THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 24, 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, my name is Sabi Marwah, I’m a senator from Ontario and I have the privilege to chair the Standing Senate 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 my 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 during the debate. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of English, French or no simultaneous translation. Should members want to request the floor, please use the “raise hand” feature if you’re attending virtually or advise the clerk if you’re 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 this meeting. We have 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 Leo Housakos, Quebec; Senator Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Lucie Moncion, Ontario; Senator Rosemary Moodie, Ontario; Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec; Senator Judith Seidman, Quebec; Senator Larry Smith, Quebec; and Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta. And welcome to all those viewing these proceedings across the country.
Honourable senators, the first item is the approval of the public minutes from February 10, 2022, which are 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, February 10, 2022 be adopted.
Senator Campbell: So moved.
The Chair: Senator Campbell moves the motion.
As a reminder, colleagues, votes will proceed in a similar fashion 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 or abstention 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.
Honourable senators, the next item is the first report from the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan concerning the Senate accommodation strategy. If there are any security-related questions, I suggest that those be discussed in camera.
Caroline Morency, Director General, Property and Services Directorate; Josée Labelle, Director, LTVP & Accommodation; and Julie Lacroix, Director, Corporate Security Directorate will 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 Tannas will make opening remarks and that Caroline, Josée and Julie will assist in answering questions.
Senator Tannas: Honourable senators, this will take some time, so I will ask for your patience up front. We will also be here to answer any and all questions. My Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan colleagues, Senator Dawson, Senator Forest and Senator Boyer, are here and can also answer questions and interject as they see fit.
Before I read my comments, I’d like everyone to look at the first report, if they could. If you look at the very last page of that report, you’ll see it’s called “Phase 4,” and there’s a nice star that says “end state.” That is what this is all about. Everything that I’m going to read is really about updating the record and seeking some guidance to make sure that we make a few changes to the strategy that get us to this “Phase 4” end state, mid-2030.
You can see there that we will have 22 senator office suites, which are known as parliamentary office units, in the Centre Block when we move back in. We will have 42 senator offices in the East Block, which will have been fully renovated, and we will have 54 offices across the street in a brand new tower that will be built on Wellington Street on the east side. It’s known as Block 2, which is right beside the Prime Minister’s Office. We’re where the Terry Fox statue is now, for those who know that. That is where, in the end state, we will all be. There will be committee rooms and facilities for senators that are for the exclusive use of senators in all three of those buildings in the end state. There will be committee rooms in every one of these. In addition, the plan is — although I can’t say yet 100% — that PSPC, our committee, the Speakers and the similar committee in the House of Commons are working on a tunnel plan. We would be able to move through underground tunnels in addition to streetside.
That is the end state. As I say, my report here is notes from the road on how we are going to achieve that end state and when people move where, et cetera. There have been a few changes. I just wanted to get that up front so that it’s clear in our minds what the end goal is.
I will start by saying I’m going to report on two things. We have the first report on the long-term accommodation strategy. The second report is on the committee rooms and the parliamentary office units within those buildings that I just discussed.
The first report deals with the long-term accommodation strategy. According to the original accommodation plan from 2012, senators were expected to move out of the East Block within a couple of years from right now so that the building could be fully rehabilitated. At that point, originally, there was no space identified to relocate senators from the Victoria Building. The plan was for them to be moved into the rehabilitated East Block when it was ready, which was expected to be somewhere around the same time as the Centre Block completion.
You will recall that in April 2021, CIBA was advised that the LTVP Subcommittee had been approached by Public Services and Procurement Canada with a new proposal on the accommodation strategy for the Senate’s consideration. The subcommittee made a recommendation — and CIBA approved — that PSPC pursue the opportunity to lease all the additional available space, including parking, at 40 Elgin, which is the Chambers Building where we have senators now, to use as a temporary space for senators’ accommodations until the major rehabilitation projects on Parliament Hill are completed, and instructed the subcommittee to continue to examine the various timing and sequencing options for construction and rehabilitation of other Senate-occupied buildings.
Since that time, in August 2021, officials from PSPC appeared again before the subcommittee with a number of options for the timing and sequencing of office moves for the Victoria Building, East Block and 40 Elgin. We also received further information about the status and condition of a number of other buildings, but most particularly the Confederation Building, which contains the most MP office suites in the precinct. We were told that it is the occupied building that turns out to be in the most urgent need of repair in the Parliamentary Precinct.
PSPC told us that their financial assessments, along with other third-party assessments, led them to conclude that greater cost savings and other construction efficiencies could be achieved by advancing the rehabilitation of the Victoria Building.
So you can see we’re not going to be using the Victoria Building in our plan. Senators will not be going back there. The Victoria Building will get used to house MPs on a temporary basis. It will become what they call the “swing space” where MPs will move in there while their current and future permanent offices and buildings are renovated.
When we were told about this advancement of the Victoria Building emptying so that it could be renovated and ready for MPs to go there, we had a number of questions about costs as well as temporary and permanent spaces for the Senate, the connection between the Confederation Building, the recommendation to advance other Victoria Building timelines and sequences of the moves and the potential impacts of the Senate, we opted to keep the original plan of emptying the East Block first.
Then in January 2022, the Senate Administration provided us with an updated proposal to fit up 40 Elgin, the Chambers Building, to add 45 senator office units over five floors, which is in addition to the 18 senators’ office units that are already there on two floors, as a temporary accommodation for senators. They gave us estimated timelines, along with the relocation of several administration floors in consequence.
The subcommittee has no issues with this plan in principle, with the understanding that there are numerous elements and details to review and approve. To be clear, regardless of which of the Victoria Building or East Block are emptied first, we can confirm that 40 Elgin would be the planned temporary space for 63 Senate office units.
In January, officials from PSPC confirmed that it is still the intention to have the East Block occupants move into a new “east tower” to be developed as part of the Block 2 complex. The Block 2 complex, just so you know — again, if you’re looking at your map — the pink piece is the far east side of the Block 2 complex. In the middle of that same block is the Indigenous Peoples offices, which was the former U.S. embassy. At the far end, as you know, is the Victoria Building.
Although we tend to think of Block 2 as one building, it’s important to remember that this whole thing is going to — Block 2 is a complete redevelopment, with some buildings staying and being built around.
The staff has done a great job with the number of visual representations that you can see here, both in terms of the site as well as the timing of all of the moves.
In the original plan, the Victoria Building was to remain occupied by senators until the completion of the Centre Block and the East Block renovation. The Block 2 redevelopment would take place around it. They were originally going to redevelop that whole space on the west side of Block 2 and leave the Victoria Building intact with senators in it while they built all the way around.
The department has advised us that with the new opportunity at 40 Elgin, we could empty the Victoria Building sooner than was originally planned. This would allow them to incorporate the Victoria Building rehabilitation into the redevelopment of Block 2, thereby optimizing a major LTVP project.
So instead of having an occupied building that in and of itself needs rehabilitation, they would be able to actually take that building that would now be empty and incorporate it into the larger project. That may involve something as simple as using only the facade of the Victoria Building and completely redeveloping everything on the other side. It may not, but it gives all kinds of flexibility and efficiencies.
Advancing the rehabilitation of the Victoria Building would also benefit the House of Commons in relation to the need to relocate those MPs from the Confederation Building sooner than was originally anticipated because of the concerns over the fitness of the Confederation Building.
Now to our conclusions. Although this revised plan is not without some risks for the Senate, your subcommittee feels that there is some merit to the proposal to advance the rehabilitation of the Victoria Building. Accordingly, we consulted with the Speaker’s office, along with senators from all recognized parliamentary parties and recognized parliamentary groups, and in our view, the following presented the most compelling reasons to recommend the approval of this strategy, which will save over $200 million when compared to the scenario to advance the rehabilitation of East Block, reduce the disruption to senators by moving them out of an active construction zone in the Victoria Building and avoids having to find temporary offices to relocate those senators who would be most affected by being in the construction zone. It would also complete senators’ end-state accommodations by at least 5 years than under the original strategy, and it would expedite the completion of the entire Block 2 complex by more than 10 years.
We noted a few areas of concern in our report in relation to the House of Commons and other related decisions: the lack of precise financial information provided by the department, and the potential for delays and resulting impact on senators’ offices. Be assured, the subcommittee will continue to monitor these concerns and report back as necessary.
In weighing these various factors, the subcommittee concluded that, on balance, advancing the Victoria Building presents fewer risks for the Senate and allows the Senate to meet one of its end‑state objectives, which is to have all senators located in three buildings within close proximity to the Senate Chamber sooner.
Colleagues, there’s no perfect scenario, regardless of which option is chosen. We can expect that all senators will, at some point, have to move over the next 10 years. Advancing the Victoria Building does, however, reduce the number of senators who will be impacted by being immediately adjacent to construction. Although the current occupants of the East Block will have to remain in a construction-adjacent zone for longer than previously anticipated, the administration will continue to ensure measures are in place to mitigate these impacts.
Additionally, the potential risks and cost differentials, along with overall anticipated timelines, are, in the view of the subcommittee, more favourable to the Senate if we advance the decanting of the Victoria Building.
It will be important to have a well-thought-out strategy and an internal communications plan that includes regular updates and consultations with our colleagues to manage senators’ expectations. Pages 6 through 10 of our report outline the sequence and estimated timelines for these various moves to get us through the next 10 to 15 years of construction.
Accordingly, the subcommittee recommends that the Senate advise PSPC to proceed with the decanting of the Victoria Building ahead of the East Block, along with the fit-up of the Chambers Building at 40 Elgin as a temporary accommodation for senators.
That is my first report, chair. If it’s okay to carry on, I propose to deal with the second report, and then the staff, others and I can answer any questions.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
The second report is specifically on the committee rooms and the senators’ office units. As I mentioned earlier, one core requirement for the Senate is to occupy three buildings in the final end state within close proximity to the chamber. Key to this core requirement is to have all 118 parliamentary office units — senators’ offices — 10 broadcast-capable committee rooms and a multi-purpose room.
For the Centre Block and the new Parliament Welcome Centre, the initial Senate requirements were for a minimum of 25 POUs, the Speaker suite, offices for legislative support functions, and six broadcast-capable committee rooms and a multi-purpose room. That was our original request of the renovated Centre Block, including the Parliament Welcome Centre.
Over time, we were advised that various constraints, such as a lack of space, heritage considerations and modernization requirements would make it difficult for PSPC to satisfy all the requirements of the various parliamentary partners, including the Senate, the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament and the Parliamentary Protective Service. All partners were asked to reassess their requirements to see where efficiencies could be found.
Members will recall last spring that we were advised by the department that three key Senate requirements for the Centre Block and the Parliament Welcome Centre were not being included in their project cost scope announcement, having been deemed of great concern from a cost perspective by the minister at the time. The eliminated items were three committee rooms of the original amount we asked for, a courtyard infill on our side of Centre Block that would have provided six additional Senate offices, and the final one was a dedicated east entrance to the Parliament Welcome Centre.
Since that time, the Senate Administration has worked closely with parliamentary partners to come to a consensus on a campus‑based office and committee room strategy that will allow the Senate to retain some of its original requirements within the existing space constraints, without negative heritage impacts, and that will be in alignment with PSPC’s project cost and scope. I want to congratulate the staff for sticking with it and working collaboratively with our other partners to regain some of the things that we had lost in the adjustments.
I would mention that this consensus was achieved due to the cooperation of all parliamentary partners reducing their space requirements, and most notably the Library of Parliament. Additionally, the Senate Administration has accepted to remove the equivalent of 875 square metres of operational space from the program of work, which is contingent on PSPC working with our officials to provide this space somewhere else, but still in relative proximity to Centre Block.
As a result of these compromises, I’m pleased to report the Senate can expect that the final design for all Senate-occupied spaces in the end state will include the following, and I’ve been through some of this already: Centre Block will have 22 Senate office suites, plus the Speaker’s suite, and three small committee rooms. Small committee rooms are similar in size — just for reference, colleagues — to the ones downstairs, B45 and B30. That’s considered a small committee room.
In the Parliament Welcome Centre, we will have two committee rooms, a medium-sized one and a medium-plus-sized one, as well as a multi-purpose room. The medium-sized committee room is comparable in size to this room, SCB Room C128, and a medium-plus room would be slightly larger and would allow 36 seats at a table.
The East Block will contain 42 Senate office suites, two medium-size committee rooms — again, similar to the ones downstairs — and Block 2, the east tower across Wellington Street, will have 54 Senate suites and up to four committee rooms. You can see that on page 5 through 8 of our second report. There is some question as to how many rooms we can actually get in East Block, be it one or two committee rooms, but whatever we can’t get in East Block, Centre Block and the Parliament Welcome Centre, we will get in the new tower. PSPC confirmed that there is enough room that whatever makeup needs to happen will get made up in the east tower.
Discussions are ongoing with the department about reintegrating a third requirement that was removed last year, specifically the business entrance on the east side of the Parliament Welcome Centre. Again, our administration, security folks and so on continue to have discussions, and we may be able to find a resolution. They’re working on a number of scenarios.
So I have come to the recommendation. Your subcommittee is confident that this revised strategy will ensure that the Senate will achieve two core requirements for the end state, and accordingly, we recommend that the Senate advise PSPC that it accepts a new design strategy for the Parliament Welcome Centre, provided it includes at least two broadcast-capable committee rooms, including one medium and one medium-plus-sized, and a multi-purpose room in the PWC with 22 POUs — senator office suites — and three small-sized broadcast-capable committee rooms in the Centre Block, while keeping the Senate in three core buildings, Centre Block, East Block and Block 2 east tower in the end state. I want to put on the record as well — it’s not in the recommendation — that everything we have done is with the assurance and the assumption that there will be tunnel connections that will allow senators to move efficiently amongst our three buildings, in addition to other parliamentarians.
I would be happy to answer any questions. As I mentioned, Caroline Morency, director general, and Josée Labelle, director LTVP and accommodation from the Property Services Directorate are here, as is Julie Lacroix, our director of corporate security.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tannas.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, and congratulations, Senator Tannas. This is very well presented. This is clear and pedagogical, and I appreciate — congratulations also to the administration — the maps that we received. It’s pretty clear.
I have two questions. My first one is about what you call the compromise we negotiated with PSPC regarding the issue that we had with our requests that were denied by the then minister. How much money did we save? Is it at no additional cost? What is the financial impact of this?
My second question is that as I understand it, at the end of all those works in mid-2030, we will have 118 POUs. This includes the Speaker’s office, obviously. The leaders’ offices, sometimes they are doubled, and I understand that it also includes up to eight offices or suites for additional senators if so needed. Is that it?
Senator Tannas: That is correct, yes. It does provide for the constitutional potential for eight additional senators to be appointed, plus, as you’ve mentioned, the other house officers that have the potential to have their house officer office and their senator’s office as well.
With respect to your first question on the additional costs for the compromises that were reached, I would ask Caroline or Josée to provide the information they have on that.
Caroline Morency, Director General, Property and Services Directorate: Thank you, Senator Tannas.
With respect to cost, we’ve been recently reassured that the re-introduction of the two committee rooms would not have an impact on the overall costing that was provided publicly back in June. We have yet to receive a formal estimate of which of those costs would be related to each of those two committee rooms. We previously had an estimate, but we hadn’t validated them with PSPC. I cannot, at this point in time, give you a definite answer of what the costs of each would be, but we can certainly ask the department to provide us with that information.
I’d like to also make one comment about the number of POUs. The number of POUs, 118, excludes the Speaker’s quarters or offices. Those are in addition to the Speaker offices, and it does provide for leadership and those constitutional senators that may be eventually named. We would work with the leadership to reassign potential offices if need be, but yes, the 118 are for senators and leadership.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you.
The Chair: I see no other hands up, either on video or in person, so I will move the two reports separately.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Tannas that the first report of the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan be adopted. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? If any senator wishes to oppose or abstain, please raise your hand.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Tannas that the second report of the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan be adopted. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
At this point, I would like to thank Senator Tannas and the entire Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan, and the staff. It’s a lot of effort and work, and I know they’ve had many meetings and discussions getting it to this stage. While it looks simple in terms of how Senator Tannas explained it, believe me, it is not that simple getting it to this point.
Colleagues, item 4 is the report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets concerning the allocation of house officer budgets. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer; and Nathalie Charpentier, Deputy CFO, will join the meeting by video conference as witnesses. As usual, the presentation will be followed by time for questions.
Senator Moncion will make opening remarks, and Pierre and Nathalie will assist in answering questions.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I have the honour to present the first report of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
The Senate Main Estimates for the fiscal year 2022-23 were approved by CIBA at its meeting of November 25, 2021. This budget contains a total amount of $4,896,100 for caucuses and parliamentary groups. However, neither SEBS nor CIBA concluded on the allocation of the budget to the various caucuses and parliamentary groups. In the absence of an approved allocation of the budget to the various caucuses and parliamentary groups, the provisions of the Senate Administrative Rules should apply for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 2022, which will create variances compared to the budgets of 2021-22.
Your subcommittee was asked to review and provide recommendations regarding the allocation of the overall budget for caucuses and parliamentary groups for the 2022-23 fiscal year.
In order to prepare for this discussion, a correspondence was sent to all leaders of the Senate asking for their feedback about the allocation of resources for their own caucus or group. All leaders in the Senate supported that SEBS recommend the status quo for the fiscal year 2022-23, therefore allocating the same amounts to each group and caucus as in the fiscal year 2021-22. The leaders’ responses were shared with members of the SEBS.
After careful review, your subcommittee recommends the following allocation of the overall budget for caucuses and parliamentary groups for the 2022-23 fiscal year, which represents the same amounts to each group and caucus as in the fiscal year 2021-22:
For the Government Representative Office, $1,308,154; for the ISG, $1,308,154; for the opposition, $1,279,792; for the CSG, $500,000; and for the PSG, $500,000.
Your subcommittee also recommends that the allocation of the budget to the various caucuses and parliamentary groups form part of the review of the next Main Estimates process.
Respectfully submitted.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Moncion.
Are there any questions for Senator Moncion, colleagues? I see no hands up.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Moncion that the first report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be adopted. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
The next item is for information only, and it is a report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets concerning the impact of inflation on senators’ budgets. Pierre Lanctôt and Nathalie will also assist with this item.
It is my understanding that Senator Moncion will make opening remarks, and Pierre and Nathalie will assist in answering questions.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I have the honour to present the third report of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
During the 2017-18 Main Estimates process, the Senate approved the concept of an annual increase, for future years, of the Senators’ Office Budget based on the inflation rate.
During the 2022–23 Main Estimates process, the former Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates recommended that CIBA increase the Senators’ Office Budget by the inflation rate, which is consistent with the decision made during the 2017-18 Main Estimates process. Although CIBA approved the proposed 2.0% increase in the 2022-23 individual senator’s office budget, this rate was questioned by committee members because the most recent monthly inflation rate published by Statistics Canada when the meeting took place on November 25, 2021, was 4.7%. Therefore, CIBA requested that the SEBS assess the impact on the individual senator’s office budget for 2022-23 of the updated inflation rate available closer to the month of March 2022 . . . .
The current practice to determine the annual increase in the individual senator’s office budget is to apply the inflation rate of the Consumer Price Index (CPI-trim) available when preparing the Main Estimates, which is the first quarter of the fiscal year.
For the 2022-23 Main Estimates process, the inflation rate used was 2.0%, increasing the individual senator’s office budget from $234,940 to $239,640.
Since the 2022-23 Main Estimates were prepared, the annual inflation rate has risen to 3.7%, as of December 2021.
The difference of 1.7% between the most recent annual inflation rate (3.7%) and the rate used to increase the individual senator’s office budget during the 2022-23 Main Estimates process amounts to $3,995.
Other factors were considered and discussed by SEBS:
Inflation currently volatile: The high inflation rates currently experienced in many world economies have not been seen for decades. Many economists, central bankers and others believe these high rates are the direct result of the pandemic and should stabilize in the coming months. However, nobody can predict whether inflation will remain high, increase or decline to the 1.5% to 2.0% range that most industrialized countries have experienced over the last few decades.
Economic increases for senators’ staff: The decision on the economic salary increases for senators’ staff for fiscal year 2022-23 has not yet been made. Therefore, the budget required to cover these increases is unknown. It might be prudent to wait before increasing the individual senator’s office budget by more than 2.0%, as salaries account for approximately 93% of senators’ office expenses.
Limited proportion of senators’ expenses affected by inflation: Only about 7.0% of senators’ budgets are spent on non-salary expense categories that are subject to inflation. The remaining 93% is used to pay salaries, which are based on economic salary increases approved by CIBA. The rate of economic salary increases for fiscal year 2022-23 has not yet been approved, but based on trends, it will be about 2.0%. Therefore, the additional 1.7% for inflation applied to non-salary expenses would represent a budget increase of $280.
Based on this information, SEBS recommend not to make any changes to the Senators’ Office Budget at this time but will continue to monitor the impact of the inflation on senator’s individual office budget and discuss this matter on a regular basis at its future meetings.
Respectfully submitted.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions for Senator Moncion, colleagues? I see no questions.
We’ll move to item 6, which is also a report for information from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates concerning the quarterly financial reports. Again, Senator Moncion will make some opening remarks, and Pierre and Nathalie will assist in answering any questions. You’re very popular today, Senator Moncion.
Senator Moncion: As popular as Senator Tannas this morning.
I will be reporting the second report:
Your subcommittee received the financial highlights for the second and third quarters for the fiscal year 2021-22.
In conducting its study, your subcommittee raised concerns about the levels of resources available to support the work of parliamentary committees in order to increase the number of concurrent meetings. Although not an immediate issue, your subcommittee believes that this topic needs to be addressed before it becomes a problem.
Your subcommittee also raised questions about the competitiveness of the Senate in the labour market and wonders if the Senate salary and benefit package provided to employees allows it to acquire and retain the desired level of talent, especially at the senior levels.
After debate, your subcommittee has approved and now tables the attached Quarterly Financial Report of the Senate of Canada for the quarters ended September 30 and December 31, 2021.
And it’s respectfully submitted. I did not present numbers, but if you want information on numbers, Pierre and Nathalie can do a better job than I can, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: We have a very comprehensive report on the results, so I think there’s a lot of detail in there should anyone need them. I assume everyone has gone through it; I certainly have. There’s a lot of detail. Are there any questions for Senator Moncion?
I see no questions, so we’ll move on to item 7. This is item is a standard annual item concerning services provided by Public Services and Procurement Canada. Caroline Morency will join us again. She is the Director General of Property and Services, and she will join as a witness. Again, we will have time for questions after the presentation.
Caroline, you may begin.
Ms. Morency: Thank you, chair. Honourable senators, today I’m seeking your approval to proceed with sole-source contracts with Public Services and Procurement Canada for the provision of mandatory services in Senate-occupied buildings. As the designated custodian of the Parliamentary Precinct buildings, PSPC is mandated to provide building maintenance services for all mechanical and electrical systems, base-building work and other building-related components of the Senate’s facilities. This includes minor accommodation construction and renovation projects.
In addition, at the request of the Senate Administration, PSPC provides equipment maintenance services and equipment rentals to the Senate. These services are provided to us under sole‑source contracts.
Over the last five years, we’ve spent approximately $600,000 with PSPC. Annual expenditures have varied due to the cyclical nature and timing of small-scale construction and renovation projects. But generally speaking, we spend approximately $100,000 per year on PSPC services.
This fiscal year, we have spent a higher amount than usual, primarily attributable to the rental of interpretation booths to provide a safe environment for interpreters in their support to the chamber and committee proceedings, and also to account for increased labour fees and level of effort on existing equipment maintenance contracts, as well as the costs required to resolve issues identified during those maintenance inspections, including replacement parts or system upgrades.
[Translation]
For the 2022-23 fiscal year, I am requesting approval to proceed with $232,000 in contracts with PSPC. This estimate continues to be higher than historical expenditures because it includes the extended rental of simultaneous interpretation booths and an increase in building and equipment maintenance fees, as well as the resumption of food services equipment maintenance, assuming pre-pandemic service levels. Please note, however, that we are in talks with PSPC on a potential agreement that should reduce or eliminate the rental fees for the interpretation booths.
The additional fees anticipated next year will not have an impact on property and services funding requirements because they will come out of the directorate’s existing budgets.
I would now be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions for Caroline, colleagues? I see no questions. Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Senate Administration be authorized to continue proceeding with sole-source contracts with Public Services and Procurement Canada for the provision of base-building maintenance, equipment rental fees, and standard accommodation construction projects for the 2022-2023 fiscal year, whose aggregated costs are estimated at $232,000.
Senator Dean moves the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried.
Thank you again, Caroline.
Colleagues, item 8 on our agenda relates to a proposal to add one additional member from the Senate to the Joint Interparliamentary Council. Joining us are Jeremy LeBlanc, Clerk Assistant and Director General of the International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate; and Marie-Eve Belzile, Principal Clerk, Parliamentary Exchanges and Protocol. They are joining us as witnesses.
Colleagues, as a bit of background, on February 7, CIBA steering received a letter from the Honourable Senator Cordy highlighting the issue of representation on JIC, the Joint Interparliamentary Council. Steering undertook to understand how the membership representation could be changed and requested that Senate Administration prepare a briefing note on the past practices, which is included in your package that you received earlier this week.
After reviewing the briefing notes, steering is recommending that I write to the chair of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons to seek their agreement to change the composition of JIC so that all Senate groups and parties are represented. This approach, I would mention, is also supported by the Speaker.
Senators, do you have any questions or comments?
Senator Dawson: I agree with the objective. We have to find a solution because we’ve gone through that — we had to bump each other this year, 13 members, 14 members, 12 members. I think we should have that representation, but the modifications to the JIC have to go way beyond that.
As you know, the vocabulary talks about government in the Senate and there is no government representation. So selection of co-chairs, chairs of committees, membership on committees is often based on representation from the government side of the house and the government side are the only people who can be chairs of committees. We have to change that because, obviously, the new Senate does not work under the old rules of government and opposition.
I don’t want us to restrict ourselves. The Progressive caucus was at the origination of that request for additional members. I think we have a mandate now from JIC to restructure JIC, including vocabulary that plays in favour of the new Senate.
I agree with the fact that we have to do it, but should we do it now or should we wait until we reform JIC, the whole system, at the same time?
The Chair: Senator Dawson, it’s a matter of what we control. At this stage, the only thing we can control at CIBA is to request an additional member on JIC from BOIE, which is the Board of Internal Economy, or from JIC itself. The question of reforming JIC and the membership and the various committees is an issue for JIC, not CIBA. To me, I would suggest that we ask for the additional member on BOIE and then let JIC discuss within its own membership how best to proceed in terms of reforming the other elements that you speak about.
Senator Dawson: I bow to the co-chair.
Senator Saint-Germain: I appreciate this, and I would have appreciated the same courtesy for the PSG, the Progressive Senate Group, when they were the fourth group.
That being said, there’s also an issue of proportionality and fairness with proportionality. I want to recognize that Senator Tannas has written to all leaders regarding this. Together with Senator Dawson and Senator Plett, who is the member for the CPC, we will also address the issues of fairness, proportionality and representation. This is something very important that needs to be aligned with the contemporary Senate, so we will do so.
The Chair: I think we all agree on reforming that to better represent what exists in Senate today.
Colleagues, can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Chair of CIBA send a letter to the Chair of the Board of Internal Economy to seek their agreement to change the composition of JIC so that all Senate groups and parties are represented.
I need a motion. Senator Bovey moves the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried.
Colleagues, moving to item 9, it is my honour to table the second report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure concerning decisions taken by steering on behalf of CIBA since our last meeting. This report is placed before you for information. I’d be glad to answer any questions or comments you may have.
Senator Marshall: For the two items for our information technology group — item 2, the TechExcel licences, and the third one, the sole-source contract for LinkedIn — could we have an explanation or a little more information on those two items, please?
The Chair: We have David Vatcher on the video conference. David, would you care to cover off items 2 and 3?
David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Yes. Thank you for your question, senator.
First of all, you mentioned LinkedIn. However, the entry in the briefing note is for LogMeIn, which is a tool that allows my staff to log on to users’ laptops and iPhones remotely to better diagnose and resolve issues they’re facing. The number of licences used has grown in the past year, as staff has also grown in size.
The Chair: To interrupt, I think you’re talking about something that’s the next item in camera. This is an item that we approved at steering; it is relating to LinkedIn. Remember, we questioned you on it at steering? So it is the LinkedIn contract. One is a TechExcel contract that we approved at steering and then the LinkedIn contract. You’re referring to the other contract; that’s in camera.
Mr. Vatcher: I apologize. LinkedIn is used by our colleagues in HR.
The Chair: My apologies. I thought it was technologies. Unfortunately, there’s nobody here from HR on the call. Senator Marshall, why don’t I get somebody from HR to call you and give you an explanation on that?
Senator Marshall: Okay. Item 2, then, the TechExcel licences.
The Chair: David, could you talk about TechExcel?
Mr. Vatcher: Of course.
TechExcel is a cost-effective call centre tool. Call centre tools are very expensive. When you call ISD for support or HR, we log that call. All calls logged allow us to build a knowledge base within our teams to better follow up with users for difficult calls.
After a successful pilot in PSD’s director’s office, we are rolling out the tool to their staff, and that will need 48 licences. We will also roll out, in short order, to CSD for another 10 licences. As I mentioned, ISD and HR already use the tool.
Senator Marshall: Okay. That’s great. Thank you so much.
The Chair: Senator Marshall, I can elaborate on the LinkedIn contract. Now I’m going from memory. It’s a very effective hiring tool that HR said they use to hire, especially when they’re trying to reach diverse communities, which is difficult to do if you just place an ad. They have hired four or five people, and the cost of hiring an outplacement firm or a headhunter to do that is far more expensive than paying LinkedIn and doing it directly. However, they will provide you with more detail.
Senator Marshall: I don’t need any further information because you’ve explained it. It’s perfect. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions, colleagues?
If not, the next item concerns the annual ongoing software support and maintenance contracts for the Information Services Directorate. We have David Vatcher, Director of Information Services, to provide us information as a witness.
Senators, I should note that there were some contracts listed here that were due to expire on April 1. In order to ensure there was no interruption of service, CIBA steering approved those particular contracts because we were concerned that if CIBA had not met today, we wanted to make sure the contracts were renewed before they expired. Those contracts that steering approved are listed in appendix C for your information.
David’s presentation will be followed by time for questions. I will remind senators that if you have any questions on specific contracts or that identify specific suppliers, we should address those in camera when we vote on the item.
David, you may begin your presentation.
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senators, this is an annually submitted briefing note. It addresses business continuity and ensures compliance with the Senate’s procurement policy.
ISD acquires software licences in a competitive manner whenever possible. However, in the long run, some licences and services that are renewed annually cross thresholds set in the procurement policy. These cases are in three appendices. Appendix A is a list of contracts for software and services with an annual value over $40,000. Appendix B is a list of contracts for software and services with an annual value below $40,000 but exceeding the sole-source threshold over multiple years. Finally, as the chair indicated, appendix C holds the list of contracts that steering agreed to renew to ensure service continuity, as the renewal date was upcoming.
Finally, I wish to make it clear that no additional funds are requested, and contract amounts have already been established. Only approval with respect to the procurement policy is sought.
Thank you for your attention. I’d be happy to answer any questions.
The Chair: Colleagues, are there any questions for David?
I will need a mover for the following motion:
That approval be granted for the renewals for fiscal year 2022-23 for software, maintenance and/or support service contracts listed in Appendices, A & B of the briefing note.
Senator Forest moves the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? I see no objections. I declare the motion carried.
Colleagues, to cover off one other item under “other matters,” you might recall that at the last CIBA meeting, I took the comments that were raised about food services availability on site under advisement. I’m sure you will all have noticed that the cafeteria is once again open in the Senate of Canada Building. It reopened at the beginning of March with full menu options once the demonstrations cleared and the House of Commons was able to resume deliveries. We all recognize this is an important service in this building, especially during sitting weeks, so I’m glad this temporary issue has been resolved.
Since we’re on the topic, I also want to address the cafeteria service in the East Block, which has not reopened since March 2020. The committee, as you know, made the decision in December 2020 that the East Block cafeteria would remain closed for the time being, given the lower presence on-site. That decision was reconfirmed by steering on December 31, 2021. For East Block colleagues, I suggest that until we increase our traffic on that site, we continue with that decision and revisit this when we return in greater numbers or greater presence in the East Block.
I thought I’d mention that to you. If you have any questions, I’d be glad to answer them. Is there any other public business, colleagues? If not, we shall go in camera, and we’ll give the administration a couple of minutes to get organized to go in camera. Thank you all.
(The committee continued in camera.)