THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 7, 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 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 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 during the debate. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. 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 this meeting: Senator Patricia Bovey, Manitoba; Senator Yvonne Boyer, Ontario; Senator Larry Campbell, British Columbia; Senator Claude Carignan, Quebec; Senator Dennis Dawson, Quebec; Senator Tony Dean, Ontario; Senator Raymonde Gagné, Manitoba; Senator Tony Loffreda, Quebec; Senator Lucie Moncion, Ontario; Senator Rosemary Moodie, Ontario; Senator Donald Plett, Manitoba; Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec; Senator Judith G. Seidman, Quebec; Senator Larry Smith, Quebec; Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Welcome to all those viewing these proceedings across the country.
Honourable senators, the first item is the approval of the public minutes from March 24, 2022, which are in your package. Are there any questions or changes? Seeing none, can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Minutes of Proceedings of Thursday, March 24, 2022 be adopted.
Senator Dean 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 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, item 2 is an emergency request for funding and we are going to discuss those in camera. It will be the first item when we move in camera.
Moving to item 3, it is a report from the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group. I am advised that Senator Bovey would like to defer to the next meeting of CIBA because there are some things she would like to pursue further, so we will move to the next item.
Item 4 concerns clarification to the Senators’ Office Management Policy in relation to regional offices. David Groves, Legal Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and Pierre Lanctôt, CFO, will join the meeting by video conference as witnesses. As usual, the presentation will be followed by time for questions.
David, you may begin your presentation.
David Groves, Legal Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, we are seeking your approval to make a change to the SOMP, the Senators’ Office Management Policy, to clarify an ambiguity in the provision on regional offices. Senators are allowed to use their office budget to establish a regional office in order to support their parliamentary functions. The SOMP is not clear, however, on where exactly a senator might establish that office.
The SOMP defines “region” in regional office as encompassing multiple provinces. So a senator from Saskatchewan could, in theory, under this rule set up a regional office in Alberta or vice versa. This ambiguity carries over more specifically for Quebec senators because, as you know, Quebec senators are appointed to represent a specific electoral division within their province.
Just as the SOMP is not clear in that province distinction, it’s similarly not clear on whether a senator from Quebec might establish an office outside of their electoral division but within their province.
At the recommendation of steering, we are proposing that the SOMP be amended to make clear that a senator’s regional office, regardless of which province they are appointed from, may be anywhere in their province.
It’s that simple. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, are there any questions for David? I see no questions. It’s very clear. Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That section 5.14.2 and the Glossary of the Senators’ Office Management Policy be amended to clarify existing requirements relating to regional offices.
Senator Plett moves the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried.
Moving on, item 5 clarifies the proposed amendments to the SOMP in relation to commercial rentals. Pierre Lanctôt, our CFO, will also assist with this item. Pierre, you may begin your presentation.
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, we are proposing an update to the Senators’ Office Management Policy, or SOMP, to provide an additional accommodation option when senators conduct their parliamentary functions in the parliamentary district.
There are currently three types of accommodation available to senators for their stay in the parliamentary district; the nightly accommodation, hotel or private residence, rental accommodations, and the third one is the privately owned accommodation.
We are proposing, as suggested by some senators, to add a fourth option, rental of a commercial accommodation for multiple weeks or months, which includes Airbnb and apartment hotels.
[Translation]
Expenses for this type of accommodation would be eligible for reimbursement for the duration of the rental period, a bit like a long-term rental agreement, which is currently eligible under the policy. Senators would be able to go to their territorial or provincial residences between two sitting weeks, and any days during which they were away would be eligible for reimbursement, as is the case for rental accommodation. Of course, invoices and other proof of payment would have to be provided.
This change won’t have any impact on the Senate’s budget, because these expenses are paid out of the current budget for living expenses in the parliamentary district.
The documents you received include a briefing note which details the proposed policy changes.
[English]
That concludes my remarks. I will be happy to answer any questions or take any comments.
The Chair: Colleagues, are there any questions for Pierre?
Senator Plett: Thank you, Pierre. I would like you to explain what our existing policy is because I think you mentioned there were three types of policies and one was a private residence. I would like to have that explained, and I would like to have a little more fulsome explanation on what it is you’re asking for that has no budget implications. Where does the money come from? I would like you to explain it a little more clearly than you did, please. I’m sorry if I’m the only one who didn’t understand what you were saying, but I didn’t.
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, senator. With respect to the first part of your question, there are currently three options for senators. The first option is that senators can go to a hotel and pay their nightly hotel fees. The second option is to have a lease or rent for an accommodation. The third option is for senators who decide to buy an apartment or a house. There is a provision in SOMP for reimbursement of a specific amount for that type of accommodation.
So these three exist.
Another option we’re proposing is, for example, if a senator wants to rent an apartment for a month — not for the long term but a period specifically, like a month — and the senator returns to their original province for a weekend between two sittings, the two days that they will be away will still be considered part of the rent, which is not the case today based on the current policy.
With respect to the budget, this change will have no impact because senators have a specific fixed budget for these types of expenses, and that budget will not change. Basically, what we’re proposing is to add an option to use this budget slightly differently than what exists today. There should be no financial impact.
Senator Plett: I’m trying to get my mind around that. It might not have a specific financial impact, but right now, if I go home for the weekend, I’m not paying for my hotel room. And you are suggesting here that I, whenever is convenient for me, am allowed to rent an apartment for one month and then that whole month gets covered even if two of those weeks are break weeks. That’s the way I’m understanding it.
For example, we’ve got two weeks coming up now. If I had rented an apartment this month, I would be able to claim the two weeks over Easter here. I would be able to claim that. That is taxpayers’ money that I’m using, regardless of whether I have the budget for it or not.
Without giving it some more thought, I struggle with us allowing that to be done. I think we are giving far too much flexibility there. If you want to make a stronger argument, I’m certainly interested in listening to it. But at the outset, I don’t support this.
Mr. Lanctôt: If I may add to what you’re saying, renting an apartment for a month, where a senator would stay for a significant portion of the time, is very often a lower daily rate. So even if there’s a weekend, for example, when a senator would return to their province, the overall amount for the month will be cheaper than staying in hotels for a very specific period of time.
It’s an option. Senators will have to continue, as they do today, to assess what the best and most economical option for them is. It’s no different than when a senator rents full time, like for a 12‑month period. There are some periods when senators are not there. It’s another way of allowing senators to manage their same budget as they have today.
Senator Plett: I don’t want to monopolize the question period here, but let me use a very basic illustration.
I spent some weeks and even months south of the border this winter, still trying to come back for sitting weeks. I buy my own ticket because our Senate rules say that I cannot travel from outside the country and come to Ottawa to sit. I think I was the architect of that rule when I chaired the meeting that redid some of the SOMP rules. Many times, that ticket would cost me less money — could cost the Senate less money — if I was to fly from, as an example, Orlando to Ottawa rather than flying from Winnipeg to Ottawa. But it’s not allowed for clear reasons. We’re not supposed to be going on holiday and, for the tail part of that holiday, using Senate dollars to come back. But if I fly to Winnipeg first from Orlando, then I can fly from Winnipeg to Ottawa on Senate dollars. Of course, I didn’t do that, so I paid my own flights, which is the way it should be.
I would consider this exactly the same type of thing. It may not cost more money, but we are allowing senators to rent on a short-term basis. I mean, if they rent for one year — if they have a lease for one year — I can understand if during the summer months they want to be in Ottawa in their apartment, absolutely. Or if they buy a house, we have rules and regulations around that. But for us to allow somebody to rent an apartment for one month, and then two weeks of that one month is a break week — I don’t think the optics of that are very good at all, and I’m certainly not in favour of that.
The Chair: I would just remind colleagues that Finance is not the architect and is not pushing for this change. Senators have requested this, and it is being brought because senators have requested this option.
Senator Plett: I never doubted anything other than that, chair. However, that doesn’t change my opinion.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Pierre Lanctôt, can you please confirm that property taxes are paid on Airbnb rentals? I know that the by-law was changed last year. In the past, Airbnb rentals weren’t subject to property tax. Are property taxes currently being paid and transferred to the municipal government?
Mr. Lanctôt: That is a good question, senator, for which I have no answer. I will find out and get you that information.
Senator Moncion: In cases where there is no provincial tax or GST, we should perhaps reconsider that option, because otherwise, I believe it would be contrary to the way we should be doing things. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Dean: I have a comment. I fully appreciate Senator Plett’s questions and concerns around this. That’s the first thing I want to say.
The second is that it strikes me that there is a very big gap between staying in a hotel, as some senators choose to do, and leasing on an annual basis. My sense is that senators who stay in hotels find it, over time, a little bit wearing — especially if they’re here for multiple weeks, as they often are — but are cautious about moving from that all the way to an annual lease because of the amount of time they are not spending in Ottawa by virtue of break weeks.
It seems to me that this is a relevant and practical middle ground that allows the person who is fatigued by hotels to economically move into short-term accommodation where they can leave their bags and have, for a short time, a semi-permanent residence without attracting the annual costs of the lease. It seems to me that this is some middle ground — some space in between — which, if we compare it with the annual costs of the lease, is way more economical and yet, from a quality-of-life perspective, gives somebody who wants to stay here for several weeks on end a place to park and unpack their bags. It feels something more like home, if I can put it that way.
It’s a relevant and practical approach that also has, as an advantage, its pay-per-use aspect as opposed to those who choose to stay year-round in leased accommodation, and it has all the flexibility and advantages of that. However, in saying that, I understand the questions that Senator Plett is raising.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: What I am understanding is that this change provides more details. To my mind, Airbnb rentals would fall either under category A, if it was a very short-term rental, or under rental accommodation. If I look at the situation that is described as a longer-term rental of a furnished apartment, it’s the same thing as the new category C. I don’t see any difference. Perhaps the witness could explain what the issues were that meant that an amendment was recommended to provide more detail. Can you clear that up for us?
Mr. Lanctôt: Yes, senator. Thank you.
The difference is the following: If a senator rents an apartment under the terms of an annual lease, the rent paid is reimbursed every month by the Senate as long as the apartment is made available to the senator.
Under the current rules, if a senator rents an apartment or a hotel room for a period of one month, for example, and he or she decides to go back to his or her province for a weekend after a two-week sitting period, at that point, the amount reimbursed on the monthly rental will be prorated by the number of days during which the senator was physically present in Ottawa. In the case of an annual lease, however, reimbursement is not prorated to take into account periods away, which is contrary to what the current rules provide for a monthly rental, i.e., that reimbursement is prorated to take into account periods spent away from Ottawa.
Senator Carignan: I think that your interpretation is rather restrictive. The problem was rather the interpretation of “rental accommodation.” Some senators rent accommodation but don’t live there when the Senate isn’t sitting. Their accommodation is nonetheless reimbursed on a monthly basis. It might be the restrictive interpretation which has brought about this new concept.
I am not opposed in principle to the amendment, because I know it won’t impact the senators’ budget for living expenses in the nation’s capital.
Mr. Lanctôt: Absolutely. Senator, I would even say that in many cases that have been submitted to us up until now, senators saved money by renting on a monthly basis.
Senator Carignan: Right. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: I have a question for Pierre.
I know we don’t have to adopt the same policies as the House of Commons, but I’m curious; does the House of Commons have a similar policy? Have they included such a facility in their allowable expenses?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, senator.
The policy of the House of Commons is written differently, so they don’t necessarily have the restriction, but in the case of the House of Commons, if somebody rents for a period of time, that would be covered. Our policy is more restrictive in the way it’s written than what the House of Commons currently has.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, I see no other hands up, so I would just like to make a comment. I would like to stress the point that Senator Dean made. There is a big gap between a daily rate that everybody comes and stays at a hotel, and if they want to go longer, they have to go all the way to one year. There are times when a senator may wish to come during, let’s say, a three-week or four-week sitting period. They can rent a place for a month and still go home at the weekends, and that monthly rate is way cheaper than staying at a hotel. They also have the flexibility of cooking facilities and leaving their luggage. All it does is provide an extra degree of flexibility for senators that really doesn’t cost the taxpayer any additional money, in my view; in fact, we don’t really know, but it could cost the taxpayer less money.
With that, colleagues, how do we wish to proceed? Senator Plett, are you comfortable proceeding on division, or would you rather have a vote?
Senator Plett: No, I want it recorded that I am opposed to this, but you can do the vote on division.
The Chair: Colleagues, would anyone else like to record their vote on division? If not, I will need a mover for the following motion:
That section 7.9.1 of the Senators’ Office Management Policy be amended by adding a subsection to clarify the requirements regarding commercial rental accommodations for multiple weeks/months in the Parliamentary District.
Senator Campbell: So moved.
The Chair: Senator Campbell moves the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Senator Plett: On division.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried, on division.
Colleagues, we are moving to item 6, which concerns the proposed amendments again to SOMP, which is the Senators’ Office Management Policy, regarding senators’ points of departure and arrival.
Pierre Lanctôt will assist with this item. You’re very popular today. You may begin, Pierre.
Mr. Lanctôt: Yes, there are many changes and clarifications to SOMP today.
Honourable senators, this time, we solicit your approval to proceed with a modification to SOMP to clarify existing requirements under section 7, the travel expenses, on eligible points of departure and arrival in the senator’s province or territory.
Since this SOMP was implemented, the departure and arrival location in a senator’s province or territory under section 7.1.7 has been interpreted to be the senator’s official declared provincial or territorial residence. Any other location but this one, or a location where the senator was conducting parliamentary function, including another residence, was not considered an admissible point of departure.
On February 17, 2022, steering confirmed that the departure and arrival location in a senator’s province or territory under section 7.1.7 should be limited to the officially declared provincial or territorial residence and that SOMP should be modified to replace “the senator’s province or territory” by the “the senator’s provincial/territorial residence.”
[Translation]
This is why we are asking the committee to approve the updated policy and to replace “province or territory” by “provincial or territorial residence” in sections 7.1.7, 7.4.4 and 7.4.5, as well as in table 7.1 of the policy, as indicated in the briefing note that you received.
Please note that these changes will have no financial repercussions on the Senate or its senators.
This concludes my presentation. I would be pleased to hear your comments and answer your questions.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Pierre, I read this, and then I thought that maybe what I heard in translation was different.
So if I live in Kamloops, British Columbia, and I want to depart from Vancouver one week, and the next week, I want to fly back into Kamloops, I would not be able to do that. Or, to give another situation, I want to fly to Toronto and not to London. Would I now not be able to do that if I lived in London or in Kamloops; I wouldn’t have that flexibility? I would need to fly as close as I can get to my home?
Or are we doing the opposite? Are we actually giving senators the flexibility to fly wherever in their home province?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, senator, for the question.
The way the policy is written today, it says the senator can depart from their province or territory. However, it has never been applied that way; it has always been applied from the provincial or territorial residence. It has always been this way, but that’s not the way it’s written in the policy.
In recent times, we had senators who, for example, had secondary residence in their province but farther away than their main residence. At that point, the departure point would still be considered as the main residence. So we’re not actually changing anything; we’re just making the policy align with the practice.
Senator Tannas: What you’re saying is that if I do live in London, I can’t depart from Toronto. You’d like that made official. If I live in Kamloops, I can’t depart from Vancouver. Is that right? If I live in High River, 30 kilometres south of Calgary, I can’t depart from Edmonton, is that right?
Mr. Lanctôt: Exactly, unless you have a parliamentary function, obviously. But if there’s no parliamentary function, and for personal reasons you’re in a different location than your primary residence, that would not — and it is the case today actually.
Senator Tannas: It’s interesting, there have been a number of examples why this makes no sense, and I think that’s why as a practice, we were ignoring this rule. But I think formalizing it is a big mistake that will create way more work, way more hassle and way more ridiculous situations, where you have to say no and have angry people, than it will save in whatever money we think we’re trying to save here. That’s my opinion, thank you very much. I know that this is not you and your construct. You’re looking for clarity, and I get it. We should make it clear, but this is not the clarity that we should be giving you. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I’ll just say that I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Tannas. These changes take away some flexibility and are not in keeping with good old common sense. I don’t think the changes will have an effect on me, but I was also thinking of my secondary residence.
Say I decide to return to Ottawa on a Tuesday morning from my secondary residence rather than my primary residence. If I follow the new rule to the letter, I would not be reimbursed for my travel expenses departing from my secondary residence, even though it is closer to Ottawa and would cost less than if I left from my principal residence. It doesn’t make sense.
I think you should keep the current policy with a reasonable interpretation based on cost. For example, priority would be given to the primary residence, but if you are coming from another place in the province with fewer travel expenses, the expenses would be reimbursed anyway. Otherwise, if you’ll pardon the expression, we’re heading into stupid territory here.
[English]
Senator Plett: I think my age is catching up on me here. I’m getting more confused as I listen to the arguments. For six years of my Senate life, I had a summer place and we were there pretty much from May to October. That was a two-and-a-half hour drive further than from my condo in the city of Winnipeg. I was never allowed to charge that mileage from my summer place, even though that is where I was. That was my residence. I couldn’t declare that as my main residence, or I might have even tried that, but it was leased property, so it wasn’t allowed to be declared as my main residence.
Colleagues, we have to have rules. I hear Senator Tannas and my good friend Senator Carignan saying, “Let’s just throw this wide open and expect everybody will be honest and fair and do everything right.” We have seen over the years that isn’t the case. We have to have rules. Clearly, we have to have rules.
Whether this is the best rule or not is open to debate, but if we just leave this wide open, we’ll be travelling and flying from — and in Manitoba, there’s really only one place I can fly from, and that’s the city of Winnipeg. But in places like Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia, we’ll have people driving and flying from all over the place, and that can’t be done.
If we have a rule that it has to be less than from your main area of residence, if that were the rule, that if you saved the Senate money, the Senate saves that money, fine. But if it costs the Senate more money, then it’s out of your own pocket; I’m okay with that too.
But let’s not think that somehow we’ve all become so ethical and so honest that we aren’t going to try to take advantage of every rule we can take, so I support this, Pierre. Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, before the next witness, I must admit that I strongly agree with Senator Plett. This was debated extensively at steering and I think the other three members of steering had a lot more experience at this than I did. I am relatively new compared to the experience that we had. All the other three senators said if we don’t make this change, it leaves this wide open for senators to one day start doing things that aren’t exactly correct. So I think the tighter we run these rules, there will always be exceptions and situations whereby it may be cheaper than your residence, but we put Finance in the unenviable position to start tracking; what is more expensive, what’s not more expensive, is that really cheaper? You put them as being the cop. I don’t think we need to. The cop should be the rule. And I think we should make the rule very clear and very specific.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: We can have a common sense rule whereby expenses would usually be reimbursed using the place of residence as a departure point. However, if a senator leaves for Ottawa from another departure point in his or her province or territory, and when I say territory I mean the northern territories, and the travel expenses are lower, then reimbursement could be made up to the amount of travel expenses that would be incurred from the senator’s residence.
I think that would accommodate everyone without leaving room for abuse. I will give you an example that is similar to those that have already been provided. My son lives in Montreal. Say I decide one week to go spend the weekend with my son. If I am coming back from Montreal, that would cost less than if I were coming back from Quebec City. That sort of amendment could be a realistic compromise based on common sense. This is what I’m proposing.
[English]
Senator Tannas: I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Saint-Germain. I think that was the point of Senator Carignan; if it is cost-neutral or saves money, and it is from within the same province, I don’t think that’s too complicated or difficult to grasp. People would have a track record of costs, so many dollars, they’ve been filing it for weeks. If they depart from another city in the province, how much is it? I only have to look back to yesterday’s file to see what it was. I don’t buy that it’s too complicated, and it applies common sense.
Senator Dawson: I agree that we can find wording that would affect common sense. Senator Carignan, if I use the example of you in Saint-Eustache, if you were to have a summer cottage on the north shore of Charlevoix, and you were to fly out to Ottawa, that’s an extra cost I don’t think we should be assuming.
[Translation]
We are trying to find wording that would concur with Senator Saint-Germain’s objective. We want some flexibility without increasing costs. In other words, if the costs incurred are lower than those of the usual —
[English]
London is a very good example. Kamloops is a very good example with Vancouver. But we don’t want anybody to go rent a cottage for the summer in the Yukon and say, “That’s my summer residence.” We’re trying to cut the abuse, not be unreasonable.
Again, there’s an exception always, and the wording was precisely made. In the case of Quebec senators, we have 24 senatorial districts. We did not want to be put in a situation where you had to travel from the senatorial district in which you owned land but did not have a residence. So the objective is saving money, not spending it.
Senator Moodie: Mr. Chair, I agree with the cost-neutral approach. The argument that Finance has more work to be done to calculate what is cost neutral or what is not is probably not a valid consideration here. Finance has had challenges in the past, such as during COVID, around travel, where other types of transportation were used. They applied a cost-neutral approach to people taking cars, for example, instead of flying on aircraft.
As needed, Finance is certainly capable of doing this, so I don’t think that’s an argument. Therefore, I would strongly support Senator Carignan’s approach and recommendation here.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I want to be sure that I’m understanding things correctly. I was looking for a cost-neutral approach. I believe that Senator Saint-Germain expressed her position extremely well, better than me, it seems. People seem to have understood that I would be in favour of a reimbursement which would be higher than that which would be allowed for the primary residence, which is not the case. I want a cost-neutral approach as proposed by Senator Saint-Germain. This is what I was suggesting, too.
[English]
Senator Plett: I will add something very briefly, chair. Clearly, there is a fair bit of disagreement on this today, including that we have members of steering committee offering that we may be changing the wording, and so on. I would like to see us table this for the next meeting and come up with something clearer.
The Chair: I was going to recommend that, as well. In fact, I would like Finance to really evaluate whether it is practical for them to be able to track which costs are cheaper and which are more expensive on an ongoing basis for 104 senators. I would like them to evaluate some of the points raised today and be back with a revised recommendation — or no recommendation at all, and leave things as the status quo. So we’ll be back with this one. Thank you, colleagues.
We’ll go on to item 7, a renewal of the service level agreement with the House of Commons for nursing services. We have Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, and Linda Sabourin, Senior Advisor for Occupational Health, Safety and Wellness joining us by video conference as witnesses.
Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, Human Resources Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you. The Senate Administration is seeking the approval of a service level agreement with the House of Commons for nursing services for a period spanning four fiscal years, 2022-26. We have been receiving these services via a service level agreement with the House of Commons for the Senate since 2013, where senators and Senate employees have benefited from various services provided by the House of Commons nurse. This nursing care involves mental health support; referral services; coordination of appointments with doctors and specialists; and access to health events, such as blood pressure and immunization clinics.
Our Parliamentary Protective Service, our Parliament Hill partners, do function as our first responders, should there be an emergency. Of course, senators and employees are encouraged to visit their regular physicians for primary care or acute care needs.
Over the years, we have seen senators — especially when out of province — and Senate employees access these services, ranging from 79 to 383 visits per year. The annual expenditure for nursing services has ranged between $18,500 and $47,500, based on annual costs. On-site nursing services guarantee the availability and access to nursing services for senators and Senate employees, as I’ve said, and can help with providing referrals to doctors and specialists or to clinics for individuals who are out of province.
Having an independent nursing service for the Senate would certainly be at a much higher cost than that which we are currently seeking to have with the House of Commons. In terms of the financial implications, the cost for a service level agreement for the House of Commons for the period we are seeking is $86,000. We are recommending that CIBA approve the service level agreement with the House of Commons so that we can secure the provision of these nursing services for our senators and Senate employees.
I’m happy to answer any questions, senators and Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Colleagues, do you have any question for Toni?
Senator Moncion: I have a quick question about the publicity that you make about the access to this service to senators. I wasn’t aware of it; I was aware a nurse was available, but I wasn’t aware that mental health services were available.
I would simply ask that you provide information to those for whom these services are available so that we are aware they exist and that everyone can use them when they need them. Thank you.
Ms. Francis: Thank you, Senator Moncion. We have a communiqué that is already drafted. We will ensure that announcement, should CIBA approve the services available. We’re also going to be looking at how we onboard senators to assess and ensure that, through the onboarding process, this information is shared with them. We are also looking at the mechanisms by which we continue to remind people that these services are available. But we will have a draft communiqué circulated soon.
The Chair: Further to Senator Moncion’s comment, I would advise that senators be told about the service more frequently than just now and then not for another four years; it should be done on a regular basis. I leave the frequency up to you.
When we were in the main building, it was easy because the nurse was there, but now we’re apart from them, people tend to lose sight of the fact that we have a nursing service available to us. The more you let people know, I think the more utilization will rise.
I will need a mover for the following motion:
That the Service Level Agreement with the House of Commons to secure the provision of nursing services for senators and Senate employees for a period of four years (fiscal years 2022 to 2026), estimated in the amount of $86,000 be approved.
Senator Dean moved the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried.
The next item concerns an update on the progress of the Senate Working Group on Accessibility to position the Senate to respond to the Accessible Canada Act. This item is for information only.
Mathieu Beauregard, Manager of Application Development and Systems Integration, will join the meeting by video conference as a witness. Good morning, Mathieu. You may begin.
[Translation]
Mathieu Beauregard, Manager, Application Development and Systems Integration, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: After the Accessible Canada Act was passed in 2019, the Senate set up a working group, of which I am the chair, charged with developing the Senate’s first accessibility plan. This plan, which will be valid for a period of three years, i.e., from 2023 to 2025, must be published no later than December 31, 2022.
Our working group started by meeting the various Senate directorates in order to draw up an extensive list of potential barriers in terms of accessibility, whether it be our premises, our products, our services or our practices. We then set up a call for tender to hire a consulting firm specializing in accessibility issues to help us in developing our plan. We worked with this firm and in keeping with the Nothing without us strategy, which is one of the central pillars of the Accessible Canada Act, we started a series of consultations in early winter with persons with disabilities, both internally at the Senate and externally.
To start with, we consulted with Canadian organizations that represent persons with disabilities. These organizations told us what was important to the persons they represent. Also, because these organizations are often called upon to communicate with the Senate, for example, by making submissions or having one of their members testify before a senatorial committee, they gave their perspective on the accessibility of our premises, processes, services and even our public website.
After that, we wanted to know what people within our organization thought of accessibility here at the Senate. We held internal consultations. We started with an electronic questionnaire that was sent to all employees and senators at the beginning of February. We then followed up with individual meetings with a number of persons with disabilities here at the Senate. Actually, there are many more than you might think, because not all disabilities are visible.
We held individual meetings, because the issues that each individual faces are unique and often very personal. During these private meetings, people were much more at ease to talk about their own situation and also to make recommendations about certain measures, which are often simple and practical in nature, that can make a big difference for them. Finally, we also met with senators who agreed to give us their perspective on accessibility in the Senate.
We also wanted to know what is being done elsewhere. We therefore met representatives from other legislative assemblies here in Canada and elsewhere in the world to learn about their experience and the best practices that they adopted. Finally, here on Parliament Hill, we held bi-weekly meetings with our counterparts from the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament and the Parliamentary Protection Service.
We will be finishing off the first version of our plan next month, after which we will hold more consultations during the spring and summer in order to vet the plan. I will return in the fall to present the Senate’s first accessibility plan which will be published before December 31, 2022.
I would be pleased to answer any questions that you might have.
[English]
The Chair: Seeing that there are no questions, we look forward to having that presentation and having you back at the end of the year.
We move to item 9, which is other matters. I would like to take a few minutes to discuss an important item raised last week in the Senate Chamber during the debate on the motion to extend hybrid sittings.
I want to first commend senators for their understanding and support over the course of the pandemic. We’ve all had to make sacrifices to protect the health and safety of senators and Senate staff.
It is important to note that the Senate has continued its primary and fundamental role as a legislative body throughout the pandemic. Senators did this by prioritizing sitting functions, but it has meant difficult decisions have had to be made to reduce other activities. These decisions were not taken lightly, and it is certainly our goal to find ways for committees to get back to their important work.
That being said, senators should have all the facts on many items. I wish to make some clarifications so we have the right information about the current situation with respect to available resources for committees.
There are some factors that are external to the Senate and somewhat outside of our control. However, there are also decisions that the Senate has taken that reduce committee capacity, starting with the largest external factor — translation capacity.
The Translation Bureau is mandated by law to provide interpreters and translation services to Parliament. There’s no existing agreement that stipulates that the House of Commons gets priority over the Senate for access to services. The administration has met on several occasions with the bureau to discuss capacity. The issues about equality were emphasized, and the Senate was assured that any issues would be addressed.
Administration asked the bureau to provide quarterly statistics in the new session. These are due soon, as the first quarter has just ended. This is one way to assure us and for us to monitor the allocation of resources.
Due to the increase in workplace injuries, health and safety concerns, retirements and other factors during the pandemic, the service hours of interpreters has fallen by 30%. In addition to fewer available interpreters, they now work in four-hour shifts instead of six-hour shifts as a health-and-safety measure. This reduced pool of available interpreters, and their work hours, has had an impact on both the Senate and House of Commons. As a result, the Senate used to have 32 time slots, and now we have 22. That is a reduction of 30%.
Although the easy solution would be hiring more interpreters, we have been told by the Translation Bureau that there’s a worldwide shortage and that all available and qualified interpreters across Canada have been hired to serve Parliament. There are no additional resources available to hire at this time. At the next meeting of CIBA, officials from the Translation Bureau will be presenting their annual report. I invite members to come, and they will have the opportunity to question officials on their services to the Senate.
In respect to the House of Commons, their meeting numbers and sitting times are higher than ours because they are a large institution. They have more members, committees and meet more often. This was the case before the pandemic and continues to be the case today.
If we compare the pre-pandemic numbers to the situation since the beginning of the current Parliament, the proportion of translation services available for sitting times for the two chambers has remained the same. However, the House has seen less of a reduction in committee activities than the Senate.
There are several reasons for this. For instance, the House of Commons has authorized all their committees to hold hybrid meetings during adjournments and House sittings, but the Senate doesn’t allow this as a standard practice.
Senators, until interpretation is able to return to pre-pandemic service hours, we can only make incremental changes to increase our capacity. However, administration is continuing to work with the Translation Bureau to see if there are ways to find efficiencies so these staffing shortages have less of an impact on the Senate. We also want to make sure that if there are service reductions, they are applied equitably to both chambers.
Beyond these issues with interpretation, there are also some internal decisions that are putting additional burdens on our technical staff that we should perhaps re-examine. These are under the control and purview of the Senate or CIBA.
The first is increased Senate times. Since we began hybrid sittings, the Senate has increased the average length of sitting times by about 30%. This is most noticeable on Tuesdays and Thursdays. As a result, we have lost three committee time slots on Tuesday evenings. The increased sitting time on Thursdays has further reduced the availability of interpretation staff who could normally support committees at other times during the week.
Second is time zones. We used to have four early morning committee time slots on Tuesdays and Thursdays. However, the time zone differences make these time slots impractical for hybrid sittings.
The third is focus and group meetings. We now have four caucuses requesting services on Tuesday mornings. With the elimination of the early morning time slot, it means only two committees can meet in the morning, where we used to have four meetings.
Senators, these decisions alone have reduced capacity by seven committee time slots and possibly even more. I would propose that senators consider some short-term measures to try and free up additional time and resources for committees.
For instance, there are options that the Selection Committee could propose, including recommending that some committees be authorized to meet when the Senate is sitting. Also, as more and more senators return to Ottawa for sitting weeks, Selection should consider resuming the early morning committee slots, which would allow for more efficient scheduling on days and times we are accustomed to having our committees meet. We could also rise earlier on Tuesday, as these evenings were previously reserved for committee work.
We could consider other solutions such as limiting senators’ special events, caucus meetings, training sessions and staff meetings with interpretation until we are past the busy period between now and the end of June.
Moving briefly to the items under CIBA’s responsibility, CIBA is responsible for some but not all resources required to support committee meetings. If we wish to increase our committee hybrid meeting capacity, we will not only need to hire more interpreters, but we may need additional technicians and stenographers and so on.
CIBA is prepared to consider these increases, but until interpretation is able to increase their capacity, or until the Senate is able to reduce some activities to free them up, there’s little point in hiring other staff.
For this reason, CIBA is mindful of not making long-term or binding decisions with respect to resources until senators are ready to decide how they wish to conduct business in the long term. Making decisions every month or two is not conducive to long-term planning.
Senators, I realize these are not perfect solutions. However, in conclusion, if we prioritize the legislative and parliamentary responsibilities and focus on maximizing our use on these limited resources through incremental adjustments to some of our current practices, we will find some additional committee meeting times.
Colleagues, if there are any questions, I’m glad to take them.
Senator Plett: I have one very simple solution — that we stop with these silly hybrid meetings and come back and work the way we are intended to work here, and all of these problems would be solved. The motion that we passed a week ago says that we have hybrid sittings until the end of April, and I think there were conditions around that, and that was that if we did not see an increase in issues around COVID, we would stop. That leaves us three sitting days.
I don’t know that we have to make a decision based on three more hybrid sitting days, but I most certainly have never been a proponent of us adjusting our sitting times because of time zones. For 150 years, we have worked on the Eastern time zone, and it’s unfortunate when someone in British Columbia has to get up at five o’clock in the morning, but I suggest that during the sitting week, if they’re in British Columbia, or in Atlantic Canada, they adjust their workweek based on the Eastern time zone, because those are days when the Senate is sitting.
I’ve never been supportive of us doing things based on different time zones. That has always been a problem, chair. You’re absolutely right. We should never have done that.
As far as increased sitting times are concerned, actually, we can sit on Tuesdays and Thursdays until midnight under the normal rules, not just nine o’clock. The fact that we’re only sitting until nine o’clock actually has in a way reduced Senate times, not increased them.
Again, if we are going to be dealing with down the road, I would be more than willing to have committees meet earlier and that we start rising at 6 o’clock or at the end of government business. That would also solve this. We are here primarily to do government business, not private members’ business. Certainly, we are allowed to do that, and I support that. But until we get out of the hybrid sittings, maybe we need to do what we do on Wednesdays and maybe not 4 o’clock but 6 o’clock.
There are other ways of doing this.
Chair, clearly I don’t think we need to make a decision until the end of April. Hopefully everybody will see that we are getting out of this bad situation that we’ve been in for the last few years and that this won’t be a problem anymore in May.
The Chair: I think, Senator Plett, you’re right. The intent was not to suggest we need to deal with this in the next two weeks. The intent was to clarify the facts. There were a lot of comments made in the chamber. Some seemed to imply that CIBA is responsible for everything and every delay in committees. I want to get the facts down so that everybody understands that the issues are not related to CIBA. There are many other factors that contribute to the shortage of committee times and a lot of misinformation that was really said that we were getting a disproportionate amount of service compared to the House. That is simply not true.
Senator Plett: Welcome to my world. The opposition has been blamed for every problem in the Senate for the last 150 years.
The Chair: That may be true.
Senator Tannas: I want to put on the record something that I don’t think is widely known off of Parliament Hill, but I think we all know. There is a strong desire from some members of Parliament and some senators to make hybrid sittings permanent. We have not yet had that battle, but we will be having it. It would be nice if we could have it with the facts around whether or not it is possible for the Senate to conduct its business in the way it did pre-pandemic, in person in a hybrid setting. If it is not possible without either enormous expense or, if we take the Translation Bureau at their word, that there simply are no other humans that can provide translation in Canada on a contract basis or in some other fashion, then we should know that so we don’t vote for something that degrades the value of the Senate in order to convenience people who like the hybrid situation.
Many people believe that there will be a debate and there will be a decision that needs to get made somewhere along the way, whether we get slow walked into it or whether we get backed into it by the House of Commons.
Let’s put our cards on the table. Let’s actually do the work to figure out how difficult it would be to do our jobs fully and properly as an institution and as people before we get nudged into a decision — in a short period of time like sometimes seems to happen — without all the facts. That is one of the responsibilities of CIBA, to look around the corner at what is coming and ask administration and ourselves to do some homework and some creative thinking around what it would look like so that we are armed with all the facts, if indeed there is a decision to be made about making this permanent.
I won’t talk about my own preferences here. I just think it makes good sense to anticipate and do the homework.
The Chair: If I can respond to that, I can assure you that the administration and myself are looking at whatever options are open to us that are within the control of CIBA, but this is a multi-faceted solution. There have to be other compromises — being made to sitting times, to whether the Senate committees can meet during the Senate sitting — that are not within the purview of CIBA. That’s why I mentioned Selection Committee should do certain things. The leaders should debate certain issues and it’s not something we should discuss here.
While CIBA can do its part and is doing its part, we can’t control the other portions. I would encourage senators to discuss the other decisions that can be taken to free up capacity. The only point of making the statement here is that it’s not an issue for just CIBA to resolve. CIBA is just one player among many.
With that, colleagues, we will go to our in camera portion.
(The committee continued in camera.)