THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 30, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met with videoconference this day at 9:01 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 committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Good morning, everyone.
My name is Lucie Moncion. I am a senator from Ontario and I have the privilege of chairing the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
I would now like to go around the table and ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Dalphond: Senator Pierre Dalphond from the Lorimier region of Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boyer: Senator Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey, senator from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest, senator from the Gulf region of Quebec.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Loffreda: Good morning. Tony Loffreda, Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith from Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné, Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, Ontario.
[Translation]
The Chair: I also welcome those following our deliberations from across the country.
Senator Plett, I believe you wished to raise an issue. You have the floor.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you for accommodating my request about starting in public for this reason. Item 3, which is the report from the Subcommittee on Human Resources, is not, I believe, dealing with contracts — for example — and it is not dealing with salaries. When I read the report, I don’t see anything there that should prevent us from making sure the public knows what the Senate’s work policy is and, in fact, what all staff’s work policy is. I think that should be public knowledge.
So I have a problem with item 3 of the in camera session being in camera. I believe it should be discussed in public so that the public has an opportunity to watch our proceedings and watch how we conduct our affairs. I have been somewhat critical in the past about some of the increases we had in the amount of money in our budgets. I’ve been critical of some of the increases in the amount of staff. I think, in large part, item 3 speaks to some of these issues.
I’m requesting that item 3, when we get to it, be done in public. That would be a request I have. If that isn’t possible, then I would at least like to make a motion for it to be voted on, that item 3 be done in public. I understand where steering made this decision that, for whatever reason, this be in camera. I hate going against what a group of individuals that we have elected or asked to represent us do, but I have a problem with that, chair. So I’m requesting that that portion be done in public.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett. Before we go any further, rule 12-16(1) in our Rules says that:
. . . a committee may meet in camera only for the purpose of discussing:
(a) wages, salaries and other employee benefits;
(b) contracts and contract negotiations;
(c) labour relations and personnel matters; and
(d) a draft agenda or draft report.
We are discussing this morning labour relations and personnel matters. So I just put that on the floor; that’s why this portion is or should be in camera.
Are there any comments or questions?
Senator Plett: I would like to at least make one comment to what you said. I think the word you used is “may,” not “shall.” And “may” does not tell me that it has to be done in camera, so I still stand by what I said.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I agree with my leader on this. First of all, it says “may,” and second, it’s not a strategic bargaining chip or something that affects a specific individual. We’re talking about broader policies, which are not negotiation strategies that might create a disadvantage if the employees or the union became aware of the substance of the discussion. So it makes sense to me that this should all be public.
The Chair: Thank you. I would like to point out that you are also on the steering committee, Senator Carignan.
Senator Carignan: I know; it was simply out of habit.
The Chair: Senator Saint-Germain, you had requested that this item be placed on the agenda during the in camera session. Do you have any comments?
Senator Saint-Germain: I have no objection to items (a) and (b) being discussed in the public portion of the meeting, and I withdraw item (c) from the agenda.
I have no objection regarding agenda items 3(a) and 3(b), and I withdraw item 3(c), even for the in camera portion.
Senator Forest: I’m just going to ask the chair why we needed to have an in camera meeting, but I think the answer is perfectly clear.
The Chair: Very well. The agreement would be that items (a) and (b), which are staff items on the agenda for the closed portion of the session, would be discussed during the public portion of our proceedings. Is that satisfactory, Senator Plett?
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Chair: Following the clerk’s wise advice, we will review the minutes of our last meeting and move immediately to item 3, which was on the in camera agenda and will now be discussed in public. So this will be the first item we discuss.
Let’s go to the minutes of our March 9, 2023, meeting, which are in your folder. Are there any questions or changes to be made? Senator Plett, I assume you want to move that the minutes be approved?
Senator Plett: Yes.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? I declare the motion carried.
We will now discuss the second item on today’s agenda, which deals with human resources.
[English]
I will invite Toni Francis to join us for this meeting and also Élise Hurtubise-Loranger. Toni Francis is our Chief Human Resources Officer, and Élise Hurtubise-Loranger is senior parliamentary counsel. Good morning.
As usual, the presentation will be followed by a time for questions. I believe, Senator Saint-Germain, that you have a presentation for the group this morning.
Senator Saint-Germain: Good morning. The sixth report of your Human Resources Subcommittee presents for adoption a draft Senate Administration Telework Policy, to be referred to as “the new policy.”
The Senate Administration Policy on Alternative Work Arrangements — known as the AWA policy — currently in place provides for the possibility of telework for Senate Administration employees — Senate Administration and not senators’ staffers — but provides little guidance to managers in their consideration of telework requests.
It was also developed in 2007 at a time when requests for telework at the Senate were uncommon. After nearly three years of employer-mandated telework, the necessary steps must be taken to manage expectations regarding a likely increase in interest in telework arrangements once this public health measure, introduced at the start of the pandemic, is lifted. As we prepare to end employer-mandated telework, a more modern and robust framework with clear criteria will be key in assisting managers and employees as they navigate the changes associated with the upcoming transition.
The Senate Administration has developed a new policy that provides a clear framework to govern Senate Administration telework arrangements for those positions that are suitable for telework — I insist, for those positions that are suitable for telework — and ensures that Senate’s operational requirements are fully met.
The new policy sets out clear criteria that must be considered before a telework arrangement is implemented. As detailed in section 1.4.1 of the policy, the employee’s immediate manager is responsible for considering and approving a telework request in light of these criteria.
First, the manager must consider the position’s suitability for telework. A position’s suitability is to be assessed based solely on its responsibilities and job description. Second, if the position is determined to be suitable for telework, the manager must consider the particulars of the employees making the request for a telework arrangement and the unit for which they work. The manager must base the assessment on the ability of the employees and their work unit to meet their operational requirements, on the arrangement’s potential impact on the employee’s performance and on the work unit’s well-being. And, finally, when a position is eligible for telework, the telework agreement must comply with the terms and requirements of the new policy.
The new policy also includes a recall to Senate premises on telework days provision. Therefore, an employee can be recalled to Senate premises on a telework day so that operational requirements are met or for attendance at in-person meetings, events or training sessions.
Many of the employer’s occupational health and safety obligations under the Canada Labour Code extend to a telework location, and this has also been addressed in the new policy. The safety of sensitive Senate information that could be accessed by third parties at an employee’s telework location is also considered in any telework arrangement.
With respect to expenses, the new policy provides that the employee is responsible for the costs of equipping and maintaining their telework location, including any costs related to utilities, high-speed internet access and furniture.
In terms of implementation and next steps, your subcommittee met with the Senate Administration sector heads and management team members to discuss the implementation of the new policy. All of them were in attendance. The management team was asked to report on maintaining service levels for senators, on employee productivity and engagement in a hybrid work model, and on managing overtime and performance in a telework context. Your subcommittee was satisfied that all topics and issues were adequately addressed at the meeting and that a tailored approach is needed with regard to Senate employees working on-site, since operational requirements vary from one directorate to another.
Requirements may also vary based on the parliamentary calendar. The Senate Administration’s Executive Committee understands and agrees that on-site presence is essential, not only for operational needs but also for other essential purposes such as team cohesion and employee morale, and transmission of the Senate culture to new employees. A condition of employment for employees approved for telework will include the requirement to be on-site, as agreed upon and as required in unforeseen circumstances.
The Executive Committee will strive to strike a balance between telework and on-site presence to best support the Senate and its employees.
Finally, the Executive Committee also committed to keep your subcommittee and CIBA informed about the policy’s implementation by submitting a progress report outlining the number of telework agreements approved and any challenges observed or adjustments required to those agreements, first in the first few months of the new policy’s implementation and at the end of the first year.
I have to add that this is an opportunity to save taxpayers’ money. That is why, after 18 months, we will recommend through a motion that the Finance and Materials Directorate be required to conduct an inquiry and make recommendations on the economies that we can make on the real-estate side.
In light of this, I therefore propose that CIBA:
approve the new Policy and communicate its adoption to Senate Administration employees;
suspend the application of the telework provisions in the existing Senate Administration Policy on Alternative Work Arrangements;
direct the Senate Administration to remove telework from the existing Senate Administration Policy on Alternative Work Arrangements, with the changes to be approved by the Executive Committee;
direct the Senate Administration to make necessary adaptations to the Information Management Policy in the context of telework; and
lift the public health measure mandating telework for Senate employees, effective May 1, 2023, and immediately communicate this decision to senators and Senate employees.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain. We will go to questions now.
Senator Tannas: I would like to thank Senator Saint-Germain for her comments.
I noted that you spoke about productivity in a number of places. I’m just looking at the contract that a worker would sign. Nowhere in there does it acknowledge that they could be subject to productivity analysis through software or whatever. I note this because, first, what we are hearing right now from industry is that there is a clear but only anecdotal drop in productivity. It won’t be long before smart technology companies fill that gap by saying, “We can help you with that. We can give you algorithms and all kinds of things that will study productivity for you and make sure you have productivity when you want it, how you want it, hours of work” — all those things will be on the table.
We don’t have anything in the work contract that acknowledges that and that such is an understanding of the employee. We are in sensitive territory here, and I appreciate we are in public. This is worthy of discussion in public. To me, though, it would not be a good thing to not at least acknowledge that technology is going to move in a direction. Employees need to understand that, down the road, there might be some very sophisticated productivity analytics that they may be subject to, and they should agree to that.
The other question that raises for me is how that intersects with the union and their ability to dictate to us what is acceptable and what is not on behalf of employees.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you so much for your question and for acknowledging that I alluded to the productivity issue.
You know that it has now been close to three years that the majority of the Senate Administration have been teleworking. It was an issue that the managers had the opportunity to oversee. That is why, when your subcommittee met with them, it was a key question that was addressed. We wanted to make sure the measurement of productivity, while in a teleworking context, would be adequately addressed. We know it is an issue for many public as well as private enterprises, so it is a key question.
The criteria the managers and the Executive Committee have presented to us were really, we thought, very compelling.
Madam Chair, I would like to ask Ms. Francis to answer and tell us more about the criteria for the measurement of productivity the managers will have in mind and also address this issue, which is a very good one, of perhaps adapting or improving our work contracts with regard to the requirements for telework.
Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, Human Resources Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you, senator. Good morning.
With respect to the use of technology, that is not something we have in place at this time. If we did move in that direction, we would have a responsibility to tell our employees in advance and advise our unions.
I don’t have it at the top of my mind, but there is typically language around the use of monitoring devices or whatnot, even including just our access passes. There is usually language that prohibits using that for certain things or that goes into the nature of the engagement we need to do with unions to be able to make that kind of change or negotiate the terms under which we would do it.
We would have to get into substantial conversations and definitely give people written notice of any activity where it would happen.
Right now, we have in place performance reviews and the way that work is assessed for individuals. Over the last three years, we are able to see various indicators. If someone is on Teams, the lights are green, yellow and red. You can see when someone is in a meeting. The productivity of employees in such a work environment is really about deadlines for projects, and maintaining and monitoring the delivery of those and the meeting of deadlines established by supervisors.
There are certainly responsibilities, jobs or positions in the work environment that warrant a different type of assessment or oversight by managers. But managers are highly engaged in being able to observe whether employees are meeting expectations. We have provided training opportunities on how to lead in a hybrid or telework environment so that managers have the information and the language for how to navigate and address issues around productivity and performance issues. Human Resources Directorate is supporting active engagement with respect to conversations with them to support employees and managers in addressing any kind of productivity issues.
And I think I answered the union piece.
Senator Tannas: From what I have heard — and correct me if I’m wrong — we are not going to put it into the employee contract, and if we did, as the services for productivity analysis from technology companies or organizations evolves, which it almost certainly will, we will feel the need to first inform the employee. I see in the contract that it says that any changes to the terms have to be mutually agreed upon.
So we will be surrendering, if you will, our ability to implement some of these things without getting the permission of the employee and potentially the union and going into a big rodeo.
Ms. Francis: No, no. I wouldn’t say that. Regarding telework and all of the work arrangements, management rights still exist and still continue to rule the day, if you will. So in terms of the nature of how these things are managed, the management — the employer — gets to say what it needs in its environment to do business and to ensure that its mandate is met and the way that services are to be delivered are structured and informed by what management decides it’s going to do.
Where management has a responsibility is to give employees sufficient notice that they’re making a change to the terms and conditions of their working environment or the ways in which they will monitor or use systems to assess their productivity or work behaviours.
Senator Tannas: So what you’re saying is that we don’t need to say it in the contract, because it’s really not subject to the contract.
Ms. Francis: We need to tell them in advance if we’re going to do it. Right now, we’re not using technology; we have technology, but we’re not using it in that manner. If we were to do that, we would let employees know in advance, and that would be necessary in order for us to be successful if a challenge were to arise. It’s the right thing to do.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tannas. We will move on.
Senator Moodie: I have three quick questions.
The first is to continue the discussion about productivity and thinking about the institution as a whole. Do we have any plan to standardize the way we assess and track productivity in terms of indicators that will be applicable across the system for every manager so that it’s objective and comparable across teams? That’s the first question.
The second question has to do with our legal obligation here. When we think about any policy, do we put into place a complaints process and appeal process for staff who are now going to be in this new environment? Have we done that? Do we plan to do that? Do we have a legal obligation to do that, as the policy will change the terms somewhat or put in place more concretely the terms of agreement?
I’m wondering about the interface legally with the Ontario legislation as it currently sits where there is increasing legislation planned to protect remote workers. How does this interface with that?
The third question I have is around the cost of equipment. I remember previous conversations in this venue where we talked about the equipment that staff was using for telework being part of the Senate’s inventory. How are we going to apply that? What is going to happen to people who have existing equipment at home? What’s the plan for that?
Senator Saint-Germain: You will have noted that Ms. Francis, on productivity criteria, cybersecurity and quality of the information, did not insist on the criteria related to the quality of the work, because they are the same as now, whether you telework or you work in person. So it’s very important to state this.
I think we shall also defer to Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger, a lawyer, to respond to some of the questions that will imply legal advice.
Élise Hurtubise-Loranger, Senior Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: I believe your second question was about the legal implications of the Ontario legislation.
Senator Moodie: And also putting in a new policy in terms of a clearly defined complaints and appeal process.
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: Okay. So in terms of a complaint — in what kind of situation are you thinking? Would they be complaints about policy or the application of —
Senator Moodie: Not infrequently, staff may feel that their manager is not —
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: — interpreting the policy correctly?
Senator Moodie: — not interpreting their activities, so they might want a venue to raise that beyond their manager.
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: That is under the grievance process that is found in the Parliamentary Employment Staff Relations Act. There is a grievance process that employees have access to. Should they want to challenge the decision of their manager, under the policy, they would be able to challenge it under that process.
I think that answers your first question. They do have access to that remedy or recourse.
Senator Moodie: What about appeals?
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: Would that decision go to the board? I would have to review the legislation again, because certain things stop at the third level of grievance. With respect to the terms and conditions of employment, it can go to the board, but I can get back to the committee on that. If it were to go to the board, it’s the FPSLREB, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board, where it would be adjudicated.
With respect to Ontario legislation with remote workers, that legislation would not apply to parliamentary staff, which I think answers the second part of your question.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: And the question on equipment?
Ms. Francis: For employees returning to on-site, the equipment would be returned to the Senate. Any equipment would have to be brought back to the employer.
Senator Moodie: We currently have equipment sitting out there in people’s homes, but there is a conflicting statement on cost here about staff being asked to supply and maintain their own equipment, maintain the infrastructure and Wi-Fi, and so forth.
What is the relationship with what’s there? Is that going to be grandfathered in to keep it and we move on from here? What is the situation?
Ms. Francis: If you request a telework agreement, that is approved by your manager. Depending on how you work, I suppose — our laptops are brought back and forth. If I have a chair at home, I will make a decision as to whether I am bringing the chair back and buy one for my home or if I’m keeping the chair.
Basically, the equipment is that of the employer. As an employee, if I’m requesting a telework arrangement, I’m responsible for setting up my home office. Because it’s an employee-driven request and not something the employer is telling you must do or that is required of you, then you are responsible for setting up your home office.
Certainly, if I have my computer and other things like that, I will bring those back and forth, but any equipment will come back to the employer. That’s the most straightforward way to say it.
Senator Quinn: I want to continue on the performance aspect and the analytics that might or might not be there in the future.
I’m willing to surmise that the annual engagement, which is part of the normal appraisal process, would include performance indicators and requirements, assessments, et cetera. Whether they’re in the office or at home, they will be measured against that which is assigned to them. That’s part of the process today. In the future, there could be analytics, but those would be as much for use in the workplace as for home. I don’t think we’re there yet, but maybe we will be. Normal processes will allow managers to manage. I think we have to allow the managers to do so.
I do have a couple of questions, though, and they go back to the equipment. I think I understand now. If I’m going to be a teleworker, I set up my office, with the exception of the technology I bring back and forth to the workplace. The security would otherwise become a concern, because our systems have a higher degree of security than me just going down to the local place and buying a laptop. I understand that correctly.
Also, as we get into this, I hope we will consider hotelling so that when they come back to the office, they don’t have the same assigned office. We might have people at home on Mondays and Wednesdays; others are on Tuesdays and Fridays. It could bring efficiencies and the management of space, which is an expense. I hope that is something we’re looking at in the future.
Ms. Francis: That’s the future outlook. That’s the report that will come back, as Senator Saint-Germain mentioned.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Quinn, for referring to the annual expectations. It’s so important, and telework won’t change it. Any manager has to give to every employee, every year, an annual evaluation and expectations for the upcoming year. Most probably, for some of them who would be teleworking, some of these expectations will be adapted to the performance while teleworking. I think we also need to take that into consideration.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, senator, and thank you to Ms. Francis and her team because I think this is an essential step in modernizing how we engage employees and how we hire, things of that nature. It makes it a better place to be. I know in the Senate, sometimes, it’s probably hard to change an old institution, but these are things that are happening out in the private sector today. Thank you.
Senator Saint-Germain: Another key consideration is our competitiveness an employer.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for the report. We’ve talked about productivity, but I want to raise another important element, which is to what extent is telework necessary in order to retain and attract our employees? There’s fierce competition with respect to attracting and retaining employees. Did you feel it was necessary? Does our policy here go far enough in attracting employees and in retaining employees?
We’ve all heard of productivity issues, but some will argue that working at home is more productive; some may not, depending who is reporting on it and what their goals are behind it. But I feel that working at home is as productive. We should let the managers manage; I think that’s important, rather than getting too analytical. If you manage activities, you will get activities; if you manage results, you will get results.
My second question is that you did mention employees are responsible for the cost of telework. Is this an acceptable, common practice with respect to corporations or corporate Canada? Is this what everybody is doing, or are we an exception with respect to that?
Third, if we can, is there an estimate or can we identify the percentage of employees that will be eligible for telework? Will that be on a full-time basis or a part-time basis, being three days or — I was reading an article in The Economist that said, in New York, in Manhattan, only 50% of employees are returning to the office. Restaurant sales are down 23%. It was an interesting article. How will that affect the economy? What percentage of our employees will be eligible for that?
Ms. Francis: Absolutely. From a talent acquisition/retention perspective, this makes us much more competitive. We’re actively seeing individuals at the interview tables turning down opportunities because we can’t give a concrete answer, and they’re looking for it.
The Senate is comprised of a generational shift where you’re seeing a generation that wants and is seeking flexibility and will go to employers who can provide it for them. We would be out of the market, if you will. The focus should be on talent and getting the top talent. The top talent right now have options. They actively have great options, and they’re making decisions with flexibility in mind and with options where they can absolutely get the opportunity to also seek time that they carve out differently by being in different locations, telework locations, to develop their professional acumen or their disciplines because they can have uninterrupted time to be able to focus in that way.
We also see that it’s a really progressive way to deal with diversifying our environment. If we look at our focus areas and our strategic priorities, empowering our people is one of them. Focusing on diversity and inclusion, we’ve heard a lot of employees and candidates talk about the fact that the experience of the last three years in a virtual environment gave them the ability to balance the way they introduce themselves to the work environment. The virtual nature of work has allowed them to, for example, use pronouns on the screen. Then I can tell you who I am before I physically meet with you. Then there’s not an awkward time or conversation where people aren’t ready for it. There are opportunities that make us better from a market perspective.
In terms of the number of days, I didn’t bring my number with me, but the percentage of employees — we did look that up and we shared it. I’m going to have to come back to you for that. It is not every employee who would be eligible to make application for telework. Client-facing, front-facing, physical work activity that has to happen on site, those are not eligible for telework. Individuals who can absolutely do some of their work at a telework location and don’t need to be on site for that, we have the technology and infrastructure to support it.
The lessons learned from COVID are things that we can benefit from. This is not a policy that is structured to say that we’re just wanting to shift from COVID to continue as if we’re in COVID — not at all. But I think it would be irresponsible of us not to take the lessons that we learned in COVID and not to leverage them in a new environment.
With the objectives around technological advancement, we had to — rapid-fire — get through and make those things happen. As a result, our colleagues in information technology or ISD, Information Services Directorate, have been able to put infrastructure in place from a technology perspective so that our boardrooms are ready to handle hybrid meetings among our teams; so that employees can leverage Teams, Zoom, what have you, in a way that makes their work efficient. We’re more accessible. I don’t have to find my way and run down the street to get to my next meeting.
I have been late for virtual meetings and I apologized to everybody, but the fact that I can go from one meeting to another makes me more productive and effective.
It is definitely a talent-attraction piece for us. I can tell you, I’m interviewing, and it is an issue at the table.
You had another question?
Senator Loffreda: The cost. Is it a common practice?
Ms. Francis: When employees are making the request, it is typical, but if it’s remote work, that’s different. If you’re telling me that you want me somewhere, then you’ve got to pay to set me up and keep me going. But where it is just an employee-driven request, it’s a privilege to be able to do that. It can come across as a benefit, a low-cost benefit, because if I want to telework and it makes sense for my life, sure. But, no, it’s not abnormal or atypical for employees to have to spend to set themselves up at home.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Francis.
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair, again, for accommodating my request about the public portion and Senator Saint-Germain for supporting that. Thank you very much for your report.
My comments will not be a lot on the report. I read the report or parts of it. You were tasked with a job, and I thank you for that, and I thank my colleague Senator Seidman who is on that committee.
What I will question here is the need for it, not the report itself. You were asked to bring something forward, and you’ve done that.
I’m not of the same ilk as some others around the table who believe that this in any way makes us more efficient. I know I’m going to date myself here with a few of my comments, but there are a few other senators around here who are retiring either before or right around the same time as me, so at least there are a few of us who are of that age.
When I started in the workforce, I was happy when my employer finally said we only needed to work a half a day on Saturday. So we worked five and a half days instead of six days. Then we went to where we didn’t work Saturday. Eventually, other companies started to work 40-hour weeks. Now companies are working 32-hour weeks. We’re always becoming more efficient.
For the life of me, I could do more work in 40 hours than I could in 32. I think anyone who says we’re more efficient working 32 hours rather than 40 hours — I don’t know what they’re looking at.
We cannot be as efficient working from home when we have the disruptions that are there, invariably, at home, especially for many of our employees who are young people; they have children. God love them for wanting to raise their children. I support that entirely, and I support us trying to accommodate that, but let’s at least admit to the fact that it won’t be as efficient.
There is a difference, Senator Loffreda, between the Senate and the public or private sector. The banks base their type of operation on, “What will make us the most money?” Let’s be clear on that — not what makes us the most efficient but what makes us the most money. That may be the same thing in some cases, but in the Senate it is not.
If we reduce our work week and still pay the people the same amount of money, the Senate isn’t generating revenue to offset that. That means we lose money. It’s that simple.
In part of her report, Senator Saint-Germain talked about saving money. I would like to know where this saves money. Senator Saint-Germain, I think you indicated — and certainly in discussions, my colleague Senator Seidman indicated this — that some of this was precipitated by the fact that we haven’t lifted the pandemic work situation. Apparently, this is something the Speaker needs to do. I’m wondering why we wouldn’t have rather pursued having that lifted and whether this report — what we’re doing here today — would have been necessary if that had happened.
I didn’t know that hadn’t been lifted. I thought we had made decisions. We don’t have hybrid meetings. We don’t have a hybrid Senate. I thought all that had been done. I was told a few days ago that, in fact, more needs to be done. If that is why we’re doing this, I’m wondering why we wouldn’t have done that.
That’s one of my questions, Senator Saint-Germain. I’ll list the questions here, if I could — and repeat them if I have to — for the sake of time.
Another question I have — this might be for Ms. Francis, I’m not sure — is about the report. The report clearly indicates that the manager will decide whether somebody can telework. Are all managers required to be here, or can they telework? Clearly, if a manager is doing telework, I suspect that manager will be prone to telework being a great idea. If that manager has to be in the office, maybe he or she would want other staff to be here as well.
On attracting employees, again, when we want to compare ourselves with organizations whose prime goal is to make money — and that is what we’re comparing ourselves with — I don’t think that’s fair. I think we’ve done a good job of attracting good employees. I think we have great employees here. I’ve complained that maybe we have too many, but we have great ones. So somewhere, we’ve done a good job. Somehow, we’ve increased our employees here by 120 — I think that was the number we used here a few weeks ago. Somewhere along the line, we are competitive. So I’m not sure we need to change our form of operating to be competitive. I’d like to know where that comes from.
I certainly part company with anyone who says virtual meetings are as good as face-to-face meetings. They just are not. Yes, you can sit in one spot and do a number of meetings, but they are not as efficient. We found that out as chairs on virtual meetings. It is not as efficiently run as a face-to-face meeting. So let’s at least accept that.
In my opinion, these are not measures that help the efficiency or the money aspects — saving money — for the Senate. These are clearly driven by people wanting to work from home and making the case that they can do as well from home. I’ve had my own staff say to me, “I can write a speech as well from at home as from the office.” Yes, they can, but not when their little three-year-old is tugging at them. They cannot. That is why we leave home, that is why we have daycare systems set up, and that is why we come to work and do a job.
I have to fly here every Monday from Winnipeg to do my job. I know there are those around the table who would say that I could have done it with Zoom if that’s what I had agreed to from the start, but I don’t think that is the right way to do it.
Chair, I’m going to end there because I don’t want to belabour this. Senators Saint-Germain and Seidman and anyone else who is on the committee, I want to say again that I’m not suggesting that this is not a good report. I question the need for it. For that reason, at the end of the day, I will not be able to support this — not because of the report, but because I don’t think it’s necessary.
Senator Saint-Germain, if the Speaker had lifted whatever we have, would this have been necessary?
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Plett, for speaking truth. As always, I don’t take it personally. You know how I like to deal with you, so that’s not an issue at all. I do believe it’s a very good report.
To your first point regarding whether this would have been necessary if the motion regarding hybrid sittings of the Senate and its committees would have been lifted by the Speaker. No. There is no link at all. We’re talking about telework of the administration employees and not the senators’ staffers. Also, telework is not linked to hybrid sittings. It’s totally different. So the motion has no relation with this policy.
Why do I believe it’s a good policy? Because it will be adapted to the modern requirements of an employer. At the same time, we provide in this policy that the managers will have to monitor quality — performance — as well as quantity. We also provide the manager with rights to require any employee to be in person in his or her place of work when so needed, including when we have performance issues. With telework, the manager is totally empowered to call any employee back into the in-person workplace if there is no performance.
I think it’s very important to state this and also that one of the criteria for not only authorizing an employee to be teleworking but also determining when this employee will be authorized to telework is the Senate sittings and its committee sittings. Many employees will have to be there when we are there — when senators are there and when the Senate is sitting. Otherwise, they may be authorized to telework because it will be more efficient.
As for the savings — this is very important, and we want to be very prudent — we don’t say today that we will save $3 million or $4 million. It’s not that. We know there is room for economies related to the office spaces. The maintenance of these spaces also brings a cost. We believe that we’ll have savings in office space requirements and maintenance. This is why I will move a motion later to authorize the Property and Services Directorate to monitor this and make recommendations when the time comes.
Retention and attraction are key. We are in Ottawa. We are on the Hill. The federal government and also private enterprises are key competitors. We have offered jobs that were refused because with some of them, we were not offering full-time telework. So it’s important. We need to be attractive. However, we didn’t say, “Okay, we will offer full-time telework to you because we want you.” We have requirements. The managers will also be evaluated on their performance as managers of teleworking people. We need to update and to adapt. So, yes, it’s an attraction issue — mainly because of the public services that are, for the majority, teleworking — and also a retention issue. Attraction and retention are key issues.
The Chair: Ms. Francis, do you have anything to add?
Ms. Francis: I do. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
One of the things I was thinking about was that like you, Senator Plett, I prefer face to face. I’m a human resources person for a reason. I appreciate the social connection and how it drives the things we need to get done in this life. I agree with you that we have excellent employees here.
Since my arrival, what I’ve noticed is an Executive Committee and a number of employees, leaders, directors and managers who are absolutely focused on the primary thing. As soon as we sat down to talk about telework in the future, it was paramount in their minds. And I think that Shaila, the director of Committees, was someone whom I mentioned; I noted her focus on it. That excellence in service delivery to senators is the starting point.
One of the things that we’ve talked about is that managers will anchor their discussions in the fact that our workplace is unique. We are not the private sector. We are central to Canadian democracy. As requests are considered, the administration will prioritize the promotion of a culture that we’re proud of and which is unique to the Senate.
Our obligation is to carry out Senate business and its responsibilities in the functions that we respectively hold as employees of this organization. Telework will not change that. We have provided and we will be providing, should this be approved, tools for managers to objectively assess whether or not a job is suitable for telework. We have a job flexibility profile. It’s an Excel spreadsheet attached to a document that helps them work through, “Is this job suitable?” Then they look at employee needs.
Human Resources is there to help them make those determinations. When a face-to-face meeting is required or requested, it will happen. Even if my supervisor approves me for two or three days of telework, I will be here more because of the nature of my work. I need to attend committee meetings and meetings with employees. I need to support managers and directors in decision making around human resources issues. That is sometimes, or most of the time, going to be better face to face. Face-to-face social connection helps us establish an understanding of each other.
In that way, once we build the currency of trust that we need, we can move to a virtual environment and have conversations to get things done at a more rapid pace and speed. Before that, if we can have an opportunity — and telework affords that, offers that — to get to know each other, to understand our business, to know where we leave off on things and where our colleagues pick up and why, then we can be more productive in a virtual setting because we have established that rapport.
Employees have to be able to get here, so working within a travel distance that is reasonable for recall is a part of it.
Telework is not an option or replacement for child care or family responsibilities. That is clear in our conversations, in our training. We in HR have provided or created employee guides for telework and manager guides for telework in a question-and-answer format. The guides articulate all of that. You have to make arrangements for child care. Does it make it easier for someone in a sandwich generation — if I have elderly parents, if I have children — that if I can stay at home and get Johnny off the bus at three o’clock, that’s a benefit to me? Sure. But Johnny shouldn’t be tugging at you while you are in a meeting and making decisions. That’s a conversation that we will have to have from a manager to an employee if that’s what’s happening, because it is getting in the way of productivity.
When it comes to how we understand why we are here, I’m here because I love the Senate. I’m here because I understand the responsibility that I have to this organization. I’m going to do that better because I understand the nature of senators’ work, but the demographic we are serving has changed. They are changing. I don’t think it will be unusual to them that we look different and we look more like them. They do their banking differently. They work in different spaces. They leverage technology in all aspects of their lives. If we look like that, then we’re also going to respond to the shift in demographic, to the people who do it more often. And we will be appealing to them as an employer, and it will not surprise them that we’re making changes.
I hope we can maintain the essence of this organization while all we’re doing is leveraging opportunities to do it better and do it differently.
Senator Plett: I did ask if managers will be able to telework. When people come to work, I’m assuming most of them have a start time and a quit time. When they do telework, do you expect them to work whatever the time is, from nine o’clock to four o’clock, or can they basically do the work as they deem necessary? Or are they just given assignments and they get the work done and that is what you review?
Ms. Francis: Managers can telework, yes; they are employees. It has to make sense to their work life and their work responsibilities. We each have people to whom we report, who would be approving such an arrangement. My work hours are the same. A manager’s work hours are the same.
There can be scenarios where an employee has an accommodation. In that sense, there has to be supportive documentation, all of that. If we go through that process and an arrangement needs to be made for a medical or family status obligation or whatever the case might be, under human rights, we have a responsibility to look at those requests, manage them on a case-by-case basis, and do what’s appropriate or relevant and meets our obligations as an employer.
Outside of that, our work hours are work hours. I have to be available when other people whom I’m supporting are here, to be able to respond to their needs. If they are calling me at 6 p.m. and that is not my work hour, then I’m not there, and if they need me and I’m working at 6 p.m., that doesn’t make sense. The hours of business still continue to be the hours of business.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Ms. Francis: You are welcome.
The Chair: Colleagues, we have three more speakers. I ask that you go back to the report and ask questions that have not been asked or answered yet.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: First of all, thank you. I agree with Senator Plett that the Human Resources Directorate has prepared an excellent report for us. However, I disagree with him as to what comes next, but the report is really very good.
We have a responsibility as managers and administrators, particularly at the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, to make decisions that allow the institution to adapt to current realities through modernization, much as Senator Quinn said. We must at the same time be mindful of productivity and competitiveness in the 2023 labour market, in order to attract the best. I think all of the above should be the goal.
For my part, I am quite reassured by section 1.4.1.2, which provides a very specific framework for a position’s eligibility. I am also reassured to see that there are criteria that the manager must follow because of section 1.4.1.3. The manager is given a very specific framework for handling the situation. It’s not based on a personal preference over telework or not; there are specific criteria.
My main concern is that right now, we are relying on perceptions. This policy is not in place. We may have the perception that telework is more or less productive, because that telework policy is still not operational.
My question is, will there be an evaluation of the policy so that we can have a reality check that will allow us to measure efficiency and performance? Will there be efficiencies from an organizational standpoint?
The question that greatly concerns me, although I am very much in favour of implementing this telework policy, is the assessment that will allow us, over a specific time period — we were talking about 18 months — to sit back down and evaluate the results of the adopted policy in order to modernize our institution, to make it more productive and more attractive in an extremely competitive market. My question concerns the assessment. I am reassured in terms of the framework for eligibility criteria and application management.
The Chair: Senator Saint-Germain, would you like to answer the question?
Senator Saint-Germain: Your question is clear, so I will give you a specific answer. Managers must provide quarterly reports on the progress of the implementation of the policy. If there is an issue, managers must inform the Executive Committee. The Human Resources Subcommittee will be updated quarterly by the Senior Director of Human Resources. There will be an annual report to your subcommittee as well as to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, and there will be a review of the policy for possible amendment in accordance with section 4.2, “at least every three years from the date of its implementation.”
The Chair: Does that answer your question, Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: It certainly does, thank you.
[English]
Senator Dean: This is a big decision for us. We’ve had the sort of rigorous discussion about this that I think it deserved. Senators Seidman, Saint-Germain and others in our subcommittee discussions brought up some of these issues. Most of them were previously discussed. They are very important questions.
Essentially, as some have said already, this is about balancing the needs of the employer, a competitive labour market and keeping a close eye on how this unfolds in terms of managing performance. On that point, if we are not managing performance well when people are physically working there, we can’t expect to manage it well when people are remote. Those things go hand in hand.
I’m happy that we will be monitoring as we go forward. I’ll only add that we have been reminded again today how fortunate we are to have Toni Francis as our head of Human Resources.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dean.
Ms. Francis: To Senator Forest’s point about measurements, we also track key performance indicators. I’m big on narratives, so I think the whole story is about everything that we can capture from a human resources perspective to share with the committee over time, because we have noticed fewer sick days. Will our attrition levels change? It’s all of those things.
While we will keep our eye on how many arrangements we approve and how performance is being assessed; is it being assessed effectively? Do managers have a reasonable time with respect to navigating the challenges that might come up? Are they seeing successes? Employee satisfaction and engagement will hopefully go up. We will also want to know what other indicators are that we are seeing from an HR perspective that might inform how successful we are. So I wanted to add that we will bring it to the subcommittee with our key performance indicators.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Francis.
Senator Bovey: I will be quick as a member of the committee. Senator Plett, I’m going to disagree with you on the age thing. I think I’m going to be the senator who is retiring or aging out next.
I do not think this is an age decision; I think this is a decision of balance so we can best reflect the needs of Canadians. We are here to serve Canadians. We have to move with the times and understand the challenges we face. This policy or concept certainly does that. We need to balance the needs of the organization so we can continue to attract and retain the best employees that Canada has to offer while respecting our diversity goals and other various goals that we have determined.
I wanted to say that age doesn’t mean that we vote one way or another; age lets us look at the issues appropriately.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Bovey.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question has already been answered through the replies to Senator Forest and Senator Dean’s questions. Well done, Ms. Francis.
[English]
The Chair: Excellent.
Seeing no further questions, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Saint-Germain:
That the sixth report from the Subcommittee on Human Resources be adopted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators —
Senator Plett: Before we vote, chair, I am not going to vote against this report, because I do not disagree with the report. I do, however, disagree with the need for it. I will not ask for a recorded vote, but I do want to say it will pass on division. My reason for that is because I do not agree that we need it and not because it isn’t a good report. So I request that it be “on division.”
The Chair: Thank you. We all heard Senator Plett’s comment. Are we all agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed, on division.
Can we postpone item B?
Senator Saint-Germain: It is up to you. This motion will be relevant. We will be back later.
The Chair: What I would like to do for the efficiency of this meeting is to finish some of the items that need to be finished. If we have time at the end, Senator Saint-Germain, I will come back to your section. Thank you for being accommodating.
Colleagues, we go to item 7, which is the report from the Advisory Working Group on Environment and Sustainability. Senator Colin Deacon will be presenting. He will be presenting the public portion. We will go in camera when we discuss money items and the group that is being suggested to us.
Senator Deacon, the floor is yours. I think Alison Korn will be helping you out, if need be.
Senator C. Deacon: Good morning, colleagues. I am pleased to be here today to present our working group’s report, which you have in your package.
This report has been a collective effort on the part of a lot of senators and staff for two years. A lot of effort has gone into what I will call our net-zero 2030 project.
As background, in May 2021, CIBA authorized the creation of a working group to, among other things, update the Senate’s 1993 environmental policy. In October of that year, the working group tabled its report to CIBA, which was unanimously adopted in March 2022 by the Senate. The foundational element of that report is the Senate’s new Environmental and Sustainability Policy Statement, committing our organization to become carbon neutral by 2030.
In April 2022, CIBA authorized a new working group to secure, through a competitive RFP process, the external expertise necessary to benchmark the Senate’s carbon footprint and develop a plan for the Senate to fulfill its net-zero 2030 commitment.
This report before you recommends that CIBA approve the proposal of the highest bidder. I will leave the details about who that highest bidder is and the price of the contract until we are in camera.
Moving forward to the plan itself, what you are going to see come from this proposal is a benchmarking of our carbon footprint. That is phase 1. Second is the development of a plan for the Senate to get on the path to become carbon neutral. Then all decisions for implementing that plan will come back to CIBA.
This is about us understanding what our carbon footprint is, understanding how we achieve the objectives we have committed to and then it is a matter of making those decisions at CIBA and tracking and sustaining progress to net zero.
The Chair: Before you go further, I would like to make it clear that the report will be tabled in camera, so you are providing a summary.
Senator C. Deacon: That’s correct. Thank you very much, chair, for that very important clarification.
The decisions to be made as to how the Senate moves forward with the plan that will be developed around our own activities and our own carbon footprint will be made here at CIBA. What we are asking for today is approval of the proposal that was ranked as the highest through a very extensive procurement process that evaluated 10 different proposals. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Deacon. Are there any questions?
Senator Quinn: Just a clarification. During your presentation, I think you said “highest bidder.” I think you meant “highest quality.”
Senator C. Deacon: “Highest qualifying bid.” We took into consideration the lowest price.
Senator Plett: That was my exact question. I think the terminology should go further and say “highest rank” not “highest qualifier.” Nevertheless, that was my question.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Senators Quinn and Plett.
The Chair: I’m glad you are listening.
Senator Saint-Germain: While we are in public, I want to recognize the expertise and hard work that Senator Deacon is doing for us in this committee, given his unique expertise. I want to thank him very much.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain and colleagues. I can assure you that, without the Senate Administration and without the hard work of a lot of Senate colleagues including around this table — we have Senator Carignan, Senator Osler, and clearly the support of Alison Korn and my team, my office staff — none of this would have happened. It’s a broad team from across the Senate, Senator Saint-Germain, so thank you very much.
Senator Moodie: I just want to echo Senator Saint-Germain’s words. Without your efforts, this would not have happened. I want to recognize that.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Deacon. We will hear from you in a few minutes when we go in camera. So thank you very much.
[Translation]
We’ll move on to item 8, which is Knowledgeable Client Funding. I would ask Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, to deliver her comments. Following that, if there are any questions or comments, we can address them to Ms. Labelle.
Thank you very much, Ms. Labelle, for your availability. You have the floor.
[English]
Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Director General’s Office, Senate of Canada: Thank you, chair.
Honourable senators, as per the requirements of the Senate Procurement Policy, the PSD, Property and Services Directorate, will be seeking approval from CIBA to enter sole-source contracts with PSPC and, in accordance with the delegation of financial authorities, we would also like to enter into an expense initiation for the provision of base-building maintenance, equipment rental fees, and standard accommodation construction projects for the 2023-24 fiscal year, for which aggregate costs are estimated at $176,900.
As you may know, PSPC is the designated custodian of the Parliamentary Precinct and is the only entity authorized to manage the buildings of the Parliamentary Precinct. PSPC is responsible for the basic building elements, such as electrical, mechanical; however, in the case of the costs that are subject of the approval today, we are talking about regular maintenance for elements that are considered beyond the basic building and that are in place specifically at the request of clients, such as ice machines, cafeteria hoods or special ventilation for IT closets, as examples.
In addition to these more specialized services, there are also funds required for special projects such as portrait installations and construction projects or minor renovations throughout our portfolio.
Over the last five fiscal years, the PSD has spent approximately $650,000 with PSPC. The 2023-24 contract estimation includes roughly $23,000 planned for projects such as construction and renovation within our portfolio; a forecast of $25,000 for other projects that might be identified throughout the year; $92,000 for building and equipment maintenance fees and the rental of equipment for Senate operations; and roughly $37,000 for the resumption of food services and equipment maintenance to assume pre-pandemic service levels.
PSD is seeking approval to proceed with the expense initiation and to continue proceeding with the sole-source contracts with PSPC for the provision of building maintenance, equipment rental fees, and standard accommodation construction projects for this upcoming fiscal year.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have, senators.
The Chair: Thank you, Josée. Since we’ve been extremely flexible this morning with our agenda, Josée was speaking to item 9, instead of item 8, if you refer to your report. Are there any questions on item 9, colleagues?
Hearing none, could I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Senate Administration be authorized to proceed with the Expense Initiation and continues proceeding with sole-source contracts with Public Services & Procurement Canada (PSPC) for the provision of base-building maintenance, equipment rental fees, and standard accommodation construction projects for the 2023-24 fiscal year, whose aggregate costs are estimated at $176,900.
Senator Quinn, you are moving this motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Motion is passed.
[Translation]
We will now move on to the next item, which is the memorandum of understanding between the Senate and other Public Services and Procurement Canada parliamentary partners for funding of the Long Term Vision Plan.
[English]
Ms. Labelle: Honourable senators, the Senate, the parliamentary partners and Public Services and Procurement Canada have signed a memorandum of understanding, an MOU, to provide funding for specialized support for what we call non-core resources, working specifically on the Long Term Vision Plan, LTVP, project, as approved by CIBA last November.
Under the updated knowledgeable client funding MOU, parliamentary partners may submit annual forecasts outlining the estimated work for non-core resources that contribute on a yearly basis to those LTVP projects.
The first forecast under that revised MOU for fiscal year 2022-23 amounted to $2.8 million and represented the efforts of 25.5 FTEs. CIBA approved this forecast on February 2, 2023. The delays were due to the delays of the signing of that MOU.
I am now pleased to present the knowledgeable client funding forecast for this fiscal year 2023-24 for the Property and Services, Corporate Security, Information Services and Communications Directorates.
Based on the LTVP program of work, provided to us by PSPC for critical activities that are planned for the upcoming fiscal year of 2023-24 and in consultation with each PSPC project lead, we anticipate that 30.9 FTEs will work on LTVP projects at the Senate, and we will recover roughly $3.5 million in salary expenses from PSPC.
This is an increase of 5.4 FTEs and about $700,000 compared to fiscal year 2022-23. The increases are due to enhanced communications support, added security support, as well as occupancy, logistics and accommodations resources approved by CIBA during the Main Estimates that were provided for 2023-24 on December 15, 2022.
This forecast also reflects the additional work required for the new projects such as the material handling facility; South Block which we formerly referred to as Block 2; and the 40 Elgin project, all scheduled with work planned for 2023-24.
PSPC project directors have reviewed and endorsed these forecasts, which empowered us to submit that estimate to PSPC. Essentially, we’re following the process that’s under the MOU.
We recommend that CIBA approve the 2023-24 KCF forecasts, estimated at $3.5 million.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Josée. Are there any questions or comments, colleagues?
[Translation]
I would ask that a senator move the following:
That the Knowledgeable Client Funding forecast of $3.5 million for fiscal year 2023-24 be approved.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
I declare the motion carried.
[English]
We are now going to other matters. We have two items; senators may have others.
The first item is pursuant to the decision of the Senate on March 28, 2023. CIBA has been delegated the authority to allow non-CIBA members to be members of the CIBA subcommittee and working group. We currently have a process in place that allows whips to change membership of the subcommittees. That process will remain, and the whips will continue to have the ability to substitute a subcommittee member with another senator of their group or caucus who is not a member of CIBA as long as the senator is not a member of the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight.
Are there any questions or comments on this item, colleagues? If not, thank you.
The next item is related to the departure of Senator Tannas as a member of CIBA, and the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure has a vacancy. I understand that Senator Quinn would like to move a motion to fill the position.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would be pleased to move:
That the Honourable Senator Smith be elected as deputy chair of the committee.
The Chair: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Quinn:
That the Honourable Senator Smith be elected as the deputy chair of this committee.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Are there any other items that members would like to discuss this morning before we go in camera?
Very well. I once again want to thank everyone for being so flexible this morning and for being so understanding. We will now be going in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
[Translation]
The Chair: We have resumed our public meeting.
[English]
The next item is a report from the Advisory Working Group on Environment and Sustainability. For disclosure purposes, colleagues, the report followed a competitive process and offered a recommendation for approval of a contract to secure external expertise for the Senate of Canada net zero 2030 project.
This report was debated earlier, and it was again debated in camera this morning. The committee approved the working group recommendation to award the contract to the successful bidder, Lemay and Groupe AGÉCO, in the amount of $84,060. This decision is being disclosed publicly for transparency purposes.
We will now go to item 3b, which we had taken out of the in camera portion, bringing it back to the public portion.
[Translation]
The agenda calls for a report from the Subcommittee on Human Resources regarding updating the Senate Administration Policy on Casual Work. Toni Francis will assist with this item, as well as Monique Daigle, who is the Director of Operations in the Human Resources Directorate. As usual, this presentation will be followed by a question and answer period.
Senator Saint-Germain: This is the seventh report from the members of your subcommittee. It is a unanimous report: Senators Seidman, Dean, Quinn and Bovey are also members of the subcommittee. We are proposing a revised version of the Senate Administration Policy on Casual Work.
This revision was done as part of the Senate’s policy suite update and renewal project. The policy I am referring to was from April 2011.
As a reminder, casual workers are not considered employees under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. Therefore, neither our Guide of Terms and Conditions of Employment of Unrepresented Employees nor any collective agreements apply to them.
The policy establishes a framework for determining when it is appropriate to hire casual workers, as well as a talent acquisition process for hiring managers. In addition, the policy outlines the roles and responsibilities of those involved in its implementation.
Only minor and consistency corrections were made to this revised policy. Among other things, there was an issue of updating definitions and removing terms that no longer appear in the policy. We made the document clearer and revised the title. We also ensured that the policy was consistent with all the most recent legislative changes.
Therefore, I move that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration adopt the revised Senate Administration Policy on Casual Work, effective immediately, and make it public.
[English]
The Chair: Any questions or comments, colleagues? Hearing none, you have heard the motion being brought forward by Senator Saint-Germain.
[Translation]
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Senator Saint-Germain: Do you think I should now move the motion that is consequential to the adoption of the telework report?
The Chair: Go ahead.
[English]
Senator Saint-Germain: I move:
That the Property and Services Directorate be directed to conduct an analysis in order to make recommendations in relation to the telework policy for the Senate Administration insofar as it relates to office space requirements;
That the analysis focus on providing an estimate of the office space that the Senate Administration may be able to release as a result of the coming into force of the telework policy from the total square footage of office space currently being utilized, including the potential impact of a move toward increasing unassigned workplaces totalling an operational requirement the economic value of this office space being released and a timeline for the release of this office space;
That the Administration provides the results of their analysis and preliminary findings to CIBA by December 21, 2023, in order to seek further guidance from the committee; and
That the Administration provide a new fit-up standard for the Senate Administration as a result of telework within one year of the implementation of the policy.
[Translation]
The Chair: This is a new motion. I believe it is being put forward in an effort to find efficiencies in the use of office space that is not occupied by staff, and find solutions to make even more efficient use of Senate space.
Are there any questions or comments on Senator Saint-Germain’s motion? Seeing none, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion presented by Senator Saint-Germain?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
[English]
Is there anything else, colleagues? If not, I want to thank you for being understandable and flexible this morning. I want to thank the staff who are here with us, the camera folks, the people who work on the transcripts and everyone who has been here this morning. You have been valuable to the good work and functioning of this meeting.
Thank you so much.
(The committee adjourned.)