THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 6, 2022.
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met with videoconference this day at 9:00 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 Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome, all. I am a senator from Ontario and I have the privilege of chairing the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
I would like to introduce the senators who are here at this meeting: Senator Patricia Bovey, Manitoba; Senator Claude Carignan, P.C., Quebec; Senator Dennis Dawson, Quebec; Senator Gwen Boniface, Ontario; Senator Éric Forest, Quebec; Senator Tony Loffreda, Quebec; Senator Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Rosemary Moodie, Ontario; Senator Donald Plett, Manitoba; Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec; Senator Judith Seidman, Quebec; Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta; Senator Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia; and Senator Raymonde Gagné, Manitoba.
I would like to also welcome everyone across Canada who is watching our proceedings.
Honourable senators, the first item on our agenda is the adoption of the Minutes of Proceedings for September 22, 2022, which you will find in your bundle.
Do you have any questions or would you like to make any changes to the minutes? Would someone like to move that the Minutes of Proceedings for Thursday, September 22, 2022, be adopted?
Senator Bovey so moves.
Honourable senators, is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: The motion is agreed to. Thank you.
[English]
Colleagues, the next item is a report from the Advisory Working Group on Environment and Sustainability. Welcome, Senator Deacon. I understand you will make opening remarks as chair of the advisory working group and we will then move to questions. I remind my colleagues that the full report from the working group was provided to CIBA on February 10, 2022, and it was adopted in the Senate.
Hon. Colin Deacon: Thank you very much to the committee. Colleagues, it’s great to have an opportunity to report back on the advisory working group’s report and work since April 28 of this year, when CIBA reauthorized the AWG to help implement the environment and sustainability commitment that we have made.
One of the recommendations that the Senate of Canada adopted from our first report was the implementation of an environmental and sustainability policy statement. The policy statement was unanimously adopted by the Senate on March 29. The policy statement had the objective that it was the Senate of Canada’s commitment to reduce the Senate’s carbon footprint to net zero by 2030 and to implement sustainable practices in its operations. We are now working towards that objective.
The mandate of the current advisory working group empowered Senators Anderson, Black, LaBoucane-Benson, Smith and myself to examine the feasibility of implementing programs in the Senate relating to the environment and sustainability, as well as to oversee a request for proposals process to secure external expertise. We explained the importance of getting that external expertise in our first report. I want to again thank the committee for giving us the responsibility to do this, my colleagues on the AWG and all the staff across the Senate who have been so helpful in supporting our efforts.
Honourable senators, I’m here today to present our group’s first report, which includes an overview of the progress to date, as well as information on the proposed RFP, for which I hope to solicit your approval. My presentation will occur in two parts, the first during the public portion of this meeting, where we’ll discuss the second report, and an in camera portion where we will discuss the details of the RFP.
Before I begin, I’d like to ask why we embarked on this journey. Earlier this year, I told this very committee that we should ask the next generations — the ones whose hair is not yet grey or white, our grandchildren, children, nieces and nephews — why it’s important. Thirteen days ago, or two weeks ago tomorrow, the Atlantic provinces were devastated by Hurricane Fiona. Hundreds remain without homes or access to their homes, and tens of thousands remain without power two weeks later. The shorelines have eroded in ways we never expected could happen so fast. It’s the warming water temperatures along the Atlantic coast where hurricanes are now speeding up as they get further north. They are not slowing down, as they always had. We also saw Hurricane Ian devastating Florida and parts of North Carolina last week. The effects and costs are around us.
The Senate of Canada unanimously agreed that it has a responsibility to help tackle the challenges of climate change by reducing its own carbon-intensive activity, thereby demonstrating leadership, gaining important first-hand experience and earning the credibility necessary to hold the government to account. However, to get there we need to formulate a road map and then execute it. That’s what our Advisory Working Group on Environment and Sustainability has been focused on under your authority.
So what is our progress to date? The activities of the advisory working group are now focused on two distinct and intertwined areas. The first relates to examining the feasibility of implementing environment and sustainability programs within the Senate of Canada, including establishing an accountability framework, an annual reporting cycle, promoting climate-friendly transportation policies and reducing travel, enhancing recycling and minimizing waste, a digital-first approach to printing, getting support from central agencies to allow the Senate to charge carbon offsets as part of a sustainable Senate, and a process for senators and their offices to propose environmental and sustainability recommendations.
There has been promising progress on each of these programs. One encouraging highlight as the summer consultations that took place between Senate Finance and the Treasury Board Secretariat was on the possibility of support from central agencies to allow the Senate to charge carbon offsets as part of its operating budget. The Senate received confirmation that it has the authority to buy carbon offsets. However, the working group is of the opinion that it would be important for this to wait for the final report from the consultant to make sure we are actually launching practices that save us money and show that we’re reducing our carbon footprint before we start to use those savings to purchase carbon offsets.
The second area to highlight for you today is the sourcing of external expertise and selecting an external expert who can provide us with a reporting system and guide us as we work to reduce our footprint to our net-zero commitment. This benchmarking and tracking system and related expertise is critical to making effective and cost-efficient progress. This competitive RFP process is not like our more standard procurement processes when we’re buying furniture, desks and computers. This is very much a different approach, and we needed to learn what vendors might need or expect from us and what we might be able to expect from them. We implemented a request for information proposal process over the summer to learn from those who are already known as experts in this space as to what we should be doing and how our RFP should be shaped based on their expertise. We got eight informative responses. The feedback we received was crucial to drafting the RFP and making sure that we had a scope of work that actually could be accomplished effectively and cost efficiently by a vendor.
We broke the project into three phases, with phase one being benchmarking, data collection and analysis of scope one, two and three greenhouse gas emissions. Phase two is developing net-zero targets and an implementation plan. Phase three is tracking and sustaining progress towards net zero.
The company selected for this work would first need to meet a number of mandatory criteria, including demonstrating their ability and experience in the emissions reduction area when helping other organizations, their bilingualism and making sure that they provide excellent references.
The value of this RFP contract, if awarded by the Senate, will be publicly disclosed on the Senate website through regular quarterly reporting process. The advisory working group welcomes that transparency.
Colleagues, the working group recommends that we proceed to issue the RFP at this time so we can begin working with the external expertise in the new year. Completing this project will require whole-of-organization involvement, which has already begun in a really impressive way in close cooperation with our parliamentary partners.
We look forward to collaborating, both on next year’s plan and the years ahead. We have the opportunity for the Senate to demonstrate initiative and leadership, to implement measurable change and to achieve these really important objectives.
Thank you, chair. I’m happy to take any questions. I will remind colleagues that you refrain from diving into the specific details of the RFP in the public portion of this meeting and save that for the in camera portion. Thank you, colleagues.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Deacon.
As you just said, before I open it for questions, I wish to remind you that we are discussing this report in public. As such, please do not refer to dollar amounts nor the selection criteria as that could influence the bidding process. Also, please refrain from sharing your personal opinion on potential suppliers.
If senators wish to discuss sensitive information, that should be done in camera when we will formally decide on the report and the request.
Colleagues, are there any questions or comments for Senator Deacon?
Senator Marshall: Madam Chair, you can tell me if this should be postponed until we get in camera. I had two questions on the recommendation. Has it been decided who will participate in the interviews? When we selected the new auditors for the Senate, it was a combination of senators and officials. I’d like to know who will participate in the interviews.
Senator C. Deacon: We’re relying on officials who have more experience in the procurement process to guide its efforts, but the AWG does expect to have involvement in that selection process to the extent to which this committee would think appropriate.
Senator Marshall: Regarding the contract itself, when it’s time to award the contract, does it come back to CIBA for approving the awarding of the contract?
Senator C. Deacon: I don’t know if it’s your standard process or not at CIBA, that you have a two-step process. I wouldn’t expect it, but —
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, Senate of Canada: The approval process at this level is to launch the RFP. Once that is done, there would be close working with the working group to determine eligibility criteria, and all of that process would happen after.
It wouldn’t come back here for a final approval once it’s done, but it could come back for information, if you wish, at the end of the process.
Senator Marshall: We can talk about that when we go in camera. That’s great. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for your presentation. I have three questions, one of which is on the same topic; it seems great minds think alike. Can we already say, when we adopt the motion, for instance, that we would like the selection committee to be made up of three senators and two managers? Can we include that in our proposal? Yes? This is what I’m suggesting.
The other issue, which is key in this type of enterprise, is the degree of precision in the quote, i.e., what we should receive and what the contract should deliver as a result. Will the detailed specifications be known or are we starting from scratch with the RFP?
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: There’s a considerable amount of detail in the scope of work and the qualifications needed. The RFP, in my mind, does provide sufficient parameters to make sure we’re getting the sort of expertise that we need. But we’re also careful to be as principles-based as we could be, because one of the concerns we had is that, because this is not a standard procurement process and we expect those coming to us to be so much more informed on this topic than we are, we wanted to make sure that we weren’t cutting off an expert by having a requirement in there that perhaps we didn’t fully understand.
That was why we did the RFI process. We still want to be very cautious in the RFP to be principles-based and have a very clear scoring system that was based on merit as much as possible. We’re not aiming at the lowest cost, necessarily. We’re aiming at the most qualified.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: From my experience, since the estimate is not to purchase a computer system, for example, it is still a broader area of expertise; it seems to me very, very important to be careful and thorough in drawing up the estimate, to ensure that the deliverables are clearly identified. This will ultimately help us to achieve our objectives.
If we were to go ahead and meet the target, would we be the first house to be 100% carbon neutral by 2030? I like being first very much.
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: I can assure you that is absolutely the intention, and I believe that is absolutely possible. But as we all know, in the Senate, it takes the Senate and senators working total to achieve any goal, let alone an ambitious goal. This is an ambitious goal, but it’s an important goal for us to demonstrate leadership on. I see no reason why we can’t accomplish that goal, even in a shorter period of time.
We can’t underestimate this. It will require us to work together and prioritize this as something we feel, as an organization, is important to Canada, to Canadians and to those whom we predominantly serve, which are the voices that are a little quieter in our country and are not always heard in the public policy process.
So absolutely; I see it as being a goal that we will be accomplishing as soon as we can.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I don’t talk about forests, I have a conflict of interest.
[English]
Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Deacon. Without prejudicing any of our discussion for the in camera session, can you tell us what some of the most important lessons from the RFI process were?
Senator C. Deacon: One of them was that we have to be very clear on the information we can provide and that we already have access to. If there are organizations that thought they had to go and gather all of the information and be a part of pulling it all together and collating it into a useful database from which to build our carbon footprint, that would be a much more involved process. That was number one. We had to be clear on what we could provide and what we couldn’t provide as information to support their work, predominantly in benchmarking.
The second one for me was the amount of digital technology available to automate the process — based on very clearly identified and evidence-based assumptions — of identifying our carbon footprint from our financials. As our financials are approved, each has associated with it a certain greenhouse gas effect — a flight from Vancouver, a flight from Halifax — different amounts of money and different amounts of carbon footprint. Those are examples.
So that automated process was very interesting from my standpoint, because I did believe there was a software solution that could be helpful in this. But again, how many of those with the expertise and then what to do with the information would also have access to the software system and whatever else? That wasn’t entirely clear because we weren’t asking for those details.
Senator Woo: Can you give us a sense of the landscape of potential vendors or providers of these services? Are they accountants, environmental engineers or economists? It is probably a mixture of all of the above.
Senator C. Deacon: It’s a mixture of all of that. They are SAS companies; software-as-a-service providers are emerging quite rapidly where it was an online system. We then had to look at what we can do about data being stored in Canada versus transported somewhere else in the world in another database. We had to look at a number of different factors like that.
Senator Woo: That is coming up.
Senator C. Deacon: It’s software as a service, down to a consulting firm doing a specialized project just for this organization. Because of the unique nature of the organization, that may be the right way to go.
But that would be at the other end — a sort of standard consulting firm offering a service that is tailored specifically to our needs.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: First, Senator Deacon, I want to congratulate you. We are all busy in the Senate and in committee, you and everyone else. The amount of time you have put into this is enormous. I think we all owe you a great deal of gratitude.
That said, you lead us to act and reflect on a very contemporary issue of great importance to all organizations. Several of your recommendations, as far as I am concerned, are of great interest. One of them appeals to me. How do you think the Senate should address this issue, while balancing its internal needs? How do you think the matter should be handled by an external expert?
I am referring to the recommendation that relates to the promotion of climate-friendly transportation policies with a focus on reducing travel, in which you say that the Senate should consider the possibility of offering a hybrid work environment for staff members in order to reduce the carbon footprint associated with building occupancy and travel. This recommendation appeals to me, because our first criterion should be needs and services. Has the working group considered the monitoring and balance that needs to be struck between reducing the carbon footprint and the needs of the employer?
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: I think that’s going to be a conversation that we have over a considerable period of time. We have very good evidence on what we can do, how we can reduce travel in one specific area and still conduct our jobs in an effective manner, and that is around witness travel for committee work. There is an annual budget of about half a million dollars a year on witness travel, people coming to Ottawa.
For me, what that did, when we had witnesses predominantly travelling, there were many times in committee that we weren’t able, as a committee, to get the witnesses that I would have loved to see there because they had to travel to Ottawa for one hour on a panel and they decided it wasn’t worth it, whereas, having hybrid in that situation has been helpful to us. I think we’ve demonstrated that it’s something we want to continue into the future. It has saved us money and it has reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Those freed-up resources are helpful.
Maybe I did not hear the interpretation properly.
Senator Saint-Germain: My question is related to the Senate employees.
Senator C. Deacon: Employees?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes. How do you see that this part of the eventual RFP has to be outsourced?
Has the working group had discussion related to the criteria that, as an employer, we would also want to include in this evaluation of the relevance of this recommendation with regard to transport and hybrid work for the employees?
Senator C. Deacon: In terms of expanding the hybrid work and how that would be done?
I apologize, Senator Saint-Germain, for trying to catch up on the question. I didn’t hear the translation properly at first.
Senator Saint-Germain: My question is related to the Senate employees and your recommendation that we try to offer, if possible, an environment that would allow them to work in a hybrid mode.
The question is specific to the balance. How would we find the balance? Has the working group discussed how to find a balance between sustainable development interests and the employer interests regarding hybrid work?
Senator C. Deacon: Yes. I think that’s a debate going on around the world right now, that balance, and it’s different in every organization.
I apologize for not understanding to begin with.
That’s a question going on globally. Again, that’s probably an important question for us to understand the balance and trade-off as we are working through legislative decisions to be made in this country, because it is a reality of the business environment in this country and beyond, that many people aren’t willing to work unless they have hybrid opportunities quite often.
I’ve seen a lot of folks in my community who have made that choice. They’ve changed jobs because they want to have a job where they don’t have to be in the office every day. That’s, as an employer, something we are going to have to face at a certain point in time if, culturally, we’re moving in that direction. As a competitive employer, you have to adjust.
To me, that’s a question going on more globally. How we manage that internally will be part of our understanding, number one, the benchmark; where are we in terms of cost? Is there margin in making changes there that is beneficial in terms of reducing our carbon footprint and reducing our costs as an organization, and being an effective employer?
That’s part of what this evidence we’re starting off with is going to help us make decisions on. As well, there are many activities that we do in the Senate that could be done anywhere across the country remotely that are not necessarily done by senators and in our public-facing work but behind the scenes. That could occur anywhere in the country.
That certainly meets some senators working hard for more regional distribution of employment across the country amongst the federal government employees; that’s something we could potentially participate in more commonly. There’s any number of those factors. But we have to get the data first. Then we have to see where the return on investment is best placed, and whether there’s just one benefit, carbon reduction; maybe two benefits, carbon reduction and cost, or three benefits, including carbon reduction, cost and becoming an employer that attracts more people that are really talented.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, we have many things on our agenda this morning, if you could keep your questions short.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you, Senator Deacon, for your work on this important issue.
You mentioned that you did not settle for the least costly but the most qualified. We could dive in during the in camera portion, but if you could briefly elaborate, are you satisfied with the expertise to have determined who was the most qualified? Can you share a few findings or learning on that process and points that you could bring to our attention to ascertain that that process was well done?
Senator C. Deacon: If I may, could I leave some of that for in camera? We may get advice, as we did just a little while ago from Senator Forest, about who’s involved in the process of making the judgment. We could perhaps leave that to the in camera portion, Senator Loffreda. It’s a very important question. Thank you.
Senator Bovey: I want to come back to the transportation. As one who lives in the West, in the middle of the country with very few direct flights, as you’re taking a look at this in your work going forward are you going to consider the carbon footprints that we, as senators, expend while we’re legitimately doing our business?
Much of our work has us going to different parts of the country. I have to say I’m well aware every time I get on a plane of how many carbon footprints we have. It’s not just employees; it is all of us.
Senator C. Deacon: That certainly will be a question that we’ll have to look at, at a certain point in time, and it’s part of the cost associated.
The most important thing is how do we do this and do our jobs incredibly well? In my mind, this can’t be taking away from our effectiveness as an institution. I don’t think it should. I don’t think it can. I don’t think it will. I think we have every possibility to be more effective, but I think all of these elements have to be considered.
Senator Bovey: There are many parts of the country that we must go to if we’re going to be representing Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Some of this we cannot do hybrid.
Senator C. Deacon: I couldn’t agree more.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I have a clarification to add in response to Senator Deacon’s reply to Senator Saint-Germain’s question. I think it is important that the current committee retain its discretion to decide. This is a recommendation that will be made to us. We will have to find a balance of interest between environmental effectiveness and efficiency. In addition, we will have to take into account the employer’s brand, that is to say whether the Senate is attractive or not. It will be up to us to find that balance.
As an example, in terms of transportation, we can provide public transportation to take vehicles off the road. However, if Senator Bovey no longer flies from Winnipeg, can this flight still continue? Efficiency choices will have to be made based on the real effect that will result. This committee will therefore retain its discretion.
[English]
The Chair: I have a question for you, Senator Deacon. It is about the microsite. Could you elaborate on this?
Senator C. Deacon: As part of communicating internally with staff and also communicating with those who may be wanting to fill out the RFP, we wanted to make sure that there is an easy way for people to access the RFP through the Senate work being done here. That was one of the main reasons. We also have a microsite internally to keep staff informed of what’s going on and to gather advice and information from staff to make sure this is a truly inclusive process, that people are not having this done to them, we’re doing this together.
The Chair: Which leads me to the following motion:
That CIBA authorize the creation of a microsite for the Advisory Working Group On Environment and Sustainability as part of its communications strategy.
I need a mover for this motion. Senator Moodie moves the motion.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried. Thank you, Senator Deacon.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, chair, and thank you to the committee.
The Chair: We will have another portion of this discussed in camera.
The next item is the report from the Subcommittee on Diversity. The next item has two parts. The first part relates to specific recommendations to address diversity issues, and the second part is an initiative that was presented to the Subcommittee on Diversity. Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, Human Resources Directorate; and Prescilla Pivkine, Advisor, Talent Management, Human Resources Directorate are here as witnesses. We will start with the report.
Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, thank you for inviting me to speak today on the recent work completed by the Subcommittee on Diversity. I’m here in my capacity as chair of the subcommittee to present the subcommittee’s first report of the first session of the Forty-fourth Parliament.
As you know, the subcommittee was established by CIBA with the broad mandate to examine and report on issues of diversity in the Senate workforce. As a starting point, our subcommittee examined the work recently completed by the Advisory Working Group On Diversity and Inclusion Training. In April 2021, the advisory working group was established by CIBA to examine issues related to racism, diversity and inclusion training in the Senate. As a subcommittee, we considered 22 recommendations made in the advisory working group’s final report. We consulted the Legislative Sector and the Human Resources Directorate to determine which authority held the appropriate mandate to consider and/or implement the recommendations made in this report, whether that be the Senate, CIBA or HR, for example.
To further understand the practicality and feasibility of the recommendations, we also inquired about timelines, progress to date and resources required for each of these recommendations. Based on these discussions and after careful analysis, the subcommittee is proposing nine recommendations for CIBA’s consideration today. Implementing these recommendations will require further study by CIBA in some cases and further consultation with senators and approval of the Senate in other cases.
The subcommittee, in terms of the recommendations, concluded that implementing diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in the Senate is a pressing matter that needs to move beyond discussion to action at this time. Fostering a culture that is respectful, inclusive and embraces diversity within the Senate and its administration is crucial to ensuring the Senate workforce is reflective of the diverse nation of our country. It is also critical to ensure that members of the Senate community are able to work in an environment that fosters their perspective, productivity and potential, that they feel valued, included and empowered to reach their potential regardless of their background.
All recommendations focus on providing practical solutions that can be implemented in the short, medium and long term. Within the context of the current Senate, these recommendations of the report aim to do four things.
The first is to facilitate the collection of baseline data regarding the Senate workforce so progress can be measured and targets can be established. On this point, during our meeting on September 13, 2022, HR informed the subcommittee of its plan and approach for the upcoming self-ID campaign, which you’ll hear about shortly. We supported HR’s plan, specifically in the short term, to update the Senate’s workforce employment equity data by conducting a self-ID campaign this fall, and in the medium to long term, look at modernizing information that is gathered in the campaign with the goal of being more inclusive as a whole.
The second goal is to understand the resources needed and to provide where necessary appropriate resources to implement a robust diversity, equity and inclusion program in the Senate. The third is to ensure inclusive hiring and recruitment practices, and the fourth priority was to provide guidance on diversity, equity and inclusion training and learning opportunities.
The subcommittee acknowledges that this is a challenging time to implement such measures as the Senate emerges from the pandemic and as employees return to on-site work and resumes in-person interactions. As such, the subcommittee suggests that the recommendations in the report be considered and implemented in a flexible manner as workplace culture continues to evolve in the coming months and years.
In addition, to be clear, the adoption of any of these recommendations in the report is approval in principle for HR to begin working on these items. Any financial approval related to these recommendations, such as an RFP, new budget proposals and approvals may come at a later date. In other words, there is no immediate request for funds associated with this report.
Colleagues, as you know, all of this work started back in the winter of 2021, when the issue of diversity, equity and inclusion training was first discussed. There have been hundreds of hours of work put into this by senators, by their staff and by staff in administration. I want to recognize those who stepped up and who shared their time and energy and their voice. I want to recognize Senator Anderson, Senator Bernard, Senator Christmas, Senator Pate, Senator LaBoucane-Benson and Senator Petitclerc who are members of the advisory working group; Senator Boyer, Senator M. Deacon and Senator C. Deacon, who actively participated in the working group’s activities; and Christine Sentongo-Andersen and Claudia Trites who were staff guests, members of the advisory working group.
I know that for many, this report will be uncomfortable. Your subcommittee is proposing we do things that would be new to the Senate. That is true. Our starting premise is that the Senate’s culture status quo doesn’t work and must be significantly improved. Some may feel we are going too far and for others, not far enough. Respectfully, while I recognize there is much more to do, I am honoured and proud to submit this report from your subcommittee as a strong step forward toward making the Senate a stronger institution that will serve Canadians better and be more hospitable to senators and staff.
In conclusion, addressing issues of discrimination, diversity and inclusion is a Senate priority. Programs and practices that combat discrimination and promote diversity are not only something senators, their staff and the administration expect, but is rather something most Canadians would expect from their upper chamber.
In closing, I’d like to thank Ms. Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer of the Human Resources Directorate and her team, who have supported the subcommittee in preparing these recommendations. I look forward to further discussing this report with members of the committee. Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Moodie.
Colleagues, do you have questions or comments for Senator Moodie, or Toni and Prescilla?
Senator Plett: I thought there would be a lot of questions.
Regarding the recommendations you are making, Senator Moodie, are you asking for approval of this today?
Senator Moodie: In principle, if there are any —
Senator Plett: “In principle.” You’re saying there is no request for funding, yet every recommendation I read here will cost money.
So there are two things, colleagues.
First, this is a very extensive report with a lot of extensive recommendations that clearly, at the end, will cost money. For us to approve, in principle, something that could cost — I’m not even going to start to guess how much.
I think this entire thing needs to be discussed in camera, because it is absolutely irresponsible for us to approve something like this, even in principle, unless we have some idea of what this will cost the Senate. When we look at recommendation 1 — which says, “That the Senate of Canada contract an external provider” — we need to have an idea, colleagues, what this would cost.
I’m certainly not prepared, personally, to vote on this today, before I take this to my caucus and we discuss in our caucus — I would suggest that happen in all caucuses — where we want to go from here. I would suggest that we table this for a future meeting and decide how we want to deal with something that would clearly cost the amount of money that I can see this would cost. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with any of the recommendations — I may or may not support them — but I can’t do so in all good conscience without having some idea of what the costs will be to the Senate.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett.
So the motion that would be brought forward would be:
That the report be adopted in principle, pending further information to be provided on recommendation 4 pertaining to resources.
That way we could adopt the report in principle and have the committee come back to CIBA to discuss the work they would have done on specific costing for what is provided in the report.
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair. I understand that, but if we’re approving something in principle that — I read in what you said — does not really have any power, if you will, then I’m not quite sure what the urgency is of approving this before we can go to our caucuses with it. This is something that I just read; we can all say that maybe I should have read it a few days earlier, but it wouldn’t have made any difference.
This is something I want to go to my caucus with. When we approve something in principle, we are, in principle, saying that we’re okay to spend money, and I’m not sure that I’m, in principle, okay to spend money. I don’t want to even start talking in a public meeting about what the Senate of Canada cost 10 years ago versus with it costs today, and here we have another item that we just finished hearing about — a report that I’m sure we’re going to approve later on today that will cost the Senate a lot of money. Here we want to do something again, even though it is in principle.
Chair, at the end of the day, I will not support doing this today. There is nothing that precludes or prevents Senator Moodie’s committee — because they have a mandate to study this — from coming back to us with at least some ideas during an in camera meeting so we can have a little bit of an idea of where we’re going.
Therefore, I would encourage Senator Moodie to take this back to her committee and come back to us at a future meeting where we can further discuss this in camera so we can be a little more open and blunt about the numbers we’re talking about.
Senator Moodie: Thank you, Senator Plett, for your comments.
In terms of the priority and the urgency, if you will, we have been working very closely with HR. As they have indicated to us, their parallel work is proceeding, and they’re seeking guidance from us on how to move along in this area. This work will guide their work and will complement their ability to move in the direction they are already looking.
The item that follows is some of the work they’re focusing on. Much of the work they’re doing will be revenue-neutral. They are already looking at ways to include new staff that would have been hired anyway and to reorganize their directorate in a way they think would be appropriate. But if this is a focus that they’ve been given to carry forward, then it would add to inform them of how they need to act.
They have asked for guidance as soon as possible as to what direction they need to be moving in.
So this is already work they’re doing, as we’ve seen and we’ll see shortly, but it also gives them the go-ahead to proceed down the road.
Senator Plett: If it’s already the work they’re doing, there is nothing to prevent them from continuing the work they’re doing. If you’re suggesting it’s extra work, then there’s a cost involved.
Senator Moodie: There may be a cost involved —
The Chair: Colleagues, we don’t want a sparring match here.
Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Moodie, for the report, and thank you to the HR staff.
Can you elaborate on recommendation 5 where you talk about the need to examine our hiring criteria? You single out education. Hiring criteria involves many things. Why did you single out education? What is the thinking behind it?
Senator Moodie: When we talked about this, there are a number of areas about hiring, first of all, within the HR directorate to be considered. What is the core knowledge that the HR folks involved in hiring will need and ongoing training that they need? Do they have that capacity and so on, in the sense of the immediate HR group and their need to have capacity?
Beyond that, among senators and senators’ staff, where hiring is occurring, what capacity in education will be needed moving forward.
Education in on-boarding —
Senator Woo: I may have misunderstood, then. It’s really education of the hiring staff, not the criterion for the candidates.
Senator Moodie: That’s correct.
Senator Woo: Okay.
Senator Moodie: It’s around our capacity to be able to build diversity into our hiring practices.
Senator Woo: I agree 100%. I wonder if the wording is a little ambiguous, though.
Senator Tannas: I thought there was something in the report that spoke to the idea of getting rid of extraneous university degrees that are needed. Is that not what we’re talking about here? That’s the way I read it.
Senator Woo: That’s how I interpreted it.
Senator Moodie: We’re also talking in our discussions — and the working group had a lot of discussions — around whether some of the standards and requirements that we have at the Senate preclude certain groups of people in terms of qualifications and required education.
I think it’s multifaceted around this. It is on our capacity side and regarding the candidates we’re looking at and reaching out to.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Moodie is a member of the subcommittee and I congratulate her on this work which is of great interest to us.
I have a question that has to do with recommendations 1 and 2 and what I would call the “penalty to successful inclusion.” Let me explain briefly. When I was Deputy Minister of Immigration, we did internal surveys on the inclusion of employees and many employees from diverse backgrounds born in Canada and Quebec. They refused to respond to the surveys, including employees who had immigrated recently. I did not read anything about this in the report.
Do you consider that, potentially, if internal surveys and evaluations are conducted, this “bias” of inclusion success should be considered? Should we be informed of the number of diverse employees, their percentage within the Senate and the fact that they have not agreed to take surveys because they consider themselves to be full citizens and employees?
[English]
Senator Moodie: We and the working group did not consider that. We have had conversations with the Human Resources Directorate around how they understand the demographic of who is applying for jobs within the Senate. The self-reporting plan that is in place and it is being proposed today that you’ll hear about is one of the ways that we would be gaining that information.
I think what you’re asking is how do we identify that particular group that we have not included. I defer to Toni Francis to help me with that. Does she have that kind of specificity coming out of the data she would be collecting?
My sense is that this is self-reporting. There is nothing mandatory here. At the end of the day, we are going to be gaining some degree of understanding. Toni will talk about how the data will be shared.
Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, Human Resources Directorate, Senate of Canada: Senator Saint-Germain, I would say it is reliant on self-reporting. The communications strategy we are employing with this campaign. which I’ll tell you about shortly, is one that we hope to reach people to remind them that how you identify, whether you’re born here or elsewhere, is what we’re looking for. So count yourself in, basically, by sharing your responses through the survey.
Hopefully, we’ll narrow the scope of people who don’t respond. Certainly, we always have the risk that people, whether or not they’re immigrants to the country, may not respond. We’re mindful of that.
Senator Moodie: This is the starting point of the work that would be done in terms of collection. Over time, I believe that the collection of this kind of data will change and will expand to help inform us. It may not be in the initial ask of the information but, over future iterations, we might be able to see that.
Senator Tannas: This is great work. I’m very supportive of the recommendations. I have a number of questions.
First and foremost, for recommendations 1 and 2 — the independent assessment, the workforce survey — having the workforce survey would inform the independent assessment, would it not? Wouldn’t it make more sense to do the survey first and then get somebody in who can actually look at the data?
I wonder, what is our goal? Should we have a goal that is measurable that we are trying to attain here? I spent some time on the Subcommittee on Diversity a few years ago. I remember that we received information around diversity and numbers of people, and so on. We were quite a diverse organization, and we still are.
What’s the goal, to be more diverse? What are the criteria by which we will celebrate or feel bad? You know what I’m saying? Where does that piece come in? Is that the last thing we do? Is it the first thing we should do?
Senator Moodie, did the committee consider that? What does it look like when we’re a success?
Senator Moodie: That is integrally pinned to the goals we set for ourselves. What is our vision of ourselves? In this process, I would say that it is clear that there are pockets within the organization that have an idea of what we need to look like, who we need to be. We don’t, as an organization, have a vision around what is it we want to be.
If you talk to HR, they have worked, moved down that road, and they have principles that guide what they think we should be. That’s not extended across the Senate as a whole. There was a recognition that there is a gap there.
The external assessment — recommendation 1, the independent assessment — was raised both by the working group and strongly supported by our director of HR as something that is needed to help inform this exact question. What are our gaps? Who are we? Where are we in this process?
What I heard loud and clear in this process was that an external provider would help bring neutrality. I’m going to quote Toni’s language, bring neutrality and objectivity to an assessment, would identify gaps that may be overlooked by us internally when we look at ourselves. Most importantly, for that kind of intensive look, we do not have the capacity. HR does not have the capacity to carry that out at this time.
As a starting point, and so it is recommendation 1, it would be informed by whatever data we have, including the self-reporting, but it is a starting point we see, a starting point to help us understand. What’s our benchmark? What are we going to assess ourselves against?
Senator Tannas: Exactly.
Senator Moodie: It’s an important step. We heard from HR that they think it’s an important step. We also heard that they think that they do not have the capacity to do this themselves.
Senator Tannas: Did we consider regional diversity? So are people, particularly with technology — people from not Ottawa, not Gatineau — actually being hired and recruited to work remotely and serve in whatever capacity could be done from other parts of the country, was that considered?
Senator Moodie: Yes, very much so. It was raised as an issue, looking at solutions around how we could overcome that issue was also discussed extensively. We had discussions with HR and there is clear recognition.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
The Chair: Again, colleagues, we have time constraints. We don’t have a lot of time for our meetings, so if you could keep your questions and your answers brief, there’s still another portion of this report that will be brought forward.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I share the same concerns as Senator Plett. In that spirit, I would suggest that in recommendation 4, we go specifically to the Senate to authorize funds to finance initiatives on diversity, equity and inclusion within the institution that is CIBA. An assessment of the costs and benefits of the initiative should be undertaken prior to authorizing the disbursement of funds. For the purposes of adopting the report, which is excellent, and before CIBA gives its authorization for the initiative pursuant to recommendation 1, 2 or 3, the Senate must meet to present the costs and benefits of the initiative, at each of the stages of the process, which seems to me to be very good.
We need to have that information. Senator Plett is right that we cannot pass the report today. There is no assessment of the financial impact of a program that is otherwise very relevant. In that way, I think it could be a compromise that would allow us to move forward, with assurances that we will ask the necessary questions.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Much of my question has been covered by Senator Tannas’s question, but have you researched best industry practices? My question was going to be: What are your objectives and goals? It’s like being in a maze. When you start from the exit door, it’s always easier to identify the path to the beginning. It wasn’t clear if we could get clear facts and numbers on that.
I say that — and then I’ll clarify — the corporate objectives in many corporations are clear. Where I’ve worked, for example, in the past, we had 10% visible minority. We went as far at one point to say we need 30% at the executive level.
Where are we at, and what does it take to get there? Maybe we can elaborate on that when you come back, if you don’t have those responses. I do support it. It’s an important initiative. But I always like to see goals, objectives, where we’re at and what it takes to get there. Then maybe predetermine what the costs can be. Are we a 2 of 10 or 8 of 10? Where are we going? What are the clear objectives? What is the industry doing? What are best practices in the industry? Maybe you can elaborate on that, now or later.
Ms. Francis: Thank you, senator. We will be back with numbers, specifically, but the first goal was to make sure we were aligned in our work with where the subcommittee wanted us to be. With the self-identification campaign that I’m about to present on, the last one was in 2019. We need current numbers. We need to know what the makeup of our organization is.
Our interest is also to make sure that the employees who are here have a sense of belonging — diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging. The word “belonging” is critical. As we look at putting in initiatives, programs and human resources planning, we want diversity, equity and inclusion to be part of that. When we’re updating and putting in new policies, we want to know what the organization’s position is and that we’re actually putting the lens of DEI through those policies and programs so that employees and candidates who are attracted to this organization see themselves in this organization or see opportunities.
We want direction to be able to figure out what organizations, entities and communities we can liaise with and how to do that. We look at our recruitment strategies and job postings, and make sure the removal of barriers is something we want to do. Earlier, the conversation about equivalencies came up. We’re challenging ourselves in a healthy way to figure out whether or not this organization has barriers that it doesn’t see but that individuals in different communities do. Are we interested in doing that?
When you look at targets, it gets hard to determine. Being fairly new, I’m still trying to learn through the organization whether we want to go with targets and is it a good idea, or are we not at a maturity level that it is something that would serve us well at the beginning of the narrative, if you will.
It is to set course. The goal is for us to be an organization that is reflective of our communities. That’s across the country.
If we can look at ways of doing work that are different — to Senator Tannas’s question of regional hiring — diversity, big D, little d. It’s about diversity of thought and diversity of experience so that we can be the best organization and ensure that the people who work here can have their voices heard and feel like they can communicate in a way that is relevant to them from a lived-experience perspective.
We’re clear on where we want to go as a human resources organization. We want to make sure the employer — CIBA — is giving us the direction, and that for every initiative and program we put in place, we have that in mind to set course for the objectives.
Our numbers will tell us what more work we have to do and what communities we need to reach out to. When we’re posting on LinkedIn, on job boards and going to job fairs, should we be paying attention to certain communities that we want to show up in? Do we have a work structure? Is remote work even possible? Do we have a structure that makes that the thing we need to pay attention to, or do we need to look at relocation policies, for example?
We have a lot to do. We are focused in each of those places, definitely, but we want a line — a course of direction — to be able to make sure that for every component that we touch and that we’re involved in, we come back to the end point and that we have alignment with CIBA with what that looks like and with our Executive Committee.
Senator Loffreda: It’s important work. Good luck. I support it.
Ms. Francis: Thank you.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much.
I’ll be brief. There is merit in what Senator Plett is suggesting. First of all, we should all be on one page. The entire Internal Economy Committee should be supportive of the initiative. But these are major recommendations, and we would really benefit from more discussion of it.
There are two that I’m particularly interested in — recommendations 7 and 8 — but we don’t have time today to get into it.
I would like to have a further discussion. I am on the Estimates Subcommittee, so I’m always thinking about the money. We’re getting ready to take a look at next year’s budget. I can see that there will be major costs and they will be rolling into the request for additional money. We would benefit from some additional discussion on this so that we all know exactly where we’re going and be fully informed before we start down the road.
[Translation]
The Chair: I will conclude the discussion by stating — unless I have an opinion to the contrary — that members of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration are comfortable with the report as presented. The members of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, however, ask for more information on the targets and costs associated with the report. The members of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration would also like this information to be brought back to the committee, either in Committee of the Whole, as at present, or in camera. So I would recommend that the adoption of this report be deferred to a later meeting, when we have all the information, including costs and targets. We will be able to make a better decision with all the facts in hand. Are people comfortable with this recommendation?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. We will move on to item 3(b), on the next self-identification campaign. This item is for information only. Toni and Prescilla will help answer questions. I yield the floor to you, Toni.
Ms. Francis: Thank you, Madam Chair. A self-identification campaign provides an opportunity to ask Senate employees to self-declare information related to gender identity, Indigenous identity, visible minority status or disability.
[English]
The collection of self-identification information is driven by the Senate’s commitment to promoting diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging in the workplace through relevant programming as well as the requirement to ensure compliance with the Senate’s Policy on Employment Equity. Employment equity data is collected through the self-identification survey already provided to new employees upon hire and is sought through the Senate-wide self-identification campaigns.
The last campaign was conducted in 2019, and in good practice, we want to conduct the next campaign in Q3 of this fiscal year. That will ensure that our workforce data is up to date and, based on participation, as accurate as possible.
[Translation]
We will make the necessary changes to the 2022-2023 self-identification campaign, in particular the way data is captured and the terminology used in the survey. The changes will ensure accurate analysis of the Senate data and we will progress to the required changes in two separate stages.
[English]
The first phase will be that we’ll make some changes to the definitions within the survey. We’ll increasingly add columns or definitions to suit the Canada Accessibility Act, and we will make sure that for individuals who wish to include their gender identities, there’s an open box text for them to be able to complete that information.
In the second phase, we’ll be moving to the revisions to the pay equity policy. In that phase, we’ll look at the examinations to make sure we’re current and up to date, and that the identification of groups is in accordance with the Accessibility Act.
Having an up-to-date picture of the workforce composition will not only serve to confirm policy compliance, but will also inform the Human Resources planning and programming, as well as information for the Senate as a guidepost down our road ahead.
We will be doing this in the third quarter. It is a confidential but not anonymous survey. We’ll be communicating to employees and will constantly communicate through different avenues. We’ll have a point of contact. My colleague Ms. Pivkine is phenomenal and will be able to ensure that people have the information they need to be able to participate and understand the implications of their participation.
It is important for our organization. This is an important portfolio and we wanted you to know that we’re looking forward to having an up-to-date picture, answering all of your questions and making sure we’re in a position to inform our diversity, equity and inclusion strategy along the way. Thank you very much. We’re prepared for questions.
The Chair: Thank you for your speedy report. Are there any questions or comments, colleagues?
Senator Tannas: I would just say this is an important initiative and if you need senators to speak in your communications to encourage people to report and why it’s important to report, I would be most willing to put my name to it.
Ms. Francis: We’ll be knocking on your door, sir.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I fully agree with Senator Tannas. Two weeks ago, I intervened when a woman was being assaulted. After investigation, we were unable to make an identification. I made a statement, we looked at the videotapes and we still couldn’t, given the angle of the camera.
Since identification is the ultimate goal, couldn’t our survey have another more specific question — it was an unprovoked attack — to see if there wouldn’t be members of our staff who might have information? For example, we can’t reach this woman. We could ask the question: Have you been the victim of an assault inside or outside? Asking the question might be a good way to help our employees who have been assaulted. The woman in question was so upset and emotional that she wouldn’t even give me her name. I wish we could find her.
The Chair: You’re saying this could be part of —
Senator Forest: I would be under “Other.”
The Chair: Would that be part of self-identification or would it be something else?
Senator Forest: I would put it in an appendix or right under “Other.” It’s a wish more than anything else.
Ms. Francis: Thank you, Senator Forest. I don’t know that we could do that with this survey. However, there’s talk of launching an engagement survey next year. We could then add questions for all employees, such as whether they have had a negative experience or something like that. There is room for questions in the future. However, this survey is for self-identification purposes only.
Senator Forest: Thank you. You have my full confidence.
The Chair: Senator Forest, can we mention your experience as a follow-up? I think it would be important to mention it. A communication from the Human Resources Directorate will be issued shortly. It will talk about the protection employees are entitled to when they leave the building. If some of them have been victims of assault or situations like the one you mentioned, they would be asked to let us know. This doesn’t mean that the person will come forward, but at least they will be allowed to do so. Thank you, Senator Forest.
The next item is the Report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets. We will examine the budget submission of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, is joining us now by video conference as a witness. Senator Marshall will make some opening remarks.
[English]
Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the eighth report of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, which includes recommended allocations for two committee budgets. Both of them refer to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Before reviewing each budget request, I will provide some background. For the current 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.
In the current fiscal year, the total amount of funds recommended for release so far is $964,744. That’s for three committee travel activities, one conference and three general expenses budgets that have already been approved. To date, the total expenditures and commitments are at $361,240. However, some of the travel activities are still under way or only recently completed, so this number is expected to rise slightly.
On Monday, the subcommittee met with the deputy chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who presented two budget requests totalling $65,992. The first budget application contained proposed expenditures of $4,480 for general expenses for hospitality and $480 for one activity to travel to Global Affairs Canada in Ottawa. This is in relation to their general order of reference to study foreign relations and international trade generally, and it includes funds for 12 senators and one senator’s staff to travel.
For information, the hospitality request is for $3,000 for the committee to pay for light refreshments and $1,000 to reciprocate gifts for when the committee receives delegations visiting from other countries. If approved, the committee can only spend up to the amounts in each of these line items, as funds cannot be transferred from other line items to hospitality without the approval of the steering committee. The travel activity, although within Ottawa, still requires Senate approval to travel and a budget to pay for transportation to the Global Affairs Canada headquarters.
The subcommittee was in agreement to approve this budget. However, we note that it may be worthwhile for CIBA to consider future recommendations from the subcommittee that might facilitate protocol activities. Based on the information provided, the subcommittee therefore recommends the release of funds for general expenses and one travel activity, in the amount of $4,480. That is the first request.
The second budget application contained a proposed expenditure of $1,000 for general expenses for hospitality and $60,442 for one travel activity to Washington. This is in relation to the committee’s study on the Canadian Foreign Service and includes funds for 12 senators and 1 staff to travel.
For information, the hospitality request is for $1,000 for the committee to pay for light refreshments when the committee receives guests or external delegations. Although the committee was not opposed to the committee requesting the $1,000 for this purpose, we were not clear as to why the hospitality funds in their first budget request could not be used for this purpose and would therefore suggest that these expenses be monitored for now. The subcommittee has no issues with the proposed travel activity to Washington. Based on this information, the subcommittee therefore recommends the release of funds for activity one only, the fact-finding to Washington, in the amount of $60,442.
In total, your subcommittee is therefore recommending the release of $64,992 today for two budgets containing general expenses and two travel activities, leaving $852,364 for the remainder of the fiscal year of the $1.882 million set aside for committee expenses.
A reminder that budgets approved by the Senate for each travel activity are the maximum amount that can be spent for that activity. Budgets often include funds for the full membership of the committee to travel. However, in reality, a reduced delegation usually travels and efforts are made to find additional savings. Therefore, actual expenditures are expected to be considerably below the approved budget.
Unless there are further questions, colleagues, I recommend the adoption of the report. I am available to take questions.
The Chair: Are there any questions for Senator Marshall? Hearing none, you have proposed the motion.
Senator Marshall: I recommend the adoption of the eighth report of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets.
The Chair: Thank you. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. The motion is carried.
We will move on to item 4b, which deals with quarterly financial statements.
[Translation]
As usual, this presentation will be followed by time for questions. Pierre will stay with us for this item.
[English]
It’s your turn again, Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Thank you. I warn my honourable colleagues that I have more numbers for them.
As the deputy chair of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, I have the pleasure to table, for information, the Senate financial highlights report for the first quarter of the current fiscal year.
The subcommittee was diligent in reviewing the report and several questions were asked to the Finance team that were answered to our satisfaction.
The report is prepared on a quarterly basis by the Finance and Procurement Directorate. It is not available to the public nor is it audited. The objective of this report is to provide us with continuous information about the usage of the Senate budget authorities, the actual expenditures and forecasted expenditures for the current year.
For the 2022-23 fiscal year, the budget of the Senate is $121,800,000. At the end of the first quarter, the Senate has spent $21.5 million, or 18% of its annual budget. Based on forecasts, the Senate is expected to spend $108.9 million, or 89% of its annual budget, by the end of the fiscal year. That being said, a surplus of $12.9 million is expected for the current fiscal year, which represents 11% of the annual budget.
The surplus is mainly attributable to the senators’ office budget being used just below 80%, the average number of senators being 12 less than budgeted for the fiscal year, and Committees and the International and Interparliamentary Affairs is forecasting a surplus of $1.7 million.
This concludes my presentation of the financial highlights of the first quarter, ended June 30. Pierre Lanctôt, the CFO, and I are pleased to answer your questions, and we welcome your comments.
Once questions have been answered, I will move:
That, as per the division of responsibility between CIBA and the Standing Senate Committee on Audit and Oversight, the financial highlights for the first quarter for the fiscal year 2022-23 be shared with the Audit and Oversight Committee so they can review the financial information.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Marshall. Are there any questions for Senator Marshall or for Pierre?
[Translation]
The French version of what Senator Marshall moved is as follows:
Que, conformément à la répartition des responsabilités entre CIBA et le comité permanent de l’audit et de la surveillance, les faits saillants financiers et les résultats du premier trimestre de l’exercice financier 2022-2023 soient partagés avec les membres de l’AOVS pour information.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
[English]
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried. Thank you, Senator Marshall.
Our next item is the report from the Advisory Working Group on Artwork and Heritage Assets.
Hon. Patricia Bovey: I would like to recognize that Josée Labelle is with us today. She has assumed the responsibility to oversee the work of those involved with the curatorial work of the Senate. I welcome her to this new position.
I’d like to begin by thanking the members of my committee, Senators Ataullahjan, Moodie and White, who we are going to miss tremendously. I very much appreciate the contributions of this committee.
Madam Chair, this will be a quick update. You have the written report, and I’d like to talk to it. As you know, we’re in the second year of Cultivating Perspectives, which has been a way to engage all Canadians in the artwork and heritage assets of the Senate. The next round of those essays are now online, and I have to say that they are meeting with tremendous success. They bring, as I said, voices from across the country and professional expertise from across the country to the work that the Senate has in its collections.
We’re now about to move toward a third Honouring Canada’s Black Artists, and we’ll be looking at work from artists in Quebec.
I have been very perturbed, as many of you know, by the increasing costs of transportation of works of art. We have slowed down this work a bit, so we could make sure those transportation costs have stabilized. We’ll also be looking at several artists from western Quebec so we can do it within the budgets we have. I’m not asking for any more money.
In terms of museums at the Senate, I’d like to thank the Winnipeg Art Gallery for the works of the Inuit collection that were in B30 last year. Again, with transportation costs, we’re looking at fewer works from each museum.
I have been working across Canada with galleries and museums, and will report back as to where we are for our next installation. The work is under way.
With Visual Voices, you know we now have the installation of Roberta Bondar and Ed Burtynsky who were requested by our colleagues working on climate change. That installation will be up until the end of the fiscal year. We will be seeking ideas. The purpose of that is to reflect on what the Senate is discussing within the Senate Chamber. So in the next couple of months, we’ll come forward with the next theme.
Copyright and exhibition fees are things I think we need to pay attention to. Canada’s Copyright Act, dating June 8, 1988, included the payment of exhibition fees to artists whose works are on exhibit in museums and public spaces in Canada. As you can see here, we’ve had legal advice from the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. The conclusion is that the Copyright Act — and I feel strongly that the Copyright Act does extend to works we’re exhibiting in the public areas of the Senate of Canada Building, given that we have public tours and they are public heritage. We have been paying exhibition fees, as you know.
I just want to reiterate that we should be paying those fees to artists. They’re minimal; it might get them a day’s groceries. But the impact is really important. We are a legislative body, and I think we have to fulfill the laws of this institution in the past. With that June 8, 1988 Copyright Act, I applauded it then and I applaud it now. We need to keep doing that.
We reviewed the policy. You’ve agreed with the policy. As such, we’re now working with the policy of the collection. We have three new additions to the collection. We have Honourable Sir Alexandre Lacoste’s Speaker chair, which former senator Serge Joyal has given to us. Lacoste served as a senator from 1882 to 1891, and was our Speaker in 1891. Prior to 1923, the Senate commissioned a new chair for each Speaker. When they retired, they took the chair with them. Senator Joyal purchased it from the family and has given it to us, so I’m very grateful. I extend our thanks to him.
We also have been offered and have accepted the accounts and vouchers box from 1878, which is a metal box used to store and transport paper documents in Parliament. As you know, the Clerk of the Senate was responsible for the Senate’s accounts and vouchers. This box will be installed outside the office of our current clerk as a reminder of those responsibilities of the role.
We also have been given Senator Forest-Niesing’s ribbon skirt that was made by her mother. She had intended to make it; she had bought all the materials and done the design, but, of course, her personal health and passing precluded that. It was on exhibit at the special reception that was held for Senator Forest-Niesing. We will be borrowing a display case from the National Gallery of Canada, looking at issues of reusing material so that we’re not going to the expense of buying more materials. The case is in the current exhibition at the National Gallery. We will get it in January, and we will be installing the skirt and the earrings with it. It will be a tribute to Senator Forest-Niesing.
We have also undertaken a collection review. I remember making a commitment to Senator Tannas several years ago, and I cannot tell you how happy I am at this point. There are lots of works, as you know, that haven’t been designated as collection and are in limbo that the Senate has been responsible for.
We’re gradually going through it, and our curator, Tamara Dolan, has articulated a number of pieces for acquisition. You see the list of nine here that have been in limbo that your committee is recommending become within the collection of the Senate so that we can be sure they are properly stored, cared for and used accordingly. We have Théophile Hamel’s portrait of Sir Edmund Walker Head. He is a major Quebec artist, Canadian artist, and I am delighted to have it.
We have an original chair from the original Senate prior to the 1916 fire, which I think is a really important heritage piece. The woolsack, which dates prior to 1889, and that we have loaned to the Winnipeg Art Gallery for a current exhibition, was manufactured for the Senate and it was used by the Supreme Court justices during the opening of Parliament. It is no longer used, but I think it is an important heritage piece.
We have a desk from East Block dating from 1830 to 1860; and the mace cabinet, which is still in use. We have a table designed by Centre Block architect J.A. Pearson made around 1920; a writing desk from 2001 based on the original design, the design survived the fire of 1916; a side table beside the Speaker’s chair, one was made in 2003 so that it could pair off with the one from 1923. They’re in use. We will be looking at the conservation needs of one of them, actually. There is a sideboard that was commissioned by the Speaker, the Honourable Daniel Hays, based on the design of those from the House of Commons.
It is our recommendation that those pieces be added to the collection.
Probably more dear to your heart, Senator Tannas, is the question of deaccessioning. How many of these objects do we have that are taking up space and adding overhead costs? We are beginning that process. It is my sincerest hope, Madam Chair, that before I retire we will be through round one, so we not only have the policy, but we have the process and procedure established.
We’re starting with tableware commissioned by various Speakers over time.
The Chair: May I ask you if there is anything that is not in the report that you could report to us? Sorry to cut you off like this, but we really have to meet with another group. I’m going to postpone some of the items on the agenda.
Senator Bovey: All I am going to say, Madam Chair, is that we are under process and this was an update report.
The Chair: I apologize for this, Senator Bovey.
Colleagues, any questions? No, we’re good.
I assume, Senator Bovey, that you are moving your report, the second report of the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group on artwork and heritage assets?
Senator Bovey: Yes.
The Chair: And you would like us to adopt the report?
Senator Bovey: Yes, please.
The Chair: Colleagues, are we all in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. So the motion is passed and it is carried.
Colleagues, we are going to postpone item 6. We are going to go to item 7. Julie, I am sorry, you only have two minutes for that item.
I will postpone items 8, 9 and 10. We will go in camera and we will look at item 13.
Julie Lacroix, Director, Corporate Security Directorate, Senate of Canada: Today I’m seeking approval to proceed with the request for extending an existing sole-source contract with Abloy Canada for the purchase of goods.
The Senate has been working with Abloy for the last 15 years. I would like to continue doing so by requesting the extension so that Abloy can continue to provide the Senate with equipment and services for our secure locking systems.
[Translation]
This sole-source contract has resulted in significant savings for the Senate. Abloy Canada remains the only service provider that successfully meets the Senate’s security requirements.
[English]
I would be happy to take any questions in camera, as they may relate to finance and security, should the committee have questions for me.
The Chair: Questions or comments? We will be discussing this in camera for the specifics. Thank you, Julie.
For the good of this meeting, I will try to have five minutes at the end for Julie and for Senator Deacon. For the management of this meeting today, I think some of the discussions are important, but we are over the time allocation.
Colleagues, if you are in agreement, we will go into the in camera proceedings.
(The committee continued in camera.)