THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 16, 2023
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET], in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), to consider financial and administrative matters; and, in public, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), to consider financial and administrative matters.
Senator Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. My name is Lucie Moncion. I am a senator from Ontario, and I have the privilege of chairing the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
We began the meeting in camera, and we are now proceeding in public. I would like to go around the table and have my fellow senators introduce themselves, starting with the senator to my left.
Senator Dalphond: I am Senator Pierre Dalphond from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, senator from Ontario.
Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey, senator from Manitoba.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I am Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
Senator Loffreda: I am Tony Loffreda from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator R. Patterson: Rebecca Patterson, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: I am Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I am Claude Carignan from Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you. Welcome to all those across the country who are following our proceedings today.
Honourable senators, the first item of business is approving the minutes of proceedings from February 2, 2023, which are in your package. Are there any questions or amendments to the minutes? Could I have a mover for the following motion: that the minutes of proceedings of Thursday, February 2, 2023, be adopted?
I saw your hand go up, Senator Carignan.
Senator Carignan: I was just scratching, but I can move the motion.
The Chair: I happened to notice you out of the corner of my eye. Senator Carignan has moved that the motion be adopted. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? I declare the motion carried.
[English]
The next item is a report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets concerning committee budgets for travelling. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, will now join us as a witness. As usual, this presentation will be followed by time for questions. It is my understanding that Senator Marshall will make opening remarks, and that Pierre will assist in answering questions.
Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Thank you, honourable colleagues.
I have the honour to present the twelfth report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, which includes recommendations on three committee budgets for the upcoming 2023-24 fiscal year.
Before reviewing each budget request, I wanted to provide you with an update on expenditures for the current fiscal year. For 2022-23, the total funds allocated for committee expenses were initially $2.382 million, less half a million dollars for witness expenses, leaving $1.882 million for release for individual committee budgets.
To date, the total expenditures and commitments in this fiscal year has been $564,000. However, some of the travel activities were only recently completed, so that number may increase a bit.
For the new fiscal year, 2023-24, the total funds allocated by CIBA for committee activities are $2.203 million, less $320,820 for witness expenses, leaving $1.882 million for release for individual committee budgets.
Last Friday, the subcommittee met with three committees that presented budget requests totalling $630,000 for the new fiscal year. The first budget application was from the Agricultural and Forestry Committee, with a proposed expenditure of $62,000 for one activity to travel to Guelph, Ontario for a fact-finding mission. That is in relation to the committee’s study on the status of soil health in Canada and includes funds for 12 senators and 6 parliamentary staff to travel in the spring of 2023.
During the presentation, we were told that the full committee is not expected to travel, and that the committee would consider reduced amounts for travel and accommodation. Additionally, although the funds for interpretation services are included in the budget request, we heard that the current membership would likely not require interpretation.
However, those cost-saving measures were not reflected in the committee’s budget submission. If the committee were to reduce the delegation to nine senators and three staff, reduce travel and accommodation costs, and remove the rental of interpretation equipment, the budget request could be reduced to just over $36,000, which is 42% less than the original budget submission.
The subcommittee therefore recommends the approval of the budget request on the condition that it be amended to reflect the actual delegation expected to participate, that the committee follow through on its commitment to reduce additional travel and accommodation contingencies and to remove the costs related to interpretation, for a total allocation of $36,220.
The second budget application was for Fisheries and Oceans and contains a proposed expenditure of $172,560 for one travel activity to Newfoundland for fact-finding and public hearings. This is in relation to the committee’s study on Canada’s seal population and their effects on Canada’s fisheries. It includes funds for 12 senators, 2 senators’ staff and 10 parliamentary staff to travel.
During the presentation, we were advised that there are currently 9 members on the committee, while the budget submission includes funds for the full membership of 12. The subcommittee feels that the budget request should be based on the current membership of the committee, which is 9, and not 12 members. Members were also concerned about the strain on support services and the additional costs needed to hold public hearings outside of Ottawa, especially with regard to interpretation services.
The subcommittee is of the view that the committee could still meet with stakeholders and learn about the seal hunt and fisheries via site visits and in-person meetings in Newfoundland but without holding public hearings in Newfoundland. The committee could instead invite potential witnesses to come to Ottawa or to participate in public hearings via video conference, where there would be no additional cost to provide interpretation and transcription services.
As I’ve already said, we’re concerned about the pressures on interpretation services.
If the committee were to include funds only for nine senators who are current members of the committee and replace the public hearings in Newfoundland with additional public hearings in Ottawa, a significant portion of the costs and required parliamentary staff to support interpretation and transcription could be removed from the budget request. With those modifications, the total request could be reduced to $116,933, which represents 32% less than the original budget submission.
We therefore recommend that the Fisheries and Oceans Committee budget request, on condition that it be amended to reflect the current membership of the committee and that the committee hold its public hearings on this study in Ottawa instead so that the costs and resources required to support public hearings outside of Ottawa can be significantly reduced — for a total allocation of $116,933.
The third budget application was from the Foreign Affairs Committee and contains a proposed expenditure of $395,818 for one travel activity to London, Oslo and Berlin for fact-finding. This is in relation to the committee’s study on Canada’s Foreign Service and includes funds for 12 senators, one senators’ staff and four parliamentary staff to travel in April 2023.
During the presentation, we were told that all 12 members of the committee have expressed an interest in participating. Although the subcommittee takes no issue with the purpose of the study or the objectives of the mission, members felt strongly that the current economic situation requires a more prudent approach to the use of public funds. Consequently, the subcommittee feels it cannot recommend the approval of this budget request, particularly for such a large delegation for an international fact-finding mission.
The decision was not taken lightly. However, the subcommittee has a duty to ensure Senate’s resources are being used in the most effective and responsible manner as possible. We encouraged the committee to explore alternative ways to achieve its objectives for its study without incurring those significant costs related to international travel. For example, if the committee were to reduce the size of the delegation to six senators, the total request could be reduced to $241,000, which represents 39% less than the original budget. Additional savings could be found by removing the request for interpreters in the United Kingdom or by eliminating one of the destinations.
We had one other concern about the proposed travel dates. All three committees expressed a wish to travel during sitting weeks in April. In light of the constraints on various resources that support the work of senators during sitting weeks, the subcommittee strongly encourages committees to plan their travel activities on non-sitting weeks.
In conclusion, your subcommittee is recommending the release of $36,220 to the Agricultural Committee and $116,993 to the Fisheries Committee, leaving $1.728 million for the remainder of the new fiscal year of the $1.882 million set aside for committee expenses.
With respect to the third request from Foreign Affairs, the subcommittee was not comfortable recommending the release of funds at this time for such a large delegation for an international fact-finding mission. The full committee may wish to consider a general directive with respect to international travel activities for Senate committees.
I recommend the adoption of the report and would be pleased to take your questions.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Thank you, Senator Marshall, for your report. I would also like to thank the subcommittee members. The recommendations are in line with my concerns after reading the report.
I have two points to make. First, I agree with you on the significant costs of international travel. It’s important to discuss the matter, especially if we take into account the economic challenges both we and the country are facing. Prudence should be the rule when considering and setting travel budgets. Committees can meet with numerous stakeholders by video conference. The Senate has invested heavily in video conferencing systems, so we absolutely must take that into account. I concur with the comments in the report in that regard.
Second, I share one of the major concerns raised in the report. You said that three committees had expressed a wish to travel in April during weeks when the Senate was not sitting.
That would be an ideal time for the trips. It’s reasonable for senators to think they could travel during the weeks when the Senate was not sitting. In addition, it would alleviate the strain on the human resources required to support chamber and committee activities here, in Ottawa.
It’s important to keep in mind that our presence in the chamber is profoundly important. We have a lot of work on our plate. April, May and June are not that far off, and we know full well what that means for our workload. We all have a responsibility — a duty, even — to be in the chamber to participate in debates and to vote.
I strongly encourage committee members to schedule their travel during the weeks that the Senate is not sitting. I plan to support the subcommittee’s report, and I wholeheartedly agree with the concerns raised.
Thank you.
Senator Saint-Germain: I’ll keep my comments brief, since they tie in with the points Senator Gagné raised. I won’t rehash what she said, but I wholeheartedly agree.
I would even go so far as to recommend that, when committees submit a request to travel during a sitting week, they be required to show that the travel can’t be scheduled during a break week.
If we look at all the trips organized through the Interparliamentary Council, so those of the interparliamentary associations, we see that, in many cases, senators are not in the chamber. Nevertheless, our primary responsibility is to be in the chamber.
For that reason, I am formally recommending that, in order to travel while the Senate is sitting, the committee be required to show why it’s necessary to travel during that time.
The Chair: I can tell you that, when the committee met, travel during sitting weeks was the subject of comment. The response we got from the group was that it wasn’t a requirement, so people were scheduling travel whenever.
With the committee’s consent, we could make changes to the rules. We could ask staff to look into it and add the requirement to the rules for committee travel requests.
[English]
Senator Plett: Like Senator Saint-Germain, I won’t repeat everything that Senator Gagné said. I think I support everything she said, and certainly, as the leader of a caucus that has, over the years, gotten smaller, it’s more and more difficult for us to have people in the chamber. And when I look at the Foreign Affairs trip, I find a desire to remove one of my members from that committee and put myself on there because that’s a pretty nice looking trip.
Nevertheless, I think two things. Number one, we have to clearly consider cost savings. We have gotten into a situation where we are overextended everywhere and we need to consider cost savings. I appreciate the subcommittee’s report.
I do have a question for Senator Marshall on the Fisheries trip. I’m still finding it strange that it would cost $117,000 to have this in Ottawa. Can you just briefly explain what the large cost would be to have a meeting in Ottawa, especially —
Senator Marshall: I will have to go back to the supporting documentation here.
Senator Plett: Isn’t that the recommendation? With additional public hearings in Ottawa instead.
The Chair: They do the fact-finding portion of the trip, which brings them to Newfoundland.
Senator Plett: I apologize; I misread that. So the recommendation is to simply reduce the number of participants to Newfoundland.
Senator Marshall: Yes, but they would still go to Newfoundland for the fact-finding mission.
Senator Plett: But fewer people and less staff.
Senator Marshall: Yes, but they would still have their public hearings in Newfoundland and use video conference.
Senator Plett: I apologize. I misread that. I was under the impression they would do this all in Ottawa and I couldn’t quite understand that cost.
Senator Marshall: The subcommittee had a lot of discussion on this. They can’t do their fact-finding on the seal fishery by staying in Ottawa. They have to go to Newfoundland and they listed three communities there. They need to go to speak to people. We did feel the public hearings could be held in Ottawa.
One of the issues that we discussed at great length during our subcommittee meeting is the pressure on interpretation services. There was some consideration given to the fact we would let them have their public hearing in Newfoundland if there could be assurances that it would not affect interpretation services in other areas, such as Ottawa. But we’re not going to get that assurance because there is an issue with regard to interpretation services. That’s why we recommend that the public hearings be held in Ottawa.
Senator Plett: I support the recommendations.
Senator M. Deacon: I have a couple quick points and I find myself as a guest today also the only person in the room that sits on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
I just wanted to say that yes, the effort to travel during non-sitting weeks was a strongly considered item and, of course, the time of year, costs, all kinds of things were factored. We were unable to do that because of the work we were looking at; other parliaments were also shut down over Easter. That was one of our pieces that made it challenging to blend week on and week off.
The cost is huge. It was shocking to see the per-night, moderate accommodation and flights, and seeing the two or three pages of breaking it down. And that was a reduction of one site, one continent in this submission.
I do want to say two things. Of course, Foreign Affairs could look at the reduction of the number of participants on their trip, as Senator Marshall suggested in the document. Is it possible for Foreign Affairs to resubmit — and I just don’t know, and the chair is out of the country — with the timing of what looks like our next three or four weeks, when we’re here and not here, and can we resubmit with a reduced budget, a new timeline and what you need?
Senator Marshall: We would expect to receive another request from the committee. On occasion, once we’ve approved the lesser amount for some committees, they do come back and ask us to reconsider approving a bit more.
But for the benefit of all of my colleagues on the full committee, we take our responsibilities with regard to the Senate Estimates Subcommittee very seriously. We spend a lot of time, and we do go through things line by line and discuss the budget with either the chair or the deputy chair of the committee.
So yes, by all means, we would expect the committee to come back with a reduced request for funding.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much.
Senator Bovey: I will be quick. As a member of that committee, I want to say the discussions were really heartfelt and seriously considered.
I want to raise the issue of interpretation. We’ve had real crises in the last year about interpretation holding up committee work and whatever.
Going forward, I agree with Senator Saint-Germain about the committees travelling when the Senate is not sitting. I think we also have to make sure that committees are aware of the pressure on interpretation. We’re not through that crisis yet, so in making these submissions, fact-finding missions have fewer constraints than public hearings do. It behooves us to make sure that as many public hearings are done virtually as possible. Fact-finding trips are for just that: fact-finding on the ground that can’t come through on a video.
Senator Moodie: I just wanted to recognize the importance of travel to facilitate the work of many of our committees and expecting that — especially for Foreign Affairs — but also the need for committees to recognize the current issues of cost and pressure on resources that we face as a Senate and as a country.
Having sat on the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, or SEBS, I acknowledge Senator Marshall’s comments about the amount of work and due diligence that is carried out in this committee. I have heard before the call for criteria or guidelines around travel. We haven’t heard a resolution to that call, and now we’re hearing it again.
So what are the possibilities here for us to discuss some guidelines around this? It’s difficult to put SEBS in the position of making such decisions without appropriate guidelines.
Senator Marshall: In the past, as issues arise — for example, with regard to international travel or whether committees should travel during sitting weeks — we have asked that some sort of policy be put in place to address that. We’ve never gone back and done a comprehensive review of the policies. It is something we could consider.
I find the work of SEBS very busy, and the time spent on SEBS equates to the amount of time that is spent by full committees. But it is something we could look at.
If there were a motion that either CIBA look at rules that SEBS could follow or that SEBS itself could come up with some recommendations with regard to policy, that is also an option. We take our direction from the full committee.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Marshall.
First, we will agree to adopt the report. From there, if you agree, colleagues, before we send the work back to SEBS — and, in the meantime, until that work is done — as chair of CIBA, I would send a letter to all the committee chairs providing them information on public hearings that should happen in Ottawa, interpretation services, the cost of services and the cost reduction we are looking at, restraint and also the travel weeks.
Those would be items that would be, for now, in a courtesy letter while saying that SEBS will be looking at this and bringing forward corrections to policies and possibly procedures.
Are we in agreement with that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Plett: A recommendation, not a rule.
The Chair: It will be a recommendation until SEBS studies this aspect and comes back with it.
So we are in agreement with this, colleagues? Very well. Senator Marshall, would you like to move the adoption of the report?
Senator Marshall: I move the adoption of the twelfth report on committee budgets.
The Chair: Do honourable senators adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Before we dive into item 8, there have been a lot of discussions that happened outside the committee. My understanding is that before we move forward on adopting this thirteenth report, there is a request to create a working group to look at credit card issues. So before we even dive into anything deeper or further, we would have a motion to strike a working group, and the working group would be looking at the credit card issues and would come back with a recommendation to this committee.
Are we in agreement with that, colleagues?
Senator Plett: Thank you very much, chair. Indeed, as others probably are aware, I was part of those discussions, but I would like to have that working group get a larger mandate than just simply looking at credit cards. I would like them to have a mandate to look at the travel expenses of the Senate.
Chair, your steering committee approved for me a slight increase, because I was hitting the max again on my travel because of cost increases when I have never, in the entire year, gone over my allowable amount of money I could charge for a hotel. Yet I was still going to be about $500 or $600 over at the end of the year, unless I took a couple of days off from the Senate, which is not ideal.
There are other travel expenses involved than just simply being a credit card issue, so I would like to see this working group look at best practices of other organizations, such as the House of Commons, possibly, and the public service generally, and come back with a more fulsome recommendation on the entire travel package that we as a Senate have as opposed to simply zeroing in on credit cards.
The Chair: Thank you for the comment. My comment on this — before I go to Senator Dean — is that the working group can only do so much. SEBS has to look at other parts. You are mixing things for SEBS here and for a working group. So we either go toward the working group or the Subcommittee on Estimates. We have to bring the difference.
The working group was just for one part of this, but if you’re making it bigger, it will probably have to go to SEBS, just so you know.
Senator Dean: I would seek your guidance, chair, in terms of how we conduct ourselves during the course of this working group’s activities. Some of us in the room who, having participated in the initial discussion, will have already changed our practices in terms of the way we handle expenses.
Also, if I’m reading this correctly, we will continue with what we might call the “status quo” for the time being.
Just to be clear, those of us who would wish to continue with the status quo are free to do that, and those of us who wish to move in the direction that was implied by the original discussion are free to do that.
The Chair: Agreed. Are there any other comments?
From the counsel of my clerk, which I rely on wholeheartedly, we need to come back with a mandate and membership to move the formal motion. We will do this in a couple of weeks when we come back on this issue.
Are we in agreement, colleagues? Agreed.
[Translation]
The next item of business has to do with annual contracts for software licences, and support and maintenance services. David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate; and Marie-Jules Morris Bourgouin, Senior Advisor, ISD Business Planning, Information Services, are here as witnesses. They will give their presentation, and then senators will have an opportunity to ask questions.
David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, this briefing note is submitted annually. It addresses business continuity and ensures compliance with the Senate’s Procurement Policy.
The Information Services Directorate acquires software licences in a competitive manner whenever possible. However, in the long run, some licences and services, when renewed, cross thresholds set in the Procurement Policy.
The briefing note lists these cases in two appendices. Appendix A provides a list of contracts with an annual value over $40,000, and there is only one this year. Appendix B provides a list of contracts that over multiple years exceed the $40,000 threshold limit.
Finally, I wish to make clear that no additional funds are requested. Only approval under the Procurement Policy is sought. This list is not an exhaustive list of all software used at the Senate. It is a list of only those contracts whose value crosses the $40,000 threshold limit.
Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, David. Are there any questions or comments for David and Marie-Jules?
Thank you for the good information. It gives us a better sense of a lot of small files that put a strain on the workload but that you’ve captured all together. I know that you have a lot of others, but you’ve provided clear information that gives us a better overview of the software contract situation.
Since no one has any questions, would a senator like to move the following motion?
That the renewal of software, maintenance and/or support service contracts for fiscal 2023-24 listed in appendices A and B of the briefing note be approved.
Senator Dalphond: I so move.
The Chair: Honourable senators, is it your pleasure to adopt the motion? I declare the motion carried.
[English]
We are now on item 10. It is a proposal for a pilot project with the Canada School of Public Service. Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, will now join us as a witness. As usual, this presentation will be followed by time for questions.
You may begin your presentation.
Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, Senate of Canada: Good morning, senators. Among the strategic priorities for human resources are goals to further ensure the Senate’s learning and development program and to introduce components focused on leadership development, mental health and wellness, accessibility, diversity, inclusion and belonging, to name a few.
Human Resources has assessed options for programming that will form the Senate’s learning and development strategy. This assessment has included a review of learning products available through the Canada School of Public Service.
[Translation]
We depend almost exclusively on external third-party training and learning providers to fulfill the wide range of learning and development needs of staff.
[English]
In recent years, long-term contracts with external third-party vendors have expired, creating a challenge for HR to provide a stable vendor base from which employees can build on their professional development. As HR rebuilds its vendor base, we’re also seeking to gain both financial and administrative efficiencies while also increasing the availability of quality training and learning products to as many Senate employees as possible, including senators’ staff members.
The CSPS business model aligns well with our goals. In the last five years, the CSPS has transformed and modernized its business model to ensure its structure, service delivery, and learning content are relevant and/or applicable to workplace contexts outside of the public service.
[Translation]
Membership with the Canada School of Public Service comprises full and unlimited access to its online course catalogue for all Senate employees.
Human resources analyzed the courses and learning programs offered by the CSPS and compared them to the professional development activities completed by employees of the Senate Administration.
[English]
More than 30% of the completed training activities recorded in each directorate’s learning plan for the last two years were fully consistent with CSPS products.
HR is proposing a two-year pilot, which will allow the Senate to evaluate the ability of CSPS products to meet identified learning objectives. Through employee usage and feedback, HR will be able to determine if the CSPS can be one of the Senate’s preferred long-term learning providers. We will measure user satisfaction as well as conduct broader surveys over the course of the pilot to ensure the viability of a longer-term arrangement with CSPS.
The cost of entering into an agreement with the CSPS is $168,000. HR proposes to absorb this cost using its existing central corporate training budget for the duration of the pilot. No additional funding is required.
If the pilot is successful, HR will require either a permanent increase to its central corporate training budget to continue to offer the services to senators’ staff members or we will seek the approval of CIBA to explore whether senators would agree to cover the cost from their own office budgets.
[Translation]
A pilot program with CSPS offers the Senate the opportunity to significantly grow the amount of readily available learning products and programs offered to its employees. The proposal for a two-year pilot is also a measure to ensure a long enough period to assess the CSPS as a viable learning provider.
[English]
We are asking that CIBA approve the implementation of an agreement for a two-year duration, beginning on April 1, 2023, and ending March 31, 2025.
Thank you, senators. I am happy to address any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Francis. Are there any questions or comments?
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you very much, Ms. Francis. The pilot project was proposed to and considered by the Subcommittee on Human Resources. I am in favour of it, especially since the Canada School of Public Service delivers programs that are really tailored to the needs of the public service.
Moreover, it allows us to achieve rather considerable economies of scale, and we should support that. Obviously, the decision would also mean giving senators’ staff access to CSPS learning products. If we approved the pilot, we would be agreeing to a deduction of $230 from our individual office budgets per employee, for all employees whose participation in the program was recommended.
I am in favour of the proposal, which the subcommittee examined at length. I fully support this.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain.
[English]
Senator Moodie: I support this program. It sounds like a good idea to piggyback on the economies of scale available through this learning.
How will you measure success? You talked about a user satisfaction survey, but how else are we going to know that we need to adopt this and scale this up?
Ms. Francis: Thank you, senator. Aside from the user satisfaction surveys, we will be assessing whether or not we are having extra requests to access our funds within the corporate learning budget. If we are seeing that there is satisfaction, in terms of people being able to access courses and training opportunities through this venue, we also have access or we entered into an agreement with the House of Commons, but it’s not the only thing we’re doing for further access to their catalogue as well but we will be able to see if we are getting additional requests that exceed what we offer employees at this point.
Senator Moodie: Volume.
Ms. Francis: Volume will be a big indicator, yes.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, Ms. Francis, very much.
I support the pilot, but my comments are similar to Senator Moodie. I find that when we go into a pilot or when we’re going to do something new, enthusiasm is at its highest at the beginning. If there’s going to be an evaluation after the end of two years, I would like for it to be robust, because I do have concerns. While everybody is very anxious and supports this now, maybe after two years we might find that the use of the program might not be at the extent that we thought.
The other point that I want to make, and I know this will be a decision down the road, is charging senators’ offices for their staff usage. It’s only a minor amount, so that’s not the issue.
All the staff are staff of the Senate, including the senators’ staff, so I would prefer to have one point of entry and one point of approval for the courses, rather than to have senators’ staff go through a different type of hoop compared to administration.
Ms. Francis: Thank you, senator. We’ll certainly provide the pros and cons because it will require an increasing budget either way, so how the funding will be determined at that point. We can certainly put the pros and cons as to whether that one point is ideal. I will take that into consideration.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Senator Boyer: Thank you, Ms. Francis, and thank you to the HR Subcommittee for all the work on this.
I want to highlight the area on Indigenous people’s history and current affairs because it needs to be up to date. I’m not quite sure how up to date it is in this. I’ve heard comments about it, but I want to highlight that it needs to seriously be looked at and makes sure it’s healthy and up-to-date material that we’re all looking at.
Ms. Francis: Thank you, Senator Boyer. We’ve been assured that CSPS has worked with members of the Indigenous community to create the products that are there and available from a learning perspective. It is one of the reasons why a two‑year pilot we want to ensure that the quality of the product is as we anticipate and there aren’t any gaps that might lead us to recommend or look to other learning avenues for specific things within the suite of courses.
Senator Boyer: Wonderful. Thank you.
Senator Plett: Just a couple of questions. Page 2 of your document refers to 730 employees in the Senate. Does that include PPS or is that without PPS?
Ms. Francis: It does not include PPS.
Senator Plett: Thank you. The other question is do we need to buy 730 licences if we do this or do we buy the number of licences of the people who want to take part? Would it be possible to buy a lesser number and then increase it on demand or is it a requirement by CSPS we have to purchase the licences equal to the number of employees?
Ms. Francis: We did try alternatives for how we could enter into an agreement. We have to go with the number of FTE that we have. Because they don’t have an à la carte option. It’s $230 per employee for the organization.
Senator Plett: And we would have to pay that much times 730 regardless?
Ms. Francis: Yes.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, Ms. Francis. I really like this idea. I take it what you’re putting before us is for the administration of the Senate and it doesn’t include senators’ staff.
Ms. Francis: They’re included. It includes senators’ staff and administration employees, yes.
Senator Cardozo: And they will have a choice as to which of those courses they would have access to?
Ms. Francis: There are limitations for senators’ staff. They can take the self-paced and online courses. There are a variety of options, which is another reason for the two-year pilot, because employees of parliamentarians cannot take everything within CSPS. So we want to be sure that what is available to senators’ staff meets the needs of senators’ staff as well.
Senator Cardozo: Why can’t they?
Ms. Francis: It’s a rule of CSPS, within their rules or provisions or requirements in terms of how they engage with staff of parliamentarians.
Senator Cardozo: I’d like to know more about why that’s the case.
Ms. Francis: Their lawyers have indicated to us that’s the rule. I don’t know if Philippe has any more to add.
Philippe Hallée, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: The rule of the CSPS is they want to remain a very non-partisan organization in service of the public service, so they want to make sure that the forums of their training are maintained as completely non-partisan. That’s why they’ve limited for the longest time the access of other employees. But given the development of courses that are online, the issue is not the same at all because then you can run the training in the comfort of your own office. So there’s not the interaction that could basically result in having this training becoming somewhat tainted by a political lens.
Senator Cardozo: Heaven forbid.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: What is the total training budget? It says that the money will come out of the central corporate training budget, but what is the total budget?
Ms. Francis: The central corporate budget for human resources is $386,000.
Senator Carignan: Great.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other questions?
[English]
Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Senate Administration be permitted to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Canada School of Public Service for a two-year pilot, beginning on April 1, 2023, and ending on March 31, 2025, to grant all Senate employees with access to numerous learning products.
Senator Saint-Germain moves the motion. Senator Seidman seconds the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[Translation]
Thank you, Senator Dean. It’s a great project.
[English]
The next item, item 11, is an update of the Senate Policy on Funerals. Greg Peters, Usher of the Black Rod, and Chasse Helbin, Officer, Administrative, Ceremonial and Protocol and Mace Bearer, will now join us as witnesses. As usual, the presentation will be followed by time for questions. Mr. Peters, you have comments for us this morning. Welcome to our committee.
J. Greg Peters, Usher of the Black Rod, Senate of Canada: Thank you, honourable senators. It’s my pleasure to present proposed changes to the Senate Policy on Funerals and related amendments to the SOMP.
[Translation]
Over the past years, my team has worked on updating the policy. The current policy dates back to 2002.
[English]
In essence, the proposed changes seek to clarify the authorities relating to protocol requirements and travel related to funerals. As such, the new policy would solely deal with protocol and be approved by the Speaker, and a new section would be added to the SOMP for travel to funerals, to be adopted by CIBA. Previously, everything was under the one policy.
In revising the policy, my office collaborated with the Finance and Procurement Directorate to conduct a review as to how the Senate has addressed travel expenses related to funerals in the past, as well as how the House of Commons addresses funeral expenses incurred by members of Parliament to attend funerals, and when the Members’ Allowances and Services Manual covers it. Annex B of the briefing note provides details regarding this matter.
[Translation]
These changes aim to provide greater clarity and certainty in senators’ use of travel points and to centralize the use of travel points in one document, the Senators’ Office Management Policy, or SOMP. The changes to the SOMP are presented in Appendix A of the briefing note.
[English]
We recommend that CIBA approves the repeal of the current policy and the proposed changes to the SOMP. This iteration of the policy has been approved by the Speaker, who is the new approving authority. All updates and related documents would come into effect at the same time.
This policy will be communicated by a joint communiqué by the Speaker and the chair of CIBA to senators’ offices in a bundle that contains the updated policy, the SOMP changes and an information sheet.
[Translation]
I thank you for your time this morning, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
The Chair: Any comments or questions? That was easy. Could I have a mover for the following motion:
That the current funeral policy be repealed;
The new policy be accepted as under the authority of the Speaker; and
That the proposed changes to the Senators’ Office Management Policy be approved.
Senator Gagné moves the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you very much.
The next item is about the institutional risk management framework and risk register. This item is for information purposes only. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer; and Ronald Prud’homme, Senior Parliamentary Counsel, Planning and Performance Measurement, will now join us as witnesses.
As usual, the presentation will be followed by time for questions. Colleagues, I would ask that you refrain from making comments on substantive risks or exposure to the Senate. This discussion is in public and pertains to the framework. Should senators wish to discuss specific risks, the committee will have to go back in camera.
Mr. Lanctôt, you can begin your presentation, which will be followed by questions.
[Translation]
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair. Honourable senators, the current Policy on Risk Management was created in 2008 and amended in 2010. We completed a review of the policy and concluded that an overall risk management framework would be more appropriate and better aligned with current leading practices.
The new framework will replace the existing policy but also include the methodology and process based on managing the administration’s institutional risks.
It is an important process, supporting the achievement of the Senate Administration’s strategic priorities, commitments and parliamentary outcomes.
[English]
I will now provide an overview of the features included in the new framework.
The new framework requires an official review of the institutional risks and the establishment of a risk register for key risks annually. Key risks are monitored throughout the annual cycle and updated as required with a more formal review mid‑cycle.
The framework provides details on processes to identify, assess, mitigate, manage and monitor risks in a structured manner. The approach includes details on assessment criteria for determining the likelihood and impact of each risk, which provide a better understanding of the risk tolerance.
The framework calls for clear ownership and accountability, as each individual risk is assigned to a specific directorate.
Finally, the framework requires the production of a risk register, which includes for each risk the following elements: a description of the risk; an assessment of the results with a likelihood and impact; the risk owner; the existing mitigation measures; and additional risk mitigation measures, if applicable or required.
Your binder for this meeting includes a list of key risks, which we describe as very high or high, which were identified during last year’s cycle. We will be initiating a new risk management cycle in the upcoming weeks.
This concludes my comments. I would be pleased to answer your questions, and I welcome your comments.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much, Mr. Lanctôt, for the package you sent to us. I haven’t read every word, but I did go through it last night.
What was the impetus for this? Was it just an update of the 2010 policy, or have things evolved with regard to risk management over the last number of years such that we need a more robust policy? Could you talk about the impetus for this? It sounds like it will be a lot of work.
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, Senator Marshall.
It’s actually both, as you pointed out. We were updating policies and procedures within the administration. When we looked at this specific policy, we thought we needed a more comprehensive framework. For example, people often have their own appreciation of risks, what they are, and how it’s applied and measured. We wanted to elaborate upon how to achieve that within the administration.
That’s why we decided to expand to a more comprehensive framework, which is actually what the best practices are in the industry at this time.
Senator Marshall: This is going to involve all the directorates; is that correct?
Mr. Lanctôt: That’s correct.
Senator Marshall: As a member of SEBS, do we have sufficient staff to do this, or are we going to get a request for more staff? Can you do it within your existing budget?
Mr. Lanctôt: I’m glad to say that we will not be asking for any additional resources. Essentially, there are resources in my directorate that are responsible for overall risk management. Obviously, everybody in all directorates, mainly the senior management team, is involved in the process of updating risks.
Senator Marshall: You’re going to prepare the risk register that’s mentioned in your document after your consultation. Who has access to that? That’s not going to be shared with CIBA, is it?
Mr. Lanctôt: What we’ve provided in this package is a list that is a summary of the risks. But if you want to have access to the full register — it’s just that there are a lot of details in this register. Assuming each risk is a couple of pages, it may be a long document.
But it’s very useful for the administration because we have documented the mitigation strategy for each risk, which is very important to know and see if there’s anything that needs to be added. It’s very comprehensive. If you’re interested in having a copy, we’ll certainly provide it.
Senator Marshall: When do you think this will be completed? When do you think you will have your risk register completed?
Mr. Lanctôt: Actually, we’ve been ahead of the framework. Last year, we used the new approach as we were updating the risks. So we have a risk register that was produced as part of last year’s cycle. We are following this approach, with the risk register completed. Now we are embarking on the first official cycle with the new policy.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Just for your information, it was looked at by steering.
Senator Marshall: It was quite a package; quite a comprehensive document. Thank you.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for this and all the work you’ve done. We understand that the Audit Committee is in the process of hiring the internal auditor and will, I imagine, shortly thereafter start working on the audit plan with the auditor. This will fit nicely in that.
Might you, over the course of finishing the framework and so on, plan to invite the internal auditor to provide his or her comments? Because it will be an area they will definitely want to examine as part of the audit plan at some point. Do you see it as an opportunity to engage with the new internal auditor and get a sense of what they might want to see?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you for the comment. We’ve had discussions about the framework with the Audit and Oversight Committee. They suggested — and we agreed — to add the fact that we will be providing the risk register to the new chief audit executive every time we do an update. Even within the cycle, we will be working with the CAE if there are risks that need to be updated or modified.
In terms of whether exactly we will be involved in the definition of the risks, we will need to discuss it. The chief audit executive typically tends to want to stay more neutral. This is how we as an administration manage the risk. I would assume the individual would want to probably use the result, maybe identify issues if they feel like it, but not necessarily actively participate in the risk assessment.
Senator Tannas: I agree with you. It is not their role to tell you what the risks are. It is their role to be satisfied that you are doing the work of identifying risks.
The framework by which you do that will be worthwhile, but like you said, you are not looking for permission or direction.
The Chair: Just for your information, Senator Tannas, there is a discussion to happen between CIBA and the Audit and Oversight Committee to assess independence and other matters.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for being here this morning.
I looked at the summary of the risks in October 2021 and 2022. Thank you for the package, by the way. It is very complete. We live in such a dynamic environment. How often are your mitigating factors and additional mitigating factors updated?
To follow up on the audit, I know we have a compliance audit on an annual basis, and we now have internal auditors, but things change so quickly. Is this a report that will be deposited and then looked at within a year? What is the follow-up procedure for this report, especially with the mitigating factors I’m looking at?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you for the question. The objective is to review formally twice a year. We have a mid-cycle where we’re going to do an official review of the risks and an annual basis when we start the cycle. During the year, we’ll be working with the directorates and the Executive Committee. If we identify an emerging risk, we will take that into consideration and initiate the assessment of that emerging risk and update the register as required.
In some years, we may have one or two that for some reason we need to update, and in other years it might be more static and we won’t have to do any updates. We want to have the opportunity to be up to date but, at the same time, force a formal review twice a year.
Senator Loffreda: It’s a formal review twice a year, but in case of emergencies, it’s always at the forefront?
Mr. Lanctôt: That’s correct.
Senator Loffreda: I just wanted to be reassured on that. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments?
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt and Mr. Prud’homme. I have a question about the risks associated with the stability of chamber operations, specifically. Do those risks involve various directorates? There isn’t anything called “chamber operations,” the Chamber Operations and Procedure Office, in other words. That means various directorates are the ones supporting chamber operations and ensuring business continuity.
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you for your question. In defining our risks, we are targeting risks that could prevent the Senate and its administration from fulfilling their functions. In our risk assessment, we take into account how the administration could be impacted in ways that would make it difficult for the chamber to do its work, for instance.
What it all means, whether from a technical standpoint or in relation to employees that provide direct support to the chamber — regardless of what directorates are responsible for — is that everyone has a role to play in ensuring that the administration and the Senate as a whole fulfill their mandate. That’s really the important part. Any risk that could impact operations is considered, no matter which directorate is involved.
Senator Saint-Germain: It falls under the risk items for each of the directorates concerned.
Mr. Lanctôt: Precisely.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments? Seeing none, senators, since the original Policy on Risk Management was approved by the Clerk of the Senate, the current Executive Committee has the authority to repeal the old policy and replace it by this new framework. It is my understanding that the new framework will be effective on April 1, 2023.
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Pierre and Ronald, for your excellent work on this file.
Is there anything else, honourable senators, you would like to use this valuable meeting time to discuss?
Thank you everyone for your participation this morning. Thank you for your diligent work. Thank you to the staff and everyone who makes sure our meetings run as smoothly as they do. On that positive note, I bid you all a good day.
(The committee adjourned.)