THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 23, 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.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Sabi Marwah, I am a senator from Ontario and 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 in person. The meeting started in camera and will now be continuing in public.
I will introduce the senators who are participating in this meeting. We have Senator Patricia Bovey, Manitoba; Senator Larry Campbell, British Columbia; Senator Dennis Dawson, Quebec; Senator Tony Dean, Ontario; Senator Éric Forest, Quebec; Senator Raymonde Gagné, Manitoba; Senator Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Lucie Moncion, Ontario; Senator Rosemary Moodie, Ontario; Senator Kim Pate, Ontario; Senator Don Plett, Manitoba; Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec; Senator Judith Seidman, Quebec; Senator Larry Smith, Quebec; and Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Welcome to all those viewing these proceedings across the country.
Honourable senators, the first item on the public agenda is the approval of the public minutes from June 9, 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, June 9, 2022 be adopted.
Senator Tannas moves the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Seeing no objections, it is carried.
Colleagues, the next item is a report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets concerning the updated Delegation of Financial Authorities Policy.
Pierre Lanctôt, our CFO, will join the meeting by video conference as a witness. As usual, the presentation will be followed by time for questions. It is my understanding that Senator Moncion will make opening remarks, and Pierre will assist in answering questions.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: The Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its sixth report.
Pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act, CIBA acts upon all financial, administrative and human resources matters with respect to the Senate, as well as its assets and premises. As it would be impossible for CIBA to carry out all the responsibilities for the control and spending of Senate resources from an administrative point of view, certain financial authorities must be delegated to Senators or employees within the Senate Administration and Senators’ offices.
The positions to which financial authorities have been delegated and their related authority limits are identified in the Delegation of Financial Authorities Policy.
As a part of the Senate Policy Suite Renewal (SPSR) project, the current Delegation of Financial Authorities Policy, which includes a detailed matrix on delegated authorities, was reviewed and updated by the Finance and Procurement Directorate, after extensive consultations with Senate directorates and SEBS.
The final step in the process is to seek CIBA’s approval for a targeted implementation date of September 1, 2022. …
The content of the policy, matrix and notes is aligned with current practices for public and private sectors. The Finance and Procurement Directorate, when updating the policy and matrix, analyzed good practices, leveraged team members’ experience and knowledge with other organizations, and reviewed documentation from and/or consulted with the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament, the National Capital Commission, the Parliamentary Protective Service, and the current Treasury Board Directive on Delegation of Spending and Financial Authorities.
The proposed policy and updated matrix are based on the following key principles:
• Clarity and practicality: Delegation of financial authorities is clear and practical to all individuals who use or apply them.
• Transactional limits based on needs and accountability: Delegated financial authorities to employees are effective and reflect organizational needs. The maximum amounts delegated allow for the right decisions to be taken at the appropriate level while managing risks. Delegated financial authorities increase with hierarchical levels, and accountability for decision-making is clear.
• Segregation of duties: The delegated financial authorities reflect an appropriate segregation of duties while ensuring the organization has a strong internal control to prevent errors and fraud.
• Control: The delegated financial authorities provide controls to ensure the effective and efficient use of its financial resources and safeguard public assets.
Key changes include the following:
• spending authorities are strengthened to increase control and ensure approvals are made at the right hierarchical level;
• specific financial authorities are assigned to CIBA to reflect the actual decision-making role of the committee and ensure proper control: for example, expenditure initiation over $125,000 would require approval by CIBA, which will align with the requirement to approve procurement processes;
• signing of contractual agreements and amendments are more restrictive with authorities for higher value contract assigned to the Chief Corporate Services Officer and the Chief Financial Officer; and
• additional authorities are identified for specific non-recurring financial transactions such as asset disposition, write-offs, legal settlements and budget transfers.
In terms of policy:
The policy applies to all employees of the Senate Administration whose responsibilities entail the use, management and oversight of the financial resources of the Senate. It also applies to the Administration’s transactions that are subject to the financial authorities assumed by CIBA.
Financial authorities delegated to Senators with respect to Senators’ and House Officers’ budgets are excluded from this policy, as they are prescribed in the Senators’ Office Management Policy (SOMP).
The policy seeks to ensure that:
• governance and oversight of spending and financial authorities are effective;
• financial transactions are only approved by those with the appropriate level of authority;
• responsibilities and accountabilities with respect to delegated financial authorities are clearly defined; and
• the scope and limitations of delegated authorities are properly communicated and understood.
The policy was updated to reflect the key principles above and changes to roles and responsibilities and to align with the governance structure and position titles.
With respect to the matrix:
The matrix outlines the authorities for the control and spending of Senate resources for key positions for matters relating to human resources, administration and financial management.
To ensure that approval of transactions is aligned with the matrix, financial authorities will be integrated into the approval workflows of the Resource Management System (Unit4).
In terms of communication:
Senate employees with financial delegated authorities and employees involved in the use, management and oversight of the financial resources of the Senate will receive mandatory training to be completed prior to the implementation date.
Furthermore, they will be required to provide an attestation in writing regarding acknowledgement of their responsibilities as per the following: “I accept and understand the nature and extent of the financial authorities delegated to me. I have read and understood the Delegation of Financial Signing Authorities Policy, the Procurement Policy and all other relevant policies. I acknowledge that I am responsible for acting in accordance with these policies. I confirm that I have received sufficient support to understand and assist me in the exercise of my delegated authorities.”
Lastly, in terms of recommendations:
The proposed policy and updated matrix and corresponding notes are designed to improve clarity on delegated authority, align with current leading practices and strengthen financial control by using a structure of delegated financial authorities that align the materiality level of transactions with the organizational hierarchy.
Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed policy and updated matrix and corresponding notes be approved; and
That a targeted implementation date of the updated financial delegation of authorities be September 1, 2022.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
[English]
The Chair: That was a long report.
Colleagues, are there any questions for Senator Moncion? I see no questions.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Moncion:
That the sixth report of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be adopted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Carried.
We have another item, which is another report. The seventh report from the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets was sent out late yesterday, unfortunately, because that committee just met yesterday morning on two requests that were made. I think Senator Moncion was going to speak to it, and then we can vote on the seventh report as well.
Senator Moncion: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, which includes details regarding two budget requests that were submitted to the subcommittee earlier this week.
Before reviewing these budget requests, I wanted to provide some context. For the current 2022-23 fiscal year, the total funds available for committee expenses will again be $2.382 million, less $500,000 for witness expenses, leaving $1.882 million for release for individual committee budgets.
Members will recall that the subcommittee presented a report at the last meeting of CIBA with recommendations on seven budget requests that were approved by CIBA. The recommended release of funds in our last report was for $914,744, leaving a remainder of $967,256 for the rest of this fiscal year. The requests we received this week are for a total of $5,294.
The subcommittee met yesterday on June 22, 2022, and first heard from the chair and another member of the Human Rights Committee. They presented a budget application that contained proposed expenditures of $3,700. This request is in relation to their study on human rights generally, but more specifically on the topic of forced and coerced sterilization of persons in Canada. It includes a request for funds for one witness and an accompanying person to travel to Ottawa to attend the committee’s press conference on their report.
This is a supplementary budget request on the committee’s general order of reference. You may recall that on June 9, CIBA approved the release of $313,618 for the committee to conduct fact-finding and public hearings on its study topic on Islamophobia in Canada. If the latest request is approved, this would bring the total funds released to the Human Rights Committee to $317,318 for the current fiscal year.
I would note that although the subcommittee is sympathetic to the motivations behind this supplementary budget request, we are uncomfortable with the precedent that it might set. As senators already know, the allocation of funds for committee activities should be used for committees to hold public hearings outside of Ottawa and to conduct fact-finding missions.
Given our responsibility to ensure that the allocation of these funds is fair, transparent and accountable to the Canadian public, we are guided first by the Rules of the Senate that authorize some funds for witnesses to travel to Ottawa when they are invited to appear at an official committee meeting. We also recognize the crucial contributions made by committee witnesses to inform committee activities. However, it is important to remember that committee reports are the voice of — and contain the conclusions of — senators.
Although press conferences are important tools for the promotion of committee reports and the important work that senators do, the subcommittee is mindful of the fact that there are a multitude of options available to committees to promote their work that do not require the use of funds set aside for committee activities. The pandemic has allowed us to leverage the use of virtual technologies. We would encourage the Human Rights Committee to take advantage of those virtual options, which the public, including the media and witnesses, are very familiar and comfortable with. Most importantly, the subcommittee does not wish to make this decision in isolation because of its possible impact on future requests. For that reason, we felt it was more appropriate to bring this matter to CIBA for guidance.
Next, your subcommittee again met with the chair of the Fisheries and Oceans Committee. You may recall that on June 9, they presented a budget application that contained proposed expenditures of $28,587 for six senators to participate in a press conference in Halifax for the launch of their report on the implementation of Indigenous rights-based fisheries across Canada.
The subcommittee felt that sending six senators and two staff to a one-day press conference was a bit excessive, particularly when senators have other options. Consequently, the recommendation was for a partial release so that two senators and two staff could attend the conference in person, which reduces the total amount for this activity to $19,825.
Earlier this week, we received a request to reconsider this decision to include one additional senator, who would represent the francophone community, to accompany the chair and one committee member with ties to the Indigenous community. The costs to include one additional committee member would be $1,594. If this partial release is approved, it would bring the total amount released for this activity to $21,419. Having carefully considered this request, the subcommittee remains of the view that its decision to approve four participants for this activity is sound and in keeping with the principles of fairness, transparency, accountability and good governance. Consequently, the subcommittee is not comfortable approving this request for additional funds. However, we would have no objection should the committee choose to include three senators and one staff in their delegation instead.
In conclusion, the subcommittee does not take its responsibilities lightly. Our priority is to consider the overall picture of Senate spending. As mentioned earlier, our concerns are not about the specific amounts being requested in these two budgets but, rather, on the precedents that they may set, both in terms of widening the scope of what expenses the Senate will allow for its committees but also on the well-established committee budget process. Based on the Rules of the Senate and the Senate Administrative Rules, this long-standing process mandates your subcommittee to review requests, make recommendations and then have them presented to CIBA and eventually to the Senate for approval.
Your subcommittee is open to ideas and proposals that may be innovative and unprecedented. However, it remains our responsibility to ensure that budget requests conform to our rules, long-standing practices and procedures. In the case of the request from the Human Rights Committee, your subcommittee recognizes the unique nature of their request but feels strongly that it goes beyond our mandate and therefore merits further discussion. The mandate of the subcommittee remains in your hands, and we look forward to your guidance on the points raised in this report.
Honourable senators, since this report was prepared and circulated, we were advised by the chair of the Human Rights Committee that after discussion with her committee members, it was their wish to withdraw their request. Despite this new information, it would be useful to raise these matters at CIBA so that clear guidelines can be established for future requests of this nature.
Just for information, what I find of value with the committee is the fact we have members on the subcommittee who have corporate memory of the Senate and we rely heavily on these senators who have the history of the Senate to guide us when we are making our decisions. I want to thank every member of this committee because it was a discussion that was difficult to have yesterday.
On that note, I move the adoption of the report and would be pleased to take your questions. Thank you, senators.
Senator Dawson: Normally I never question subcommittee reports because we ask the subcommittees to do their work and I respect that. But since the chair is asking us for our opinion and talking about suggestions, I’ll be pretentious and say that, as you know, I worked on a communications package for the Senate, trying to revolutionize the way we communicate. We said that if we have a good report, we have to sell it, we have to communicate it and we have to give it legs as much as possible after the report is published. Spending $300,000 and being afraid of spending a few thousand dollars to give it a bit of a bang, including having testimony of somebody — I sort of understand your challenge. That’s not your job with communications. But thinking about the communications side, I think we should always take into consideration that if we are spending $300,000 on a report, let’s give it legs. In both cases, they are being very creative. You talk about fish in Ottawa, they eat it on a plate in a restaurant, but when you talk about fish in the Maritimes they know what you are talking about. I believe that there is a justification to make that expense.
Again, respectful of what you have to do, it is our debate now. We have to decide. Do we think it is normal that we spend money to make reports get more coverage? I think that would deserve a bit of a mandate to the Subcommittee on Communications, which is now sort of the steering committee of CIBA, to see how we put in frameworks so we go back to thinking about it; we stopped that during the last two years. We have been surviving and we didn’t think about communications. But now that we are spending $1 million, we have to think about the fact that we ask our communications people how we get better coverage on these reports.
Having said that, I bow to the recommendations of the committee. As far as the Human Rights Committee, they took off their expenses. Now coming to Fisheries Committee, we are also committed to diversity. So having diversity at press conferences is something we have to get into our minds. We need to have gender balance, we have to have diversity and, obviously, having a francophone to be able to communicate to the francophone media on an issue where the other people at the meeting don’t speak French, I think it would go against the historical will of this institution to try to give that balanced approach.
Senator Moncion: Just for your information, we are asking that instead of having two senators and two staff, that there are three senators and one staff so the francophone can participate. That is one of the solutions we are providing for the committee.
Senator Plett: Let me echo, at least in part, what Senator Dawson said in his opening comments about questioning subcommittees. If we recall, a couple of weeks ago we had a situation where we had a subcommittee report that some people agreed with and some didn’t. I didn’t agree with part of the report, but at the end when we had a vote, I voted in favour of the report only because I believe we have a subcommittee that is very responsible and takes all the facts into consideration. I don’t think we will ever write a report that will have the absolute endorsement of everybody around the table.
I have always believed that when negotiations are done, if you have a negotiation where everybody is happy, you have a perfect solution. When you make a negotiation where everybody is somewhat unhappy, you have a fair solution, because nobody entirely agrees with it but all for different reasons.
In this particular case, Senator Moncion, I agree with all of your recommendations. Two weeks ago, I didn’t agree with all of them but nevertheless voted in favour of them. However, there are other solutions. We talked about it two weeks ago. You didn’t mention it today, I don’t think, or if you did, I missed it. The other solution is — with the Fisheries Committee one, because it is senators we are dealing with — a very easy fix. Someone can use a couple of senator points and do exactly what they would do. It is the easiest fix in the world. If they agree with you, with three senators and one staff, that’s also fine; but if they don’t, they send another one.
Without doubt, we are a country with two official languages. Certainly, in parts of the country, we want to ensure that both of those languages are properly represented. I have no argument with that. There are certain parts of the country where that isn’t necessary.
But if we want to start talking about diversity, we are such a diverse country already that if we want everyone included, we will have to expand the size of the committees to have people represented at every conference we do, so that’s just simply not reasonable. You have made a reasonable decision here. I certainly support that. I would be very discouraged if CIBA, our committee, in any way tried to alter what you are suggesting in that particular case.
On the other one with Human Rights Committee, I’m grateful they have pulled back their request. I agree that it is one thing about having witnesses and bringing witnesses in and having to pay some compensation for witnesses and even for support staff for witnesses. We discussed this a few weeks ago and I think came up with a budget on something like that and that was good. However, when we start sending witnesses and support staff to do press releases, where does this eventually end? The decisions need to be made on precedent setting and they need to be made before we have the specific requests, because once the request is there then the decision always appears to be a personal decision. I want to support your committee entirely with your recommendations and hope that the rest of the committee will do the same. Thank you very much for your work.
Senator Campbell: It is not the responsibility of our subcommittee to set what the makeup is, what the message is or what the issue is. That’s what the committee making the request is supposed to do. It is not our position to decide diversity. We have diversity in the Senate. We have sub-caucuses of people who have joined together for a common cause. That’s not our role. It is unfortunate that this is even on the table after it was withdrawn. Now that it’s out there, people have to understand that what we look at is cost and benefit. It is up to the committee appearing before us to make that point.
On fisheries in particular, first of all, we had to make sure that we had Indigenous people at the press release because it is about the Indigenous fishery on the East Coast. And then we had to make sure we had a francophone on it. We are a bilingual country, and I agree that should be there, but it is not up to us to make that decision. Sometimes it is like death by a thousand cuts. We make a decision and then, oh, we’ll take a little bit, and that’s not how it should be. I think the chair eloquently expressed what went on. I support this report.
The Chair: Colleagues, I see no other hands up. Senator Moncion, I’m reading that we wish to adopt the seventh report. I think that motion is agreed. Are all senators agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. On the guidance you had in your Senate report that you requested in terms of breaking precedent, I think the mood I had in talking to members before the meeting and some views I could hear, there is no appetite to break with precedent, so that should guide us in future direction.
Senator Moncion: Thank you, chair. I would add a very important point about using senators’ travel points. We also have to be careful because we are accountable for the travel we undertake. There is a question of transparency and accountability to the Canadian public. When we travel within a committee, these expenses are publicly disclosed. When you look through the senators’ travel expenses, the information is there, but it might not be as transparent or as available as it is when it is in a committee.
So again, there are other solutions out there, but we feel that these solutions have to be used with caution and keeping in mind that we are accountable for every cent we spend. That was just a word of caution.
The Chair: I think we have agreement on all this, so let’s move to item 7.
Colleagues, pursuant to the section 1.6.2 of the Senators’ Office Management Policy, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure is required to report biannually on the exception requests it has received and the corresponding decisions. It is my honour to table the sixth report of the subcommittee, which outlines these exception requests and corresponding decisions since December 9, 2021. This report is placed before you for your information. Are there any questions or comments, colleagues? I see no questions.
We will move on to item 8. This concerns the use of cloud services for storage of Senate information. David Vatcher, Director of Information Services Directorate has joined us by video conference as a witness. David, please begin your presentation.
David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, I am very happy to present you with this important note and request today that ISD may launch the Senate Cloud Adoption Initiative, or SCAI, facilitating the expansion of cloud use, including storage of Senate information, while promoting green IT practices.
The note is directly in line with the ISD Roadmap 2020-2024 and represents an important move to the cloud from our on-premise servers. Our email software, for example, will reach end-of-support next spring. It is important for ISD to undertake this move to the cloud, much like our colleagues at the House of Commons and most Government of Canada departments have already done.
The initiative will offer the Senate an annual reduction in costs, as well as a reduction in future waste and the size of our environmental footprint. Our plan includes an annual assessment of our tenant.
ISD retains full operational control and custodianship of all information stored in the Senate’s Microsoft cloud tenant. The Senate’s Microsoft cloud tenant is considered as an extension of the Senate’s existing IT infrastructure. All Senate information resides in Canada, as specified in our contract with Microsoft.
To achieve these savings, improve the availability, cybersecurity, reliability and overall experience for senators and Senate staff, as well as reducing the Senate’s environmental footprint, it is recommended that CIBA approves ISD to launch its Senate Cloud Adoption Initiative based on its migration plan.
Thank you. I would be happy to take any questions.
The Chair: Are there any questions for David?
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much, David, for the presentation. I’m on the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets. Will the savings you have identified be offered up as real savings or will that be absorbed by other expenditures within your directorate?
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for the question. Of course, we will try to offer this as a potential long-term savings for the Senate. We’ll have to see exactly where we lie with different budgetary pressures we have, but in fact, we will reduce our budgets accordingly if possible.
Senator Marshall: There are actual savings. Okay. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Thank you for the report, David. It mentions in the document that the Senate Cloud Adoption Initiative (SCAI) will eliminate the requirement to purchase the equipment required to upgrade current infrastructure. How long will the solution be in place?
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for your question, Madam Senator. It’s important to understand that we have to migrate to a new Exchange platform. We have the choice of going to the cloud, with Exchange Online, or going to Exchange 2019, still on our premises.
It’s this expense that we’re trying to avoid for new servers on our premises. The contract with Microsoft is for three years. It is renewable and allows us to do this work on the cloud. We make sure to renew these agreements as needed so that we can continue to use cloud computing for our needs. In the event that there is a problem and a decision is made to change our cloud service provider, we will act accordingly, upstream, to plan our transition to this other provider or to new servers that would be on site.
[English]
The Chair: I see no other questions. Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Information Services Directorate be permitted to launch its Senate Cloud Adoption Initiative based on its migration plan.
Senator Dawson moves the motion.
All agreed, senators? Carried.
Item 9 covers the revisions to the Legal Assistance and Indemnification Policy. This follows the consultations with the Standing Senate Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators.
Charles Feldman, Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, will now join the meeting by video conference as a witness. Charles, you may want to summarize the changes for senators.
[Translation]
Charles Feldman, Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, as part of the Senate Policy Suite Renewal Project initiated in 2018, the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel proceeded with a thorough review of the Senate Legal Assistance and Indemnification Policy.
The general purpose of a policy on legal assistance and indemnification is to set out a framework for senators and Senate staff members to request and obtain legal assistance or indemnification in situations where they may face legal liability in relation to their duties and functions. Generally speaking, the Senate will reimburse legal fees and indemnify senators and Senate staff members in relation to personal liability incurred while acting in good faith in the course of their duties.
[English]
The revised Senate Legal Assistance and Indemnification Policy comes to you today in a modernized format with clarifications based in part on CIBA discussions. Along with the policy before you, which would go into effect upon its adoption by CIBA, we are proposing a corresponding change to the Senators’ Office Management Policy, the SOMP, so that the two instruments are aligned.
I won’t go into detail on the policy, as briefing materials are included in today’s package. However, I will remind senators that despite this being a CIBA policy, requests from senators in relation to an ethics and conflict of interest matter are decided by the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators, known as CONF. At steering’s request, CONF was consulted on this element of the revised policy before you.
I thank you for your attention and look forward to your questions.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much, Charlie, for the presentation.
At the Senate Estimates Subcommittee, for any financial policies that are put forward by officials, we go through that policy in quite a bit of detail and then submit it to CIBA for approval. Has this policy gone through any subcommittee or group for what I would call a challenge review?
Mr. Feldman: That’s a good question. I have only appeared before steering. I did not participate in the SEBS process, if there was one. Perhaps Philippe, if he knows the answer to that, might help me here. Originally, this was another counsel’s file, so I’m not sure what process it followed.
I can say that there were not many revisions in relation to finance other than putting a cap on the amount of indemnification that could be requested and the hourly rates of counsel. Whether that required going through SEBS and didn’t, I’m not sure about that element of the process.
Senator Marshall: I wasn’t suggesting that it go through SEBS. I was inquiring along the lines of whether there is some subcommittee or group. This is now coming to the full CIBA, but my experience has been that we take the policy and go through it with a fine-tooth comb.
The Chair: We went through it at steering at great length. I think it came back to steering at least three times.
Senator Marshall: So it has been challenged. That’s good.
In quite a few places, the policy refers to an “approval authority.” I wasn’t quite sure what was being referenced there. Could you explain that? It shows up multiple times throughout the document.
Mr. Feldman: An approval authority is defined in section 3.0, the definitions. It means steering, when the request for legal assistance comes from a senator — other than an ethics matter — a senator’s staff matter a member of exec. In the other case, it is the Executive Committee when the request is made by a Senate Administration employee other than a member of the executive.
Senator Marshall: So it would be the three members of the Executive Committee?
Mr. Feldman: For those requests, yes. I should be clear that CONF does approve different requests, but it is not an approval authority. That was a bit of a choice to make sure the policy spells out which provisions apply to CONF. If you see approval authority, that is not CONF.
Senator Moncion: I have a question.
[Translation]
My question pertains to the section about the obligation to reimburse the Senate in the case of an adverse resolution. It’s on page 2 of your briefing note. The way the policy is written, if a senator is charged with, and found guilty of, an offence, the senator has to reimburse the Senate for any costs it has incurred.
Something concerns me. The senator may not have spent the money had they known that they would ultimately have to repay it. This worries me because the senator may not have requested the funding had they known that they would be found guilty in the end. The senator could have acknowledged any wrongdoing and not incurred any legal expenses. It’s possible that a senator won’t be found guilty. The funding is akin to a promise that can be taken back at any time depending on the final outcome. If the option isn’t available, it can affect a senator’s decision from the outset on whether to defend themselves. This can lead to confusion.
Mr. Feldman: Thank you for your question. The current policy makes it clear that the issue of whether to recover costs will be considered afterwards. What we did here was change the wording. It’s not mandatory to seek reimbursement in the event that a senator is found guilty. It’s not necessarily in a criminal context; rather, it has to do with the contract in a situation where the senator acted in good faith in doing what they did, but the court still ruled otherwise. In that case, the senator won’t be asked to reimburse the legal expenses.
Senator Moncion: The situation has to qualify, then.
[English]
The Chair: I see no other questions, so can I have a mover for the following motion:
That CIBA approve the revised Legal Indemnification Policy and modify the Senators’ Office Management Policy by adding a new section 5.17.2 as follows:
5.17.2 Pursuant to sections 8 and 9 of Chapter 4:03 of the SARs, senators may not use their office budget to cover the cost of legal assistance or indemnification as defined in the Senate Legal Assistance and Indemnification Policy. However, they may use their office budget to retain the services of a legal professional for the purpose of conducting legal research on a matter relating to their parliamentary functions. Senators are encouraged to first consult with the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel with respect to all matters for which they require legal advice.
Senator Dean moves the motion. Colleagues, are we all prepared to support?
Senator Forest, were you asking a question?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: No, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to move the motion. Senator Dean has my full confidence.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, are we all agreed? Agreed. Carried.
The next item is a request for two additional full-time employees for the Committees Directorate.
Shaila Anwar, Clerk Assistant, Committees Directorate, will now join the meeting as a witness. As usual, we’ll have time for questions following her presentation.
Shaila Anwar, Clerk Assistant, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, I won’t take up too much of your time, as this request is fairly straightforward.
[Translation]
One of a senator’s main responsibilities is to participate in committees. The Committees Directorate is responsible for providing administrative, procedural, logistical, financial management and information services to Senate committees, and for assigning committee clerks, in accordance with the Senate Administrative Rules.
In October 2020, the Senate created the Committee on Audit and Oversight. It was not known at the time what the committee’s workload would be. Since we didn’t have a procedural clerk to assign to the committee, we asked a manager to provide the necessary support. Since its creation, the committee has focused on its governance, structure and work plan, and this arrangement has worked in the short term.
[English]
Last fall, the directorate submitted a capsule to SEBS to request an additional clerk and admin resource for the Audit Committee. However, we withdrew it after we were asked to keep new FTEs to a minimum in light of the overall reduced activity levels due to the pandemic. We advised SEBS at the time that we would absorb the extra workload within but that if new committees were created, or workloads increased, we would not be able to support them with existing resources.
In March 2021, the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, or DEDC, was created. Then, in April, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, or AMAD, was created. Indications at the beginning were that both special joint committees would exist for a short period of time, so we doubled up clerks with their assignments.
Since then, the AMAD committee has received an extension to continue their work into October. We have been advised that they intend to seek another extension in the fall to go until January. The Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency has no end date and plans to continue meeting in the fall. At the same time, the Audit Committee is now ready to undertake its primary work this fall and is expected to require more dedicated support.
Additionally, the Rules Committee is considering a proposal to create two new standing committees and have asked me to consider what resources would be required to support them, should they be created.
At present, we’re managing by assigning clerks to more than one committee, or by assigning them to managers. Again, this can be absorbed to an extent. But, at a certain point, it makes us vulnerable and constrains our flexibility should activity levels change, or when there are staffing issues that happen in any organization from time to time.
We currently have six procedural clerks with two committee assignments. Each manager is assigned to a committee and a subcommittee.
Most importantly, the message from senators has been quite clear that there is an expectation that, in September, committees will return to their normal schedule of two meetings per week.
Honourable senators, I’m here today because with the increase of a new permanent committee, the continuation of the two special joint committees, the possibility of two new Senate committees and the return to a full schedule in September means that the Committees Directorate now requires an additional clerk and admin team so that we can meet our obligations to support the work of your committees and continue to provide you with the exemplary service that is expected by senators.
We’re bringing this request forward now so that we can use the summer to recruit and train new staff so that the directorate is ready in the fall.
That concludes my presentation.
[Translation]
Thank you, honourable senators. I would be pleased to answer any questions you have.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Thank you, Ms. Anwar, for your submission. I support it, but I wonder if it would make sense, rather than go straight to permanent, to think about a year or two as temporary. Let me give you some of my thoughts around this.
I think there has been, in the Committees Directorate, some head count increase over the last number of years. They have been hectic and not usual years. We may or may not be heading back to a more normal cadence and set of circumstances.
To me, having them as temporary instead of a permanent expansion, on top of other permanent expansions that have been made over the last few years, may or may not be advisable. I would be interested to know about that.
Although something else could come up, I think the Senate is less than enamoured with the special joint committee process. Maybe we will not do so many of those anymore based on some of the comments that have been made, so there may be some relief around that. On the other hand, we may do our own special committees and that would involve equal activity.
There are lots of organizations — and government organizations — that go through this process and find that they can be successful recruiting people on a temporary basis with a point of saying, look, it’s a big department. We’ve got turnover. If you’re good, you will move into a permanent role. We will try somebody else out.
It used to be maybe there was an argument that it was hard to recruit people. I think now it’s becoming more commonplace and people understand it a little bit better. I would be curious to know what your level of comfort would be for having these as temporary for a few years and then, through the budget process, make your case for permanent if you need to.
Ms. Anwar: Thank you, senator, for the question.
To answer your question on temporary versus permanent, certainly from our perspective, a temporary resource is better than no resource. That being said, our preference would be for a permanent resource. How we staff it — if we staff that position on a permanent basis or a determinate basis, or a contract basis — is something that we would still have the flexibility to do.
The issue now is, if I needed to hire a new clerk tomorrow, if I don’t have the FTE, I can’t even do it on a temporary basis. I don’t have the positions available. So we’re looking to increase the number of available positions.
The other thing I would mention is, from a recruitment standpoint, in our most recent competition that concluded in February or March, we had the top two candidates decline the position because we couldn’t offer a permanent spot. It is a bit of a concern. I don’t know if it is particular to the times we’re in right now. Hiring without the permanent position available has been a problem in the recent past.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator Marshall: My question is not for Shaila. I wanted to make a comment on the process.
On the Estimates Subcommittee, we’re responsible for doing the annual budget. I want to make senators aware that when something comes to CIBA directly for the approval of a significant amount of money, we have to make that fit within whatever estimates process we’re going through. It becomes quite a challenge.
If we decide that we’re going to go with the same budget as last year, and then we look and see that there was a significant amount of funding approved by CIBA, then we have to really go through a process of trying to make the numbers fit.
I wanted to make the comment that SEBS can meet pretty well very quickly to consider any proposals that are put forward. I wanted to bring that to the attention of the committee.
The Chair: Senator Marshall, we all agreed with you. When steering looked at this, our response at that time was to have them take it to SEBS, since you are really half of the budgetary process.
But at that time, SEBS was not meeting. We were about to rise. If we didn’t give them some authority — there was only one CIBA meeting, which was this one — and we didn’t give them enough time, then they couldn’t get the approval to staff up over the summer. That’s why it was done this way as opposed to any other way. It was not intended to circumvent SEBS. It was a matter of timing and process. That’s why we brought it directly.
Senator Bovey: Thank you, Shaila. I found your request really interesting. Your appendix A comparing the workloads for the House of Commons and here concern me greatly.
I have to say I’m in full support of your request. I understand the difficulty of getting temporary staff as opposed to permanent staff and the kind of training that we would expect for the kind of service that our committees need. I think it is important.
Colleagues, I’m really concerned at the hours that our clerks are working and the number of files they’re juggling. I applaud what they do and I certainly appreciate the support that they need. I am in full support of this.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I think we all recognize that one of the Senate’s assets is the work performed by committees. It’s clear from the briefing note what a significant workload that represents.
After hearing the excellent points made by Senator Tannas, I wondered whether it might be a good idea to create a contract position rather than a temporary one, especially seeing how difficult it is to find skilled people right now. For example, we could fill one of the positions on the basis of a three-year contract. That way, the commitment wouldn’t be permanent or forever, but the arrangement would provide enough support to better manage the workload. What’s more, candidates would be more drawn to a contract position than a temporary one.
[English]
Senator Campbell: I support this motion. Like others here, I’m very concerned about the levels of work we’re putting staff through, which may be as a result of hybrid. I think it’s probably more a result of the Senate expanding its committees and expanding the number of times that we sit.
I’m not in favour of part time because, as we just heard, they wanted to hire two people, but they wouldn’t take it as part time. I don’t want to lower the standards of the people we want to have in these positions, so I support this motion.
The Chair: I see no other hands up. Colleagues, can I have a mover for the following motion?
Senator Plett moves:
That the Committees Directorate be permitted to hire 2.0 FTEs (one Procedural Clerk, SEN-09, and one Administrative Assistant, SEN-05), for the amount of $185,767 per fiscal year, on a permanent basis.
Are we all agreed, senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed, carried.
The next item concerns remote access to Senate proceedings for transcription and other support services. We have Till Heyde, our Clerk Assistant from the Chamber Operations and Procedure Office, joining the meeting as a witness.
Till Heyde, Clerk Assistant, Chamber Operations and Procedure Office, Senate of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The note before you proposes that remote access feeds be maintained in order to allow Debates and Publications staff, in particular stenographers, to provide services remotely. This is to address the challenge of finding qualified staff in an industry where remote work is the norm.
Honourable senators, in recent competitions, we have had no candidates willing to move to the National Capital Region and retention of staff has become a serious concern for us. We have only been able to maintain our service levels because of the measures allowing remote access that were implemented to address the pandemic.
Continuing this remote access for the Debates and Publications team would help allow us to maintain a number of essential services at current levels, including real-time closed captioning for accessibility purposes and the transcripts for the Senate and committees that are posted online. I wish to be clear, this is not related to the possibility of maintaining hybrid or virtual sittings for senators.
The costs required for maintaining this capacity and related infrastructure will be required for any future use of remote access feeds including, in particular, for witnesses participating by video conference.
[Translation]
I would be happy, honourable senators, to answer any questions you have.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you, Till. My first question is this: What did we do before the pandemic?
Mr. Heyde: We were able to attract people to the National Capital Region. People were willing to move here. It was becoming an increasing challenge to actually get people to come to Ottawa, and they were working on the floor. As I said, in the latest competitions, we had no one willing to come here. We don’t expect that is going to change.
I think the pandemic has, if anything, accelerated a trend that we were already detecting. As the note identifies, remote work in the industry is very much the norm. The House of Commons, for their real-time transcript, uses remote transcription. They do a separate process for their debates.
So I think the pandemic, if anything, accelerated where we were going to be going in any case.
Senator Plett: In plain words, we are continuing to allow a past pandemic to drive what we are doing in the future, if I’m hearing you correctly.
I do understand your challenges, but the only way we ever get out of this is if we all stop this. We see this over and over again. I’ll give you an example. At the place where I’m going to be spending my weekend again — this weekend, hopefully — half the people there are people who are working full time, and they’re doing it from their mobile trailers because that’s the new norm. That is what we are promoting here: the new norm.
Senator Moncion: Progress.
Senator Plett: Thank you, Senator Moncion. You and I were getting along just great earlier today.
We can call it progress if we want. We can call it what I would like to call it but won’t because I think we’re in public. Nevertheless, colleagues, I’m not going to vote against this, but I’m on the record as dead set against this. I think we are caving in very quickly to something that I am dead set against. I believe that if we ever decide to go back to normal — and that’s a very big “if” — people who need jobs will once again come and get jobs. But as long as people know darn well that they can stay living in Calgary and work in Ottawa, that’s a great gig, they will continue to do that.
So I’m sorry, I am strongly — in the strongest way possible, aside from voting against it — not in favour of this. I oppose this. Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Senator Plett, the only thing I would add is that until the broader return-to-work policies in the system are really finalized — I look at what the Canadian banks are doing. They’ve all agreed they’re going to go to three days a week in the office —
Senator Plett: And still kill us with their profits.
The Chair: I know. It doesn’t really matter. Industry, as a general rule, has got to decide whether it’s five days in the office, three days in the office or two days in the office. Until such time as that happens, I think this is going to carry on.
We can revoke this at any time we wish, so what I’m proposing we do is to carry it on. If we decide that somewhere down the road — one or two years — we should come 100% back to the office, we can go back by just revoking this. It’s not as if this is a done deal forever. My recommendation would be to carry it on until such time as the broader workplace in-office requirements are finalized, then we can decide how we want to do it on a more permanent basis.
Senator Plett: Chair, since you commented directly to my comments, I think you owe me the opportunity to comment back.
The Chair: Please go ahead.
Senator Plett: Because you used the banks as an illustration, I will use the banks as the exact illustration that this is the worst possible thing we can do. When I go to the bank now, there is nobody there. I have to pick a number and buzz myself in. It’s unbelievable how even the credit unions of the world are just completely moving over to — well, some of us don’t have the money to deal with the big banks, so we are still out there with the credit unions.
In any event, your argument cuts both ways, but thank you.
Gérald Lafrenière, Interim Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments and Chief Legislative Services Officer, Senate of Canada: I’m a little bit wary of entering into a discussion between Senator Plett and Senator Marwah, but basically I think what’s important is that this is specific to an industry. I think senators will have noted in the past few months that when the administration needs the staff here in person, we are here in person. Till mentioned the House of Commons. For their closed captioning, they have contracts with companies in Montreal and Calgary because there is not enough staff in the Ottawa region to do so.
I just want to make it clear that we’re not talking about a broader scope for the Senate here. We are talking about a specific industry where presently we cannot hire people in Ottawa to do the jobs. If we don’t do so, Till identified in the briefing note what services we will no longer be able to offer, which is not of benefit to the Senate.
Senator Plett: I would suggest you should take “yes” for an answer.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you very much, Mr. Heyde, for your presentation. Before we vote, I want to be sure I understand the issue.
My understanding, from your briefing note, is that this is about allowing stenographers — who produce the transcripts for committee meetings and chamber proceedings — working remotely to work remotely using Zoom. This would address the challenge of finding enough staff and make the position more appealing to candidates. That’s the first part. Do I have that right?
Mr. Heyde: Yes.
Senator Saint-Germain: All right. I’m not quite as clear on the second part. Pre-pandemic, committees would invite witnesses to appear remotely. Some witnesses appeared in person, but others appeared by video conference. You point out the advantages of your recommendation, one being the cost savings from a more economical method of allowing witnesses to appear remotely. Could you please explain how your recommendation would result in cost savings?
Mr. Heyde: I’d be glad to provide some clarification. As Mr. Lafrenière pointed out, having access to a pool of Canadian experts all over the country who can serve the Senate is an exciting prospect. If stenographers didn’t have the ability to work remotely, we would lose roughly a third of our capacity.
I should also mention that the Debates and Publications service is somewhat unique in the Senate because many employees have been working remotely for a number of years. Some employees in the National Capital Region work nights, but from home. That’s an exception to the rule in the Senate. These people are already working remotely and are able to perform their duties without issue.
Stenographers, however, were working on site from the floor pre-pandemic, as I said. Now, they work remotely using Zoom.
As you mentioned, the need to continue providing that access would be a benefit vis-à-vis witnesses. If we look at total costs for the two years before the pandemic, so 2018-19 and 2019-20, about $300,000 per year was spent on in-person appearances by witnesses. Witness appearances by video conference cost, on average, $50,000 a year. That means a total of approximately $350,000 was spent on witness appearances each of those years.
We anticipate that witnesses will be able to appear via Zoom, with the honourable senators’ permission, of course. The recommendation is to make that option available. The $87,000 you see there is the amount our service needs but would allow for the option, representing a less costly way for witnesses to appear by video conference. Pre-pandemic, appearances by video conference were more costly and restrictive. In some cases, witnesses had to travel several hours from home to a site where the service was provided, whereas, with Zoom, people can appear from home as long as they have an adequate Internet connection, as you know.
Senator Saint-Germain: I understand now. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Moodie: I want to make a comment and ask a question. I’m all for supporting the new norm and efficiencies that expand access to skill sets. I support it.
My question, Mr. Heyde, has to do with the experience of the House of Commons. How have they managed the question of IT security and confidentiality? What we are talking about here are individuals who would be working remotely using internet capability using, potentially, their own servers, their own computers and, possibility, saving confidential material to their own units.
For an organization such as the Senate where we need to be thinking carefully about document management and concerns about security. How has the House of Commons managed this? The second question is, are you anticipating any increased costs for equipment? Are you going to have to give people equipment to be able to do this work exclusively on our equipment and with expanded IT security?
Mr. Heyde: Thank you. The House of Commons provides, for remote and distance workers, telephone lines. From my understanding, it’s done using only audio through telephone lines. It is a fairly expensive system they have.
We function using Zoom with the security measures and passwords that exist. For all senators currently participating in the Senate, obviously, earlier this week, there was an incident where the internet went down, but we haven’t had any security issues either in committees or in the Senate.
In terms of equipment, we already provide the stenographers with their equipment if they are working in Ottawa and there is equipment provided as appropriate to Senate staff who are at a distance, as it is with all staff working at distance. Senate equipment is required to provide secure access. Certainly, the Debates and Publications team works closely with the Information Services Directorate, or ISD, on that in ensuring security.
Senator Moodie: The next question I have is about ensuring that we have internet access, backup internet access. After what happened recently, an organization such as the Senate — and frankly Parliament Hill, period — should not be without internet access, especially if you are looking to base our activities on the need for internet access. What strategies are in place to make sure this doesn’t happen again?
Mr. Heyde: I think that’s a much bigger conversation — a very legitimate one — than my proposal deals with. I suspect that Mr. Vatcher at ISD is very seized by the issue and the need to ensure security of access. In our case, if we did have a situation like that, we have the option of using the recordings to prepare transcripts after the fact, which is far from ideal. However, the question of backup internet access is a much bigger and legitimate one, because everyone is dependent on secure and stable access.
It is an issue that we are exploring for the stenographers. For some of them, depending on the area of the country they’re in, there is a risk of power outages. In that case, we have sufficient staff that we can transfer to someone else to cover for them. We are looking at possibilities like, for example, power backpacks, identifying alternate work locations and things of that nature.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
Senator Bovey: Chair, my question has been asked. I support this. Thank you.
The Chair: Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Senate continue to enable remote audio and video feeds for all Senate proceedings for staff at Debates and Publications.
Senator Dean moves the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Colleagues, that brings us to item 12, other matters. There are two matters that I wish to raise. One is to confirm that the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group has corrected and resubmitted the report dated June 20. The revised report aligns with the presentation we received at CIBA on May 19. The revised report is included in the minutes of the May 19 meeting, and if you wish to read it, please do so. The corrected version is now posted on the Senate website.
Colleagues, this brings us to the last item, which is the chair. I think I mentioned this to most of you. I intend to resign as chair of CIBA at the end of this meeting. But before I do that, I have many people to thank. From the outset, it has been a privilege for me to have been chair of the committee for the past few years and to have had the opportunity to work with all of you. Thanks to you, I really do believe we have accomplished a great deal. I shall start by thanking all of you. You are all an asset to the committee, and I thank you for your support and commitment over the last four years.
In particular, I thank my steering members, Senator Campbell, Senator Dawson and Senator Smith, and before that, Senator Marshall and Senator Tannas. You all have been fantastic to work with, a joy to work with, both professionally and personally. Thank you.
Then, there are the subcommittee chairs, both past and present. We have Senator Saint-Germain, Senator Dean, Senator Moncion, Senator Tannas, Senator Plett, Senator Moodie and Senator Jaffer. Again, without your active engagement and thoughtful recommendations, we would not have accomplished anywhere near as much as we have. As you are all aware, colleagues, these subcommittees and steering have an extra burden of responsibility and are much more work. All of you have shouldered that burden in an exemplary manner.
Then we have the staff who serve the committee: interpretation, technicians, the pages, the recording secretary, the CIBA secretariat, the reporters and the heads of the various directorates. We have Toni Francis, Alison Korn, Pierre Lanctôt, Mélisa Leclerc, Caroline Morency, Catherine Beaudoin and Charlie Feldman, Shaila Anwar and Marie-Eve Belzile. Overall, the committee would not function as well as it does without you and the incredible support you provide, so I thank you all.
Last but not least are the three amazing clerks: Pascale, Philippe and Gérald. In my mind, they represent the best of the Canadian civil service — dedicated, professional, highly competent, very hard-working and so much more. We are extremely well served by them; in fact, we are lucky to have them. so I owe them the biggest thanks of all.
With that, I will step down as chair. Thank you all very much.
[Translation]
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, as the clerk of the committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair. I am now ready to receive motions to that effect.
Senator Saint-Germain: Madam Clerk, before I propose my motion, on behalf of all the committee members, I would like to extend our gratitude and sincere thanks to Senator Marwah for the dedication, skill and personal commitment with which he served the committee.
[English]
Congratulations, colleague, and thank you. On behalf of all colleagues, we give you our heartfelt gratitude.
[Translation]
Madam Clerk, I nominate the Honourable Lucie Moncion as chair of the committee.
Ms. Legault: It has been moved by the Honourable Senator Saint-Germain that the Honourable Senator Moncion do take the chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Legault: I declare the motion carried. I now invite the Honourable Senator Moncion to take the chair as the committee’s new chair.
[English]
Senator Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: First, I have big shoes to fill. Mine are high but yours are big.
I want to thank you very much, Senator Marwah, for all the work you have done. You have been an inspiration, and you have also been a mentor. I have observed how you work. You are a very good example to follow, and I thank you. I will follow in your footsteps and try to serve this committee as best I can.
I want to thank everyone for agreeing to provide me this opportunity. I will try to serve as best as I can. To everyone and the staff, I look forward to working with every one of you.
On that note, does anyone have anything they would like to add to this conversation before I adjourn the meeting?
Senator Dean: Senator Moncion, I’m delighted. I’m sure I speak on behalf of my colleagues that see you in that chair. It is well deserved. You have chaired SEBS, and we were dealing with SEBS again today. You have the skills and experience for the job in all of its complexities. Again, I think I am speaking on behalf of everyone around the table in saying that you will have our full support as you take on these very weighty responsibilities. Welcome to chair role, and we look forward to working with you.
I do also want to add something about our colleague Senator Marwah. This is a huge job, Sabi, but you have done it very well. We can all agree on that. You brought an extensive background, skills, judgment and experience. You have led us through a period of changes, some positive and others on the negative side. It has been a period of turbulence as we’ve dealt with COVID and all of the complexities associated with that.
We will now move to a single-clerk model, which I think has as much to do with your drive and what you see as important in good governance structure. We have an external audit and oversight function. We have relied on you to push and nudge us on that. We have a new Senate workplace harassment policy. We are in the middle of a massive parliamentary rebuild, and you have dealt with myriad security issues, health and safety issues, and other issues way beyond anything that we can likely appreciate. That’s not to mention the complexities associated with the Z-word — Zoom — and a more digital Senate.
Thank you. You have done a marvellous job. We owe you a debt of gratitude, as do the senators who aren’t sitting in this room today, and the staff of Senate who rely so much on the work of this committee. We wish you well in whatever you do next and in whatever committee or committees you land. You have certainly left your mark on this one and it has been an absolute privilege to serve alongside you. I am pleased to have had that opportunity and I know that I am not alone in that sentiment.
Senator Plett: I want to echo what Senator Dean said.
Senator Marwah, it has been a pleasure. I think you did an excellent job of being a very non-partisan chair. I always found it a privilege whenever you and I had private meetings and conversations, as well as in committee. I think everybody here would agree with that.
I also want to wish you well. I trust you will pass on to Senator Moncion that, every so often, the chair has to supply a bottle of whisky at a private meeting. Nevertheless, Senator Marwah, thank you for your friendship, which will, of course, continue. Thank you for your great job here.
To Senator Moncion, I want to say on behalf of the Conservative caucus that I can assure you of our support. I can assure you that we will work with you collaboratively. I can assure you that I will question you sometimes, but that’s me, personally; I won’t speak for the rest of my colleagues. But you will have our support as the chair. The chair falls to the ISG because of negotiations, but I know your leader or your caucus could not have chosen better. I’m looking forward to it. Congratulations.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Campbell: First of all, to Senator Marwah, who stepped up after I stepped down, you did a simply amazing job in what I know to be an incredibly difficult position. You have been fair and consistent. I won’t go into all of the things you brought forward; Senator Dean did a wonderful job of that.
I would be remiss if, from a historical point of view, I did not say to Senator Moncion that this is one more glass ceiling that has been breached. Congratulations to you. I have served on committees and subcommittees with you. I will continue to do so. I think you are going to do an excellent job. It is historic.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: You are now the one who recognizes us. I have to get used to that. On behalf of the Progressive Senate Group, I would like to congratulate you and thank you for agreeing to chair the committee.
[English]
You said earlier that he has got big shoes but he has no heels. You have high heels, but you’ve also got big shoes to fill.
You did, senator, forget our friend Jim Munson. He told me earlier this week that when you decide to leave, to tell you that he enjoyed going to CIBA with you and that you were the reason that he had gone to CIBA and enjoyed it. He wanted me to pass on that message.
And you can certainly count on the PSG’s support.
[Translation]
We look forward to working with you in the months ahead.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much to all colleagues. I look forward again to working with each and every one of you. I wish you all a great summer. I want to thank everyone here, staff and people who are online. Enjoy the summer. On this note, we are adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)