THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 17, 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), to consider financial and administrative matters; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), to consider financial and administrative matters.
Senator Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
My name is Lucie Moncion, and I’m a senator from Ontario. I have the privilege of chairing this committee.
I’d now like to introduce the senators taking part in this meeting: Senator Yvonne Boyer from Ontario; Senator Claude Carignan, P.C., from Quebec; Senator Dawson from Quebec; Senator Colin Deacon from Nova Scotia; Senator Tony Dean from Ontario; Senator Peter Harder from Ontario; Senator Tony Loffreda from Quebec; Senator Elizabeth Marshall from Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Rosemary Moodie from Ontario; Senator Donald Plett from Manitoba; Senator Jim Quinn from New Brunswick; Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec; Senator Judith Seidman from Quebec; Senator Scott Tannas from Alberta; and Senator Michèle Audette from Quebec.
I’d also like to welcome everyone who is watching our proceedings across the country.
[English]
Senators, before moving on to our agenda, I wanted to share with you some good news. In an effort to be greener at CIBA, we will no longer print out extra paper bundles to have available in the committee room. Instead, we will have the bilingual documents on tablets for senators. This will save a great quantity of paper over time. As well, as you may have noticed, we are reverting back to glasses, so water pitchers and water dispensers will be available in committee rooms instead of plastic water bottles. Again, this will contribute to reducing our footprint.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, the first item on our agenda is the adoption of the Minutes of Proceedings for October 27, 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 October 27, 2022, be adopted?
Honourable senators, is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?
The motion is carried.
[English]
Before we go to item 2, I would like to suggest that we move quickly to item 5, which is a request for a sole-source contract for the phone queue system. This will allow us to go in camera only once after the auditor’s report. This approach will hopefully be a little more efficient. Are you in agreement with this approach, senators?
Thank you. We will now move to item 5. This item is an amendment to a sole-source contract for phone queue management software. As usual, it is recommended that we discuss the financial aspects in camera and make our decision in camera to avoid any impacts on contract negotiation. David Vatcher is here to present the report.
[Translation]
David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Honourable senators, the Information Services Directorate, or ISD, is seeking your approval to renew a service agreement for the Senate 1-800 line and the phone queue management system used at the ISD and the Property and Services Directorate, or PSD, for its service centre. The planned contract is for a one-year term with four option years.
This agreement does not represent an increase, and the ISD already has the funds to renew it.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vatcher.
[English]
Are there any questions or comments for David Vatcher?
Senator Marshall: Mr. Vatcher, there are definitely no other providers. It’s sole source, and I’m always concerned about sole-source contracts.
Mr. Vatcher: Agreed. There are different providers for this type of service. However, we are planning to move to a different technological platform over the next year or two, so we decided to phase this one out as we move forward to the new platform.
Senator Marshall: And are the costs that you provided in the briefing note fixed costs? You won’t be back looking for an increase next year?
Mr. Vatcher: I will not, senator. The costs for this contract have been stable for the past six years, and we foresee no increase.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much, Mr. Vatcher, it’s nice to see you. I’m wondering how many calls a day this system is processing.
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for your question, senator. Pre-pandemic levels were around 40,000 calls per year. I can give you a price per call, but I don’t know if that is appropriate in public. So pre-pandemic we were at around 40,000 calls per year for the 1-800 line, the client service centre and the ISD help desk.
Senator C. Deacon: There are a lot of different options we could be using, call centres and others. Contracts that I have issued in the past don’t reflect that level of cost that this contract is for. I’m glad to hear you are planning on moving off it. I am hoping that we explore a lot of different options, because I think the costs on a per-call basis in total exceed a lot of the options that exist today based on additional technologies. I am glad to hear this is potentially a one-year thing.
The Chair: Are there any other questions, colleagues?
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Mr. Vatcher and Ms. Bourgoin.
[English]
Honourable senators, the next item is concerning the annual financial statements of the Senate of Canada and audit results. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer; Nathalie Charpentier, Comptroller and Deputy Chief Financial Officer; Suzanne Gignac, Partner, Assurance; and Niguel Givogue, Manager, Assurance Services from Ernst & Young have joined us this morning.
It is my understanding that Senator Marshall will speak first, followed by a presentation from Pierre Lanctôt and the representative from EY. We will then move to questions and then, as is our typical process, senators will have the opportunity to speak privately with the auditors without staff present before we continue on our meeting agenda.
Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: I will take a few minutes to present some of the highlights of our results for the fiscal year 2021-22 and the financial position as of March 31, 2022. As I go through, I will reference the page in our bundle because I am going to be brief. So if you want to go to that page in your bundle, you can do so.
I will begin by discussing the new or particularly information included in the financial statements. First, the cash on hand at year end has been eliminated in 2021-22. Since 2013, the Senate had been holding, in the Senate bank account, an amount of $416,000 following the Senate’s decision to suspend three senators for their conduct related to the use of Senate resources. In light of a Supreme Court of Canada decision during the fiscal year, the Senate no longer faces any potential liability in the relation to these matters, and therefore the funds have been returned to the Receiver General. If you would like more information on that, you can look at page 10 of your 113-page bundle.
Second, the methodology used by the Translation Bureau to calculate the value of translation and interpretation services provided to the Senate without charge has been modified in 2021-22 to better reflect the actual value of these services. As a result, the comparative figures for 2021 have been adjusted to reflect the new methodology. The adjustment has no impact on the net financial position or on the net cost of operations after funding. If you would like more information, it is on page 11 of your 113-page bundle.
I’ll move on now to Senate expenses. Overall, the Senate’s total expenses subject to budgetary spending authorities reached $93.5 million for 2021-22. My next few comments are on that statement and relate to page 11 of the 113-page bundle.
These results indicate a decrease in expenses of $21.2 million compared to the previous fiscal year. However, when adjusted for non-recurring items of 2020-21, such as the pension plan adjustment of $19.8 million and the retroactive economic salary payments of $5.5 million, the regular expenses increased by about $4.1 million, which represents an increase of approximately 5% — actually, it’s about 4.6% — compared to the previous year.
Two main reasons explain the expense increase of $4.1 million in 2021-22. First, the increase in salary and benefits of $2.6 million is mainly attributable to an increase of $1.2 million resulting from salary economic increases for senators’ staff and Senate Administration, and retroactive payments of $800,000 approved by CIBA in 2021-22 covering the last four fiscal years for members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and an increase of $600,000 in senators’ remuneration and pension following the increase in sessional indemnity and pension rates. There is also an increase of $700,000 in transportation and communications costs as well as an increase of $500,000 in professional services, hospitality and meals, mainly due to an easing of pandemic measures and lockdown requirements.
I will elaborate on some of the highlights on the statement of financial position that’s on page 10 of your 113-page bundle. The due from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $2 million is primarily the result of timing differences, namely, the moment when transactions are recorded against parliamentary appropriations and when payments are made. The accounts receivable and advances of $2.5 million mainly consist of amounts receivable from federal government departments and agencies of $2.4 million and from other parties $61,000. These receivables include $1.2 million receivable from the Treasury Board for the annual adjustment of the employee benefit plan and $800,000 due from Public Services and Procurement Canada for expense recoveries related to the Long Term Vision and Plan project.
The accounts payable and accrued liabilities, found in note 4(b) of the financial statement, are $4.5 million. I will break that down for you. There’s $3.2 million in accrued liabilities related to wages and salaries, which includes $2.5 million in accrued wages and salaries for the last 11 working days of 2021-22; a $600,000 accrual for senior management performance pay; and $1.3 million in payables to external parties for the purchase of goods and services and other government departments and agencies.
The decrease of $6.3 million, which you can see on page 10 of your 113-page bundle, compared to the previous year is mainly due to the reactive economic salary increase of $5.5 million payable as of March 31, 2021, and a decrease in the payables to external parties of $800,000 due to the timing of payments and invoicing. Tangible capital assets of $6.6 million decreased by $200,000 compared to the previous year due to the capital asset acquisitions of $1.8 million being lower than the amortization expense of $2 million.
This concludes my presentation. I can take questions if there are any. If not, I will turn it over Suzie Gignac, Partner, Ernst & Young, who can provide the audit results to the committee.
After that — this is a historic moment, honourable senators — I’m going to move that the audited financial statements be approved and tabled in the Senate after CIBA has provided them to our new Committee on Audit and Oversight for their assessment. This will be a new process, so I feel this is an historic moment for CIBA and the Senate. That will be a new process which we will follow from now on.
The Chair: Before we go to Ernst & Young, I will ask Pierre to provide comments if any.
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: Senator Marshall did an excellent summary of the financial statement, so I don’t have anything to add. However, if you have any questions, I will be pleased to answer them.
The Chair: We will start with questions and then we will go to EY.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I would like to thank Senator Marshall and Mr. Lanctôt for this information; the report is very detailed and well presented.
My question has to do with the summary of other information, just before the conclusion, and it has to do with the loss of Senate assets. Among other things, in lost assets, it states:
[English]
. . . 294 assets, which could not be located following a physical inventory conducted at the Senate warehouse and at Centre Block, were removed from the inventory. These assets comprised of 215 furniture pieces, 6 laptops, 65 electronic equipment, and 8 tools and materials, have remained unaccounted after a second and third physical verification.
Are we aware of any issues with the way we register and keep the inventory of the Senate assets? I don’t know who would like to answer this question.
Senator Marshall: I would like to start, Senator Saint-Germain. I keep raising the accounting of physical assets as an issue at the Subcommittee on Senate Estimate and Committee Budgets, or SEBS. That is, we should have accurate records and somebody should be checking.
What the issue is with regard to detailed checking I would have to turn it over to Pierre to answer, but it is an issue that has been raised at SEBs on a regular basis.
Mr. Lanctôt: I think you’re referring to the report on the Public Accounts, but I will provide the answer.
We carefully looked at controls over assets and we have detailed procedures. They have been updated by the team this year that is in la gestion des biens et services, and we know we have proper control. Most of the unidentified assets occurred when the Senate moved out of the Centre Block building and a lot of assets were moved at that time. In that transport of goods and services, where some might have been missing for years.
That’s basically what we were able to trace, namely, older assets with no book values. Also, we are tracking a lot of assets that are not necessarily capitalized assets in our books. That’s another element when there is a lot of smaller assets that are being recorded in our books as individual assets but they don’t necessarily have the value and they don’t have an impact on our financial statements. This was part of the inventory that was done when there was a move outside of the central block.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Do you still plan to take steps to prevent these types of losses and situations?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you for your supplementary question. I believe we have the measures in place now. We did an inventory a few years ago. It was updated with the property and services group, and it contained assets that had been identified as missing. That was cleaned up, if I can use that expression. We removed those assets that were old and had no book value. We now have an updated inventory. We continue to take inventory on a regular basis. Managers are responsible for signing off on their inventory.
Where there are asset disposals, finance must review the list and sign off on all financial transactions and impacts related to the assets. I believe that we currently have all the controls in place to avoid this type of situation. However, there will always be a few assets every year that will not be found, especially small assets that are returned but not necessarily identified in the system as being returned, because they were broken, and so on. I think we have the controls in place right now.
Senator Saint-Germain: Great. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Tannas: I want to ask a question on the pension plan adjustments. There was none in 2022; there was a large amount in 2021 based on an actuarial report from 2019.
Our plan is not based on actual investments, it’s theoretical investments and is tied to the 10-year Government of Canada bond rate which, obviously, has increased significantly over the last little while.
In the current year, are you anticipating any kind of retroactive charge coming through, positively or negatively? Is there an actuary report every year that informs this? If not, when is the next actuary report?
Mr. Lanctôt: An assessment of the plan is done every second year. There is one being conducted for 2022 for the end of the year — March 31 — and the results of the analysis will be available in early 2023. We typically receive the results of this analysis nine months after it runs. So if there are any adjustments, they will be reflected in the financial statements for 2022-23. However, when we consider the increase — as you mentioned — in the interest rates, which impact the return on assets but also impact the discount on the future liabilities, we should expect an adjustment.
If there is an adjustment to be done, it should not be of the same magnitude as the previous two. It remains to be seen, but at this point, based on the market, that’s what we should anticipate.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt. In SEBS, I asked a question that I would like to ask again here. Our audit is an accuracy audit and not a value-for-money audit — and thank you for that, Ernst & Young. In terms of understanding the key performance of our organization and the value for money of different activities and investments, that would fall under the Audit and Oversight Committee rather than CIBA’s work. We’re looking after making the individual decisions. Is that a correct place for me to be asking questions in that regard?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, senator. I would say that every director and manager within the Senate Administration is responsible to ensure their activities are conducted with value for money. I am responsible to make sure that finance is being conducted efficiently and achieves its performance objectives. In terms of oversight, it would be for the Audit and Oversight Committee to perform that kind of review.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I will now give the floor to Ms. Gignac from Ernst & Young.
Suzanne Gignac, Partner, Assurance, Ernst & Young LLP: I am going to use the audit results that we provided, and I will give you a high-level update on what we found.
We are engaged to provide an opinion on the financial statements themselves, which we have provided. It will be signed off once the financial statements have been approved. The financial statements that have just been explained to you are for the year ended March 31, 2022.
We also provide a report if we do identify any significant control deficiencies as a result of our work. We have not identified anything, and as a result, there is no report specifically related to that.
Then we provide our results, which is what we have here for you. If we move to the executive summary — and I’m sorry, I don’t know what page of your 113 pages it is on, but it’s page 4 of our report — on the left, we have our significant considerations. These are the areas of the financial statements where we put focus. In the report, we provided some details of information on procedures we performed to get comfortable with those.
Underneath that, we have open items. Open items are very common, and they are what we would expect at this point in time. They are waiting to get approval, and then we will be able to sign off. We anticipate issuing what we call an “unmodified opinion,” which is a clean opinion. We do not have any concerns with the financial statements. We believe they are fairly presented in all material respects. Based on our review, we concur with the financial statement information and the note disclosure that management has provided. Our audit scope was presented earlier in the year in our strategy, and our work was done in line with that plan. We did indicate that materiality would be 2.5% of expenditures with the adjustments to the actuals that resulted in a materiality of $2.9 million.
We believe the financial statements are appropriate and judgments that have been made on estimates are reasonable, and we had excellent cooperation from the Senate team. We have no material corrected or uncorrected differences.
I will move through to page 8 of our document, which speaks to fraud and error. We did not identify any fraud and error. We are responsible to consider that as part of our audit, and we do procedures specifically related to that. We have one uncorrected difference, which is not a new difference. It relates to tangible capital assets that were expensed in prior years rather than capitalized, so there is a difference that will continue until those would otherwise have been amortized had they originally been capitalized. The amount is not material. It’s an understatement of tangible capital assets of 211 and an understatement of amortization of $71,000 — not considered material. It does not impact our audit results.
I think that concludes my presentation.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Gignac. Does anyone have questions or comments?
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for the presentation. I would like to thank Senator Marshall for her presentation. Were there any significant or notable changes this year in the nature, extent or timing of the audit in comparison to other years?
Ms. Gignac: There was no significant change in the nature, extent or timing of our procedures other than that we did the work a little later in the year, primarily as a result of staffing issues on the Ernst & Young side.
The Chair: Are there any other comments or questions for the auditors?
Senator C. Deacon: Ms. Gignac, I asked this question in the Audit and Oversight Committee, and I think it’s important. Could you speak to the best practices you bring to bear in fraud detection?
Ms. Gignac: Ernst & Young has invested over $1 billion in technology related to data analytics. We obtain general ledger transactions from management, and then we perform specific procedures. We look for unusual transactions, like transactions that were processed through a source we wouldn’t expect or processed by someone we wouldn’t expect or where there is a significant lag between when it happened and when it was entered. We will look specifically at those transactions. We look for unusual words as well. Things like that. We leverage that analytics in order to do our fraud procedures.
The Chair: Colleagues, as I mentioned earlier, it is good practice for the senators to meet privately with their auditor following an audit. At this time, I would ask that we go in camera. I would request that all officials and staff please leave the meeting except for the representatives of Ernst & Young, senators and the recording secretary who will act as clerk for that part of the meeting.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Senator Marshall, could you please repeat the motion?
Senator Marshall: I move:
That the audited financial statements be approved and tabled in the Senate after CIBA has provided them to the Committee on Audit and Oversight for their assessment.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Marshall. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. The motion is carried.
Item 3 is “Accessibility Plan and Program Transitions.” The next item concerns an update on the progress of the Senate Working Group on Accessibility, positioning the Senate to respond to the Accessible Canada Act. Mathieu Beauregard, Manager, Applications Development and Systems Integration, Information Services Directorate; Mélisa Leclerc, Director, Communications Directorate; and Anne Burgess, Senior Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel are here with us as witnesses.
As usual, this presentation will be followed by time for questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Beauregard, you have a presentation for committee members.
Mathieu Beauregard, Manager, Applications Development and Systems Integration, Information Services Directorate: Thank you. In 2019, Parliament passed the Accessible Canada Act to make Canada a barrier-free country by January 1, 2040.
An estimated 6.2 million Canadians have a disability, highlighting the need to recognize, remove and prevent barriers to accessibility.
I’m pleased to be here this morning with my colleagues to present the Senate’s first accessibility plan, prepared in accordance with the Accessible Canada Act, and to discuss its implementation.
This plan, which covers a three-year period from 2023 to 2025, was prepared by our working group on accessibility, which includes representatives from each Senate directorate.
We also received support from an accessibility consulting firm. The plan includes 34 objectives in the seven priority areas set out in the act.
These objectives were developed through a series of consultations with people with disabilities in the spirit of the “Nothing Without Us” strategy, which is a central component of the Accessible Canada Act.
First, we consulted Canadian organizations that represent people with disabilities. These organizations told us what was important to the people they represent.
Next, we wanted to know what people inside our organization thought about accessibility in the Senate, so we launched internal consultations, starting with an electronic questionnaire sent to all employees and senators, which was followed by one-on-one meetings with a number of people with disabilities in the Senate.
Finally, we met with senators who agreed to share their perspective on accessibility with us. Our plan is scheduled to be released on December 1, just before the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.
Mélisa Leclerc, who is here with us, will now talk to you about implementing the plan, after which we can take your questions.
[English]
Mélisa Leclerc, Director, Communications Directorate, Senate of Canada: The leadership on the accessibility file will be transferred to the Communications Directorate. To fulfill these new services, I’ve requested one new FTE through the Main Estimates process.
The key function of this new role is listed in the briefing note. In a nutshell, this person would be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the plan; receiving, responding to and tracking feedback; acting as the point of contact for questions related to accessibility; leading the development of six trainings outlined in the plan; leading the mandatory consultation with persons with disabilities every year; developing an awareness strategy; preparing the annual progress reports as mandated under the Accessible Canada Act; and leading the creation of a future version of the plan. Every three years, this plan needs to be renewed.
I wanted to give you a heads-up of this request going through the Main Estimates process. Do you have any questions?
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments, colleagues?
Senator Boyer: Thank you for that presentation. I want to note that November is Indigenous Disability Awareness Month. We were all sent pins. This is the pin for Indigenous disability. I wondered if that was considered in any of this work that has been done?
Mr. Beauregard: Thank you for the question. It was not specifically considered, but this is an ongoing process. We have to do consultations every year and adjust our plan accordingly. I will make sure that we consider this in the coming year.
Senator Boyer: Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: Thanks very much for being here today. I wanted to understand, if I could, Ms. Leclerc, the rationale for having this managed by communications and not HR. I was really surprised by that. My concern on this particular issue comes from when we don’t have leadership in one area, and I look at PSPC, the work done on the entrances of East Block, and the new entrance is not accessible after a whole lot of work was just done. I find that surprising. The leadership of this, I would have expected, would have been in HR. If you could just speak to why. What was the thought process there?
Ms. Leclerc: We had a meeting, Mathieu and I, with the director of HR and we discussed the pros and the cons. Out of the 34 objectives of the plan, 20 impact directly or indirectly the Communications Directorate. Just think about the website, for example. Everything needs to be accessible, whether someone needs a screen reader or something like this. There are things that touch HR, pretty much all of the departments are impacted by this. Given that one of the biggest impacts is on the Communications Directorate, it was agreed we should probably lead this. Obviously, HR will have a big component. The awareness strategy, for example, is something we will work and enhance with HR on.
Mr. Beauregard led the consultation, but in most places, the accessibility file is not under HR. For example, on the House of Commons side, they created a secretariat and they have staff dedicated to this. In most departments, it’s actually a separate secretariat or a specific entity reporting to the corporate sector, for example. It’s the same for the Library of Parliament.
I also have the capacity within communications. I have a team of writers to write the annual report. I already have in place various tracking systems to track feedback. We’re already responsible for public inquiries, the main phone line of the Senate comes to my admin. We already have experience in managing all these requests in a timely manner, tracking and reporting back, so we thought we could build on this experience. It’s the same for leading the six trainings. For example, the anti-harassment policy was developed by HR in consultation with various departments, but my team built the actual training tailored to the Senate’s specific needs. We did the same for the training on the delegation of financial authority. Finance developed the policy, but my team developed the training.
We think we can import some modules from various government and other departments and module them so they can be adapted to the Senate. This avoids hiring, for example, a consultant. The goal is to do as much as possible internally to avoid extra costs. We thought it could be a place where things could be aligned in an efficient way, but all directorates involved and HR will play a key role, that’s for sure.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you. In terms of accountability, who holds responsibility for making sure that we make progress on this overall objective?
Ms. Leclerc: The accountability will be with the Communications Directorate, but ultimately, all directorates are responsible for the objectives they have signed up for in this plan. Those 34 objectives cannot be accountable if a department doesn’t do it, but we will remind people. We will send a number of reminders. If something cannot be achieved, there will be some kind of rationale and we will need to report on it, so we will.
Senator Seidman: Thank you, Ms. Leclerc, for your presentation. I have to say that I am on the same page as Senator Deacon. I’m quite taken aback by the suggestion that this falls under Communications. I was a senator who was very involved in the original legislation of the Accessible Canada Act, and it did come to Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, Senator Munson and I met with stakeholders. We were very involved in amending this act and its implementation.
On the surface, I have trouble with this being a communications issue. It is certainly far more than a communications issue. When I look at the responsibilities of the new position, eight of the nine seem to me not to be communications at all. When you talk about overseeing the plan’s implementation by monitoring progress on each directorate’s deliverable, receiving and responding to tracking feedback, acting as the first point of contact for questions related to accessibility, the relationship and interaction with the disabilities community, preparing and publishing annual progress reports and leading mandatory consultations with persons with disabilities, I just have so much trouble seeing this as a communications enterprise. I find it very disappointing if that’s what it all boils down to. It’s far more than a communications enterprise. It’s an action-oriented, proactive enterprise that the entire Senate must be involved in. If we mislead ourselves into thinking this is just a communications thing — I mean, it’s not. I’m sorry, I really have trouble with that.
The Chair: Is there any response to this or is it just a comment being provided?
Mr. Beauregard: For the plan itself, I agree with you. We’re looking at actions, and the plan has 34 objectives. Some are related to employment and are more human resources related, but they are in seven different priority areas that are very wide. We have things related to the build environment, where we will have actions and leadership from our PSD Directorate. There’s a lot about information and communications technologies, which will involve ISD and Communications, who manages our website. Procurement is also involved for the procurement of accessible goods and services. Transportation is involved for our shuttle bus.
I think the role of communication — and the idea is to have what we call in French a chef d’orchestre, a leader who is able to make sure all the directorates deliver on their objectives to be able to track the feedback we receive from the public and make sure this is reflected in the actions we take.
As Senator Deacon mentioned, we needed to have one accountable organization, one person or one directorate that is accountable to make sure that all the work is performed. Looking at the different options that we have, it made more sense for us to move it to communications with the existing skill set that is there. But definitely, all the directorates, including ISD, which has a lot about technology and information technology, will be involved in the delivery of all of the objectives. It’s a team effort, and everybody will be involved.
Senator Seidman: I appreciate what you’re saying, but quite frankly, I think perception is reality, and I think this sends the wrong message. To have the leadership come from Communications on this file is wrong, in my opinion, even in terms of the message it sends to the public and to the Senate itself. It’s the wrong message. So I’m sorry, I beg to disagree on this issue, and I think, frankly, that we ought to reconsider how we’re going to organize the person responsible and the leadership responsible on such an absolutely critical file as accessibility. It’s a big deal for the Senate, and we should treat it as a big deal.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much. I echo Senator Deacon’s and Senator Seidman’s comments. I must say, when I was reading it last night — thank you for your material and the presentation — I was absolutely puzzled as to why it would be within Communications Directorate. Thinking about it last night, I thought, if I listed all the directorates of the Senate and said it couldn’t go to human resources, which directorate should it go to, I would pick Communications last. I see this as Communications straying outside their area of expertise. I have the same problem as Senator Deacon and Senator Seidman. I just don’t see it under Communications.
Senator Dawson: I’m going to flog a dead horse. My problem is how are we compatible with the House of Commons? As we go forward with the LTVP of building the old new Parliament, we will have common zones, we will have accessibility — Senator Deacon mentioned the East Block, obviously. Making new out of the old is always a little bit more difficult as far as accessibility is concerned, but LTVP’s plan is a joint project. I don’t see, in what you’re talking about, how to communicate with the House of Commons side. Two thirds or one third, give or take, of the new building will be shared. Obviously, the Welcome Centre will be a joint project with the library, the House and the Senate. Is there a plan?
If we’re going to be doing it as a communications issue and they’re doing it as a human resources issue, we might have a communication problem there. It’s certainly nice to have good communication, but we should have some kind of plan about how we’re doing it with the House of Commons. We see how our dependency on them for translation and all kinds of services can create major problems. As we go forward, since we have time for the future building, is there a plan for that?
Mr. Beauregard: Thank you for your question. It’s a very good question. Actually, we do talk a lot with the House of Commons, the library and Parliamentary Protective Service. We meet every two weeks and we build our plans in consultation with one another, especially to make sure we are aligned on things like interpretation and anything that is related to broadcasting technology, and also with the three parliamentary partners universal accessibility working group that is in place, which has members from the Senate, House of Commons, library, PPS and PSPC. The Senate is already represented on those committees and is working hand-in-hand with the House of Commons and our parliamentary partners.
We aim to deliver a common solution and make sure that we are aligned with our objectives and what we deliver in terms of accessibility.
Senator Dawson: We don’t see it reflected in the document. It’s not mentioned in any way, shape or form in the document that there is this dialogue with the House and the library and, obviously, PSPC. I think it should be addressed so that we start realizing that we will be sharing. We’re now a kilometre away, and we don’t really have any commonality with the House of Commons, but we will have. I won’t be here, but you will have much more sharing in the future, and we should start planning for it, including in documents.
Ms. Leclerc: I do have an employee dedicated to the LTVP file, Chantale Lamarche. She reports to both me and Josée Labelle at PSD, and we are heavily involved in reviewing the schematic design of the visitor centre. Some of these issues were already brought up, and we’re already in discussion with the House on these in collaboration with the PSD department.
Senator Quinn: I have to share the views of my colleagues that have spoken already, and I say that from my background in a more public sector type of employment. I found it unusual that this type of function would be in communications. I also say that from my experience in departments. Where does the occupational health and safety, or OSH, function reside in the Senate? Who is the central point for OSH? Is that Communications Directorate? Because accessibility and occupational health and safety are arguably quite linked. When somebody asks who is in charge of accessibility in the Senate and we say Communications, right away what comes to my mind is window dressing — because we do exist in a political environment. We need to be careful of that because of the type of institution we are.
I look to HR in the organizations I run to be the person who coordinates activities around things such as accessibility. It worries me when one of the arguments is, “I’ve got the resources here to prepare the report and to do this and that.” You have those resources, and I would think that you don’t operate in a silo but in a cooperative, horizontal manner. I would think that those reports would be produced in your area in collaboration with the HR folks who should be responsible for accessibility, as they are for OSH.
I just wanted to share that because I found the comments of my colleagues very relevant. We need to reflect on that in terms of what the public face is.
[Translation]
The Chair: Do you have anything to add, Mr. Beauregard?
[English]
Mr. Beauregard: I’ll just add that an important portion of the plan is the employee-employer relationship, and that works with occupational health and safety. When we look at the barriers and the work that has to be done, it really exceeds that. There are a lot of objectives and work that need to be done on the information. We publish over 10 million words on our website every year, and we produce a lot of video — 1,500 hours every year — so there is a big broadcasting aspect under Communications. We have to ensure that all that information is accessible to Canadians. There are recommendations for employees. It’s a big part of accessibility, but it is for all Canadians and for the entire Senate to be accessible to the Canadian public.
Senator Quinn: I have a comment more than anything. I don’t disagree with the importance of those communications and the 10 million words. I’m not suggesting that won’t continue to be done by Communications. However, it will be done in collaboration with a function that really has — or should have — the oversight responsibility for things like accessibility and OSH. With accessibility, there will be OSH components. So I think we need to think very carefully.
My supplemental question is about the interactions with the House. Where do they see accessibility? Are they placing it in their communication area?
Mr. Beauregard: The House of Commons, as far as I understand it, is creating an accessibility secretariat in their organization, so I think it will be a separate entity. I’m not sure under which branch this would fall, but I don’t think it’s under human resources.
On the Library of Parliament side, a year or even a year and a half ago, they created a position for a coordinator on accessibility, and that person is responsible for the file. We have been working closely with her. Her position is not under human resources. She is reporting to the corporate sector to the director general. I’m on several committees of practices in the federal government. In some places, it is under human resources, but that is not the case everywhere. There are a lot of places where it falls under the corporate sector. Sometimes it will fall under the building services sector for a facility. It’s different from one place to another.
Senator Moodie: I just wanted to ask a question or maybe point out what I see as a deficiency or potential area of improving this plan. We talk about where this oversight responsibility should sit, and I fully agree with my colleagues on this. You mention this will need to be an all-of-Senate approach, and that is certainly one of the more difficult sides of this plan. How do we ensure it is carried through, that there is accountability and that we are measuring performance of this program? I’m not seeing a lot of measurement here. You talk about feedback and tracking. These are good words but not specific enough for me when I think about how we will evaluate this at the appropriate times and intervals.
Can you expand on what your plan is for performance measure of this program? Really, it comes back to whether Communications is going to be able to do this kind of function.
Mr. Beauregard: Thank you for the question. There is a feedback component attached to this initiative. All the feedback we will receive internally and externally will be tracked.
We need to provide a response. We have obligations under the law to report on that feedback in our annual report. This is all very well described and explained in the regulations under the Accessible Canada Act. This is going to be something we plan for Communications to accomplish. They are already taking feedback from the public. We already have the tools in place to do so.
In terms of tracking the progress of the plan, again, we have to submit an annual report. We have 34 objectives. Some are very simple and can be easily done and others are little projects in and of themselves. Through the existing processes we have in place to track progress on projects, we will be able to ensure that each of the projects is delivered, and we will include in our annual plan all the information on how they were delivered. If there is anything like why it was late or if we are ahead on anything and why it is so, this is part of what we have to say in the annual report.
Senator Loffreda: Two key words: We’re talking about responsibility, but it’s more “lead” and “support.” To defend your side, there is no doubt that Communications and the support that Communications Directorate will bring here is a key success factor. But I do agree with my colleagues that the optics on this with respect to the public is not ideal. Our primary concern is not communicating proper elements, issues or concerns, it’s getting it done. HR may have confidential information with respect to who needs the access and what the numbers are, so why wasn’t a co-lead or anything of that nature considered? Are you comfortable working with HR despite the fact they may have numerous confidential files that would require more access or affect the project we are working on?
I don’t disagree that your role is critical. We all know that. But you’re a support division within the Senate, and so the co-lead would have been ideal in this situation — or maybe just give HR the lead. You would also be responsible, but they would be the lead on this.
Ms. Leclerc: Maybe we should have clarified this at the beginning that the position will be called “accessibility officer,” not Communications Directorate or labelled that. The external face, the position, is called “accessibility officer.” It is the point of contact and appears on the external website, for example, or the report. In terms of HR, if there is some confidentiality, my team is sometimes involved and we have access. It is made clear that the documents are properly labelled, but if the items that we are raising would be led by HR, if this is an HR matter that pertains to a confidential file, it would be entirely led by HR. Our role would be to make sure that whatever is raised is addressed in time and it goes in the final report. Whatever can be made public in the report, we table in Parliament. I would say everyone is a co-lead. HR is definitely a key partner. From a legal perspective, legal plays a key role in this file.
Senator Loffreda: So it’s just optics; it’s window dressing. I think you understand that. Not to take away from your responsibility, which is a key success and actor on this file.
Senator C. Deacon: One of the things I felt was missing from the plan was any note of the fact that we should be reviewing our rules, practices and procedures for places where they’re not serving the objective of this plan and this work. Certainly, when we were looking at some of the rules related to the diversity inclusion report, we found that there were places where that issue was not well covered. I think it’s something for us to consider and include in the plan that we report on our rules, practices and procedures to make sure that they are as inclusive as it relates to mobility issues.
Senator Marshall: You gave us a lot of briefing material to read with the manual, and I’m drawing on my estimates subcommittee experience. Usually when there is a document like that, it goes to a subcommittee for their review before it goes to CIBA. Did this go to a subcommittee of CIBA before it came here?
Ms. Leclerc: It went to steering, Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Okay, but not HR, though.
Ms. Leclerc: No.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments on this issue? If not, we are asked to approve the accessibility plan that was presented. That’s the first thing.
[Translation]
Mathieu, I know that you’ve done a lot of work on this in the last year and that it wasn’t part of your duties. Thank you for taking the time to put the team together and for doing all the work associated with this extremely important issue for the Senate.
Second, there is everything related to the Senate’s compliance as an employer and as an example that we must set for Canadians. This is extremely important.
Third, in terms of the recommendation made to us by the people in charge of the file, they are part of the Senate’s operations and have the ability to tell us who is able to do the work at this time. I have a lot of respect for employees when they make recommendations to us, because they are the ones at the heart of the operations. As senators, we are not.
I heard the comments about the fact that the directorate that should be leading the charge on this is human resources. I think that at this point in time, for us, it’s important that this be put in place. If there are adjustments to be made in the future, they should be made at the appropriate time.
That’s my comment, based on what I heard this morning. Our job is to approve the accessibility plan.
[English]
May I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Senate 2023-2025 Accessibility plan be approved.
Senator Saint-Germain moves the motion.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? The motion is carried.
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Mélisa. Thank you very much, Mathieu and Anne.
We’ll move on to item 4. Our next item this morning is a service level agreement with the House of Commons for software, support and dissemination. We have with us David Vatcher, Director of Information Services at the Information Services Directorate, and Marie-Jules Morris Bourgoin, Senior Advisor of Information Services Directorate Business Planning at Information Services. Colleagues, as usual, the presentation will be followed by a question period.
Mr. Vatcher: This briefing note is annual in nature and serves to express cost changes related to our five-year agreement with the House of Commons, which will expire on March 31, 2024. The nature of the agreement with our parliamentary partner includes contracts where the Senate benefits from volume reductions achieved through various agreements that the House of Commons establishes with external partners.
That is why our briefing note is being presented on that date. However, discussions are held throughout the year with our colleagues in the House of Commons in order to follow up on various issues and renewals. The increase for the current year is explained in detail. It will be funded through a budget reallocation, and no additional funding is requested. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, David. Are there any questions for David? There aren’t. Thank you very much. If there are no questions, is there a senator willing to move the following motion:
That the Senate Administration be authorized to enter into a main service level agreement between the Senate and the House of Commons for a total of $2,152,711 for the 2022-23 fiscal year.
Do I have a mover? Senator Moodie moves the motion. Honourable senators, is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Motion carried.
Thank you very much, David. I understand that you’ll be assisting us with the next two items as well.
Item 5 has already been addressed and approved.
Item 6 relates to the service level agreement with Shared Services Canada for landlines. David’s presentation will be followed by our questions.
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you. As you just mentioned, Madam Chair, this is a four-year agreement with Shared Services Canada and Bell Canada for fixed line phone services for the offices. The amount we are presenting shows significant reductions over the previous five years, thanks to the Cut the Cord program launched in 2020.
The Senate has been subscribing to this service for about 30 years. The contract is very flexible and allows us to add or remove lines on a monthly basis without penalty. In the next few weeks, I hope, ISD will propose a plan to replace this aging technology with a less expensive solution. This answers a question asked earlier this morning by Senator Deacon. This contract will continue to be funded by ISD, and no additional funding is requested.
The Chair: Are there any questions for David? Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Senate Administration be authorized to enter into a sole-source contract for fixed-line telephone services provided to the Senate under a four-year agreement with Shared Services Canada valued at $1,040,700.
Do I have a mover? Senator Boyer moves the motion. Honourable senators, is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
[English]
Item 7 is an update on the public accounts for fiscal year 2021-22. This item is for information only. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate is back for this update.
[Translation]
Mr. Lanctôt: Honourable senators, I will provide the highlights of the Senate’s financial information that forms part of the Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year-end of March 31, 2022. They were tabled in Parliament on October 27.
The Senate’s financial results show that the Senate spent $12.8 million less in the 2021-22 fiscal year than it received in voted authorities, $79.1 million. All unused Senate appropriations remain in the consolidated revenue fund, and surplus Senate appropriations are not carried forward to the next fiscal year.
The main reason for this budget surplus is the lower than planned level of activity due to the federal election and the global pandemic.
[English]
The senators and House Officers achieved a surplus of $8.5 million due to the actual number of senators during the fiscal year being lower than the number budgeted in the Main Estimates and the reduced level of activity due to the pandemic. For the same reason, the Senate committees and International and Interparliamentary Affairs has spent $3.2 million less than budgeted.
As for the administration, a $2.1 million surplus was achieved due to vacant positions and lower salaries than budgeted. In addition, a surplus of $1.1 million is due to reduced service requirements as a result of the pandemic. These surpluses allowed the Senate to self-fund $1.2 million in improvements to its tangible assets. A summary of other information disclosed in the public accounts is presented on page 2 of the information note. This concludes my report. I will be pleased to answer questions or receive comments.
The Chair: Are there any questions for Pierre?
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Pierre.
We’re moving on to item 8.
I have the honour to table the eighth report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, which deals with decisions made by the steering committee on behalf of CIBA since our last meeting. This report is for your information.
Are there any questions or comments on the eighth report? If not, we will move on to the next item on the agenda.
[English]
Senator Quinn: I have a question with respect to those who are using the Ontario public health guidance, what about employees located in Quebec? Would they follow that guidance as well? We’re following the Ontario public health guidance protocol. For folks located in Quebec, they too will follow the Ontario rules?
The Chair: When they work in Ontario, they follow the rules in Ontario, unless I am mistaken.
Philippe Hallée, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: That’s affirmative. We chose the Ontario public health recommendations and measures because the bulk of the premises of the Senate are in Ontario.
Senator Quinn: Do we have employees in Quebec?
Mr. Hallée: There is a warehouse in Quebec, yes.
Senator Quinn: So they will follow the Quebec guidelines.
Mr. Hallée: In general, they are fairly compatible anyway.
Senator Quinn: The only reason I asked is that it stood out to me. I saw Ontario and thought that we had some employees from Quebec, and I wanted to understand what protocols they follow versus what we say in the guidelines. If Quebec employees follow Quebec protocols, you may consider stating that in the procedures, so the folks at the front end aren’t confused. If you work in Quebec, you follow Quebec; if you work in Ontario, you follow Ontario. And I agree, the bulk of our operations are in Ontario, but we do have a presence in Quebec.
Mr. Hallée: I believe it was a decision made by CIBA previously to stick to the Ontario public health measures for the sake of uniformity in the Senate across all sectors and physical areas. Generally, they are essentially the same with some minor differences every now and then. It’s more in terms of the chronology of things that there are some differences.
The Chair: I agree, Senator Quinn. The question is whether we should put a note saying that for premises that we have in Quebec they follow the Quebec rules?
Mr. Hallée: We could do that.
The Chair: I don’t think it would be a problem to add that.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Quinn. Are there any other questions or comments?
Item 9 is the room allocation policy clarification. As you may recall, senators noted at a past CIBA meeting that a section of the new room allocation policy was causing some confusion.
Since then, Josée Labelle and Marc Lacelle, who are with us today, have reviewed the specific section, 1.6.2.1, and are recommending an amendment to clarify the application. As usual, this presentation will be followed by time for questions.
Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, at a CIBA meeting on September 22 of this year, the need to clarify the wording in the room allocation policy was raised as the original wording could lead to confusion with respect to booking recurrences for meetings for specific rooms within the Senate’s portfolio.
The Property and Services Directorate are proposing adjusted wording within the room allocation policy, particularly for section 1.6.2, which is the authorized use of Senate rooms and facilities, and its subsection 1.6.2.1 regarding recurring reservations and the release or expiry date for those reservations. The proposal aims to further clarify the original spirit and current application of the policy. The proposed adjustments for paragraph 3 reads as follows:
1.6.2.1 Reservations
(3) Reservations for recurring meetings can be initiated up to one month in advance of the Senate’s first sitting day in the fall and these reservations expire at the start of a summer recess.
The proposed amendment does not change subsection 1.6.2.2 regarding the priority to reserve. This subsection still states that Senate boardrooms are reserved on a first-come, first-served basis and our room allocation service will continue to apply this process moving forward.
Thank you for your attention on this file. We are happy to answer any questions.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for your presentation. I have to tell you that I find that the amendment facilitates administrative convenience, but I don’t think it’s a reasonable amendment in the context of the current reality of the Senate.
I think that the “first-come-first-served” method doesn’t lead to fairness. I also think we need to consider the capacity of the rooms and the needs of the groups, especially in terms of their numbers.
I think we need to add an amendment to this policy that is more consistent with both fairness and efficiency, and I will propose an amendment accordingly.
If I may, I’ll do it in English.
[English]
I move to amend the room allocation policy section 1.6.2.2, priority to reserve, to include the following:
The size of the parliamentary group of caucus, the official party status.
The Chair: Any questions or comments on the second change that Senator Saint-Germain is proposing?
Senator Plett: Well, I don’t know that I have any comments other than to simply say I would support what Senator Saint-Germain is suggesting.
I have always had a problem with this first-c me-first-served policy. We’re all lining up at the door when the door to somebody opens to see who can be there first. We need to have some policies in place and some criteria as to why a certain caucus or a certain group gets a certain room, not simply because they were there first. All that will happen is that we will start having fights about reserving rooms at the start of a month or session, and we are going to reserve everything we can reserve, and then piece it off if we don’t need it. This is a reasonable amendment, and I certainly think our caucus would support this.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other comments or observations on this?
Senator Tannas: Is it fair to put it on the staff to determine priority? If there is any disagreement, would it be better if steering deals with it? Or is that just assumed?
The Chair: Senator Tannas, I think it needs to be steering. Any other comments, observations or questions?
Senator Plett: I think if we go beyond staff, it needs to be CIBA, not steering. I would like to suggest that it be the full committee, then, if we are wanting to change rules in regards to room allocation.
The Chair: We’re not changing rules. We’re giving the power of decision to the steering committee.
Senator Plett: Fair enough. I just believe that putting it on four people isn’t the right way to do it. I think it should be done in this room. It’s not a big enough issue, Senator Moncion, that I’m going to make a fuss about it, but it’s an opinion.
The Chair: Agreed. Mine is an opinion too. Mine is on the question of efficiency, but it’s not a problem to bring it to CIBA. Any other questions or comments?
Senator Saint-Germain: Simply a further comment. I think that if we decide to adopt this amendment, we will tackle many issues and avoid having to tackle these issues very often. There are rooms to accommodate every group. The issue is that there are not rooms that can accommodate some groups. I think this would tackle the issue.
The Chair: Final call? All right. Could I have a mover for the following motion? I will call on you, Senator Saint-Germain, for the second change you’re proposing.
So section 1.6.2.1(3) of the Room Allocation Policy be amended as follows:
Reservations for recurring meetings can be initiated up to one month in advance of the Senate’s first sitting day in the fall and these reservations expire at the start of a summer recess.
And that rule 1.6.2.2 be amended —
Senator Saint-Germain: — reserved to include the following: “The size of the parliamentary group or caucus and the official party status.”
The Chair: Are you moving this motion?
Senator Saint-Germain: I am moving it.
The Chair: Thank you. Honourable colleagues, is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[Translation]
Item 10 has to do with amendments to the procurement policy.
Thank you, Ms. Labelle and Mr. Lacelle. I forgot to thank you. I’ll chalk that up to still being jet-lagged.
So the next item is the proposed changes to the procurement policy. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, will make his presentation as usual. His presentation will be followed by a question period.
Go ahead, Mr. Lanctôt.
[English]
Mr. Lanctôt: Honourable senators, the new procurement policy has been in place for about six months, and its implementation has gone very well. However, we noted a few areas where the policy would benefit from being clearer or more explicit, hence the changes proposed in yellow in the briefing note.
[Translation]
I want to emphasize that these aren’t new requirements, but simply clarifications. For example, one of the amendments provides more detail on the rules for changes to an existing contract, while another clarifies contracts with potential suppliers to obtain information on their products and services. I think it’s important to make these changes at this time to keep the policy current.
That concludes my comments.
I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, you have had access to the information in your bundle. Are there any questions or comments for Pierre?
Senator Quinn: Just one question, which is in the annex. It talks about how no contract resulting from a competitive process may be increased by more than 50% of the initial total. That’s a significant authority to have. If you have a million-dollar contract, you can increase it by $500,000. I’m not sure of the types of expenditures that would fall under that category. We saw one this morning. I can’t recall what the standard is in the Government of Canada rules in terms of increasing the value of contracts. I know some have to go up the lines at various levels and even ministers. Where does this lie in terms of the authorities that exist in other places?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, senator. Actually, the 50% is what the government is using. It’s not a new application. It’s just that we are more explicit in terms of the amount. But that’s the maximum, typically, for the Government of Canada public tender.
However, all the increases have to follow the normal standard approval process. If, for example, we have a transaction that is above $120,000, it still has to go to CIBA for approval.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments?
[Translation]
Would any senator like to move the following motion:
That the clarifications referred to in sections 1.6.5, 1.6.7(2)(b), 1.6.8(4), 1.6.15 and 2.3 of the Senate Procurement Policy be approved.
Does someone want to move the motion? Senator Marshall moves the motion.
Honourable senators, is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?
The motion is carried.
Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt.
[English]
The next item is concerning an updated MOU between the Senate, other parliamentary partners, and Public Services and Procurement Canada for funding the Long Term Vision and Plan. Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate and Louise Cowley, Director of LTVP and Accommodation will now join us as witnesses. As usual, the presentation will be followed by time for questions.
Ms. Labelle, the floor is yours.
Ms. Labelle: Honourable senators, we seek your approval of the updated memorandum of understanding, or MOU, between the Senate, our parliamentary partners and Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, for the funding of the Long Term Vision and Plan, or LTVP.
Since 2009, this agreement has allowed the Senate Administration to recover human resourcing costs relating to LTVP projects. As you may remember, the Senate delegation of financial authorities policy requires CIBA approval for cost-recovery agreements greater than $500,000. This MOU includes estimated recoveries totalling up to $3.4 million for the LTVP full-time employees, or FTEs, currently approved by CIBA. Key changes to the update of the knowledgeable client funding MOU include a clear, defined funding approach, including a standardized annual forecast process and quarterly payments subject to annual approval by parliamentarians.
Previously, the Senate Administration sought approval for each LTVP FTE through the main estimates process and provided annual forecasts to PSPC based on those FTEs and upcoming project schedules. Knowledgeable client funding will be subject to a third-party audit anticipated to be conducted every three to five years with findings presented through the internal governance structure we have for projects with the PSPC and our partners. The updated MOU clarifies PSPC and parliamentary partners’ roles and responsibilities by defining functions for each institution, notably a distinction between what PSPC refers to as “key core functions” and “non-core functions” performed by the parliamentary partners. For clarity, PSPC recognizes that the parliamentary partners must participate in the implementation of the LTVP.
From an operational perspective, PSPC calls those functions “core functions.” Those positions would exist without the LTVP program of work. Our MOU establishes that core functions are the funding responsibility of the parliamentary partners. PSPC defines non-core functions as functions that provide knowledgeable client input into LTVP projects. These positions would not exist outside of the LTVP program of work.
The parliamentary partners recover their funds from PSPC. We currently recover the costs of approximately 29.6 full-time employees with PSPC. This year’s Main Estimates process could see this number increase by six FTEs.
The KCF agreement affects multiple directorates within the Senate, including the PSD, CSD, ISD and Communications. All related cost recoveries and efforts required for the submission associated with time sheets and justifications. Other directorates, such as HR and Finance, are also dependent on the KCF MOU for activities that provide support to the LTVP, such as pay services or processing quarterly reimbursements. They receive a determined amount through the overhead to cost recover these core resources and allocate some time to LTVP-related activities.
The Law Clerk’s Office, Finance and Procurement and the Corporate Security Directorate have all contributed to the update of the KCF MOU. Your approval of this MOU is required to finalize our process with PSPC. Once approved, we will bring the 2022-23 forecasts to CIBA later this fiscal year for your endorsement. With this, I’m happy to open the floor to any questions you may have.
Senator Tannas: The addition of these permanent full-time people, can you just remind us about the end liability, what happens when the Long Term Vision and Plan is someday over, and we have to dispose of 30-odd staff? Who covers the severance? It’s my understanding that once we make them permanent with the Senate, it will be us covering that. I know when the time comes, we’ll have plans to use attrition to fit people in and so on, but it’s nonetheless a liability that we’ll try to manage as best we can, but it’s a liability that we’re taking on. Does PSPC help us at the end of the project with severance payments?
Ms. Labelle: That’s an excellent question, senator. We do not have any agreement for that arrangement. The assumption is currently just balancing, offering indeterminate positions versus contractual positions. We also have some help offered to us through consultants at PSPC. We balance all this together, and as we manage this by attrition, we also have to look at the forward planning. Currently, we know we have probably close to 20-plus years left, if we assume planning, post-occupancy deficiencies. We have a while to go on this, but it’s definitely something on our radar, and it is assumed that would be the number one strategy is to look at attrition first and foremost and trying to reduce the amount of FTEs as the projects close out.
The Chair: Could I have a mover for the following motion:
That the updated Memorandum of Understanding between the Senate, other Parliamentary Partners, and Public Services & Procurement Canada for funding the Long Term Vision and Plan be approved.
It was moved by Senator Boyer. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Ms. Labelle and Ms. Cowley.
[English]
We have done well on our time today. We have a bit of time left for other matters. I would invite Senator Seidman to provide us with one item that she would like to discuss with colleagues.
Senator Seidman: I wasn’t expecting this today, but I’ll be brief. I sent a note to the chair after our last meeting about a further issue that had come up with regard to translation. That had to do, as I understood it, with the temporary translation booths set up in a lot of the committee rooms, as opposed to the use of the permanent translation booths that had been developed, created, updated, all kinds of high-tech installations in it. The question was why were translators still using these temporary booths as opposed to moving into the more permanent ones? Was this creating additional problems for them in terms of the deficiencies around their ability to have protection in their listening devices, et cetera? Why are we still using the temporary booths?
The Chair: For your information, the temporary booths are the ones that are at the back, and the permanent are the ones here.
What we’ll do with your question, senator, is bring it to the proper person who can provide an answer and bring back the answer at the next meeting, if that is agreeable to you.
Senator Seidman: Absolutely.
The Chair: Are there any other items, colleagues? We have about 15 minutes.
Senator Plett: I’m raising this only because of the 15 minutes. We don’t need to really discuss it, but I want to raise an issue that my travel agent has raised with me. It has to do partly with the new credit card system we have adopted, and what senators are now doing, according to my agent.
As colleagues know, we are entitled to use our own credit card to book our flights and pay for our hotels, and we’re entitled to use the Senate credit card. When we were using the American Express card, many of us were obviously collecting some points. With the new Mastercard, that’s not happening.
Some senators are using their own credit card to book flights and pay for their hotels. I pay for my hotel with my own credit card, but I use the corporate credit card for my flights. One of the reasons I do that is because of the payment system that Finance has.
We’re entitled, as we all know, to buy flight passes. It gives you 10 passes. I don’t know the exact cost. They used to be $900 per pass for me; they may be more now. I’m seeing people shake their heads. You pay $10,000 and get 10 passes. That’s considerably less money than buying individual tickets.
But with the process that Finance has, if I do that and spend $10,000 or $11,000, Finance will reimburse me for a flight pass only when I use it, not for the entire $10,000. Yet if I use my Mastercard, the Senate card, Finance pays my credit card statement in its entirety.
What my agent has told me — and he books for a lot of senators — is that what senators are doing is not using flight passes; they’re buying individual tickets for a lot more money, using their own credit card and being reimbursed because we don’t want to carry the bill for the Senate, and rightfully so.
Clearly, I wasn’t a proponent of us changing credit cards, but nevertheless that has happened. That horse has left the stable, and I’m okay with that. But chair, I would like if you, steering or whoever, could talk to Finance. Because I see no reason why, if I buy a flight pass, they don’t pay me for that flight pass. Obviously, there are provisions in place. I’m not going to use my flight pass to fly personally.
At the end of the day, those flight passes can be returned if I retire or reach age 75, or whatever the case may be, before it’s expired. Those flight passes can go back. It’s not a risk that anybody is taking, and it could be a potential considerable saving for the Senate.
I’m simply asking, chair, that maybe you check with Finance, because when I do use the Mastercard — and I do — and I buy flight passes, Finance pays that Mastercard statement at the end of the month. Yet when I use my own Visa, American Express or Mastercard, they don’t. I would like for you or steering to look at that and see if we can improve that for efficiency purposes. Thank you.
The Chair: Will do. Thank you, Senator Plett, for bringing it forward.
Colleagues, are there any other items? Hearing none and seeing none, on this lovely note, we are adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)