THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 9, 2019
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8 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. 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. I would ask each of the senators to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Munson: Jim Munson from Ottawa, Ontario, Rideau Canal.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: I am Dennis Dawson from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: I am Josée Verner from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Frum: Linda Frum, Ontario.
Senator Tkachuk: David Tkachuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Landmark, Manitoba.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I am Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: I am Pierre Dalphond from De Lorimier, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Batters: Denise Batters from Saskatchewan, deputy chair of the committee.
The Chair: Thank you. The first item is the public minutes. A copy of the minutes from May 2, 2019 is in your package. Are there any questions or changes? Can I have a motion to adopt the minutes? Moved by Senator Batters to adopt the minutes. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Honourable senators, the next item relates to the renovation of Centre Block and the end-state Senate committee rooms. This has been approved by LTVP subcommittee already. Caroline Morency, Acting Director General, Property and Services Directorate; and Josée Labelle, LTVP Executive Advisor, are already at the witness table. Caroline, you may begin.
Caroline Morency, Acting Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, good morning. I appear before you today to seek your approval on the direction received from the LTVP subcommittee regarding another important element of the Senate end-state office accommodation, which is the committee rooms. The Senate has already approved three important requirements for the end-state committee rooms, a total of 10 committee rooms with broadcasting and located as close as possible to the Senate Chamber. As a reminder, the requirement for 10 committee rooms was approved as part of the 2009 memorandum to cabinet for the Long Term Vision and Plan. The requirement for increase for broadcasting was approved by the Senate in December 2016 and the LTVP subcommittee endorsed the accommodation order of priority for Centre Block last year.
In December 2016, the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization approved broadcasting of all Senate proceedings, specifically for the Senate of Canada building. We have assumed from this decision that the Senate wishes to be able to broadcast all of its proceedings going forward.
The challenge with this assumption is that none of the existing committee rooms in the Centre Block will likely be able to be converted to broadcasting, given the size and surrounding heritage elements, which means, as it stands in the current design documents, none of the committee rooms could be located in Centre Block, per se.
Therefore, if the Senate wants all committee rooms to have broadcasting, these will likely need to be located on the east side of the Visitor Welcome Centre, in the East Block, and possibly in a third building, subject to the approval of this committee.
The existing committee rooms in the Centre Block would be maintained as meeting rooms, potentially with simultaneous interpretation.
Based on existing Senate Rules for the size of committees, we recommend that eight of the 10 committee rooms be medium in size, which is appropriate to accommodate all 15 committee members, as well as witnesses and other attendees. We’re also recommending that two of the 10 committee rooms be large in size in order to accommodate caucus/group meetings.
I want to add that it is also our expectation that the Senate will have a new large, non-broadcasting, multi-purpose room in the Visitor Welcome Centre to accommodate large-group functions and special events. If you agree with our recommendations endorsed by the LTVP subcommittee, especially in terms of broadcasting and number of committee rooms going forward, we will take these to the next step of the process, which is to work with Public Services and Procurement Canada to advance the schematic designs for the end-state Senate occupied buildings based on these requirements. Once we have some preliminary designs, we will bring these to the Long Term Vision and Plan subcommittee for further direction and eventually to this committee for approval. We expect to have some additional details in the fall.
I would now be pleased to answer any questions you may have on this subject. Thank you.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much. When I read through the material, my major concern when I saw what you have listed is that I don’t believe it will be appropriate to have Senate committee room in the visitor welcome complex or in that immediate area because of security concerns. Can you comment on that?
Ms. Morency: Certainly. Thank you for the question.
Regarding the Visitor Welcome Centre, of course, we work not only with our partner at the House of Commons but also with corporate security. The Visitor Welcome Centre will have an area designated for some Senate functions, and security is always a component of the design. We will ensure that all of the security requirements of the Senate are met.
Senator Batters: If that is the place where security is mainly to be done, I don’t think it’s an appropriate area to have a committee room with that many senators in that function. If the idea in this new complex, once we’re there, is to have security with a distance between that area and where senators are going to be, and that sort of thing, then I think it’s counterintuitive to have a committee room right in that vicinity.
Senator Tannas: Just by way of clarification, we’re going to have to come up with a better name than “Visitor Welcome Centre.” They’re calling the entire renovation, everything that’s underground, the whole structure, the Visitor Welcome Centre, just because that’s what is part of what’s going to be there. Keep in mind it’s actually larger than the Centre Block, and it’s designed for material handling, tunnels, all kinds of equipment, plus the Visitor Welcome Centre and committee rooms on both sides, et cetera. It is a huge structure. We should come up with a new name for it.
Senator Dawson: No matter what you call it, I think the point is security. But what I don’t understand is — and I’m reading this — “the existing committee rooms can’t be accommodated for broadcasting.” We had committee rooms, including 160, that was a broadcasting room. Why would we take the broadcasting out of that room if we’re trying to find broadcasting space? And why can we not accommodate some of the smaller rooms for broadcasting when you know that you add these very small cameras on walls? First, let’s start with the ones we have now. I don’t understand why we would be going backwards on rooms that are already broadcast-capable.
Ms. Morency: Thank you. Room 160-S that you’re referring to is part of the former courtyard. As explained last week by our colleagues at the department of Public Services and Procurement Canada, that room will be removed and used for other purposes. So that room will no longer be located in that location. That area will be used for improving the accessibility to the building by enclosing vertical transportation. There’s the heritage fabric also. If you take that into consideration, the remaining portion will be too small to accommodate a large committee room.
Senator Tannas: If I could again add, you have to think of the Centre Block and all of the rooms that aren’t heritage won’t necessarily be there. They will all be moved around. The Francophonie suite and some of those kinds of rooms will be there. One of the things we want to make sure — I’ll say it now so it gets out loud — historically, we had the Commonwealth Room, the Senate did. The Senate was on one half, and somewhere, 50 years ago, we agreed to give that up, or to make that shared, or whatever.
Part of this discussion is that we get that back. Now that we have all this extra space, we should be getting our half of Centre Block fully under our control. So all of that needs to be factored into the future.
The issue right here and now is for us to agree that we need 10 broadcast-ready rooms, period, and where they are and what they are and in Centre Block or as close to it as possible.
Senator Marshall: Why is 160-S not going to be used? There’s some reference there that it couldn’t accommodate the additional security. What’s the problem with it?
Ms. Morency: At this point, there’s the base building requirement to upgrade the facility so that it meets the new building codes, for example. PSPC has to find areas where they can address those elements.
For example, about one floor of additional space is required at the Centre Block, so they’re using the courtyard as a means to address some of those concerns, which is to build vertical transportation, elevators, in that courtyard. Of course, that eats up a fair chunk of the space, and hence the reason why this committee will no longer be in the courtyard.
From the priority hierarchy that was approved by the LTVP subcommittee, our first priority is, of course, the chamber and the supporting committee rooms. We make the best we can to accommodate those functions within Centre Block, but of course space is limited. We have to find other options or solutions to locate those committee rooms in close proximity to the chamber.
Senator Munson: Thank you for being here. I’m curious if the proper consultation has been done with the Senate legislative sector. I’m talking about committee directorates, the people behind us working — to ensure that, in this planning stage — to address the gaps that could happen. I think that’s extremely important.
Ms. Morency: Right. This amount of 10 committee rooms has been there for a long period of time. The Committee Directorate has been involved in this. They know this requirement, of course.
In terms broadcasting, this question is for you today to determine if all of those committee rooms require broadcasting in the end state.
Senator Munson: With that consultation, have they shown their satisfaction that they will have their own space besides the committee rooms? It’s where they all work as well, right, in terms of operating the Senate itself?
Ms. Morency: This will be taken into consideration in the design. We have captured their functional requirements, of course, for the Centre Block. This is part of the program that PSPC needs to take into consideration in proposing design.
The Chair: There are no other questions, so can I have a mover for the following motion:
That a total of 10 Senate broadcasting committee rooms are required for the longer term;
That a maximum number of committee rooms should be located in close proximity to the Senate Chamber. Those that cannot be accommodated in the Centre Block will be provided in the Visitor Welcome Centre Complex (east end) East Block and potentially within a third Senate-occupied building;
That all end-state committee rooms must have broadcasting capabilities. The current committee rooms in the Centre Block that cannot be converted to broadcasting may be retained as meeting rooms;
That the Senate requires eight medium-size committee rooms and two large committee rooms in the end state, with one of these large committee rooms including a secure location for caucus/group meetings which may accommodate secure discussion areas; and
That the Senate will also have a new large non-broadcasting multi-purpose room in the Visitor Welcome Centre Complex to accommodate large-group functions and special events.
Senator Plett: So moved.
The Chair: Thank you. All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
The next item is a report from the Subcommittee on Human Resources under harassment prevention training. Senator Saint-Germain, I believe you have a few comments.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, it is my honour to table the third report of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, which examined the participation rate for the mandatory training on the prevention of harassment in the workplace, pursuant to the first report of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, adopted by the committee on June 14, 2018.
Our decision, unanimously supported by the Speaker of the Senate, as well as the leaders and coordinators of the various caucuses and groups, was diligently implemented. Participation-wise, the mandatory training was a success, as these numbers illustrate:
- 96 per cent of active employees took the training, representing 640 employees out of 669;
- 100 per cent of Senate Administration executives took the training, representing 38 people;
- 98 per cent of senators took the training, representing 103 senators out of 105.
A total of 49 training sessions were delivered: seven sessions for senators, three sessions for executives and 39 sessions for members of the Senate Administration and senators’ staff.
I’d like to recognize the professionalism of the Human Resources Directorate. As we all know, organizing the training sessions was an additional burden for the team, which nevertheless carried out the demanding task with its usual dedication and efficiency, on top of its other responsibilities.
The training was successful not only from a participation standpoint, but also, and more importantly, from an education and awareness standpoint, benefiting us all. Feedback gathered by the Human Resources Directorate after each of the 49 training sessions confirmed that the overall level of appreciation among participants was high.
I want to make clear that the two senators who have not completed the training to date were unable to do so for documented medical reasons. Managers of the 29 employees who did not take the training were advised of the employees’ reasons.
In that connection, two makeup sessions will be given, one in July and the other in September. Therefore, barring any health issues or other valid reasons, all employees will have completed the mandatory training, without facing additional workload pressure at this busy time of the year.
As for future senators and employees, an online training session will be put together and provided as part of the orientation process. I now have a motion regarding the harassment prevention training and the confidentiality of senators’ staff and Senate employees.
That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the first report of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, adopted on June 14, 2018, providing that the Human Resources Directorate report back to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on the participation rate, including the names of all participants of the mandatory training sessions, the subcommittee report on the participation rates of senators and employees but release only the names of senators who attended the training.
[English]
The Chair: Any questions for Senator Saint-Germain? All agreed? The motion is exactly as she read out. All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Carried.
The next item is an addition to the mandate of the Subcommittee on Human Resources.
Senator Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, on Thursday, December 7, 2017, this committee established the Subcommittee on Human Resources and authorized the subcommittee to examine and report on issues related to human resources in the Senate.
The subcommittee was further authorized, first, to monitor the transformation of the Human Resources Directorate following the report by Deloitte Canada; second, to examine and harmonize the working conditions and benefits of Senate employees, whether they work for the administration, for a senator or for an officer of the Senate; and to conduct a review of the Senate Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace.
Consequently, we were asked by the Senate Administration to review their bargaining mandate. The Senate Administration is indeed seeking a collective bargaining mandate for the upcoming round of negotiations with the two bargaining units representing Senate Administration employees. These units are the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.
In order to ensure that the Human Resources Subcommittee acts within the limits of its mandate without overriding the authority of this committee, I move the following motion:
That the Subcommittee on Human Resources be authorized to examine and report on issues related to the bargaining mandates given to the Senate Administration to negotiate collective agreements with unions representing Senate employees;
That the Senate Administration report back to the Subcommittee on Human Resources at every step of the bargaining process.
The Chair: Any questions for Senator Saint-Germain? All agreed on the motion, senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All agreed.
Item 5 is a Revised Allocation of Caucus/Group and House Officer Budgets for the fiscal year 2019-20. This has been agreed to by all caucuses and groups and signed by the respective leaders. Are there any questions? Can I have a mover?
Senator Batters: On this particular item, I wanted to make a few points.
The Senate Administrative Rules do already provide for a significant caucus and group budgets, including over $1 million for the Independent Senators Group.
What this brief one-page agreement does is extend the higher ad hoc caucus and group budget amounts for six months past the election, when many things could materially change for the government and what’s listed in this table as the Conservative opposition, it would have a minimal impact only of $50,000 one way or the other on their particular two budgets.
The two that would be a major change would be Independent Senators Group budget. If we don’t have this ad hoc amount in place, it would go down to the just over $1 million amount, yet this ad hoc budget amount is $1.5 million. The Liberal budget is $410,000 under this ad hoc amount and it would go down by $250,000 if we go along with the Senate Administrative Rules that have been agreed to for some time.
My problem with this particular table is the way the categories are listed. For example, it’s listed as Government Representative office, Conservative Opposition, Independent Senators Group and Independent Liberals. But following an election, the categories could change. The Liberals potentially could be the official opposition after the election, yet, if this agreement is in place, some could contend that with those specific categories the way they’re listed, the Liberal group should remain at only their current amount rather than actually going to an official opposition amount.
I wanted to say that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration is not a rubber stamp. We should have the ability to ask questions about what, in this case, is around $750,000 of taxpayers’ money if these increased budget amounts continue as-is.
We do also have a situation where it’s possible that Parliament might not sit after surrounding the election for a period of potentially maybe seven months. Given that, I’m not really sure why the high group and caucus office levels for Independent Senators Group would need to be maintained during a lengthy period of time surrounding an election where Parliament doesn’t sit and where their particular group would have obviously fewer parliamentary activities.
It is the first time we will have this because we haven’t had an Independent Senators Group previously surrounding a different parliamentary dissolution. So I have major questions about that.
Discussing this issue, Senator Tannas had a good suggestion in that, rather than having this time frame extended for six months following the election, to the end of March 2020, what if we had this particular amount simply extend for 30 days post the election, during which time we could assess what the actual situation is and evaluate it at that point.
Senator Tannas: Yes, I agree with a number of the comments that Senator Batters has made. I think the problem we have is that this is very specific. We don’t know who will be the government. We don’t know who will be the opposition. And there may not be a Government Representative office. There may just be a government, opposition and Independent Senators Group. There are a number of combinations and permutations and we’re hard wiring today’s reality into something we don’t know.
So whether we make it such that the funding within 30 days of an election gets reviewed and reset, and we just say we’ll deal with this in 30 days, I know we have employees, and so on, to consider. Perhaps 30 days isn’t enough time to do that if there are major changes.
So my thinking was that we simply add to the proposed motion something after the words “March 31, 2020” that says “subject to CIBA review within 30 days of a new Parliament convening,” and then we deal with the reality. If there are big changes to be made, we make them. If we can’t agree, or if there are no changes, then the original deal could kind of carry on. It puts a stake in the ground that says we’re going to review this when we know what reality looks like within 30 days of us all getting back here after an election.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: First of all, the budgets allocated to the various groups are set out. Some are identified in the rules, which are very clear. For other groups, the rules haven’t been revised. I think it’s been requested, but it hasn’t happened yet, so the decision we make should take that into account.
Thirty days after the election isn’t long enough. I suggest 90 days.
[English]
I understand. With 30 days, we know that by the time we come back the committees will not have been struck. It will take us a while just to get started. So 90 days will probably be a lengthier period, but it would give us enough time to work around all the issues.
[Translation]
Furthermore, the budgets allocated to the Conservative caucus, the Liberals, the Independent Senators Group and the government are 80 per cent or 90 per cent salary-based. This isn’t something that can be dealt with overnight. These aren’t problems that can be resolved in 30 days. The fact of the matter is that the coming election will no doubt bring about changes.
Something else to keep in mind is that changes were made involving the nominations. The Independent Senators Group is sizable, so it will take quite a few years before it dwindles, especially if a new government comes in, changes the policy and reverts to the old nomination process. With new appointments, it will be at least a dozen years before the Independent Senators Group gets smaller, so proportionality is a consideration.
The last point I wanted to make is that the budgets were approved for the year, so I don’t think cutting them at this point is smart.
[English]
Senator Dawson: First, I’d rather the wording of “return to Parliament” than “election,” because how long we return after Parliament, for those who have been here a long time and know, can vary from 30 days to 60 to 90.
Second, as Senator Munson has said, we have to accommodate the fact that we have contractual responsibilities to employees. I want to be sure we don’t put clauses in there that cause us to stop paying people before we normally legally should be responsible to pay them. I just want the wording to respect the fact that we have contracts with some people, on all sides.
Senator Tannas: The word “review” — that’s why I think we have to leave it in place. I think we should just recognize that we’re going to need to review it and come up with all of these considerations. Whether it’s 60 days, 90 days or 30 days within Parliament convening, this committee will deal with it quickly. We’ll know quickly if we have the ability to agree or if it’s something we just have to let the clock run out on. We always seem to find a way to agree to things, so I have good faith that we can do it relatively quickly.
To your point, and again, 90 days, now all of a sudden we could be into the next year, where we’ve got severances, et cetera.
I think the less time we give ourselves to face up to what the new reality is, the better.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I say this with the utmost regard and respect for everyone at the table, but seldom have I seen the board of a public institution or private company adopt a motion to say that it will do its job when required in a timely fashion.
I really don’t see a point to this motion. I won’t oppose it, however. The leaders and coordinators signed it on March 19. As for extending the agreement until the end of the Forty-second Parliament, the decision was made to change it to March 31, 2020. It’s quite possible that Parliament will not sit again until late January. I don’t know; no one here does. It’s a matter of a few weeks.
It goes without saying that the agreement would no longer stand if a group were to dissolve or cease to have enough members.
We made an exception for the Liberal non-affiliated senators, and it stands until the end of the session, so I really think this is pointless. All we are doing is making senators’ staff and, I would even say, employees working in the offices of all senators in all groups feel insecure.
That’s a comment I wanted to put on the record, to maintain a good working environment in the Senate.
Thank you.
[English]
Senator Batters: I want to make a couple of comments given what has been said. For me, 30 days is sufficient because an entire government has to usually transition within 30 days. Certainly we are capable of a 30-day time frame as well, so 30 days post-Parliament, that’s okay.
Also, CIBA has special authority to deal with issues unlike other committees, so we do have special authority to deal with issues outside of the regular time frames that most other committees are handcuffed with. It is a normal procedure for caucus budgets for chiefs of staff in those leaders’ offices to adjust staffing levels surrounding an election because there are such lengthy periods of time where Parliament isn’t sitting. Other people might want to go and take leaves of absence to do other things. That is a normal part of this particular budget cycle. We are, of course, dealing with a time frame right now where there is a lot of runway for decisions to get made and appropriate things to be done on that.
Senator Plett: I’ll be brief.
I think we are unique. We are not a private company. We are not even a public business, as Senator Saint-Germain referenced. These companies make changes all the time as needed. It is a lot more difficult for us to make them on the spur of the moment so we have to prepare for something.
I certainly agree with Senator Batters’ point, but I also agree with Senator Moncion’s point that 30 days isn’t long enough. We are talking about the fact when Parliament resumes as opposed to after an election. Those are two very different things. I would like to offer a compromise that 60 days after Parliament resumes, I think, is lots of time. It’s again after Parliament resumes.
Further to what Senator Moncion said, it will take 10 years for the ISG group to lose its majority — I don’t know if those were the words; I don’t want to put words in her mouth. We have no idea. We have members that were part of the Conservative group that are part of the ISG now. We have members of the Liberals that were part of the ISG. If the government should change, who knows what will happen? Nobody knows what will happen to any of these groups. They could change for a whole lot of reasons. For us to assume that the ISG will remain at whatever number they are, or we will, or the Liberals will is presumptuous. We have no idea.
I would like to offer a compromise of 60 days after Parliament resumes. I think we need to be responsible here and allow for some kind of an out and that gives lots of time. No one on CIBA will allow for our employees to be cheated out of any of their money or any of the people here to be cheated out of their money. Nobody here is going to do that. For us to try to make provisions so that we can’t cheat our staff is going too far. We don’t need to do that. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: I agree with Senator Plett. I don’t want to stir up any controversy, but I’d like to respond to the point that was made about the hiring of staff by senators and the need to respect those contractual obligations. At the same time, looking solely at the group of independent Liberal senators, given that we know senators on our side will be retiring, I must say it’s right there in black and white. I think we need to make decisions accordingly when it comes to hiring staff. Knowing that the group may have to be dissolved, I think we need to be smart about entering into contracts.
That said, casting this in stone now may not be the way to go. I think what Senator Plett is proposing is a good solution.
Senator Moncion: I agree with what you said. I don’t think we absolutely need to make changes spontaneously. The budgets are in place, but that doesn’t mean we have to spend them. We are a responsible bunch. We are mindful of taxpayer money, so we don’t make it our mission to spend money when it’s not necessary. I think 60 days is a good compromise, but I’m not sure it’s totally necessary to set out a period of 20, 60 or 90 days because we will make any necessary decisions when we need to.
I think it’s unfortunate that the administrative rules haven’t been amended yet to provide for situations like this. I hope that will be a priority in the next Parliament, so we don’t have to have these discussions every four years if the government changes.
[English]
The Chair: It looks like we have five options on the table, 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, leaving it as is and one option is have the leaders in here and have them debate. If we do 60 days, which is not an unreasonable compromise, if it ends up at March 19 anyway. Are we splitting hairs here? We are going through a lot of work only to end up at March 19 anyway.
Let’s say we sit the first week in December. Well, 30 sitting days or 60 days will be March. So what are we talking about? We end up in exactly the same place, really.
So we can put this budget subject to review by CIBA within 60 days, I think that’s fine, but you will end up in exactly the same place. If you take the time, assuming we sit sometime in December at best case, if it takes 60 days from there we will end up in March because in January you will not sit. We are making an additional rule to end up in the same place. So are we talking about one week here or there? Do we really want to go to all this trouble for one week?
Senator Tannas: That’s not the point, chair. The point is that we are hard wiring funding for four groups as they are constituted today all the way until April.
The Chair: Until March 19, 2020.
Senator Tannas: Sorry, March 30. However, there is an election and a complete change that will happen in October. We’re trying to say there is a reality where CIBA will need to insert itself and sort things out and that this deal can’t be doggedly hung on to all the way to April for anybody’s advantage or disadvantage. It needs to be dealt with and we are dealing with it.
The Chair: I agree that this deal could stay, subject to review by CIBA within 60 days of us first sitting. Is that agreed, senators.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed, carried.
Senator Plett: Hold it. Agree to the Plett amendment?
Senator Tkachuk: I didn’t.
I was on the speakers’ list.
The Chair: Sorry. There were five more people. My apologies.
Senator Tkachuk: I think we should do this 30 days after the election. We all know how to count, don’t we? I mean, when the election happens, we know exactly what will happen. It will not be a great big mystery to anybody. There will be a government, there will be an opposition and there will be an independent caucus. At that time, we decide on how we fund it.
We shouldn’t lock ourselves into a funding program that in the end will take away funds from the new structure that may take place. It may be the same structure we have now, we don’t know, but it may be a whole new structure. I’m saying we do it 30 days after the election and that’s it. I don’t think we should set up a funding program to the end of March when we have no idea what will happen. We are taking away money from rightful places at that time. It’s not that hard, I don’t think.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, chair. I’m new to this committee so forgive a question if it’s naive. Elections happen every four years. So are we looking at a change in this coming year or are we thinking of a change to be embedded into the rules? This will happen again and I’m wondering what happened in the past? How did you deal with this? Perhaps we are looking at a rules change.
Senator Batters: There already was a rules change.
The Chair: Could we have only one person talk, please.
Senator Tkachuk: That’s why I think it’s really important we attend to this right after the election because there is also a chance of minority governments. There are all these things that may take place that we do not know now that we should be careful about and base our funding on.
There could be an election in two years after that or one year after that. We don’t know. When the election is over, we have a responsibility, as tenants of the money at our disposal, to make the changes in our staff that reflect what happened in the election and not to wait around for us to make a decision as to how we do that. This should be done right after the election. We are no longer this or that — deal with it.
Senator Marshall: I’m agreeable to 30 or 60 days after the election because the last election in 2015 was mid-October; the Speech from the Throne was in December. That’s a sufficient time frame. Certainly I’m agreeable to 30 or 60 days. I don’t think we need to go past 60 days. I think we should be able to deal with it within 60 days after the election.
Senator Moncion: The way we are structured, we can only sit when government is sitting.
Senator Tkachuk: Not CIBA. CIBA is the only one that goes all the way through.
Senator Moncion: How do we arrange the funding, then, for senators who have to come back here? Because the funding is based on sitting days. Still, if you go back to the way we are structured right now, the funding is based on 75 sitting days. That’s the allocation that senators receive to travel and their expenses. It is based on 75 days.
The Chair: We have many amendments, subamendments, amendments to the subamendments and we’re going around in circles.
Another option is to have this return to the leaders. They will have heard these comments. Let them come back with a revised budget and have them come back to CIBA next week. Otherwise, we have zillions of amendments and subamendments that will go around. We still have to approve it.
Senator Moncion: Deal with this now.
Senator Batters: I wanted to say in response to Senator Moncion that this would be dealing with CIBA if people had to come back for a committee meeting to deal with that and senators always have the authority to travel for committees.
What you were speaking about with how many sitting days, that’s just the average of what it can work out to but senators always have the ability to travel when Senate committees are sitting and CIBA has special authority, as I said before, surrounding election times, unlike other committees.
Senator Moncion: I understand the special authority, what I don’t understand is the funding that goes with it.
Senator Batters: For senators to travel?
Senator Moncion: On non-sitting days.
Senator Batters: But the committee would be sitting so that’s allowable. It’s allowable for travel.
Senator Moncion: That’s not the point.
Senator Plett: Could I maybe at least try to bring this to a close by suggesting that we do 60 days after the election? It is a compromise. So 60 days after the election and this will be reviewed. I will make that in the form of a motion, suggestion, whatever you want.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Have we all agreed to 60 days after the election?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Carried.
The amended motion will be as follows:
That, pursuant to the decision of this committee taken on Thursday, February 28, 2019, in relation to additional financial allowances for the fiscal year commencing on April 1, 2019, the allocated amounts shall remain in effect until March 31, 2020, subject to CIBA reviewing the allowances within 60 days of the next federal election.
Senator Plett: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Saint-Germain: On division.
The Chair: Item No. 6 is a one-year review of the Senators’ Office Management Policy. I note again that these items are largely codification of existing practices or clarifications of existing policies. I invite Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, to the witness table if you have any questions for him.
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: Good morning. Honourable senators, the Senators’ Office Management Policy, or SOMP, was implemented on November 1, 2017, and has brought greater clarity in terms of administrative, human resources, asset management, procurement and finance policies for senators’ offices.
SOMP is an informative, relevant and easy to-use policy suite that includes details on management practices, including eligibility for expenses. Since its implementation, the Finance and Procurement Directorate, as well as other corporate directorates have noted instances when SOMP could be improved to provide greater clarity and precision on the policy application related to different aspects such as eligibility of expenses to senators and their offices.
Today, I am proposing some updates to SOMP that should increase clarity and close some identified gaps. In total, there are 18 proposed changes. I will now provide a summary of those proposed changes.
The first three changes are related to employee management in leaders’ offices. The proposed changes will provide greater flexibility to chiefs of staff in managing resources of leaders’ offices. Proposed changes 4 to 8 clarify the eligibility of some expenses related to translation and interpretation services, official gifts, living expenses and travel.
Item 9 clarifies the time limitation for submitting expense claims while item 10 clarifies procurement authorities.
[Translation]
The eleventh change clarifies eligible expenses with respect to rental accommodations. The next five items provide clarity on eligible expenses related to senators’ business travel. The eighteenth and final item clarifies the eligibility of protocol- and sympathy-related expenses.
In short, the purpose of the proposed changes is to clarify existing practices, except for the first three items, which seek to improve employee management in leaders’ offices. The changes will make it easier to interpret and apply the policy.
That concludes my opening remarks. I will be pleased to answer any questions you have and hear your feedback.
Senator Moncion: My understanding is that these are the first of the changes being made, meaning that there are others. Is that correct?
Mr. Lanctôt: The purpose of the changes is to clarify the policy, except for the first three items, which are meant to improve employee management in leaders’ offices. Some of the issues that were raised require more consideration and research as they would involve further policy changes. Once we’ve had the chance to conduct a more in-depth analysis and to share those comments with the committee, a second round of changes will likely follow.
Senator Moncion: Earlier, I brought up the 75 sitting days. That is what senators’ funding allocations are based on, so a specific budget is set aside for the 75 days in Ottawa.
We didn’t talk about this, but I don’t see anywhere in the rules that addresses senators who live outside the parliamentary district and who have to come here to work when the Senate is not sitting or during the summer. Of course, we keep working during the summer.
None of the rules, or at least none that I saw, address situations where senators are recalled to the National Capital Region. Are there any such rules? When the Senate isn’t sitting, we don’t have to come here to work. We can telework.
Mr. Lanctôt: Indeed, I don’t believe there is anything specific on that. Senators are, however, permitted to travel to the National Capital Region when the purpose relates to their role as a senator or a parliamentary function. Such travel is permitted, then. When you submit a claim, you simply explain what the reason is. There’s no guide. When budgeting the total allocation for all senators, a formula is used to estimate the number of days of travel in addition to the standard 75 days. The procedures manual doesn’t establish a cap, strictly speaking.
Senator Moncion: It doesn’t set out a procedure either.
[English]
The Chair: I think you mentioned that to me, Senator Moncion, and I have mentioned it to both Pierre and Pascale. It will be added to the list that we need additional clarification on.
Senator Marshall: I will start off with a question. Regarding the Senators’ Office Management Policy, how did the original policy get in place? I thought that a group of senators went through and looked at all of the policy in detail and then presented the revised policy to us. If my recollection is right, why do the changes come into the committee? Why does it not go back to that subcommittee?
I have problems with some of these because we have made other changes in the past. The message being sent is that we are starting to loosen up the rules and I think I just have bad memories of the audit by the Auditor General.
My concern is that we are loosening up a rule here, and a rule there, and a rule somewhere else, but if we’re going to make changes, I think it should go back to whatever that subcommittee was. I don’t agree with item No. 1, item No. 2 or item No. 3. Now, it’s about house officers. I’m not a house officer but I still don’t support it. I definitely don’t agree with item No. 5 increasing the limit for gifts. I think we are starting to loosen that up again.
There are a few others there, for example, item No. 8 about staying on weekends. I can see where the need might arise, but when the Auditor General did his audit, it was an issue about whether people are returning to the regions that they represent. There are things there. It seems like we’re loosening up.
Item No. 10. I’m not sure I understand that one. But I just get this uncomfortable feeling — not just from today but in the past there have been other rules; I think the one on the rentals was loosened up a bit.
I think that we should be very careful. We are on a slippery slope. Also, there are a lot of items there, Pierre, where it depends on your approval. Is that something you really want to take responsibility for with regard to some of these issues? I think it’s just too bad everybody didn’t have the experience of the Auditor General’s audit, but I have concerns about what is being proposed.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: My comment ties in with Senator Moncion’s. I thought the number of non-sitting days that a senator can claim for travel fell under the category of office business. This consideration is even more important with the election fast approaching. We can’t leave our offices unmanned for six months, if that’s how long it ends up being. I thought this issue had already been resolved.
Regardless, as a general rule, I’d like to be sure that both senators and their staff are kept apprised of any clarifications that are made to the Senators’ Office Management Policy. It came as quite a surprise when I realized that utilities were eligible for reimbursement in the case of rental accommodations. I didn’t know that. I completely missed it. I’m sure that, if it had come to my staff’s attention, I would have known. I’m not trying to point fingers, but it’s important that senators and their staff be made aware of any policy clarifications.
[English]
Senator Batters: I was wanting to speak about item No. 6. I don’t know if we are still speaking about this in a general sense, but my point on item No. 6, dealing with the proposal that senators living less than 100 kilometres but more than 75 kilometres from the Senate would be allowed to claim, with this new proposal, accommodations and per diems in exceptional circumstances where the Senate is sitting late and where there are weather issues.
My point of view as I have expressed before is it’s a financial decision for a senator to decide where they live. I know many people who live a further distance than that but decide to live there perhaps partly because it is a less expensive place to live or for other personal reasons than to live in downtown Ottawa. When you make that type of decision, you know that occasionally — because this is Canada and because we live in a place where there is often freezing rain, snow storms, and so on — you may have to end up staying overnight at a hotel or something like that at your own expense. That is factored into our own personal financial decision. That’s the case in Saskatchewan, where I’m from, and that’s the case here.
I don’t think we should start decreasing that 100 kilometre limit because those are decisions that impact where they live. It’s not required they live outside that 100 kilometre limit, but that’s a personal financial decision. I would not want to see us change that particular policy.
Senator Plett: I’m not going to start picking this apart individually. We had a committee that spent a good part of the summer — a committee that was represented by all groups and caucuses. We spent a good part of a summer, July and August, sitting here and making changes. I was the chair of that committee.
Now I get a document here and I don’t know, but somebody — I don’t know whom; Pierre is here reporting — is proposing a whole bunch of changes to something that we spent half a year trying to develop — indeed, more than half a year. If we asked Senator Tkachuk, I think the development of that package has been going on for years but we finally brought it to a conclusion.
Now I’m seeing changes here. What I’m most concerned about is not whether we allow somebody some travel expenses when they are here because of freezing rain. Quite frankly, I think we should. I’m not here to worry about whether it’s a $100 maximum gift or $150 maximum gift. We have better things to do with our time than worry about that.
But I do concern myself with allowing staff in any department here to make determinations as to whether my claims are eligible. We should have rules that are clear enough that I know whether my claim is eligible.
I have done enough fighting here over the last few years with Finance rejecting a claim that I didn’t think should be rejected because I read things differently. We need to have something very clear, in black and white. We should not have Pierre, or anybody in his staff, having to fight a senator. We’re all hard-nosed — well, not all of us, but some of us are — and miserable and hard to get along with. They shouldn’t be subjected to our idiosyncrasies and moods.
The rules should be explicit. We should make those rules. If we want to make changes to what SOMP did, then I need to reconstitute SOMP, or somebody does, and we need to look at this and we do it. This should not be done by suggestions by staff that we don’t like the SOMP rules.
We’ll be leaving here June 20 and won’t be back probably until the middle of December. I have staff that will be working here. If I want to come here and say hello to my staff because they’ve been by themselves for three months, I’m going to do it and it better be approved. And on my claim, I’m going to say I came here to buy my staff lunch, for no other reason than that, because I don’t think they should be here for six months by themselves.
For us to try to do this — I think this is ridiculous. I don’t want us to approve any of this. If we want to make changes to SOMP, we’ll constitute a committee again and we’ll make the changes.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I agree with what you said, except I’d like to point out something, Senator Plett. The challenge when it comes to administration staff is that they receive all the claims from senators and, in many cases, would like to be able to approve claims for expenses that fall slightly outside the usual parameters, because they relate to an appropriate activity. They don’t have the latitude they need to do that, however, and that’s why they proposed these changes. These are quite specific changes, after all. I agree with you that it may be worth reviewing them as a group, rather than picking them apart this morning, because that would take hours. I think they reflect situations that staff have to contend with on a daily basis. The idea was to make their job, and yours, easier, so you don’t have to fight to get your claim approved when it goes over the limit by $25 or $50. The idea was to give you some flexibility.
Coming back to Senator Marshall’s point, I appreciate the work that was done by the Auditor General and I also appreciate that it was extremely traumatic for the senators who were here then. Not only did the audit lay everything bare, but it also had an ugly impact on senators, given the media coverage and the blows to the integrity of the Senate as an institution. Nevertheless, I don’t think anyone has it in their head that they’re going to get rich off the Senate of Canada. I realize that numbers need to be clear and accurate, but good old common sense also comes into play. This is about making it easier for Senate employees to do their job, not to mention for us to do ours.
Therefore, if your preference is to reconstitute the committee to examine all of these elements, we can do that, or we can simply approve the changes and build a bit more flexibility into the authorization process. It’s up to us.
[English]
Senator Munson: Just to add for the record more than anything, on item No. 8, Senator Marshall was talking about the Auditor General at the time talking about how many days you have to stay in your province. There’s no rule to say you have to stay 200, 250, 300 days or 60 days, and yet that became a headline. That traumatized and really destroyed people’s lives, senators’ lives.
So here we have “clarify the policy to allow senators to stay in the parliamentary district on a weekend between two sitting weeks rather than going home and coming back a few days later, as long as the cost is not greater than the round trip to and from home.”
I live here. I don’t have to worry about that. If I want to go to a conference here when we’re not sitting, I can easily go to that conference. Things happen in Ottawa when the Senate is not sitting. I don’t even know why there has to be a clarification. Senators should be able to say I am staying here and I’m going to a conference. I’m attending something. I’m doing something. But even then, you should have that choice. I think we’re getting into really serious places that I don’t think the Auditor General should have gone. I think we have to have a serious discussion about this.
Senator Tkachuk: Regarding the gifts and a number of these things, I think these are all trouble spots. I remember going on parliamentary trips and people used to exchange gifts. A lot of countries are quitting that. They just don’t do that anymore, especially other democracies. They’re saying no. I think that’s a really good idea.
The idea that I’d be going out and buying a $100 gift for somebody who is visiting, there’s something wrong with that. I think parliamentarians should look at this. I think senators should look at this. I agree with Senator Munson; the Auditor General raised an issue about travelling. We never had an issue about that. This is our place of work. This is the way I always looked at it. I don’t come here on a holiday. I’m here all the time anyway.
The Auditor General made me pay for a trip to Ottawa because I wasn’t here long enough, which I thought was ridiculous. Nonetheless, it did happen.
What we ended up doing, and I thought that was part of the rules — Pascale, maybe you can help me out — there were a number of days that we could stay here without there being a necessary reason for it. I can’t remember what it was, but have we gotten rid of that? What’s happened to that? I thought that was in the rules now.
Senator Dawson: We had 20.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes. It was enough that it was never going to be an issue, but it wasn’t too much. In other words, you weren’t spending two weeks here, but I thought it was reasonable. All senators agreed with it and we seemed to have no problem with it. Now we’re changing that. I don’t understand that.
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, Senate of Canada: The rule prior to SOMP was that a maximum of 20 days in the National Capital Region when the Senate was not sitting. That was removed with SOMP to say senators should be allowed to determine the number of days they need.
Senator Tkachuk: That’s what happened. So Senator Plett got rid of that. We’re looking for trouble again with the Auditor General, I think. Nonetheless, I think we should be very careful with this.
The Chair: I think I agree with senators that the only people that should be making changes to the rules are senators. I think we all agree with that, which is why it’s here.
There are four or five things that are new; I agree. But the vast majority of them are really codification of what’s taking place today. It’s not in the rules, but they are doing it today. By putting it in the rules, it eliminates any doubt and makes it clearer for staff. Otherwise, they are in the tough position whereby they don’t know what to do. They’ve been doing it, and they’re asking so it’s clearer to manage and eliminates any judgment. On the ones that are new, I agree; let’s keep those aside. I want to make it clearer and easier for management. The vast majority of them are exactly that, Senator Plett. They’re really not new.
Senator Plett: Chair, if I could — and I know we have umpteen subcommittees and we’re all busy — maybe we strike a new subcommittee. I don’t think this needs to be onerous, maybe one person from each group. We should have Pierre coming in and making the recommendations. That’s the direction it should go.
Certainly we should hear from staff if they think there are issues. I agree with that entirely. But let me suggest that we strike a committee of SOMP again — either reconstitute the old one or strike a new one — and look at this document and any other suggestions that may be coming forward, and that that committee make recommendations to this committee.
The Chair: That’s aptly right. Is it agreed that we reconstitute a subcommittee to review the proposal for amendment to the SOMP? CIBA will review the amended membership at the next meeting?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed, senators. Thank you.
Senator Moncion: I liked Senator Tkachuk’s suggestion to send it to estimates. Senator Marshall, Senator Tannas, and I am on that committee.
Senator Tkachuk: That’s a wise group, I think.
Senator Moncion: Thank you. Coming from you, I really like that.
The Chair: So we won’t create a new subcommittee. We’ll send it to estimates. Is that fine? All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Plett: Don’t tear apart everything we did. Now we strike a committee that will tear apart the good work of SOMP.
The Chair: Item No. 7 is “Report from Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.” Pursuant to section 1.6.2 of the Senators’ Office Management Policy, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure is required to report biannually on the exception requests it has received and their corresponding decisions.
Hence, the fourteenth report of the subcommittee is hereby tabled which outlines these exemption requests and corresponding decisions since November 22, 2018. The report is placed before you for information. Are there any questions?
Item No. 8 is the report from the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets. This really covers off the Post Activity Expenditure Reports of Senate Committees. Senator Verner will make a presentation, which will be followed by time for questions.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Honourable senators, it is my honour to table the twenty-sixth report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, for your information.
The report summarizes the travel activities of Senate committees in 2017-18.
In 2007, the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration decided that Senate committees would prepare detailed post-activity reports following each committee travel activity. Post-activity reports include a breakdown of the amount requested for each line object in the committee’s budget, with the corresponding actual expenditure. The reports are reviewed, first, by the chairs and deputy chairs of the committee that incurred the expenses, then, by the Principal Clerk of the Committees Directorate and, lastly, by the members of the subcommittee. Once all three review steps have been completed, the subcommittee tables, with the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, a summary like this one of the post-activity reports of each committee.
In March 2014, the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration agreed to table the summary of post-activity expenditure reports in the Senate to increase the public’s understanding of committee budgets and actual expenditures. For your information, the subcommittee’s last summary of committees’ post-activity expenditure reports covered the 2015-16 and 2016-17 fiscal years and was tabled with the committee on December 6, 2018.
Today’s report contains a summary of 21 post-activity reports for 2017-18. During this fiscal year, 21 travel activities were carried out at a cost of $817,676 out of the 24 activities that had been approved by the Senate for an amount of $1,870,053. That helped generate a surplus of $1,052,377, which was returned to the central budget. That means about 40 per cent of the approved funding was actually spent.
You will note that there is a significant discrepancy between the approved amounts and what committees spent. However, I would like to point out that the approved budgets included funding to enable a total of 187 senators to travel, whereas the real number of travellers was 108. That is a participation rate of slightly over 54 per cent, which had a significant impact on committees’ actual expenditures, as mentioned in the report.
In addition, other factors related to trip planning and the budget approval process — also highlighted in the report — explain that discrepancy. I thank you and am available to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Any questions for Senator Verner?
Senator Marshall: These reports go on the website, don’t they?
Senator Verner: Yes.
The Chair: No questions? I will put the question.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Verner that the report be tabled in the Senate.
Is it agreed? Carried.
The next item is on Senator Dasko’s survey and provides information on whether or not surveys are an acceptable use of Senate resources.
I now invite Charles Feldman, Parliamentary Counsel; and Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, to the witness table.
Gentlemen, do you have any opening comments?
Mr. Lanctôt: Yes, I will start. Honourable senators, my colleague Charles Feldman, from the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, and I will present the situation related to the contract for research on public opinion conducted by an external supplier for Senator Dasko. I will discuss the procurement aspects, and Charles will provide a summary of the review completed by Legal Services.
At Senator Dasko’s request, the procurement team put in place a contract with an external opinion research firm in the last quarter of 2018-19. According to the Senators’ Office Management Policy, SOMP, only the Finance and Procurement Directorate has the authority to enter into a contract with the supplier when the value is greater than $2,500.
The senator’s office provided the procurement team with a statement of work for this request. The statement of work stated that, “The contractor will generate research on the public’s opinion of the Senate of Canada for use by the Honourable Senator Dasko in the exercise of her parliamentary functions.”
[Translation]
The procurement team carried out the usual assessments before entering into a contract with the supplier. Among other things, they ensured that the senator had the budget available to take on that contract and that the statement of work confirmed that the required services were for the purpose of parliamentary functions. The contract signed with the outside firm included terms and conditions concerning Senate standards. Charles will now share his comments, after which we will be pleased to answer your questions.
[English]
Charles Feldman, Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: Good morning, senators. I’m pleased to appear before you this morning, my first time before CIBA, to supplement my colleagues’ remarks and to provide the applicable legal analysis to the survey expense currently being reviewed by this committee.
I will not go into the detail that appears in the note before you, but for the benefit of anyone listening to this discussion, I will provide a general overview of the applicable legal test.
As senators are aware, the committee has the authority to determine whether any previous, current or proposed use of Senate resources is a proper use for the carrying out of parliamentary functions. The term “parliamentary functions” is defined in the Senate Administrative Rules as follows:
[Translation]
“Duties and activities related to the position of a senator, wherever performed, including public and official business and partisan matters.”
[English]
I will stop at this point in the definition to make two observations. First, the initial part of the applicable test permits an expense related to the role of the senator or the activities of the Senate. I don’t think there’s much dispute that this survey relates to the Senate and the role of senators.
However, the second part of the threshold is more complicated and undoubtedly the reason we’re here today. The definition of “parliamentary functions” draws a distinction between what is permissible — namely, partisan parliamentary functions — and certain electoral-related matters in relation to which an expense is impermissible.
The definition of “parliamentary functions” specifically enumerates what is carved out from it.
[Translation]
For example, activities related to the election of a member of the House of Commons under the Canada Elections Act are excluded from the definition of parliamentary functions. Activities related to participation in an activity organized as part of a federal election, for a political party or for a candidate, are also excluded.
[English]
Going from the definitions provided, it is possible to have a survey that is non-partisan, partisan or electoral in nature. Each of these is obviously a range, and reasonable people can disagree. In theory, one have can have an extremely hyper-partisan survey that does not transgress into the prohibited electoral-related category.
[Translation]
Unfortunately, we cannot find a decision that may have been made by this committee in terms of service that we could use to establish a distinction between what is acceptable and what is not.
[English]
Without more input on the line between electoral-related matters and partisan surveys, there is less certainty for senators and ultimately these sorts of questions will return to this committee time and again.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
The Chair: With that, I think we have Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Thanks very much. With this particular issue of this $15,000 poll, I see two primary issues. First of all, that part that you just referred to in the Senate Administrative Rules, the portion that I think was not met here is the part dealing with parliamentary functions in (b), where it says, “supporting or opposing a political party or individual candidate in the context of a federal-provincial-territorial or municipal election or any other local election.” That is not allowed because that particular type of activity falls outside the scope of the allowable portion earlier stated in that section.
In this case, I don’t think Senator Dasko’s poll conformed to that section of the Senate Administrative Rules. Two of her poll questions specifically deal with election commitments and party election promises. One question was: “In 2016, the government changed the following practices with regard to the Senate of Canada. Please tell me if you think each of the following is a good change or not a good change.” Then they deal specifically with three sub-items dealing with the Trudeau government Senate independent process.
Then the second question also that I think falls outside that scope is the question: “And looking ahead, do you think a future government should keep these changes or go back to the previous ways of appointing senators?”
First of all, the 2015 Liberal party election platform promised to create “a new, non-partisan merit-based process to advise the Prime Minister on Senate appointments.” One of the first major announcements made by the Trudeau government was just that.
As well, after Andrew Scheer became leader of the Conservative Party, media asked him at that point whether he would continue this Trudeau government Senate independent process and he said no.
Then last November Senator Woo, the leader of the Independent Senators Group, did media interviews where he said that the future of the Trudeau government Senate experiment should be an issue in the 2019 election. Senator Woo called upon the leaders of the opposition parties in the House of Commons to state their position on this for the election so that Canadians could choose.
Then a few months later, after Senator Woo, the leader of the Independent Senators Group, made that comment, Senator Dasko of the Independent Senators Group did this push poll asking Canadians about what their thought of the 2015 Liberal election campaign promise was and whether or not they wanted to go back to the old ways of appointing senators. The wording of those poll questions is designed to lead to a certain result.
I contrast Senator Dasko’s poll with a couple of polls that Senator Elaine McCoy has done on the issue of an independent Senate. In those particular polls, she appropriately straddled the line. It did not cross the line and go into talking about election issues, which, in this particular case, talked about the 2015 election issue and the upcoming 2019 election issue, and within six months of an election.
I think for those reasons this one contravenes the rule because I think Senator Dasko’s poll did cross that line. In this respect, I think that $15,000 amount should be repaid.
I also wanted to state that I think the Senate Finance procedure surrounding their approval of polls should be tightened because when we examined this issue, we found that Senate Finance does not look at the poll questions to determine whether the poll complies with the Senate Administrative Rules. Poll questions are generally part of the contract — having been involved in that sort of area before I know that — and, as such, I think they should be examined. It would not be an onerous activity. Very few polls have been conducted by senators. In this particular case, there were only 10 poll questions.
For a $15,000 expense, I don’t think we can rely on a senator signing something very brief saying this is for parliamentary business. That is exactly the sort of thing we got into trouble for when we had the Senate expenses scandal. We have to be vigilant on that sort of activity.
I would propose that Senate Finance should be looking at those poll questions to determine whether our rules have been properly complied with. Thank you.
Senator Dean: Let me first thank our colleagues in the administration for a terrific briefing note and for your review of it today. When I looked at the note early this morning, I thought the questions were pertinent. I looked at the key questions that were canvassed by our administration colleagues. It seemed to me that it was pretty clear in finding that Senator Dasko’s contract for a survey was a proper expense in carrying out her parliamentary functions.
I’d like to review that note very briefly, if I could. It reviews the nature and specific aspects of parliamentary functions, as well as the contracting and procurement framework. We now know that a concern is with respect to parliamentary functions.
The analysis section of the note outlines advice to CIBA. I want to draw your attention to the following commentary and conclusions. I’ve pretty much been doing this on the fly, so if I hesitate at certain points, please forgive me.
The note reviews parliamentary functions and procurement requirements, and then it goes to the analysis. I’m going to read some sections of that analysis. It states:
If a senator wishes to obtain the opinion of Canadians in respect of matters before or relating to the Senate, a survey is an appropriate way of obtaining this information. Finance has put in place contracts for senators in the past.
This doesn’t seem to be in dispute, so I’m taking it we all accept that.
In the case of Senator Dasko’s survey contract, Finance was approached by the Senate, and provided with a statement of work and was entered into on behalf of the Senate with a research corporation for work to be provided by Senator Dasko.
The note continues:
The contractor will generate research on the public’s opinion of the Senate of Canada for use by the Honourable Donna Dasko in the exercise of her parliamentary functions.
The note then discusses the definitions and application of parliamentary functions before concluding that:
In the case of Senator Dasko’s survey, it relates to the Senate and none of the questions posed in the survey clearly and directly relate to the electoral activities specifically excluded from the parliamentary functions definition.
The note then kind of reviews some further questions and continues:
Although the concept of independent senators is associated with the current Liberal government and could become a policy issue in the upcoming federal election, there is no explicit election-related theme or tone in the survey. The survey clearly relates to the Senate. It was sent to people across Canada, was not focused on people in a particular electoral district or party, which are tests with respect to parliamentary function. The survey was sent to individuals by phone or online. It was not conducted during a political event.
To the knowledge of the Law Clerk’s office and Finance, the results of the survey have not been used for political party fundraising or any election-related activities. Therefore, based on the information available, the survey appears to fall within the scope of a senator’s parliamentary functions.
So, in conclusion — and I think you can assume that this is now not the advice just of our colleagues, but it’s my determination as well, as an independent senator in this place — we’re now not only talking about advice; we’re talking about a conclusion that I have reached. I want that to go in the record.
The memo consists clearly of both legal and financial advice provided by the administration and our legal experts. Based on that advice, there is clearly no foundation to suggest that there is anything wrong with polling, in general, and in particular to Senator Dasko’s polling. There are precedents for senators using their office budget to conduct polling, and this is reflected in the proactive disclosures of contracts in senators’ offices.
To conclude, in addition to this, if there’s any suggestion here that Senator Dasko’s development of this survey and the operation of it is in any way a partisan activity that would otherwise call it into question, I want to quickly review the Senators’ Office Management Policy, which we’ve just been chatting about and each of the partisan activities that it expressly prohibits. There are six of them. I’ll be very brief.
Under 5.18.1, the first prohibited activity, which is partisan, the solicitation of party membership. Does Senator Dasko’s poll violate that? Clearly not.
The second one, (b), solicitation of political donations. Does the contract with the polling firm commissioned by Senator Dasko in any way violate that? Clearly not.
The third, (c), registration fees to political party events. Is that violated? Clearly not.
Paragraph (d), political party leadership events. Is it violated? Clearly not.
And paragraph (e), Senate resources, including human resources, must not be used to support the following partisan activities: “federal, provincial, territorial or municipal election campaigns, including nomination meetings . . .”
Is this provision violated? Clearly not.
Finally, paragraph (f), the production of materials on political party letterhead and/or that contain political party logos. Is that violated? Absolutely not.
These prohibitions on the use of our budgets are thorough and precise, as is the legal and administrative advice we have received today. Our rules and policies clearly allow for polling contracts. Other senators have done polling contracts. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I will simply conclude by saying that is not just the advice of our administrative colleagues. That is my determination also.
The Chair: Senators, I request that we be brief. We have a lot of speakers and we may run out of time.
Senator Marshall: I will be brief.
The appendix includes the questions that were asked in the survey. I wanted to focus in on two. First, there is one that says: “In 2016, government changed the practice with regard to the Senate of Canada.”
One of the questions was: “Looking ahead, do you think a future government should keep these changes or go back to the previous ways of appointing senators?”
The way it’s worded there — and this is my opinion — it is setting the stage or debate on the Senate appointment process in the October election. When you look back to see what we can’t spend our money on, one of the items is “supporting or opposing a political party in the context of a federal, provincial, territorial or municipal election.”
This issue with regard to the appointment process for senators has already been out there. You can see it’s looming out there, waiting for the election. I know that Mr. Scheer has been asked whether he was going to change the process. To sort of add fuel to the fire, Senator Woo was on Twitter and he’s calling on Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Scheer and Mr. Singh to respond in advance of the fall election.
The survey is actually being used now in the election process and that is not permitted under our rules.
It says here when the Senate Administration decided whether it was a bona fide expenditure, it said how was the survey to be subsequently used or disseminated? Were the results used in support of a political party? It will definitely be used in support of the Liberal Party. I think that that question in the survey is aimed right into the middle of the federal election and I don’t think that that survey should be a bona fide expense of Senate.
Senator Tannas: I have to say I don’t see it as clearly as Senator Dean. I think the questions that have been pointed to are the result of that. Whether it’s coincidental or orchestrated, it went right into the Twitter feed of Senator Woo where he very deliberately — and it’s his right — decided to inject this question into the election. It’s all wonderful timing for everybody that a poll gets done and the numbers get fed and, suddenly, we’re calling on party leaders to do things.
If it is not over the line, this is uncomfortably close to the line. Whenever we get into this space, we need to take note of it and we need to make sure that we are not crossing the line because if we say yes to this, then somebody else with extra money in their office budget will be applying for a poll tomorrow and we’ll see where we go with it.
We all need to think about that when we take a poll, for whatever reason it is that we are taking a poll. I’m uncomfortable with this. At a minimum, in my view we need to clarify this and make sure that we don’t get as close to the line as we are right now because this opens up an activity where we do not want to go, and all, by the way, from a non-partisan independent senator, which also troubles me.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: More specifically, to reference what you are pointing out as involvement in an election, I would also like to remind you of what was clearly stated in the legal opinion shared by independent and neutral expert counsel. I will say it in English:
[English]
What does not count as parliamentary function, the Senate Administrative Rules talk about whether or not an expense was incurred during an election under the Canada Election Act and in the context of a federal, provincial, territorial or municipal election or any other local election.
This poll we are talking about was not done during an election or in the context of an election.
[Translation]
I will continue in French. When a political party, whichever one, is elected and forms the government, and it follows up on the election commitments it had made during the election campaign, they become public policy. Do we want to conclude this morning that, from now on, no senator could consult Canadians or carry out research for investigations as part of their parliamentary work on public policy issues related to, for example, international trade or Senate modernization? I think there is an issue there.
If we were to conclude, despite very clear legal opinion, that an expenditure was not authorized, I think that, in all equality and responsibility, CIBA should decide to investigate some senators’ partisan use of publicly funded resources, including Twitter accounts and websites. What is good for one is also good for the other, and what is bad for one is also bad for the other.
I think this discussion is a waste of time because the legal opinion is very clear. The interpretation of the Senate Administrative Rules is very clear. If they need to be further clarified — I am not against that — let’s give the mandate to one of our subcommittees to clarify the rules and let’s do it in a “supra-partisan” team, as I think that, if we conclude this morning that the survey did not comply with the rules, certain practices and the ways some members of this chamber use Senate public resources need to be reviewed. Thank you.
Senator Moncion: I would like to clarify what has been said. Senator Batters talked about a push poll, which consists in eliminating the professional quality associated with a survey conducted properly by a legitimate firm. A push poll is a marketing tool, while a survey carried out by a company such as Nanos is an information tool that affects the general public. We have to be careful about the words we use when we talk about a survey that was properly conducted.
[English]
Senator Batters also said Senate Finance should look at the questions that are on the poll.
[Translation]
If that is the case, the Communications Directorate should look at all the communication documents it posts on Twitter, Facebook, and so on. The directorate should look into all of that. The audit of expenditures, for example, does not pose any issues, as expenditures have to be approved. I think that survey or communication issues are the responsibility of senators’ offices. We should not really go down that road. We are talking about Senator Woo, who posts potentially political information on Twitter. Once the information has been made public, once the opinion gathered by a recognized survey firm has been made public, we cannot control what the communications sector does with it afterwards. Whether you use it, even you, the Conservatives, to your advantage, or there are issues that benefit certain groups, any group can use it. That survey was even mentioned during the CTV national newscast.
The information that was shared was not really good for the Senate’s reputation. I just want us to be careful about that. Senator Tannas, you talked about independent, non-partisan senators. We completely agree with you. We are not supposed to be partisan. However, once information has been made public, we have no control over it.
The other point I wanted to raise is that we should not confuse “research on politics” with “support of a political party.” The document we have on hand was about research on politics. A few years ago, other senators from the Independent Senators Group carried out surveys that contained questions similar to those of Senator Dasko, and those questions had not been raised at that time. So why was it appropriate two years ago and not today?
According to the legal opinion we have received, the questions that were asked are legitimate. I think it is important to keep that in mind. What people from the communications sector do once the information has been made public cannot be controlled. The advice, which is clear and specific, complies with the policies. The advice we are receiving in this situation complies with policies, and it is allowed. So there is no policy breach. We can try to nit pick — yes, Mr. Chair — to find out what the survey questions were used for, but we ultimately consider this survey to be non-political. Rules are not policies. So we don’t feel that there is a problem in this case.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we have five more senators to speak. I ask you to please be brief. I have to end the meeting at 10:50 because there are some items that have to be dealt with in camera.
Senator Tkachuk: The fact that we are having discussion proves it is political, for one thing. There’s no question about that, otherwise we wouldn’t be here.
First, Mr. Feldman did not say that this was clearly not political. Mr. Feldman said there was a murkiness in the rule and that’s why we’re having this discussion. Let’s not draw conclusions that have not been concluded by the advice we are getting from our staff.
There are two issues here. First, it is a political poll, no matter how you cut it, which should not have been paid for by the Senate. If it is, we are running down a big rabbit hole here, that’s for sure. Second, how did this contract get approved? We know there is some murkiness in the definition. What happened here?
When the payment was made, who looked at the questions? Didn’t anybody in Finance say, “Maybe I should check about this”? Or did it go as a regular contract, as if she was hiring an employee or a contracted employee?
We don’t often do polls here. After the poll was done, was there not then some kind of process as to whether or not it was a political poll? How would anybody in Finance know? How did that get paid for?
Senator Moncion: It’s not their role.
Senator Tkachuk: Their role is to ask if they are not sure. How did they know to be sure? I’m just asking. Somebody should know. What was the process? What was the actual process for approving the payment of the contract?
Mr. Lanctôt: Actually, the payment has not been made yet.
Senator Tkachuk: That’s good. That’s interesting.
Mr. Lanctôt: We received the invoice, but we have not paid yet because the issue was raised and we are waiting for confirmation.
Senator Tkachuk: Excellent. I thought it was paid for. So it’s not paid for yet. That’s a very different situation now. It has to be authorized.
First of all, I don’t think the Senate should pay for this. I think Senator Dasko should pay for this contract. This is not a contract that the Senate should pay for because it’s clearly a political contract. I’m going to leave it at that. The point is known.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: The question we are putting to ourselves here, all the spins aside, is essentially whether the Senate Administrative Rules have been complied with or not. I have carefully gone over the note prepared by Mr. Feldman, which summarizes the facts that have been brought to his attention and I have not heard anything today to make me believe that the facts are incomplete. It seems that the facts are recognized and uncontested, including precedents and the fact that the individual had asked for authorization. I also note that the analysis was carried out, all the questions asked in the survey are summarized and the method followed is summarized. I have not heard anything this morning that leads me to believe that the questions are poorly summarized here and that the method followed is incompliant.
It has been well explained that this was not a push poll, to reuse that expression. We are coming to a conclusion by someone on the outside, as I doubt that the environment, after the comments I have heard, is really that of objective analysis here, of sober second thought, as it looks more like an attempt at political gain. However, if we are to rely on a reasonable and well-informed third party, who conducted a comprehensive, non-partisan analysis, his conclusion is:
Although the concept of an independent senator is associated with the current Liberal government and could become a political issue during the next federal election, the survey does not involve any theme or electoral tone. The survey clearly concerns the Senate. As a result, based on the information available, it appears that the survey is compatible with the parliamentary functions of a senator.
I think this conclusion is entirely reasonable and I do not hesitate to endorse it.
[English]
The Chair: We have 10 minutes left. We have a hard stop at ten o’clock and I need to go in camera for one or two further items.
I suggest we carry on the debate next week and if there is something to be done, then we need a motion that we can vote on. If somebody wishes to bring a motion, whatever motion that is, I suggest you come with a motion and we will carry on with the last four speakers next week.
Senator Batters: Mr. Chair, when we start at 8 a.m., I think the next meeting in this particular room is at 10:30. Isn’t the hard stop at 10:15 instead of 10:00?
Ms. Legault: For broadcasting there is a hard stop at 10 today.
Senator Batters: Why?
Ms. Legault: Because there is a conflict.
Senator Dawson: The Foreign Affairs panel has video witnesses. There is a question asked; I’m giving you the answer. It is because it is going to be video conferencing.
Senator Plett: I’m happy with your suggestion; I’m on that list. I want to ask a quick question. I want to continue the debate next week, but I would like to ask a question somewhat in relation to what Senator Tkachuk said.
We know this has not been paid for yet but was it approved before she did it? Did she bring the questions in and was it approved before she did it? If that question is not answered today, it can be answered next week, but that is very important to this conversation as to whether or not it was approved ahead of time.
The Chair: Why don’t we answer the question next week because we are going to run out of time and that will lead to another question. We will carry on the debate next week, if that’s okay with senators. If there is a motion, I would like someone to bring a motion forward and we can vote on that.
Senator Omidvar: I thought I was next on the speaking list.
The Chair: You are.
Senator Omidvar: I’m confused as to what we are doing.
The Chair: We are going to carry on the debate next week and you will be first next week.
Senator Omidvar: But I was ahead of Senator Plett.
The Chair: No you weren’t. His was to end the motion. That was not part of the debate. He was suggesting a solution to moving it forward. Is that okay, senators, we will carry on the debate next week?
If there are no other questions, no other public business, we will go in camera briefly for 10 minutes.
(The committee continued in camera.)