THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 10, 2022
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, everyone. My name is Sabi Marwah, I’m a senator from Ontario and I have the privilege to chair the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Welcome to all my colleagues. It is good to see you all. Today we will be conducting a hybrid meeting with some senators participating virtually and others in person. The meeting will start in public and a portion of the meeting will 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 the 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’re attending virtually or 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 participating in this meeting: Senator Patricia Bovey, Manitoba; Senator Yvonne Boyer, Ontario; Senator Larry Campbell, British Columbia; Senator Dennis Dawson, Quebec; Senator Tony Dean, Ontario; Senator Éric Forest, Quebec; Senator Raymonde Gagné, Manitoba; Senator Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Lucie Moncion, Ontario; Senator Rosemary Moodie, Ontario; Senator Donald Plett, Manitoba; Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec; Senator Judith Seidman, Quebec; Senator Larry Smith, Quebec; and Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Also joining us this morning are Senator Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia; Senator Diane Griffin, Prince Edward Island; and Senator Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba. And welcome to all those viewing these proceedings across the country.
Moving to the first item, honourable senators, the first item is the approval of the public minutes from December 9, 2021, which is in your package. Are there any questions or changes?
Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Minutes of Proceedings of Thursday, December 9, 2021 be adopted.
Senator Tannas moves the motion.
As a reminder, colleagues, the votes will proceed in a similar fashion as the hybrid chamber whereby all senators who wish to oppose or abstain are provided with an opportunity to do so. The absence of any opposition or abstention is interpreted as support for the motion.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? If any senator wishes to oppose or abstain, please raise your hand now.
Senator Plett: Chair, I was not at the meeting, so for that reason I will abstain, no other reason.
The Chair: Okay. Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried.
Colleagues, the next item is a report from the Advisory Working Group on Environment and Sustainability. Senator Deacon has joined us this morning for this item. Senator Deacon, you may begin your presentation.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much, chair, and thanks to this committee for the opportunity to report back to you on the work of the advisory working group since May 27. On that date, you empowered Senators Anderson, Carignan, Griffin and myself to examine and report on the environmental policy of the Senate and come back to you with some recommended short-, medium- and long-term actions. We were grateful to have been provided with this important challenge.
Today, we are submitting a unanimous report with 11 recommendations that we encourage this committee to examine without delay. We see this report as being the first step in the Senate demonstrating the leadership needed to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2030.
We have crafted a motion, detailed in a briefing note that was shared with the committee, that specifies which of the report’s 11 recommendations are within the purview of this committee’s authority today, and those which deservedly merit debate among a larger group of colleagues in the Senate Chamber.
Now I’d like to provide an overview of our recommendations and our hopes for the next steps. Before I begin, I want to thank my colleagues on the advisory working group, the members of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration who have advised us through this process, and last but certainly not least, the clerks and Senate staff for their critical analysis and guidance through this process. As a result, this report we submit to you today presents, I believe — we all believe in the working group — realistic and highly actionable recommendations.
Colleagues, since 1993, the year the Senate’s current environmental policy was adopted, global inaction on climate change has caused the issue of sustainability to become the single most important issue facing humanity.
Why is action important and urgent? Just ask the next generations, the ones whose hair is not yet grey. Ask your children, your grandchildren, your nieces and nephews. Just ask those Canadians whose communities were destroyed by wildfires last summer, farmers whose crop yields were crippled by drought, ranchers and feedlot owners who struggle to feed their cattle this winter, Northern communities who, among others, are seeing their coastlines eroded at an increasing pace. Lastly, think about those affected by the floods and who had major infrastructure wiped out by unprecedented atmospheric rivers of rainfall, disrupting our food supply and national supply chains just at the time we first delivered our report to Internal Economy Committee members last November.
The human, financial, health and social costs of climate-change-induced events continue to escalate, and the greatest effects are and will be increasingly felt by poor, racialized and Indigenous peoples and other vulnerable communities. As we have seen over the last year, few, if any, communities will be left unaffected.
In the opinion of the advisory group members, this is a moment for the Senate of Canada to demonstrate leadership. One of the most compelling reasons why we need to act is to fulfill our oversight role in the parliamentary process. I hazard to guess that none of us are fans of saying to government ministers, federal officials or other agencies “do as we say, but not as we do.”
It became clear early on in our working group’s deliberations that the Senate does not currently have the capacity to provide an accurate or complete picture of its environmental footprint, and our ability to reduce our carbon footprint requires that we secure external expertise that would be needed to measure, benchmark and track progress.
Consequently, our working group, despite our best efforts and those of the Senate Administration, had no ability to provide medium- or longer-term recommendations as outlined in the terms of reference that were unanimously approved by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration last May.
This is why we are submitting a set of recommendations, which include a new Senate of Canada Environmental and Sustainability Policy Statement. It would provide short-term actions and proposed next steps for achieving the medium- and longer-term goals.
The first set of recommendations in the report relate to future accountability frameworks for the Senate.
The new Senate of Canada Environmental and Sustainability Policy Statement has a clear objective of reducing the Senate’s carbon footprint to net zero by 2030 and to implement sustainable practices throughout the operations guided by seven specific principles. Our recommendations recognize that achieving this goal requires a whole-of-organization approach that prioritizes both the reduction of outputs and standard-leading emissions offsets.
It provides a shift from a “nice to have” to a “must have” commitment on the part of the Senate and pushes ownership of future actions to Senate directorates and senator offices, allowing for flexibility, creativity and inclusivity in implementation efforts.
It also contains a robust accountability framework to ensure integration into Senate-wide operations. Objectives and targets need to be defined and reported on.
The first set of recommendations also empowers the Senate directorates and their employees to find solutions through the formation of “Green Teams,” across our organization, with progress reporting to the Internal Economy Committee annually.
The policy statement provides the institution with a framework that empowers the individuals within it. Moreover, becoming leaders in the fight against climate change enables us as parliamentarians to learn, because we will have first-hand knowledge of the related challenges and opportunities in making this essential progress for our country. This experiential knowledge will help us to do our jobs better.
The next set of recommendations in the report suggests actions that can have an immediate impact. These have been identified by Senate Administration, but they are not intended to be exhaustive. They include promoting the development of climate-friendly transportation policies, minimizing waste, promoting environmentally responsible behaviour changes, the implementation of a digital-first approach and enhancing environmentally friendly cafeteria food services.
The last set of recommendations relates to next steps. Seeking external expertise through a competitive request for proposals, or RFP, process will permit the Senate to move forward on meaningful action to reduce its carbon footprint. It commits to measuring and reporting annually on scope 1 emissions, which are direct emissions; scope 2 emissions, which are indirect emissions; and part of our scope 3 emissions, which include the whole value chain we participate in, utilizing international standards on environmental accounting as recommended by bodies like the International Sustainability Standards Board and others. We can then begin benchmarking and taking substantive action to reduce and offset our carbon footprint as an institution.
The advisory working group would be honoured to have their mandate extended in any way determined by this committee to assist in moving this agenda forward, including coordinating the RFP process with the Senate Finance and Procurement Directorate, and liaising with and overseeing the activities of the external expert, once selected, to achieve defined project outputs.
Colleagues, this set of recommendations is ambitious but achievable.
Now, the motion specifically before you splits our recommendations into two groups. The first group contains the recommendations within the mandate of Internal Economy Committee to consider directly, and the second group contains those that will require consideration by the Senate before any further steps are taken. The latter includes the new Senate of Canada Environmental and Sustainability Policy statement and the recommendations that flow from its principles. It also asks to make the advisory working group’s report public in due course. We look forward to advancing these efforts in the Senate Chamber if you choose to approve this motion.
Colleagues, it has been said that leadership is the art of accomplishing more than the science of management says is possible. I know we can achieve success. When we demonstrate that the Senate can address this challenge both effectively and cost efficiently, not only will we show the way forward for others, but we’ll be able to do a better job in ensuring that Canada’s federal government follows in our footsteps.
Thank you. I’d be happy to take any questions.
The Chair: Colleagues, with that, I’ll open up the floor for questions from any members of the committee or anyone else.
Senator Marshall: I can start. What a great job, Senator Deacon. I must say that it exceeded my expectations. It’s very interesting, but I have a couple of comments.
First is the cost. I don’t know if you’ve done anything on the estimated costs of, for example, the RFP. I’m a member of the Senate Estimates Subcommittee, so we’re always struggling to keep our budget low. I had a concern about some of the costs there.
Regarding the policy statement and the commitment to net zero by 2030, has there been any work done as to how you think we would get there? I’m thinking about how the federal government has been setting targets for the last 25 or 30 years, and they never meet them.
The recommendation is that the policy statement be made public right away, but I want to touch on a couple of things in there. One is the commitment to net zero by 2030, whether there’s a plan to get there and whether there’s any hope we’re going to get there. The other issue is the emission offsets. I’m not sure where the federal government is with regard to that. I think the provinces might have done something. You’re recommending some type of program where we’re going to use emission offsets. Would we be the leaders within the Parliament on this, and where is the government on this?
Those are my initial comments. I have other comments on the specific recommendations, but I’ll start there before we hear from our colleagues.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Senator Marshall. We were somewhat constrained within the rules in that we couldn’t start to explore reasonably through an RFP what the costs would be for this advice or get quotes without getting the authority to pursue it from this committee and from the Senate.
Our thoughts are very clearly about the savings that can be achieved, and I’ll give you one example: having witnesses testify virtually versus in person. The last full-year budget we had where we saw witnesses coming to Senate committees had half a million dollars of witness travel associated with it. We believe there are innovations that can be achieved through changing our actions somewhat — not in a big way but somewhat — that can provide us with the resources within our current budget to get the expert advice and make the changes we need to make. That’s the first element.
The second is, in terms of carbon offsets, we do actually have to get support for this through the Treasury Board Secretariat and other external bodies if we are to make that move. We had a Library of Parliament study done showing that there is no other parliamentary body in the world taking on an effort similar to this. There are smaller initiatives, but nothing comprehensive or whole-of-organization. We would be a first, which I think is important for the Senate and it would help us to hold others accountable to say, “No, this is possible. You should be acting.”
I’m with you on the last point, with the fact that the federal government has set targets — along with so many others in the world — that have never been achieved, never come close to being achieved. We have to get very strong in our role in the Senate to say, “That’s not good enough. We’re showing it can be done in our organization, and you have to as well.”
I’m hoping those three perspectives get at your questions.
Senator Marshall: They did. Thank you very much. There’s only one point I can pick out of what you said that I want to come back to. I do have a bit of a concern. I know you want the policy statement to go on the website right away, and it’s a reference and a commitment to net zero by 2030. However, I’m concerned we might not meet it, given the track record of the federal government. I don’t want the Senate to be held up, and the public or the media say, “There they go again; they can’t do anything right.”
I’ll leave it there. Thank you. Absolutely excellent document. I know you did a lot of work. Thank you very much.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Senator Marshall.
Senator Plett: I never believe in holding up a document or indeed criticizing a document if you haven’t spent a whole lot of time studying it, and I have to be the first one to admit that I have not. I have, as you all know, not been here for a fair bit of time. This is the first time I’ve seen the document.
Is this something that we are planning on approving today? And if everybody here has seen it, studied it and that’s the plan, I will not vote against that. If we do approve it here, is this something that will still be debated in the Senate? Because I would like to, in fairness to myself, study it a bit more and have a chance to put my words on the record. I’m not prepared to do that today, nor am I prepared to hold it up if everybody else has agreed that we’re making a decision today.
I don’t know whether that’s a question for Senator Deacon or for you, chair, but I’m simply asking a process question.
The Chair: I’ll answer that, Senator Plett. It’s a very fair question.
The issue with a report like this is that it’s very far ranging and very broad, and there are many elements of it that are well beyond the purview or authority of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. The motion that I have in front of me is on the four recommendations that fall within the purview of the committee. Those are recommendations 2, 5, 7 and 10. That’s something that we are responsible for.
For the balance of the recommendations, I think it’s more appropriately debated in the Senate. The intent was to authorize Senator Deacon to present this in the Senate and carry on the debate in the Senate.
It is a two-step process, Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair. Even for the recommendations that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration would make, there would still be debate allowed in the Senate on those, I’m assuming.
The Chair: Yes, you could, but they are really within the control of the Internal Economy Committee. While we approve them, it’s the committee’s authority, and they really affect Senate Administration and a few other things that are within our purview.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Deacon, I congratulate you and the three other members of your team for this clearly arduous work on a matter that must concern us all. I feel that it demands that we do more. However, I would like clarification on some points.
First, in the analysis that you are putting forward, my concern is knowing the extent to which the Senate is responsible for the carbon footprint produced in the Senate, but not necessarily because the Senate has control over the organization or the institution. I am thinking about the buildings in which we work, buildings that are under the control of the Department of Public Works. There are other examples as well. I don’t want to go into details. My first question — and I will have another — is this: To what extent were you able to hold consultations to determine, in future reports on our carbon footprint, how we will distinguish between what we can and must correct and what is attributable to other entities?
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much for your question, Senator Saint-Germain. It is crucial.
What we found as we began our work is that we’re not masters of our destiny in every way. As you well know, the Parliamentary Precinct is governed by a lot of organizations. That was actually one of the points that Senator Plett made when we first got our terms of reference approved by the Internal Economy Committee back in May. He made the point that this is under the Long Term Vision and Plan, and that’s been taken care of.
My argument at that time — and it has only been reinforced — is that we need to be pushing the changes that we want through these other organizations that serve us. During our meetings, we met with Public Services and Procurement Canada and had a discussion about what they are working on, where that fits in with us and the controls that they have over the direct emissions related to our buildings. Certainly, buildings are a significant part of our direct carbon emissions.
We believe there’s good alignment there. On their part, there was certainly great interest in the fact that we wanted to demonstrate leadership. But that is the predominant reason why we will have to consider the acquisition of carbon offsets in order for us to address our full carbon footprint. There are elements that we will not be able to fully control. That’s where we thought of the combination of actions and changing some of the things we do.
I gave an example earlier where there could be a substantial cost saving to the Senate in terms of witness testimony being virtual — not entirely but predominantly. We’ve been doing that through COVID.
We can make changes that reduce the carbon footprint that we produce, but we can’t do it for every aspect of our organization. That’s the balance that we came to.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, senator. My second question is with regard to the eventual following up on the recommendations that we will decide to approve. Someone will have to follow up.
Have you considered that a specific subcommittee of Internal Economy or a committee of the Senate — as an example, Audit and Oversight — or a specific unit within the Senate Administration shall be tasked with the following up of the eventual recommendations?
I want to make sure there’s no issue with the members of the advisory group. Once again, I congratulate you, but on such an issue, I believe we need to rely on a permanent unit responsible, and also within the decision making in the Senate, a permanent body involving senators.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you again, Senator Saint-Germain. It’s a very important point. That is part of what we see as being more medium- and long-term recommendations as to how we manage that in the interim. We’ve suggested that we would like to offer our services as the advisory working group to assist in this transition period.
The other important element is that we felt that the benchmarking data that we get in recommendation 3 be, as you suggested, provided to the Audit and Oversight Committee. If you look at just about every board of public companies in the world right now, they are developing their ESG standards and reporting frameworks. It really is fitting within what is a global initiative. We see that as being important information for the Audit and Oversight Committee to be receiving.
I think the point you’re making is one that I would move back to the Internal Economy Committee and say, “We’re happy to come up with recommendations, but it’s up to the committee to decide how the governance of this objective is managed into the future.”
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you to you and your colleagues on the advisory group.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, Senator Deacon. I’ll go with what others have said.
This is a great piece of work. We’ve had it for a couple of days, and I’ve had a chance to go through it once. I definitely want to go through it again.
My takeaways are essentially that the big things are declaring a goal of net zero by 2030, a number of measures to reduce the Senate’s footprint, and then purchasing offsets for the balance. That’s how we would get to net zero.
I think the middle piece, the reducing of our footprint, you’ve enumerated a number of interesting proposals, and that’s really great.
I remember when we struck the committee and you and I had an exchange. One of the things that I was hoping — and I selfishly looked through the report to see if it was there — is that if we’re going to get to net zero, we have to know what we’re doing. I didn’t see it in there. I didn’t hang on every word, but I didn’t see anything in there that tells us what our footprint is.
How will we ever know what we need to do to get to net zero if we don’t know what we’re doing right now, or did I miss it? If so, please tell me.
The other thing is, as you thought it through, I know that there will be lots of senators who will struggle with the idea of using taxpayers’ money to get to what is a goal that kind of runs ahead of what the rest of country is doing. I’m nervous that we will stumble over that, that we are somehow using taxpayers’ money to celebrate how good we are. Did you talk through that and settle on how to rationalize that?
There are a bunch of questions in there. Pick and choose as you will, thanks.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Senator Tannas, and thank you for your kind words at the outset. Those were very important points. I will start and work my way back, and if I have missed anything, I hope you will give me a reminder.
In terms of taxpayer funds, we felt it was important to have an objective, but this is a philosophy of our group. We haven’t written it in stone because, again, we don’t yet have the data, but we believe there are ways for us to change what we are doing to free up resources so that our overall budget is not changing but our actions are allowing us to achieve this objective.
I would offer a personal comment. I don’t want to speak for my colleagues on the advisory working group, but I would offer that if we are just achieving this by spending more taxpayer money, we’re not achieving our goal from an accountability standpoint and holding others to account. We’ve got to be able to say that we’ve changed in these ways; we’ve done it, and it hasn’t cost a whole lot of money.
There may have been upfront costs here or there, as there was an upfront cost with the technical systems to allow us to have this meeting right now, but we cannot have that as the lazy way of achieving this. So that is where I would start.
If I were to work backwards, one of the things that Senator Carignan asked very early on in our work was he said, “Let’s find out what the staff in each of the directorates of the Senate would like to see happen and see as opportunities.”
It was fantastic. Pascale and her team went and came back with a bunch of really thoughtful ideas, but it was concerning from our standpoint that we didn’t know what might have the best ROI. What might cost a whole lot of money to do but will achieve little benefit in terms of reducing our carbon footprint?
This one resonated with me, because I found it profound. The State of California has outlawed gas-powered leaf blowers, or is in the process of doing so. The research that caused them to do that is that a 2017 Toyota Camry can drive almost 1,800 kilometres and burn less fuel than a gas-powered leaf blower uses in an hour. So for us to try to do this on our own, without those who actually have access to the best research and evidence and tools, to tell us what our current footprint is in terms of buildings and everything else — direct scope 1, scope 2, scope 3 emissions — would really not enable us to achieve anything.
But then we have the chicken and egg. How do we get to that expert advice without first coming back to Internal Economy and the Senate to get authority to start to move down that road?
I hope I got at your questions, but we feel it is crucial that we do analysis based on international standards. The approach that we’re expecting Canadian businesses and organizations to pursue, and Canadians individually to pursue, that we in fact do that ourselves. I’m hoping I got close to the end there.
Senator Tannas: The one thing was how do we establish the number of our current footprint? How do we establish the deductions that we would take for the activities that we will stop doing, or change, or whatever? And then we actually get to a number where there are dollars and credits, and that gets us to net zero. But unless we know the top number, I don’t understand how we ever know when we arrive at net zero. That is the only question I had back then, and I think that I still have it.
Senator C. Deacon: Yes. This is why we’re proposing that we issue an RFP to do the benchmarking.
Senator Tannas: That’s what it is, okay.
Senator C. Deacon: That we do the benchmarking and we find out where the sources are. Then we look to our rules and our practices and say, “Are there things here that there would be a willingness here to change?”
I will give you a simple one. Allowing senators to stay overnight, over the weekend in Ottawa, under their travel points, to incentivize them not to travel home every single weekend. That could reduce travel.
Senator Tannas: I still get that, and maybe I’m being pedantic here and so I will just leave it, but I saw that in and I thought, that is all great, we’ve got to have that expertise. But in that RFP, at least what I saw described, was a bunch of initiatives that would take away from our total. But we don’t know what our total is. How are we ever going to credibly say it is net zero? Would they actually do that work? If so, I did not see it.
Senator C. Deacon: Yes, that would be required. I’ll offer one other point, Senator Tannas, to give you some assurance. That RFP, before it is issued, has to come back to Internal Economy, and so you will get a chance to make sure that I’m actually not just telling you something but I’m delivering on it.
Senator Tannas: Okay, thank you very much.
The Chair: I think that that point is fairly taken, Senator Deacon. We need a starting point to know that we’ve made progress.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: First, I would like to highlight the senators’ exceptional work. You and your group have done an exceptional job.
Today, at our present stage, it is perfectly legitimate to know where we are starting from in order to find out where we are going. We are brainstorming and identifying our objectives. As I understand the document, there are four motions today.
The first one asks how we can examine the implementation of recommendations 2, 5, 7 and 10, and determine how feasible they are for the Internal Economy Committee?
The second motion asks whether we can seek advice in creating a communications plan, so that we can publish the report and clearly demonstrate the Senate’s desire for concrete action in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
Finally, the third motion seeks a mandate for the chair of the committee to consult our colleagues and the Senate on a policy statement and to authorize the Senate to examine the issue in more depth, to adopt an action plan and to consider the most effective and least costly ways to arrive at a conclusion.
This will all come back to us for approval at each of the stages, but we will be able to assess the feasibility of recommendations 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
I am ready to move this motion, because we are starting to come to grips with one of humanity’s major challenges: seeking ways of reducing our environmental impact. In my opinion, it is crystal clear that we will come back before the Standing Committee on Internal Economy or before the Senate at each stage. I am ready to move the proposal, Mr. Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Forest, we have two other senators with questions, and I will get back to you, but at least I’ll have a mover of the motion.
Senator Campbell: Thank you, Senator Deacon, and your committee.
The first thing that struck me was that it’s been a long time since I’ve seen a unanimous decision, and I commend you on that; everybody seems to be on board for this.
Like Senator Tannas, I’ve read this once and I want to read it again. I absolutely support it, but how do we ensure that the actions we take are not being duplicated or are already there in some areas of the Parliamentary Precinct?
I know many small steps are being taken, sometimes even individually, by groups to lessen our footprint. One of the things that I would like to ensure is that we are not duplicating what has already been achieved. I think that the report is ambitious and has to be ambitious. Finally, as you put it, those of us with grey hair are starting to realize that we’re behind on this and we need to follow our children; you’re right.
And so I support this. I’m going to have to read it at least a couple more times to pick up all of the nuances, but I congratulate you and I support you on this.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Senator Deacon, congratulations to you and your working group as well.
Obviously, this was a very dedicated amount of work by the group and a job really well done. It is a lot for us to come to terms with and to think about.
I too, as you know, am always interested in actual data, in numbers. I won’t say much more than Senator Tannas already said, other than to say I would be interested in what kind of outcome measures we’re going to use to evaluate our success in any number of categories that you’ve put forward. I will leave it at that and it can be on the back burner for discussion at some later time. The recommendations you’ve put forward are really much more general and all-encompassing for the Internal Economy Committee to have a look at, just to begin with.
I do have a question. I cannot imagine that we’re the first house of parliament to charge ourselves with this timely challenge. Did your group consider or discover a model or models from other parliaments or best practices that have been used specifically in other countries in their parliaments? Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Senator Seidman. It is so nice to see you.
I agree with your focus on evidence. You and I have had many conversations along those lines. We can’t do anything without really good evidence and know that we are tracking things in a way that adheres with international standards. So we’re 100% on that and the need for us to provide a benchmark to move from.
Now I have just gone blank on the last bit of your question, sorry.
Senator Seidman: It was if you had discovered or considered model or models.
Senator C. Deacon: Yes, thank you.
We were quite shocked to be honest and even the Library of Parliament could not find anything that was comprehensive. Small initiatives, building envelope initiatives, yes, but nothing that was comprehensive in terms of addressing the overall footprint. There are stated ambitions but no actions or framework as of yet. As far as I can say, we would at least be one of the first. I can’t say absolutely because that work was done by the Library of Parliament early on in our efforts and that was back in May or June. So that may have changed in the interim.
Interestingly, the House of Lords, as you know, has been taking on a lot of effort in this regard. Even they have not considered what they would do internally as an organization. It is all about what happens within the country. I think that the notion of our demonstrating the leadership by making the changes ourselves is unique. Doing that in the context of us using that knowledge and that first-hand experience to better fulfill our oversight responsibility in the parliamentary process is unique.
Lastly, in terms of coordinating with Procurement Canada and other groups that have this responsibility — just to go back to a point that Senator Campbell made — we’ve reached out and had conversations with them. They really want to work with us. So I can’t agree more. There is no time or money here to duplicate efforts. I’m with you on all of those fronts and I’m hoping that I did a good job of getting at each of the points you made, Senator Seidman.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, senator, you did indeed.
Senator Bovey: Senator Deacon, I want to thank you and your group. This is more of a comment. I read your report with great interest and great support. I agree with your definition of leadership, and I think we have a responsibility to show leadership in Canada, as the senior house on Parliament Hill and our chamber of sober second thought. It is nice to be the chamber of sober second thought and leadership simultaneously.
Mr. Chair, I may be putting the cart before the horse, but I would be honoured to second the motion of Senator Forest.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. Colleagues, with that, I see no other senators with their hands up. The motion that I’m about to read aligns with the recommendations that are at page 10 of the briefing note that was sent to you.
To make things clearer, I’m going to read it. Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That CIBA examine the feasibility of implementing recommendations 2, 5, 7 and 10, with respect to initiatives that involve the Senate Administration, no later than the end of December 2022.
That CIBA authorize the public release of the November 2021 Advisory Working Group and Environment and Sustainability: Report to CIBA and permit the report to be posted on the Senate of Canada website.
That CIBA direct Senate Communications to provide guidance to the Chair of the former Advisory Working Group on Environment and Sustainability to develop a communications plan for the release of the report.
That CIBA designate the Chair of the former Advisory Working Group on Environment and Sustainability to be the spokesperson for the report, along with other members of the former AWG, as required.
That the Chair of the former Advisory Working Group on Environment and Sustainability take the necessary steps to consult with senators and seek the approval of the Senate to adopt the new Senate of Canada Environmental and Sustainability Policy Statement (recommendation 1), and seek the approval of the Senate to authorize CIBA to further examine the feasibility of implementing recommendations 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 with respect to those initiatives that directly impact senators.
I see Senator Forest had originally moved the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I move the motion, Mr. Chair.
[English]
Senator Plett: Chair, I’m a little uncomfortable with number 4 of that recommendation, but I certainly will not vote against my own colleagues or against an almost unanimous group here. So I will abstain, please, chair.
The Chair: Just to clarify, Senator Plett, recommendation 4 will be dealt with in the Senate, so there is nothing to approve really. The Senate has to approve that we study it further.
Senator Plett: I understand, but having it in there and voting for it does indicate that I support that.
The Chair: Okay, I understand.
Senator Plett: I think an abstention for me is better.
The Chair: Senator Plett abstains. Are there any other abstentions?
If not, I declare the motion carried. Thank you, Senator Deacon. Well done.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much, chair.
The Chair: Colleagues, we are now moving on to item 3, which is the creation of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration’s subcommittees and advisory working group. As you are aware, at the beginning of each session of Parliament, the Internal Economy Committee must re-establish its committee and its working group.
Included in your package are the proposed mandates for the consolidated committee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, the Subcommittee on Diversity, as well as the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group. The Subcommittee on Human Resources and LTVP have already been re-created.
Are this any questions or comments? If not, can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be established and authorized to examine and report on financial matters.
Should I dispense, senators, for the mandate of each subcommittee?
Senator Plett: Dispense.
The Chair: I see a lot of nodding heads, so I shall.
Senator Dawson: Dispense.
The Chair: Thank you.
That the following senators be names as members of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets: Senator Moncion, Forest, Marshall, Bovey and Campbell.
That the following senators be named as members of the Subcommittee on Diversity: Senator Moodie, Boyer, Seidman, Bovey and Campbell.
That the following senators be named as members of the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group: Senator Bovey, White, Ataullahjan and Moodie.
Can I have a mover for the motion, please? Senator Moodie moves the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
I see no objections. I declare the motion carried.
Colleagues, the one issue still outstanding is the Senate membership in the Joint Interparliamentary Council, or JIC, where the Senate has three members. It is my intent to bring this back for your consideration at the next meeting of this committee.
With that, is there any other public business, colleagues, before we go in camera?
Senator Plett: Chair, I have one item of business that I wish to raise, and if you prefer to do this in camera, I won’t object.
The Chair: I will trust your judgment on whether you prefer it to be done in public or in camera.
Senator Plett: I would prefer to do it in the public portion, if that’s all right, so I will raise it, at least.
The Chair: Go ahead, senator.
Senator Plett: Chair, we are back here in somewhat difficult circumstances, to say the least, for a number of reasons, one being our COVID situation, another one being with some of the protest, demonstration, rally — whatever you want to call it — and it is fairly significant.
In light of that, and I’m not sure what the actual reason was, we have had our services severely cut back here in the Senate of Canada Building and in East Block — services that are not cut back in the House of Commons — such as having the cafeteria open and having those services available. My staff got notices that they should make sure they bring their lunch with them to work. My staff, along with many staff in this Senate, come to work at eight o’clock in the morning and go home at ten o’clock at night, and to bring lunch along is not the proper answer to those problems.
We’re all managing to come up here. Our staff is managing to come up here. The reason we were given is that the caterers can’t deliver food, and that is why the cafeteria isn’t open. This week is over, next week is a break week and we can only hope that by February 21 or 22, maybe things will have changed outside.
I really believe, chair and colleagues, that if these services can be provided in the House of Commons, as we in this building so often say, “Well, this is what they are doing over there.” And yet that is only as long as it serves our purposes to say that. When it serves the purpose to say something else, then we say something else. In this particular case, I see no reason why we shouldn’t be able to have an open cafeteria here. Fair enough, maybe some level of service will be decreased, but to have it cut out completely — I know that the Usher of the Black Rod is doing his level best to provide us at least some form of a cold dinner.
But we’re here working. We’re not asking for someone to buy us our meal. We’re all quite happy to buy our own meals, but the restaurants around the chamber are closed.
So I’m putting this on the record. I don’t know, chair, how you want to deal with it. I will leave it entirely up to you if you want to discuss it today or take it under advisement and have administration discuss it to try to improve that. But if it hasn’t been improved by the time we come back, I’m certainly serving notice that I will raise it again because I believe it is important that we have proper services here.
I will leave it at that for now, chair, and you deal with it as you will.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett. This issue was brought to my attention this morning, and I commit to working with administration to resolve this by the time we are back.
I should mention the difficulty has been in getting the food from the House of Commons to the Senate. It wasn’t that easy. But we hope to resolve all of these issues by the time we are back. I will leave it at that.
Colleagues, are there any other issues before we go in camera?
I see no other issues, so we will continue in camera, colleagues.
(The committee continued in camera.)