THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 9, 2021
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met with videoconference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters; 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. My name is Sabi Marwah, I am a senator from Ontario and I have the privilege to chair the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Today, we will be conducting a hybrid meeting with some senators participating virtually and others participating in person. The meeting will start in public and a portion of the meeting will then be in camera.
Before we begin, I would like to remind colleagues of the best practices for a successful meeting.
Please keep your microphone muted at all times unless recognized by name to speak. Senators attending remotely are responsible for turning their microphones on and off during debate. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of English, French or no simultaneous translation.
Should members wish to request the floor, please use the “raise hand” feature if you are attending virtually and advise the clerk if you are attending in person.
Should any technical or other challenges arise, please signal this to the clerk immediately and the technical team will work to resolve the issue.
I would now like to introduce the senators who are participating in the meeting: Senator Patricia Bovey, Manitoba; Senator Yvonne Boyer, Ontario; Senator Larry Campbell, British Columbia; Senator Donna Dasko, Ontario; Senator Raymonde Gagné, Manitoba; Senator Tony Dean, Ontario; Senator Leo Housakos, Quebec; Senator Lucie Moncion, Ontario; Senator Rosemary Moodie, Ontario; Senator Victor Oh, Ontario; Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec; Senator Larry Smith, Quebec and Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Welcome to all of you across the country that are viewing these proceedings.
Honourable senators, the first item is a few organizational motions in addition to the ones we adopted at our meeting last Thursday. It should be noted that these motions are all consistent with past practice. However, I would like to point out two small changes that were discussed and agreed to at steering earlier this week. The first relates to motion 1, regarding support staff being present during in camera proceedings.
We are proposing that one staff member per senator be permitted to attend the in camera proceedings in person. Previously, the meetings were virtual and the senator’s staff were only able to view the public portion of the meeting.
The second change relates to motion 4, regarding the confidentiality of committee documents. In this case, we propose adding advisory working group reports to point 4, as this would allow for advisory working group reports to be made public automatically if presented to the public portion of the meeting. These reports will remain confidential if the report is subsequently tabled or presented in the Senate by this committee. This practice would be consistent with the practice we have adopted in the past for subcommittee reports.
Are there any questions or comments?
If not, can I have a mover of the following motion:
That, unless otherwise decided, the following support staff be authorized to be present during in camera proceedings:
Can I dispense?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain moves the motion.
A reminder, colleagues, that votes will proceed in a similar manner as the hybrid chamber, whereby senators who wish to oppose or abstain are provided with an opportunity to do so. The absence of any opposition is interpreted as support for the motion.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried.
Colleagues, the next item is approval of the public minutes from December 2, 2021, which is in your package. Are there any questions or changes?
Can I have a mover of the following motion:
That the Minutes of Proceedings of Thursday, December 2, 2021 be adopted.
Senator Dean moves motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Colleagues, the next item is an oral update from the former Advisory Working Group on Artwork and Heritage Assets. This item is for information only.
Tamara Dolan, Curator, Heritage and Curatorial Services, will now join the meeting by video conference as a witness.
As usual, the presentation will be followed by time for questions.
Senator Bovey: It is a pleasure to give a quick update of our work. I want to begin by giving my condolences to the family of Senator Josée Forest-Niesing. She was a very valued member of our committee, dedicated and committed, and I very much appreciate all she did.
Where are we now? We did our new policies and procedures. They were redone and being implemented. We will hold our next meeting as soon as we have the membership complete. We’re down to just two of us from the earlier committee — Senator White and myself — following the retirement of Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen and the passing of Senator Forest-Niesing. Three, of course, is a quorum.
The projects we have undertaken with your approval all enhance or aim to enhance the goals and work of the Senate. The first is reconciliation. We have rehung this room, the Indigenous Peoples Room, to better reflect the representation of Indigenous art. That links with our “Cultivating Perspectives” project, the first 13 essays, 13 works in this collection written by curators across the country, and they were on our website as of June 14.
We are ready, when our working group meets again, to get permission for the next 13 Senate curators. All the first 13 works are now on view in the chamber in the Senate of Canada Building.
We are fully aware that for reconciliation and Indigenous work, we need better and more representation. We’re following the report that Greg Hill did for us at your agreement. We will soon be inviting three Indigenous curators to advise as pro bono assistants with our work.
The first museum at the Senate is now installed in Room B30, Inuit art from the Winnipeg Art Gallery and from Nunavut. This, too, enhances the Senate’s work on reconciliation. As I said in the chamber the other day, the response is overwhelming. It’s wonderful.
The second installation of honouring Canada’s Black artists, Denyse Thomasos and Tim Whiten, from Ontario, are up and furthering our commitment to the African Canadian Senate Group and the Parliamentary Black Caucus, and to Black Lives Matter.
We had advice from Gaëtane Verna, Director of The Power Plant Contemporary Art Gallery in Toronto, and the loans for this are from the Olga Korper Gallery in Toronto. I should say that Gaëtane Verna is a well esteemed, internationally acclaimed Black curator and art director.
I also want to update you on our conservation goals, Mr. Chair, for this year. We will not be doing the conservation work on any of our desks in the chamber this fiscal year, as they weren’t used this past year because we were in hybrid sessions, thus $7,750 that had been approved by CIBA will not be spent during this fiscal year.
I have recently been asked by several colleagues to assist them with finding visual art to enhance the work of the climate change working group.
My suggestion is to rotate artwork — one artwork or two — to highlight major issues that this chamber is debating. The first could be climate change.
I recommend borrowing pieces by artists of Canadian and international stature for this installation. I have two artists in mind. We would need money for transportation — I am looking at them, close at hand — the installer, artists fees and copyright permissions as per the Fédération des artistes canadiens or CARFAC national agreements.
The Speaker has informally agreed to the use of the wall. After concurrence by CIBA, the Advisory Working Group on Artwork and Heritage Assets at its next meeting will make formal requests of the Speaker and artists.
I anticipate that the budget for this will be less than $2,500 or $3,000. I think I’m being very generous in that. That will depend on whether it is one work or two. I think, with concurrence, this could be up at the beginning of February.
I have spoken to the two senators who spoke to me. If we can do this, they seem to be over the moon.
I want to thank the communications staff. They redid the communications plan for this advisory group. The redone plan is excellent. It highlights messages rather than segments of Canada’s population. I want to thank everyone who is working on it.
Mr. Chair, each of our projects are now up on the Senate website, including the Inuit work and the presentation of Honouring Canada’s Black Artists. We hope they will soon be in the press. The public response to our work remains high, and I want to thank all involved. The energy is intoxicating. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any questions for Senator Bovey or Tamara?
Senator Boyer: Thank you, Senator Bovey. That was absolutely wonderful work. I appreciate it.
I am wondering about Métis artists. Have you been able to include Métis in this collection?
Senator Bovey: Yes, there is Métis art hanging in the Indigenous Peoples Room now, and as you probably know, I am in touch with Inuit, Métis and First Nations artists on a regular basis. The answer is “yes,” but we need more. We have no Indigenous artists from the East Coast, and I’m working on that, and I think there’s more contemporary work we should be including. We have some challenges, and we will make it work.
Senator Boyer: Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions, colleagues? If not, thank you again, Senator Bovey, and thank you, Tamara, for the work you have done on this. We look forward to hearing from you as your work progresses.
Senator Bovey: Mr. Chair, would this committee agree with us going forward with the idea of acting on the requests from other senators for a few works on climate change?
The Chair: Colleagues?
Senator Bovey: We will need some money to do this. It’s not in the operating budget that you have already agreed to. As I said, the maximum would be $2,500 to $3,000. And —
The Chair: Senator Bovey, I would suggest that you come back with a specific request of what, exactly, is required, and we will be glad to look at it whenever you do.
Senator Bovey: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, we are moving to item 4. This is a report from the former Subcommittee on Human Resources concerning the adoption of the new occupational health and safety policy. Linda Sabourin, Occupational Health, Safety and Wellness, Human Resources Directorate; and Élise Hurtubise-Loranger, Senior Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, will now join the meeting by video conference as witnesses.
As usual, the presentation will be followed by time for questions. It is my understanding that Senator Saint-Germain will make opening remarks, and that Linda and Élise will assist in answering questions.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Your Subcommittee on Human Resources, which was authorized by the CIBA to examine and report on issues related to human resources in the Senate, including Senate policies referred to it by the committee, received the proposal to examine and approve the new Senate Policy on Occupational Health and Safety and the Internal Complaint Resolution Process, which would replace the current Senate Interim Policy on Occupational Health and Safety, approved in September 2019.
On July 29, 2019, Part II of An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1 came into force and made significant changes to the legal framework governing occupational health and safety in the Senate. The act incorporated the occupational health and safety requirements of Part II of the Canada Labour Code into Part III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.
Another amendment to the legislation made the Senate legally obligated to comply with this part of the Canada Labour Code for the first time. It also made it possible to create section 88.6, which clarified that, while this part of the code does apply to the Senate, it does not in any way limit the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate or permit the interference, directly or indirectly, with the business of the Senate.
Respected colleagues, before I go further, I want to officially add to the transcript from this presentation that, after the translation was completed, we made a change to the English version, which was not rendered in the French version. I want to point out that this is not a translation error. The translation that was not done in French refers to the definition of employees in the French version. We are talking about Senate Administration employees, while in reality, it is a matter of Senate employees, and that of course includes the employees of senators and senators’ offices. The version we are proposing for approval will include that change to the French version.
[English]
To fulfill its legal obligations under the Labour Code, the Senate was required to establish a Health and Safety Policy Committee and to involve this committee in the development of the new policy. To allow for sufficient time for the creation of and consultation with that policy committee, CIBA approved the adoption of the interim policy in September 2019.
Over the following months, the policy committee participated in the development of this new policy that provides a mechanism consistent with the Senate’s legal rights and obligations for the resolution of occupational health and safety issues that might arise in the Senate workplace.
Another significant amendment, because of the act, is the broadening of the definition of “workplace accidents and injuries” under the Labour Code to include cases of harassment, and psychological injuries and illnesses. This Senate harassment and violence prevention policy sets out a complete process to deal with occurrences of harassment and violence in the Senate workplace, whereas this policy deals with injuries and illnesses arising outside of the workplace and which are unrelated to harassment or violence.
As you know, we have a specific policy regarding prevention and management of situations involving harassment and/or violence.
This extended definition has been incorporated into the current policy. The purpose of the policy is to ensure that the Senate takes all reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of every employee by preventing workplace accidents as well as physical and psychological injuries or illnesses arising in the context of the Senate workplace. It applies to all persons employed by the Senate, including Senate Administration employees and employees working in senators’ offices. It also applies to senators as supervisors to the staff working in their offices.
The complaint process accompanies the policy and outlines the processes to be followed for filing a formal complaint under sections 127.1, 128 or 132 of the Canada Labour Code and a corresponding complaint under paragraph 1.6.1.2 of the policy.
Under this process, the policy and the Labour Code, employees have the right to file three different types of complaints. The process to be followed for each one of these is outlined in Appendix A of the policy. I will highlight that there are three types of rights for complaining: the right to identify an unsafe situation to file a formal health and safety complaint, the right to refuse dangerous work and the specific right for pregnant and nursing employees.
So, colleagues, your Human Resources Subcommittee unanimously recommend, after a careful review of the new policy, that the new Senate policy on occupational health and safety be approved, the internal complaint resolution process also be approved and that they both be in force immediately.
Thank you. I am ready now to take your questions and to defer to the very qualified team in the administration, who have been working on this file. I want to highlight and thank the members of the Policy Committee. As you know, the representative of the unionized and non-unionized employees have prepared and reviewed this policy as well as our senators’ staffers’ representative. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain. We will go to questions now.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I have two questions, Mr. Chair. The first concerns the risks related to workplace ergonomics. Senators’ offices and the majority of employee offices, be they in the administration or elsewhere, are heritage offices or offices that have been in use for many years.
Those are not ergonomic offices. The chairs used are also not ergonomic.
Could you explain to us how you will ensure that risks related to workplace ergonomics are taken into account in this portion? In the policy, this is on page 4 of 15, under item 1.6.2.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for the question, Senator Moncion. You are speaking in future tense, and I will speak in present and past tenses.
We are already making sure that those risks are well managed. More can always be done, but we have a practice in situations where it has been demonstrated that there is a need to have not only chairs, but other ergonomic workplace tools, and we provide employees with those tools. As you know, during the pandemic, we even allowed employees with special needs who had that equipment in their office, in one of the Senate controlled buildings, to take their equipment home.
Mr. Chair, I would also like to give our employee an opportunity to complement my answer if it is deemed insufficiently detailed.
[English]
Linda Sabourin, Occupational Health, Safety and Wellness, Human Resources Directorate: Thank you very much, and I will agree with the senator and what she has said. We provide ergonomic coaching sessions to all employees and senators, and we are able to contract out for ergonomic assessments with an ergonomist if required.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Could you define “if required,” as Senator Saint-Germain also talked about demonstrated situations?
[English]
Ms. Sabourin: If the coaching session does not provide any relief to the employee — we do that as a first step, using the equipment that exists in the employee’s workstation. If that does not provide relief or if there is a medical requirement that needs to be addressed as an accommodation issue, then we would bring in the paid ergonomist in order to properly assess.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Okay, thank you.
My second question is about page 15 of 15, where the organizational structure is provided. You indicate that the Speaker of the Senate may present evidence. I thought it was strange to see that the Speaker of the Senate was involved in operations related to occupational health and safety.
So can you tell me why the Speaker of the Senate is mentioned there and not, for instance, the chair of CIBA or someone who is truly involved in operations?
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for the question, Senator Moncion.
You are giving me an opportunity to remind everyone that some responsibilities in terms of Senate governance are assigned to its Speaker, including responsibilities regarding the safety and protection of parliamentarians. It is in that context that the responsibilities of our institution’s Speaker are those for which they are ultimately accountable. The other responsibilities, those we recognize as relating to the more administrative governance of the Senate, come under the chair of CIBA and are compartmentalized, and the chair of CIBA is responsible for ensuring that the policy is respected and for reporting on it.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Moodie: I have a few questions. The first question is about the process of the right to refuse dangerous work. Under that issue, where the refusal to work will interfere with Senate proceedings, the policy requires that one of two things can occur. The Speaker or the chair of the committee might be asked to make the decision, and I’m wondering about that process. Are chairs going to be provided with the appropriate training and support for this kind of decision making? Because this, in fact, it will be a binding and final decision.
The second question is around performance measurement. I see that you have a number of what looks like volume-related indicators. I see no process indicators and no outcome indicators. Is there any plan to develop those moving forward? I am thinking of outcome indicators — things like satisfaction surveys for the staff, numbers of terminations and legal proceedings that might have erupted as a result.
The third question is related to a formal complaint process. I’m wondering about the possible situation where a staff member may have an issue with their direct manager or supervisor and there may be a conflict of interest in the process. What are your thoughts on the whole — and it’s not elucidated in the formal complaints process — and how that might be managed.
Senator Saint-Germain: I will start on the three questions and then I will ask the team to go further. As for your question regarding the supervisors, including senators as supervisors of their staffers, yes, there will be training. We have a training plan. All those who have to play an active supervision role in the implementation of this policy will be trained and will be supported by the administration while they have to refer to the policy in the course of their duties.
As for the performance measurement indicators, we have the responsibility to be accountable and to account according to the law. Some work has been done — and some work is still to be done — in order to develop and update the indicators that we have if and when so needed.
With respect to the formal complaint process regarding health and safety — which is different from harassment and violence because, as you know, we have another policy for that — it is always a good practice. It is provided that when there is an issue, either involving a direct supervisor or a conflict of interest, then the employee has to go to the director of the supervisor. If there is no director, let’s say in the case of a senator, then another option is to be provided for those employees. But I will let the representative of the law clerk speak to further complete my answer. Thank you, those are very good questions.
Élise Hurtubise-Loranger, Senior Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel: I can add a little bit to what Senator Saint-Germain mentioned. In terms of a refusal to work in the context of deliberations, for example, yes, that would be brought to the committee chair’s attention or the Speaker’s attention, depending on where it takes place. In terms of the back end of that, our office would be able to provide some legal advice on privilege in that context. This will happen naturally with the resources that are in place to deal with any question of privilege, so it would involve our office and the procedural team. That will take its natural course.
When there is a conflict of interest between the employee and their supervisor, as Senator Saint-Germain mentioned, there is a way out of that in the harassment policy in the context of OHS. Yes, the employee could go to their supervisor’s director and escalate in that chain of command. The other option is to file a formal complaint, which will take its course and go to the Workplace Health and Safety Committee. In terms of indicators, I will turn the floor over to Linda, who has information on that.
Ms. Sabourin: The policy specifically outlines the legal requirements that we have for reporting, so how many meetings we’ve had, what our committees are doing and how many incidents we’ve had. However, as we develop and continue on in our health and safety program, we develop our guidelines and procedures. Those will all have individual key metrics, and we can then measure the success of those programs independently from the policy.
The Chair: Are there any other questions, colleagues?
Senator Smith: In the case of an employee wanting to lodge a complaint against a supervisor, is there a hotline or direct line that people can go to immediately to get on-the-spot advice?
Senator Saint-Germain: The process is appended to the policy. As for the direct hotline, I don’t think that we have one. However, it’s a confidential process. If an employee wants to first get information prior to complaining, he or she will be given the information in a very private and confidential manner. Then this employee can make the decision. It’s access to information in a confidential way, but there is no hotline so far, as far as I know. If that’s not the case, I will ask the administration to complement my answer. However, I’m not aware of a hotline.
Senator Smith: The purpose of the question is that if it’s that important to the employee, is it that important to the people on the other end, in terms of the rapid response? Sometimes you’ll see in larger organizations, or even small organizations, that there may not be the attention to that detail. I’m not trying to raise a criticism. I’m just trying to raise an executional point.
Senator Saint-Germain: The rapid response, depending on the situation, is one of the criteria that we align. Let’s say you have a danger in front of the entrance of a building. That danger is there today. It has to be tackled today. It won’t even be a 24‑hour issue. It’s an emergency issue. However, if there are other issues where 48 hours or even a week to tackle it could be considered a reasonable delay, this is what will happen. No, there’s no hotline, unless I’m corrected. I’ve never heard about a hotline.
However, the rapid response and access to someone responsible who is trained and able to respond to any situation within a reasonable timeline is the practice that we have decided on.
Senator Dean: It’s a great question, senator. I think in practice, the first approach would be to point it out to a supervisor. A second and parallel approach would be to raise it with our health and safety representatives on the workplace committee. They will have some training and would know where to go and what to do. However, it is a great question. I think it’s important to be able to answer those in the communications around this. That may well be part of a Q & A.
I’d just say more broadly that many of you will know that health and safety legislation and regulation started, not surprisingly, in the mining sector and resource sectors of Canada. They have, over the years, extended to other workplaces, including administrative and white-collar workplaces. Codes have tended to be increasingly responsive to the nature of those workplaces. This one is. We have some questions. We need them answered. However, the bedrock of these codes continues to be having the right to know about hazards — and know about them quickly if they’re identified — and the right to participate through workplace committees. As a result of the harassment policy process, we actually have a much more educated and active workplace and policy committee now and certainly have good employee representation. Last is the right to refuse. If you cannot get the support you think you need, and if you believe there’s a hazard there, you have the ability to walk away from it.
This is another huge step. It’s a huge marker in our progress, in terms of the creation of a safe workplace. It comes on the heels of the implementation of our workplace harassment policy. I think it’s a testament to CIBA’s work and the work of the Human Resources Subcommittee. I thank Senator Saint-Germain for her leadership with that.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Dean.
I’d like to complement this answer. From page 11 to 18 of the appendix, you will find the different delays and processes regarding the three rights. As for the right to refuse dangerous work, the situation has to be examined immediately, without any delay, by the supervisor. Also, the chief human resources officer can be called and act on a dangerous situation at all times. I think it is important, and it is in the spirit of what you are looking for, Senator Smith. I think it’s very important.
Senator Smith: My point was related to an interpersonal conflict that could exist between a supervisor or a senator and an individual, and the rapid response to that. If you’re in the employee’s position, you’re much more sensitive to the outcome than if you’re a senator or a supervisor and you’re looking through the policy manual. The interpersonal issue is something we dealt with in the last few years with specific senators and specific employees. In my sense, we need to have some form of a trigger if it’s something to do with — I’m not talking about dangerous substances or dangerous situations — an interpersonal situation that could be very harmful to an employee. You might want to consider some little point that would say “immediate response,” so there’s a trigger that goes off within HR.
The Chair: Senator Dean had a good point whereby in your Q & A, or in your communications plan when you implement this policy or disseminate it, you may want to specifically cover off Senator Smith’s point about how employees should best handle an urgent matter requiring attention. Maybe that’s the best way to do it.
Senator Saint-Germain: Exactly. It works for the plan we have for implementing the harassment prevention and management policy as well. Thank you, senator. We share your concerns.
The Chair: Colleagues, I see no other hands up. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Saint-Germain:
That the eleventh report of the former Subcommittee on Human Resources be adopted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? The motion is carried.
Colleagues, the next item is a request for approval of a sole‑source contract to provide large-scale printer equipment maintenance. A public request for proposal was issued, but unfortunately we did not receive any responses that met the requirement. Caroline Morency, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, will join the meeting by video conference as a witness.
Caroline Morency, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you, chair. Good afternoon, honourable senators. I’m here today to seek your approval to proceed with a sole-source contract for the provision of large-scale printer equipment maintenance and software licence subsequent to having issued a public request for proposal and not receiving any successful bids during the posting period.
The recent competitive process allowed the Finance and Procurement Directorate to ascertain that the current supplier, Konica Minolta Business Solutions (Canada), is the only supplier in the region authorized to provide the maintenance services to this specialized equipment. This supplier also provides the software solution required to operate the large-scale printing equipment. No reasonable alternative or substitute exists for either the maintenance or the software. This equipment operates under a cost-per-copy pricing model, which includes the cost of toner and maintenance based on the number of pages printed per machine. The new contract would have a similar basis of payment.
In our estimated forecast over five years, presented to CIBA on April 1, 2021, to launch the RFP, we had considered a consistent per-unit cost and pre-pandemic levels of operation, plus a 10% contingency for uncertainty. If the sole source is approved by CIBA, the Senate procurement team will negotiate the best available price for the Senate.
In summary, we’re seeking your approval to enter into a sole‑source contract for the provision of printer equipment maintenance and a software licence fee over a three-year period, with two additional one-year options. I would now be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Colleagues, as per past practice, as the final contract has not been negotiated with the supplier, I would like to remind you not to refer to any dollar amounts or any sensitive information. If you’d like to further elaboration on that, we should do that in camera.
With that, I’ll open it up for questions.
Senator Dasko: I have a point of clarification. Did the contractor with whom you are wanting to go forward not participate in the RFP process? I’m not clear how that operated. Thank you.
Ms. Morency: Thank you for the question, senator. In fact, the supplier was invited to participate but did not submit any bids, because he knew that he was the only supplier eligible to provide the services. So he refrained from submitting a bid.
Senator Dasko: Thank you. But why did they not submit a bid? I’m not quite sure why they wouldn’t do so.
Senator Smith: Only game in town.
Senator Dasko: Okay, but still why wouldn’t they submit a bid in the open process?
Senator Smith: He has leverage on the situation.
Senator Dasko: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, if there are more sensitive questions, I suggest we deal with them in camera. We will be approving it in camera, with a dollar amount specifically noted for all of you to approve.
Colleagues, we’ll move on to item 6, the report from the former Subcommittee on Senate Estimates concerning changes to the Senate Procurement Policy. Pierre Lanctôt, our CFO, will join the meeting by video conference as a witness. It is my understanding that Senator Moncion will make opening remarks and Pierre will assist in answering questions. Senator Moncion, you may begin.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Your subcommittee, which was authorized by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to examine and report on financial matters, including Senate policies referred to it by the committee, received a request to review and approve the updated Senate Procurement Policy.
The policy establishes the requirements for the acquisition of all goods and/or services from third parties, other parliamentary entities and government organizations in an efficient and effective manner that results in the best value for the Senate while mitigating risks, enhancing access and encouraging competition and fairness for suppliers. The policy also outlines the roles and responsibilities of CIBA, the Executive Committee, the Chief Financial Officer, the Manager, Procurement Services, the Deputy Chief Financial Officer and Comptroller, contracting authorities, the Corporate Security Directorate, and senators, members of the Executive Committee and administration directors and managers who require the acquisition of goods and services.
When initiating the review process of this policy, the Finance and Procurement Directorate analyzed good practices from other organizations, reviewed documentation from and/or consulted the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament, the National Capital Commission, the Royal Canadian Mint, and the current Treasury Board Contracting Policy and Contracts Directive.
The changes proposed to the policy and its content aligned with good practices for public organizations. A summary of the key changes, benefits and impacted groups pertaining to this policy can be found in the appendix. After careful review of the revised policy, your subcommittee recommends that the updated Senate Procurement Policy be approved, that Schedule A of the Senate Administrative Rules be amended to reflect changes to the sole source contracting thresholds set out in the Senate Procurement Policy, and that the Senate Procurement Policy come into force on February 1, 2022.
Respectfully submitted.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions?
Senator Moodie: My question is around services that are given out to third parties. Do we, as a Senate, as an organization, bind those third parties to our standards and our rules? Do we have a method or a process to review their performance in terms of quality, performance and other concerns that might help us mitigate risk?
Senator Moncion: I will ask Pierre Lanctôt to answer the question.
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you, senator. Yes, all of our contracts with third-party suppliers include specific provisions with respect to laws, and some specific practices and policies of the Senate. So it is noted. Also, before we approve invoices and making payments, we always ensure that we have the quality that we expected.
The Chair: Are there any other questions, colleagues? I see no other questions.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Moncion:
That the tenth report of the former Subcommittee on Senate Estimates be adopted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Carried.
The next item, colleagues, concerns a permanent solution for the allocation of office accommodations during a period of prorogation or dissolution. Shaila Anwar, Clerk Assistant; and Anne Burgess, Senior Parliamentary Counsel, will join the meeting by video conference as witnesses. As usual, the presentation will be followed by time for questions. Shaila, you may begin.
Shaila Anwar, Clerk Assistant, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: Good morning, honourable senators.
I’m joining you this morning to provide a brief explanation of this proposal. Since 2017, the SARs have prescribed that office accommodations not under the control of a caucus or group become vacant and that the Selection Committee assign vacant office accommodations to senators and their staff based on seniority and special needs.
Since 2018, the Selection Committee has delegated this responsibility to its steering committee and follows a set of principles that prioritize certain criteria to help steering make these decisions. The steering committee then reports its decisions on office allocations to SELE from time to time.
[Translation]
The problem is that neither the Selection Committee nor its steering committee exists during periods of prorogation or dissolution. To remedy this deficiency, following the 2019 dissolution, CIBA created an advisory working group and designated senators who were members of SELE’s steering committee when the dissolution or prorogation took place as the group in charge of allocating vacant senators’ offices.
The working group reports to CIBA’s steering committee from time to time by presenting a list of decisions made. This system works well and allows for quick decisions to be made during prolonged adjournments of the Senate, and that reduces moving time frames. The goal is to ensure some continuity and stability in the process. However, CIBA must adopt a motion to that effect every time there is a prorogation or a dissolution. This summer, CIBA’s steering committee asked us to find a permanent solution to this problem.
[English]
The note therefore proposes an amendment to the SARs that will make this temporary, ad hoc process into one that is automatic and permanent.
The recommendation before you is that CIBA authorize the chair to seek the Senate’s approval to amend Chapter 4:03, section 2 of the SARs by way of a notice of motion when next the Senate meets to designate the senators who were members of the SELE steering committee on the day on which Parliament was prorogued or dissolved to allocate office accommodations to senators during an intersessional period.
Anne and I would now be pleased to take any questions you may have.
The Chair: Colleagues, are there any questions for Shaila or Anne? Colleagues, this resolves the temporary problem we have. Whenever there’s a dissolution, we have two to four months during which time senators appointed during that period can’t get offices, so this helps solve that problem every time there’s a dissolution.
This resolves a problem that we’ve been managing on an ad hoc basis, but we’ll be doing it permanently.
Senator Housakos: The composition of this particular committee is made up of senators on the Selection Committee at the time of the dissolution of Parliament, correct?
The Chair: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I have a simple question. To whom does this subcommittee report?
Ms. Anwar: During a session, SELE’s steering committee reports to the Selection Committee, which consists of representatives of all parties and parliamentary groups.
During periods of dissolution or prorogation, members of that advisory group report to CIBA’s steering committee.
[English]
The Chair: Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Chair be authorized to seek the Senate’s approval to amend chapter 4:03, section 2 of the SARs, by way of a notice of a motion in the Senate, to designate the senators who were members of SELE’s steering committee on the day on which Parliament may be prorogued or dissolved to allocate office accommodations to senators during an intersessional period.
Senator Dawson moves the motion.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Carried.
Colleagues, 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 the corresponding decisions. It is my honour to table the twelfth report of the subcommittee, which outlines the exemption requests and corresponding decisions since February 11, 2021. The report is placed before you for information, and I would be glad to answer any questions.
Seeing no questions, we’ll move on to item 9. This item is an update on the public accounts for the fiscal year 2020-21. This item is for information only. Pierre Lanctôt, our CFO, will now join the meeting by video conference as a witness. Pierre, you may begin.
Mr. Lanctôt: Honourable senators, I will be providing you with the highlights of the Senate’s financial information that is part of the Public Accounts of Canada, which is usually tabled in Parliament in the fall. The briefing notes included in the meeting material provide more detailed information.
The Senate’s financial results show that the Senate spent $10.9 million less during the fiscal year 2020-21 than it received in voted authorities of $79.7 million. All unused Senate authorities remain in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and no surplus funds are carried over to the next fiscal year.
The main reason for the budget surplus is related to the lower‑than-planned level of activities due to the pandemic. This explanation is also valid for expenses for the committees and International and Interparliamentary Affairs.
[Translation]
Senators and House officers achieved a surplus of $8.6 million due to the actual number of senators during the fiscal year being lower than the number budgeted in the main estimates and the reduced level of activities owing to the pandemic.
As for the Senate administration, $3.4 million surplus was achieved due to unplanned departures, lower salaries than budgeted and positions that were not filled during the pandemic. In addition, a surplus of $1.9 million is attributable to reduced service requirements owing to the pandemic. These surpluses allowed the Senate to self-fund $1.7 million in improvements to its tangible capital assets.
In conclusion, the Senate has continued to manage its spending in a prudent manner during the fiscal year 2020–21, and as a result, spent less than the funding it received as part of the Main Estimates.
This concludes my report. I will be pleased to answer your questions and receive your comments.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions, colleagues? Thank you, Pierre.
Colleagues, is there any other public business?
Senator Moncion: I have a quick question. For the record, we had meetings during the intersessional portion. We had one last week, and the minutes are not in the documents that were provided this week. Could you explain the rule regarding the minutes taken during the intersessional portion and how they are brought back — or not — to the regular CIBA meetings?
The Chair: I’ll ask Ms. Legault, clerk of the committee, to go over the number of procedures followed from one CIBA to another.
[Translation]
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration: Thank you for your question, Senator Moncion. The CIBA meeting of November 25 was held with members of a committee that no longer exists. As usual, the minutes for the public portion of the meeting are available on the Senate website, just like transcripts. However, in camera portions are confidential and, for that reason, they are not provided to the members of the new CIBA committee. So those minutes are accessible, as in the past, only to the people who attended the in camera meeting.
Senator Moncion: Are those minutes never approved?
Ms. Legault: They are reviewed thoroughly by the clerk and are kept. It would be my pleasure to provide former members with a copy if they wish to review the minutes.
Senator Moncion: Yes, but it is a matter of approval. It is a matter of governance, and that is why I am bringing it up.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Moncion, it has never happened before, but should there be changes required to the minutes that you’re not happy with, we shall have to find a procedure to deal with it.
Senator Moncion: It’s not a question of me being happy or not. It’s a question of the minutes never being approved by either CIBA or any other committee. They’re unapproved minutes. That’s all.
The Chair: The committee doesn’t exist. That’s the problem. We could bring the public portion back to this committee, but not every member of this committee was on the last committee, so what will they approve? In camera portion is confidential to this committee as well.
Senator Moncion: But a lot of decisions were made at that meeting that are important for this committee to follow up on, and we’re looking at approving the financial statements and the budget. I’m saying that this is something we should be looking at.
[Translation]
Ms. Legault: Senator, it would be my pleasure to bring this issue to the attention of the steering committee concerning current procedures, and we could discuss with members to determine what solution they want to propose or implement.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other comments, colleagues, before we go in camera? If not, the clerk will advise us when we are in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)