could have a representative of the Speaker on that Selection Committee. That selection committee can continue executing that hire as you would the Law Clerk or the other three members of the executive.
The Chair: Do members feel we should have witnesses, or do you feel we should start formulating a policy? I didn’t want to start preparing a policy and hear, “You didn’t call any witnesses. You didn’t get any input.”
Senator Batters: I don’t think we necessarily need to have a lengthy process. If we can perhaps get a policy drafted, that would be in keeping with what Senator Housakos was just indicating. Senator Saint-Germain — I don’t want to speak for her, but from her body language here, it seemed like she was agreeable to that.
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Senator Batters: Given it was her amendment in the chamber, it seems to be a reasonable process.
The Chair: In that case, we’ll move forward along that path.
Senator Saint-Germain: I would briefly, chair, refer also to the speech that Senator Day made in the chamber with regard to this topic. It was very relevant, and in this content, there are some interesting suggestions for the eventual selection committee.
The Chair: In that case, one of the things I had was possibly asking for an extension. If we can skip the witnesses part and start drafting a policy, we don’t need to do that and we don’t need to ask for an extension. That would be great.
One item I also wanted to get was Item No. 10, allocation of caucus groups. We discussed this. The letter I received from the leaders is attached. Any questions on that? We need to get this approved. If not, I’d like to get this one approved, so the budget is approved.
Senator Batters: Because sometimes we get into the situation where we have this public meeting, but without the documents being shown, then people aren’t able to know what the numbers we’re talking about are. This particular one is dealing with an agreement for the funding of the house officers’ budgets — the Senate caucus office group budgets — for 2019-20. The amount specified on the letter of October 20, 2018, was for the Government Representative Office, $1,628,150; for the Independent Senators Group —
The Chair: It’s in the motion. I’m going to read the dollars in the motion.
Senator Batters: I just wanted to be sure, Mr. Chair.
For the ISG, it’s $1,510,000; for the Conservative opposition, $1,347,150; and for the Independent Liberals, $410,000. Some of those are increases.
The Chair: That’s detailed in the motion.
Senator Dean: It would be good to clarify.
The Chair: Can I have a mover of the following motion:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of the Finance Rule in the Schedule of the Senate Administrative Rules, the additional financial allowance for the fiscal year commencing on April 1, 2019, for the following be as follows:
Leader, Deputy Leader and Whip of the Government in the Senate: total amount of $1,628,150; Leader, Deputy Leader and Whip of the Opposition in the Senate, and research fund for the opposition: total amount of $1,347,150; research fund for the Independent Senators Group: total amount of $1,510,000; and research fund for the Independent Liberals: total amount $410,000.
For greater certainty, the allocated amounts are in effect until the end of the Forty-second Parliament and the amount provided for groups and caucus are conditional on the caucus of the relevant party or parliamentary group meeting the minimum size requirement to be a recognized party or a recognized parliamentary group under the Rules of the Senate.
It is moved by Senator Tannas.
Senator Plett: I have a question, or really just a brief comment. I find it strange that we are constantly being told that the Leader of the Government is, in fact, a representative of the government and deputy representative and a liaison, and when they want money they become the leader and deputy leader and the whip.
The Chair: Duly noted, senator.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
The Chair: All agreed, honourable senators?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Batters: On division.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I’d like to ask why the budgets stay the same even though the number of members in certain groups has decreased. What formula is used to calculate them?
Senator Saint-Germain: The formula is no longer appropriate.
Senator Forest: Let me repeat: why do the budgets for some groups remain the same, even if the number of senators in them has decreased?
[English]
The Chair: If you have a question on the individual budgets, I suspect, call the leaders and you could ask them the question directly. It’s not fair to me to comment on why budgets are changing or not changing.
Senator Housakos: I’d be happy to give context if you like, chair.
The Chair: Drop it, Leo.
Senator Housakos: Chair, at your discretion.
The Chair: Drop it.
Senator Batters: On that point, there are also some groups that have gone up substantially.
The Chair: Let’s not get into this thing. If we want to get into a debate on caucus budgets, please, let’s restrain ourselves. We can call the leaders here, you can question them and raise any issues you want. This is not something we have input on. We were not consulted. If anybody has any questions or make any comments, please have the leaders here. I would gladly call the leaders and you can question them all you want.
Senator Tkachuk: Even though the leaders aren’t here, we have a responsibility to discuss this if we want to.
The Chair: Absolutely, but no point asking questions that can’t be answered by anybody but the leaders.
Senator Tkachuk: We can make comments, though.
Senator Plett: I would concur with you, chair, that if we want to ask the leaders questions — I do not agree with this. I will allow it to go on division. But this is something that the leaders agreed to and so our issue should be taking it up in our own caucus, colleagues, because our leader agreed to this as well. So I would suggest that this be passed on division.
The Chair: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Batters: On division.
The Chair: On division. Now we have one minute left, we could go to the beginning of the agenda or we could adjourn.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: We have to change our external auditors. Three firms have been shortlisted. We must hold interviews, and we need three senators who might be interested and would have the time to take part in interviews in the week of the 19 to the 22 so that we can choose the next external auditors for the Senate. Would anyone like to volunteer?
[English]
The Chair: We need three volunteers to interview the auditor firms. Senator Wetston has put up his hand. Senator Marshall, would you care to be a part of the interview process?
Senator Marshall: I’d be delighted.
The Chair: Thank you. And I will get a third. Not to worry; I think I might volunteer myself. I think we should adjourn.
(The committee adjourned.)