THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 20, 2023
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met with videoconference this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for consideration of financial and administrative matters; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Lucie Moncion and I am a senator from Ontario. I have the privilege of chairing the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. I will now go around the table and ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boyer: Senator Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie, Quebec.
Senator Loffreda: Tony Loffreda, Quebec. Hello.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Claude Carignan, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dean: Tony Dean from Ontario.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would also like to welcome those following our deliberations from across the country. Honourable senators, the first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from March 30, 2023, which are in your folder. Are there any questions or changes to be made to the minutes? If not, I need someone to move the following motion:
That the minutes of March 30, 2023, be adopted.
Senator Tony Dean moved the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? I declare the motion carried.
[English]
Colleagues, the next item is a report from the Advisory Working Group on Artwork and Heritage Assets. It is my understanding that Senator Bovey will make opening remarks and that Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate and Tamara Dolan, Curator, Heritage and Curatorial Services, Property and Services Directorate will assist in answering questions.
Senators, before I open it to questions and before your presentation, I wish to remind you that we are discussing this report in public. As such, please do not refer to dollar amounts, nor the selection criteria, as this could influence the bidding process. Also, please refrain from sharing your personal opinion on potential suppliers. Senator Bovey, the floor is yours.
Senator Bovey: Thank you, Madam Chair. There are some numbers in my report, but they are those that are already approved with some requests. If you wish me to hold anything back for an in camera session, let me know.
The Chair: Agreed. The information that is already known and approved — because I think there are pre-approved amounts in your report — can be discussed and the others can be in camera.
Senator Bovey: Colleagues, our committee has been very busy. It is the committee that responsible for many items of public trust in this collection, and thereby significant assets held by the Senate.
Since our last report, the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group met on February 13 and March 22. We had a meeting yesterday, and that will be reported later on.
I was in the chair. Senator Moodie and Senator Ataullahjan were present for both meetings. Unfortunately, following the retirement of Senator White, there were several meetings for which the Canadian Senators Group did not have a member. I’m delighted to say that Senator Burey has been confirmed as a committee member. Senator Cardozo attended both meetings as an observer.
As you know, the amount of $118,000 for the 2023-24 fiscal year was approved for restoration and repairs, some purchases and tableware and de-accessioning. We are endorsing this forecast. The forecasted activities will not have an impact on funding requirements for the Senate because these are already included in the Heritage and Curatorial Services budget.
For restoration repairs, the selection of artwork and furniture for restoration and repair are based on their condition, current requirements for use and anticipated future use. You have a list of all of those. This includes a treating of a portrait of King George V. While Centre Block is closed, our committee has endorsed sending one royal portrait a year for conservation treatment with the objective of having all large paintings conserved when the Senate returns to Centre Block.
In 2022, the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group sought the input of fine art conservators at the Canadian Conservation Institute, or CCI, for royal portrait selection of conservation for the 2022-23 fiscal year. CCI’s review noted the risk of further deterioration of the works of art remaining in storage being low, but all royal portraits need to be conserved before they are installed again. They will not deteriorate further in storage, but they do need conservation before they go back out in public.
As a personal attendant and messenger to the King and Governor General in Parliament, the Usher of the Black Rod’s uniform includes a sword with the reigning monarch’s cipher. Following the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group is seeking endorsement to purchase a new sword with King Charles III’s royal cipher that will be used by the Usher of the Black Rod and included in the Artwork and Heritage Collection.
As far as disposal is concerned, the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group is currently reviewing tableware formerly used by Speakers of the Senate. This was brought up some time ago by Senator Tannas. This was very much on our mind as we redid the policy, and a budget of $5,000 has been allocated to assisting smaller museums that may be interested in accepting tableware from the Senate where their Speakers came from so they can have the works in their regions, but those who do not have budgets to cover the shipping. If funds are not required, those funds will be reallocated to other projects.
The recommendation is based on forecasted budget, and actual costs, of course, may vary. Any significant changes to the forecasted budget will be reported to us from the Senate Administration.
We have had a standing recommendation and are seeking approval from CIBA to proceed with a competitive procurement process for artwork conservation services valued over $125,000.
Our Senate Artwork and Heritage Collection does include many fine works of art. As the custodians of these objects, the Senate has a responsibility to the Canadian public to protect and conserve these unique pieces of Canadian heritage. The Senate’s current artwork conservation standing offer is set to expire in August 2024. However, funds are expected to be used by March 31, 2024.
The new standing offer will be used to address the Senate’s routine artwork conservation requirement, selecting paintings based on historical importance and condition. This regular conservation schedule will not have an impact on funding requirements for the Senate because these costs are already included in the HCS budget.
However, the cost of transportation in Canada has increased significantly in the last 18 months. The Artwork and Heritage Working Group works to support Canadian artists and to increase the visual representation of Canadians within the Senate through artwork and, in many cases, at the request of other Senate committees. While the cost of transportation has increased, these programs remain critical for supporting the arts in Canada and increasing the diversity of artwork in the Senate. We, therefore, are requesting allocating an additional $30,000 to the Senate’s Heritage and Curatorial Services budget to accommodate the increased cost of artwork transportation.
We have some programs, and as you know, Honouring Canada’s Black Artists is one of them. For the 2023 display, artists from Quebec and Nova Scotia will be invited to display their artwork. We’ve determined who, but we have not extended invitations to either region to participate in this program yet. We will when we know about transportation budgets. It is the same for Visual Voices. The Senate Human Rights Committee has asked us for our next Visual Voices to focus on Islamophobia. Again, we have decided on the artists we would like to include, but we have not been in touch with them until we can confirm our transportation budget.
For Museums at the Senate, we’re soliciting applications by posting on museum association websites. In other words, we are partnering with the Canadian Museums Association and regional museum associations across the country. A call will be posted for museums to apply to have some of their works in our building, as we did with the Inuit collection from the Winnipeg Art Gallery a year ago. Again, we’re waiting to see what transportation will cost.
It is likewise with Cultivating Perspectives. This has been a very successful project in which we have had professional curators from across this country from all disciplines write about works in the Senate collection. We will be posting a call with the Canadian Museums Association who have again agreed to partner with us to solicit applications for people to write on this project. An open call will be posted soon to invite curators and other museum professionals to write essays about our artwork and artifacts and those, again, will be put on our website.
As far as what we have been doing, I would like to report to you that Roberta Bondar — artist, astronaut and medical professional — offered to donate to the Senate her work, Endangered Shadows, 2018, to us. It was in our Visual Voices. The image of it is in your package. It is my hope that you will endorse that donation and we can thank her for her generosity.
To commemorate Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee, the Speaker of the Senate approved a design for a carving for Canadian Platinum Jubilee emblem, which will be in Centre Block when it opens. The final carving will be done in stone and integrated into Centre Block’s design. The maquette of the design was transferred to the Senate and acquisitioned into the Senate’s Artwork and Heritage Collection by our working group.
As far as tableware is concerned, in June 2021, CIBA approved a policy and updated requirement for collecting official tableware. The agreement in our policy was that the Senate will retain two sets of official tableware of the Speaker of the Senate once it is no longer in use. Rather than the whole set, just two sets. The retained sets of tableware will be added to the Senate’s Artwork and Heritage Collection and categorized as heritage assets.
In September 2022, the Artwork and Heritage Working Group approved deaccessioning 755 pieces of tableware from the Senate’s Artwork and Heritage Collection. Since that date, we have contacted museums, galleries and educational institutions across Canada with a connection to the deaccessioned pieces. In March 2023, we approved transferring pieces to select institutions. The priority was placed on transferring the tableware to museums and galleries. The balance of the tableware will be retained by the Senate and used for operational purposes or offered to post-secondary institutions with museum studies, conservation or collections management programs. Based on lessons learned from the first round, a review of the strategy has been developed to review the balance of the tableware. The Artwork and Heritage Working Group will continue to review the balance to have the tableware and inform CIBA on its progress. You have pieces that we’ve already done in your annex.
I want to take a minute to talk about artwork forgery, as this has come up in our discussions. In 2004, the Senate of Canada had artwork on loan in Centre Block purported to be by an Indigenous artist. In 2021, the Thunder Bay Police Service contacted the Senate to discuss the painting because it was identified as a forgery. The lending institution was notified and continued to work with the authorities. The practice of illegally copying artwork negatively impacts artists in many ways, including reducing the intellectual property right for artists and reducing an important source of revenue for them. We have to make sure that our works are right and held to the highest standard.
For the 2022-23 forecast for purchase, disposal, repair and restoration, it was completed as approved by CIBA on May 19, 2022. It was completed by March 31, 2023. The forecast included $9,900 in contingency or emergency restoration and repairs. A total of $5,662.49 was used in the fiscal year. Additionally, as part of Public Services and Procurement Canada’s scope of work for the Centre Block rehabilitation program, PSPC is responsible for conserving all stained glass windows in the building. The Diamond Jubilee stained glass window was part of the Senate’s Artwork and Heritage Collection and is undergoing conservation treatment funded by PSPC as part of the ongoing rehabilitation of Canada’s Parliament.
As I mentioned earlier, I would like to thank Senator White for the tremendous service he gave to our committee. He retired and has been much missed. I’m delighted that the vacancy has been filled by Senator Burey.
For motions and a conclusion of this report, we would like approval for the forecasted budget for restoration, repair, purchase and disposal for the 2023-24 fiscal year being $118,000; that is the Senate seek a multi-year contract for artwork conservation services through a competitive process moving forward; and that the Senate’s Heritage and Cultural Services annual budget be increased by $30,000 to support the increased cost of artwork transportation during the 2023‑24 fiscal year.
For endorsement, colleagues, I would request that the Senate of Canada acquire Endangered Shadows by Roberta Bondar and the maquette of the Canadian Platinum Jubilee carving for Centre Block by Jean-Philippe Smith, Dominion Sculptor; that the Senate deaccession the 755 pieces of tableware from the Artwork and Heritage Collection; and that the Senate partner with the Canadian Museums Association to seek participants for Cultivating Perspectives and Museums at the Senate. Thank you.
The Chair: I want to thank you, Senator Bovey, for all the work you have done with the working group. It has been exceptional. Thank you for this extensive report.
Colleagues, are there any questions or comments that you would like to make on the report or questions you would like to ask our witnesses? Hearing and seeing none, thank you, Senator Bovey, Josée Labelle and Tamara Dolan. As indicated earlier, we will consider the adoption of the reports once we are in camera.
The next item is a report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets concerning committee budgets. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, will now join us as a witness. As usual, this presentation will be followed by time for questions. It is my understanding that Senator Loffreda will make opening remarks and that Mr. Lanctôt will assist in answering questions.
Senator Loffreda, you may begin your presentation.
Senator Loffreda: Senators, good morning. I have the honour to table the thirteenth report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets on the financial highlights for the second and third quarters for the fiscal year 2022-23. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any questions on the report? Any questions for Mr. Lanctôt? The information was distributed to all of you. If you have questions on numbers or — hearing and seeing none, I presume that you will be moving, Senator Loffreda, that the report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be adopted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. I think we have a second report that is on committee travel from Senator Loffreda.
Senator Loffreda: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the fourteenth report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, which includes recommended allocations for two committee budgets. Before reviewing each budget request, I wanted to provide some context.
For the current 2023-24 fiscal year, the total funds available for committee expenses will again be $2.2 million, less $320,000 for witness expenses, leaving $1.882 million for release for individual committee budgets.
This is the second allocation for committee budgets for the current fiscal year. You may recall that CIBA has already approved two travel activities, to AGFO and POFO, with a total release of $153,153. The subcommittee met on this past Tuesday, April 18, to review two budget requests. The subcommittee met with the chair of the Indigenous Peoples Committee, who presented a budget that contains a proposed expenditure of $8,850 for general expenses. That is in relation to their study on the constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities for First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The budget includes funds for hospitality in the amount of $5,350, for honorariums and related expenses for elders in the amount of $1,950, and $1,050 to hire a communications consultant to assist with the transcription of participants using another language.
Your subcommittee reviewed the request, and after careful consideration, recommends the release of funds for general expenses in the amount of $8,850.
Your subcommittee also met with the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who presented a budget application that contains proposed expenditures of $244,524 for one international travel activity — activity 1A, to London, U.K.; activity 1B, to Oslo, Norway; and activity 1C, to Berlin, Germany. It is to conduct fact-finding in relation to their study on the Canadian foreign service and includes funds for seven senators and one senator’s staff to travel.
Your subcommittee notes that the committee had submitted a similar budget this past February that contained funds for all 12 members to travel. At the time, members felt that the economic situation required a more prudent approach for the use of public funds and encouraged the committee to consider reducing their delegation and looking at other measures to cut costs.
Your subcommittee was therefore pleased to receive the revised request, which reduced the delegation to seven senators and one senator’s staff, and cut some of the costs related to interpretation. Based on the information provided, the subcommittee therefore recommends the release of funds for activities 1A, 1B and 1C in the amount of $244,524.
Today’s recommended release of $253,374 brings us to a total for the current fiscal year of $289,594 for two committee travel activities, one general expenses budget and one approval budget of $116,933 that has not yet been presented to the Senate, leaving $1,475,473 for the remainder of the fiscal year.
We note that at least four more budgets are expected before the Senate rises for the summer. Unless there are further questions, colleagues, I recommend the adoption of this report.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Loffreda. Are there questions or comments for Senator Loffreda? Seeing none and hearing none, are all in favour of the adoption of the report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Carried.
[Translation]
We will now move on to item 4 on the agenda, the review of the Information Management Policy, further to its implementation a year ago. David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, is with us this morning. He will provide a brief summary of the recommended changes to the policy. We will then have a question period.
Welcome, Mr. Vatcher. Please go ahead.
David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Hello, everyone.
As the chair stated, the Information Management Policy came into effect a year ago. As agreed, we wish to review it to ensure that it remains in effect and is up to date.
The policy, which applies to the information of the Senate Administration only, is being updated for two clear reasons.
First, we will update the policy to ensure that it includes the administration’s remote information. This is timely since the telework policy was recently adopted and since the Information Management Policy was drafted before the pandemic.
Over the past three years, the ISD has sent emails and published guidelines regarding the secure, remote use of our information. A number of these concepts have been incorporated into the policy. Secondly, the policy is being reviewed to more clearly define Senate information that is deemed “restricted.”
We provide further details on how that information is handled and stored, including both written and electronic information. These changes are primarily in annex B, with excellent visual representation. The changes to the policy document you were provided are highlighted in yellow.
I would point out that nothing has been removed from the policy. Rather, we will be adding details for the two reasons I mentioned.
Finally, a communications plan will be prepared to inform those who have already completed their training of the changes relating to information management. They will not have to repeat the training. The training will nonetheless be updated and amended in keeping with changes made to the policy.
That is what I wanted to tell you this morning. Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vatcher. Are there any questions or comments for Mr. Vatcher?
Actually, I have a question for you. Have there been any incidents where you have had to use the policy? How do you control the flow of documentation?
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for the question.
The policy provides guidelines and we follow up with the various Senate Administration directorates to ensure that they are in compliance with the policy. We follow up with the various directorates for that reason.
The Chair: Have there been any incidents?
Mr. Vatcher: There have not been any serious incidents. Our follow-ups over the past year show very good compliance.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Moodie: One of the important factors of success with any security measure around IT is people’s willingness to report and acknowledge incidents to — step up to the plate and talk about them with their bosses, the IT department and the security people. How would you assess us as an organization? Are our staff and are we, as senators, in the broader group willing to come forward if there are incidents? Is there work to be done there on changing our approach so that your work is easier?
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for your question, senator. Actually, we’ve gotten very good cooperation from both the administration and senators’ offices because of the attitude we’ve taken with everybody at the Senate, which is that we’re here to make sure that you have success and that you cannot be easily thwarted in your efforts to accomplish your work.
We have a lot of communication with senators’ offices, and people are proactive in their disclosure of potential IT incidents. We also have tools like the phishing button you see in Outlook, which facilitates people submitting “fishy” emails, if I may say.
We have good tools and we follow up on all instances of security threats, and we have very good collaboration from all senators’ offices and the administration.
Senator Moodie: In thinking about remote work, there is obviously a bit of a conflict here. If I’m working at home, I want to work; I want to stay in that situation. If I report an incident, I might have that permission to stay as a remote worker threatened.
How are you going to deal with encouraging the same approach, which is that reporting is essential? Because there’s a conflict or tension between telling truth and threatening a potential remote work situation and ensuring that I report.
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for your question. Actually, in many instances, we find out through other ways in our tools that there is a potential compromise. It happens regularly that we reach out to either members of the administration, senators’ offices or senators themselves who are the biggest targets of cyberthreats. We reach out to them in a pre-emptive manner once things are signalled to us. I believe that everybody at the Senate understands that it’s in their best interest to keep their senator or their directorate afloat and free of threats or issues.
People understand that should they choose not to divulge a problem or a threat, it’s going to hurt them in the long run, so coming clean is the best way forward for everybody.
Once again, the attitude we’ve developed with everybody at the Senate is not a punitive approach; it’s a helpful, supportive approach. We want to assist people in having success in their everyday work. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I would like to say something about medical information. We were given a clicSÉQUR key to access our Dossier santé Québec, DSQ, or Quebec health file. When we moved to our different work locations for home care, we brought that key and our computer and could access our records with our own security code. If anyone took our key, they could not access our records unless they had stolen our code.
Would that be something to consider?
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for your question, senator.
This is how we deal with that risk at the Senate: Employees and senators do, of course, have their private account and password. In addition, any access attempt on a new computer requires multi-factor authentification, so the person receives a code on their Senate cell phone which they need to access the account. This is a double-check.
In addition, all Senate computers are encrypted, to prevent a random person from accessing the information.
In recent months and in the past year, there have been some risky sign-ins. That refers to an attempt to open a session with your account, but from Sweden, Mexico or elsewhere, when that is not your usual practice. We receive a notification from Microsoft and can follow up with the senator or employee to inform them that there has been an attempt to open a session from Guatemala or Russia, or wherever. We then ask them to confirm: “Is that you?” We know whether or not employees are travelling and we can immediately block the attempt.
We have tools in place to deal with that risk.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Are we experiencing any attacks? Have there been any extraordinary attacks?
Mr. Vatcher: The Senate is the target of what I consider daily risks, threats or attacks almost. Over the past few weeks, we have endured a distributed denial of service attack on our website. Of course, we’ve taken measures to remedy and to make sure senCanada.ca site is back online, and it is. We are very aware of all the risks and of all the attacks that are made against us. We act accordingly.
Cybersecurity is not an idle threat. It’s an everyday threat. We get communiqués from outside partners. We have all our internal tools and we make sure that our environment is secure. The attack we received in the past few weeks has been an inconvenience to some but has not posed a serious threat on our operations at all.
[Translation]
The Chair: I need someone to move the following motion:
That the updated Information Management Policy be approved.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried. Thank you.
Regarding agenda item 5, I have the honour to table the sixteenth report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, regarding the decisions made by the steering committee on behalf of the Internal Economy Committee since our last meeting. This report is provided for your information.
Are there any questions or comments on the report tabled? If not, thank you. We will move on to the next item.
[English]
Senator Seidman: I just want to be clear that we’re talking about the sixteenth report? That’s what we’re talking about, the new model for Senate clippings?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Seidman: I just wanted some clarification, if I could. So we’re changing the way we deliver regular daily clippings to senators’ offices and to the Senate as a whole.
I don’t know if this is the appropriate place to discuss it because it’s a contract, but I’m trying to understand the contract. It is a U.S. company; is that correct?
Gérald Lafrenière, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments, and Chief Legislative Services Officer, Senate of Canada: Yes, it is.
Senator Seidman: What kind of service exactly is it going to provide? Are we allowed to discuss this in public?
Mr. Lafrenière: This part we can answer. Essentially, it will provide very similar service to what was provided by the Library of Parliament. We are preparing a communiqué for senators that will be approved by the steering committee to indicate any changes that might occur. But they are not significant changes in the sense that the information you’re provided now will be very similar in the new thing.
The Chair: The way it works, senator, there are clippings of newspapers. We identify the newspapers that we want the clippings to be looked at. So anything that will have the senator’s name, the Senate of Canada or information like that will come out of the sweep that is done. From there, that information is provided to staff in Communications who will be preparing the report that you receive every day.
Senator Seidman: We will receive access to the individual articles? It’s not just a series — just as we are doing right now?
The Chair: That’s right. There will be slight changes to the format that you will be receiving. There will be a little less information on what the article is about. But you will still receive the title, a couple of lines telling you what the article is about, and you will have access to the article.
Senator Seidman: We will have access to the article?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Seidman: Okay. I’m just curious why we’re subscribing through an American company. Communications used to provide us this service. Why isn’t Communications providing us this service now?
The Chair: You’ve seen the cost efficiency that is associated with changing the process from the library to this company. It’s a contract. We’re going to try it out for one year and see how it works out. We’ll receive comments from senators. From there, Communications receives it, does the sweep to verify that everything is done properly. There will be no extra costs associated like we had with the Library of Parliament. So it’s a question of cost efficiency, cost reduction. We had the changeover a couple of years ago, and the amount has now gone much higher than it was before. So it’s a cost-efficiency procedure that we’re putting in place here, and Communications is going to be the one taking care of it. They’ve offered to provide that service to the Senate.
Senator Seidman: I’m still trying to understand why we’re contracting something out that Communications is there to do.
The Chair: It’s just the sweeping part that is contracted. The same process was used by the Library of Parliament, and from there, they would provide the same service. But now it’s a cost‑efficiency measure.
Senator Seidman: I understand and I appreciate your patience and your explanation, but I’m trying to understand why we contract out a service for communications. We have a Communications Directorate in the Senate. I don’t understand why they’re not providing that service, including the sweep, then the summary and the links.
The Chair: To be able to get the sweep, you need . . .
Mr. Lafrenière: Maybe I can answer. I think the chair tried to get into it.
We’ve been asked to find efficiencies in the way we do our work. The Library of Parliament, which is presently offering the service to us, is offering it at a way higher amount than what we can do. Technically, they’re saying that these are the amounts of resources it takes to run this program. If we were to ship it back to Communications, then we would have the same stress there of having that amount of resources needed to do it.
We’ve tried to get an economical way of getting the information, and Communications staff will now be involved to vet the information to go through it and work that the Library of Parliament.
In the end, this is a very cost-effective way of providing the same service that we had from the Library of Parliament. We thought it was the right way to go.
Senator Seidman: Thank you. I appreciate your patience and your explanation.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I note that it is a sole source contract with an American company.
What administrative steps were taken to see whether a Canadian supplier might also be competitive? Why was an American supplier chosen?
Mr. Lafrenière: The Communications Directorate team worked with the Finance Directorate to find suppliers. There are very few suppliers offering services in Canada. I think they found two or three suppliers. The reason we are doing a trial project first is to see whether the service is acceptable to senators. We would then hold a more robust competition in the future. The price we were offered for this year was unbelievable. We decided to take this route.
We had very little time to make a decision. The Library of Parliament informed us very late in the process that there would be a significant price increase. We had to find a solution within our budgets.
Senator Saint-Germain: Are you saying that there were in fact a few Canadian companies that could also offer the service and submit a bid?
Mr. Lafrenière: The Communications team enquired with the companies to see what they would be prepared to offer. That is when we came across this company. This is a trial now, but if we decide to use this company in the long term, we will hold a more official process.
Senator Saint-Germain: I would like to receive a mid-term report after six months with this company.
The Chair: Noted.
Senator Carignan: I pushed the steering committee a bit with regard to the Library of Parliament on this matter. The problem is that it takes bodies, hands and eyes to sort through the material. I understand that this company uses very advanced technology, allowing it to get the work done more quickly. The manpower efficiency gains are what make this company very competitive. In my experience, the private sector offers excellent prices. That is why I supported this decision.
I would still like to remind the heads of the various groups that it is urgent that the Committee on the Library of Parliament meet in the coming days or weeks to see what is happening. We have to see how we can continue to receive this service at a more competitive price. The Library of Parliament could also purchase the computer system or the licence to do the work. I invite the heads of the various groups to try to convene the Committee on the Library of Parliament to make the process more accountable.
[English]
Senator Boyer: Over the past five years, my office has worked very diligently with the Library of Parliament and Communications to ensure that the sweep included Indigenous media. I would like to make sure it’s carried over to this new one, please. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for the comment. We will make sure it is there.
Senator Plett: First of all, to the clerk, thank you for your explanation. However, I’m just also trying to get my mind around some of the questions that Senator Seidman asked.
Who was doing this work before and how? It’s the Library of Parliament, so it was an in-house operation, so to speak, meaning that, for the sake of a number, five people at the Library of Parliament were working on and doing this. Now somebody else is going to do this.
I’m assuming that those five people have then been laid off, because they aren’t going to have any more work to do. Efficiency will only be there if we’re saving something — somebody else isn’t doing a job or they have been assigned to something else. Is this a way, colleagues, of moving forward with something that Senator Tannas raised quite some time ago when I talked about the increasing costs, and Senator Tannas said, “Well, we should have a hiring freeze,” is this a way around the hiring freeze?
I’m a little uncomfortable. I appreciate what my colleague Senator Carignan has said, and I also want efficiencies. If an American outfit can do it that much more economically than a Canadian outfit, I’m prepared to go along with that. But if we are taking work away from people who are now doing it — we have a Communications team that is larger than it has ever been in the Senate, and now we are still going outside of our Library of Parliament and our Communications team to hire an independent contractor to do the work we’ve been doing ourselves.
I understand that if this is a trial project, you might not want to lay people off because it may backfire and not work, but what’s the plan there? If this is something we’re going to go ahead with, are we going to be able to regain that efficiency by having fewer staff working in the Library of Parliament or in the Communications Directorate, as the case might be?
Mr. Lafrenière: I will try to only answer questions about the budgets I control. Obviously, we had an MOU with the Library of Parliament. The efficiency I’m talking about is for the Senate: the cost we paid for the program in the past, the significant increase to the costs that we were going to pay moving into the future and finding a solution for that.
My understanding is that the Library of Parliament would have hired an additional employee to do this work moving forward, because they’re doing it on a cost-recovery basis. When it was time to renew the MOU, they stated that the new cost was “X” and that was what they were going to charge the Senate for that service. That is when we found that, basically, in terms of value for money, we were a little bit concerned where it was going.
With respect to Communications, they are now taking on the work that the Library of Parliament was doing. Obviously, the Library of Parliament has a similar system where they go and get all the clippings. The work they do is they then collate it into this report. We are now using the Communications Directorate. They’ve taken on this additional work that they weren’t doing in the past and they are not asking for any more resources to do so.
Senator Plett: I won’t belabour it. I just want to second what Senator Saint-Germain already said. We have a report in six months, and that I’m hoping we will have a comprehensive report that will be in public so the Canadian people will also know what we’re doing and why we’re doing it.
The Chair: Duly noted, senator.
Senator Dalphond: I wanted to say that I acknowledge the comments that were made around the table. I’m new to the steering committee. We had many questions about that and we’re stuck in a situation where the contract, the MOU, with the Library of Parliament was ending on March 31 and we had to find an alternative. We came with this trial project because the numbers that were provided — like a kind of ultimatum from the library — was more than double what we were paying last year. It’s considering how many employees they devote to that and they charge you for that.
The point I want to make is that — as I made at steering and that Senator Carignan made, and I share it — we have to reconvene the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament because we cannot get information. We’re dealing with memos and things like that. We should be able to sit at the table.
For example, this clipping service is not provided to the House of Commons. Since it’s not a service provided to both houses, they charge us; if it was provided to both, it would be free. With all these things, we’re asking questions and we dig and dig and we get more and more information. In the meantime, we get this alternative using artificial intelligence, essentially. That covers things. They showed us samples of what they could dig and obviously they were digging a lot.
We’re trying it, and I want to reassure Senator Saint-Germain and Senator Plett that it’s not exactly the same service. It would be the same for radio and television, but it will be different from what is done for the press. It will be much shorter. The name of the senator will appear, but they won’t dig to find out exactly what he or she said. It will be slightly different. A note is coming to explain that.
If we were seeing the numbers, if we were on the joint committee asking questions to the library and the management of the library, we would have access to it. That’s why I say, the time has come to reconvene this joint committee.
Senator Bovey: That’s pretty much what I was going to say. As a member of the Library Committee for the last several years, we’ve never met.
The Chair: It met when I was there, four times.
Senator Bovey: In addition to Senator Saint-Germain’s request for a report in six months, can that include a clause that the Library Committee has to have met? I think there are a number of questions and, obviously, I’m going to time out on that one. Somebody with a background in it, I was very much looking forward to be able to ask some of these questions of them.
Mr. Lafrenière: I know what senators want. I don’t think CIBA indicating a decision saying the committee has to meet — it’s not the way it works. I think senators know this is a joint committee. The challenge we’re having in organizing it is it’s difficult sometimes to organize Senate committees and agree on a date. As soon as we put in the House of Commons there too, it creates a whole bunch of other difficulties. I see some of the Senate leaders at the table right now. I think if there were a push between all of us, we can get it done. That’s the commitment I’m making here today.
The Chair: We’re looking at efficiencies here.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Further to the various recommendations about a progress report in six months, could the Library of Parliament examine the reliability of the results on key elements in the reports that are published? Are they looking at the same elements that the Library of Parliament used to look at?
Let me give you an example — you may be aware of this. There is a type of artificial intelligence program that discriminated against applicants for immigration, here in Canada. If the applicant was a Black African student, the person was automatically refused, without looking at anything else.
It seems that this is being looked at now to correct it, but this was going on for a long time. People wondered why young Black African students were not coming here. It is because they were flatly rejected from the outset because of some program feature in the artificial intelligence. Perhaps there are other discriminatory elements in the report? They will have to check that.
The Chair: Your comment is related to what Senator Boyer said, about asking that Indigenous information be included in the press clippings, as well as matters related to the racialized population, in relation to the Senate or senators.
Senator Mégie: Or other choices by the senator. American politics is different, even with regard to senators. How do they make a choice for senators, MPs or others? If this were done in Canada, would we make the same choices, even if it is not discrimination as such?
The Chair: Noted. Thank you very much for the discussion on this. I think it was important to discuss that this morning.
[English]
Thank you, Senator Seidman. We are now at item 6, which is the update on the Translation Bureau Services. Maxime Fortin, Principal Clerk, and Shaila Anwar, Clerk Assistant, will join us as witnesses. Mr. Lafrenière will start the conversation and, as usual, the time will be spent after for questions.
Mr. Lafrenière: Senators, for those who don’t know Maxime, I would like to introduce you to Maxime Fortin, Principal Clerk in the Committees Directorate. Maxime is the new representative of the Senate Administration responsible for the partnership agreement between the Senate and the Translation Bureau in replacement of Marie-Ève Belzile. I want to thank Maxime for taking on this role but also thanking Maxime, Shaila and Marie‑Ève for their dedication to this file.
Senators, I think you have all been involved in it, you’ve all had an interest in it. What I can tell you is there is positive news on this file, both with respect to capacity of committee meetings and also disruption at those meetings. It’s very much related to the work that has been done by Maxime, Shaila and Marie-Ève and also others in the administration. I look at David Vatcher and the ISD team who are also very much involved in that. Thank you to everyone.
I’ll now turn to Maxime who will provide you with a brief update on where we are with the interpretation file.
Maxime Fortin, Principal Clerk, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: Good morning, senators, and thank you for inviting me to present this update on the interpretation file.
Like Mr. Lafrenière mentioned, there has been significant progress in recent months. As you may already know, two instructions were issued to the Translation Bureau under the Canada Labour Code on February 1. The first one is a requirement for ISO-compliant headsets. The second one is the testing of audiovisual systems in all committee rooms in real working conditions.
As soon as the headset instruction was issued, the Senate complied with it. Now only participants, witnesses and senators using one of the headsets approved by the Translation Bureau can participate virtually in a meeting.
[Translation]
As to testing in real situations, regarding the second instruction, they started in mid-March and the process will continue until about May. The results will be shared with the Senate as soon as they are available.
On February 10, the Senate Administration also obtained the investigation report on the acoustic incident from last October. The report made six recommendations to the Senate Administration, which have already been implemented or are being implemented. The most important recommendation pertains to the initial technical tests to be performed by an Information Services technician for witnesses who are appearing virtually. This new step has been in effect for all committees since mid-March.
[English]
At this time, we believe that all of the new technical requirements are beginning to produce results that demonstrate some progress and that our mitigation measures are having a positive impact.
On the question of portable booths, we now have the agreement of the Translation Bureau to stop using them. They have been the source of several complaints from senators due to sound bleed issues. Given that the removal of the booths must be coordinated with several services, the Senate Administration proceeded with the removal of the portable booths in rooms B30 and B45 during the last break week because the majority of noise and space complaints received were from these two rooms. A plan to remove the remaining portable booths have to wait until the summer adjournment, as we do not wish to risk causing any technical issues that might disrupt parliamentary proceedings during the Senate’s busiest period.
[Translation]
I wish to point out that the progress I have described is the result of the hard work and dedication of our teams from the various directorates, namely, committees, communications, information services and goods and services, as well as our partners with the House of Commons multimedia services, who have often had to respond to problems with little time to plan and implement the necessary changes. The objective is always to implement procedures that safeguard the health and safety of all individuals concerned, while ensuring that parliamentary business can proceed smoothly and without interruption.
[English]
I will conclude my remarks here by saying that the Translation Bureau is expected to appear before CIBA for their annual update in the next few weeks. I thank you for your time. Ms. Anwar and I are here to answer any questions you might have.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much for that report, Maxime. Thank you to the team for its work with the Translation Bureau. We have been following this file for a number of months. Thank you very much for all the work that has been done in this regard.
[English]
Are there any questions or comments on the report?
Senator Tannas: Would it be fair to say that we are at or above capacity for translation and interpretation that we were getting prior to COVID?
Ms. Fortin: Yes, we are back to the pre-pandemic schedule, so it is the same capacity as before the pandemic.
Shaila Anwar, Clerk Assistant, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: If I may, since we’re at the end of the fiscal year, I did a bit of a statistical analysis and the number of meetings and number of meeting hours are back up to where they were in pre-pandemic “full” years. The one statistic that’s quite different is the number of witnesses. We usually average just about or just under 2,000 witnesses in a normal non-pandemic year, and in this past fiscal year we had 2,457 witnesses, which is significantly higher. Some of that is because we can accommodate more by video conference, but our average committee meeting hours per week is 38 hours, which is comparable. We were always in the 35-to-40-hours per week range. We’re back up to where we used to be.
Senator Tannas: As one of the people who led the hanging party for some of the executives at the Translation Bureau, I want to thank them all for getting us back to where we need to be. It is much appreciated and the service is vital to what we do.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tannas.
Senator Moodie: I’m also very pleased to acknowledge the improvement that you reported.
My question is about understanding what the status is as we move forward with changes. Are we tracking incidents where interpretation has been interrupted? Are you basing your report on actual numbers of decrease?
Ms. Fortin: Yes. Since we came back from the holiday adjournment, we implemented a new form to have very precise statistics. For the fall portion, we also have statistics, but not coming from the form. I see that Ms. Anwar has the report, so we do have exact numbers. We average about one significant incident per week since January. It is lower than what we experienced in the fall. The main reason would be that we now have more witnesses appearing in person than by video conference. In the fall, we were at about 60% virtual and 40% in person. Now we’re seeing the opposite. Even in the past few weeks in March, we were closer to 75% in person versus 25% virtual, so that certainly has a significant impact on incidents.
Senator Moodie: The second part of the question I have is about accountability for interruptions of service. That’s really the long and the short of it. When an interpreter or a group of interpreters say they are not proceeding today with this committee meeting, do we require a report from them that explains why? Is that fed back to the group?
Mr. Lafrenière: Senator, you’re asking really important questions. For example, statistics. Ms. Fortin answered it. After every committee meeting, clerks now fill out an incident form that indicates if there was any type of interruption and where it goes, so we have all of is that information.
With respect to accountability, we have been working almost on a daily basis with the Translation Bureau. When there are incidents, we talk about them and we try to find a solution. We’ve had reports with recommendations. We’ve followed up on every one of those.
The important part with the accountability is that the Translation Bureau has just hired a manager who will be dealing with this issue specifically. I will be having my first meeting with their director general and new manager tomorrow, and Ms. Fortin will be there too. This will be to establish best practices moving forward. We’ve addressed the issue, and we’re in a very good position right now. I think everyone agrees that the health and safety of the interpreters and some of the issues that have occurred — especially when we were virtual. I think the interpreters would agree when people are here in person, there’s a big difference. We want to make sure we take every step to deal with that. I am personally following up on that. We’re treating it like project management right now where we have issues we’re dealing with, and we’re putting end dates on when we want to deal with them.
I mentioned David Vatcher in ISD. There is testing going on in committee rooms right now. There are independent experts who have been brought in to verify the quality of the sound and whether it can be better. I think that will lead to some improvements in the future, but it doesn’t happen from one day to the next. It’s really a project that we have to manage for the upcoming year and likely forever moving forward. However, I think we’ve gone over the big hurdles at this point and we’re in a good position.
I want to thank the senators, because we sought decisions to improve things. We went to the whips to say that government witnesses should appear in person if they’re in Ottawa. That has made a significant difference, as was indicated by them. We’ve sought a decision to get common headsets for everyone in the Senate. These were things that were needed and have made a difference, so I want to thank senators for cooperating with us on this one.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lafrenière.
[Translation]
That brings us to item 7 in our public meeting. There is something we need to discuss. It pertains to the thirteenth report of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and the Committee Budgets for the quarterly report. This is in keeping with the sharing of responsibilities by the Committee on Internal Economy, CIBA, and the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight, AOVS, which had already been approved. The financial reports for the second and third quarters of fiscal year 2022-23 will be shared with AOVS members for information. I simply wanted you to be aware of that work. We will hold a meeting with the AOVS members to see which responsibilities will be assigned to each committee, to avoid duplication of effort.
We will now move on to other business. Are there any points to be discussed while the meeting is still public? If not, we will suspend briefly to allow the clerk to make sure we are indeed in camera. Before doing that, I would remind everyone that the committee’s meetings are primarily public meetings. The committee only meets in camera to review sensitive matters, such as salaries, contracts, contract negotiations, staff relations and personnel or security issues. The committee wants to be as transparent as possible in the important work it does. I would therefore ask the clerk to inform the committee members once we are in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)