THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 26, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(1), to consider financial and administrative matters; and in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), to consider financial and administrative matters.
Senator Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning. 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.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest, Gulf Division, Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
Senator Loffreda: Tony Loffreda, Montreal, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
Senator Tannas: Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
[Translation]
The Chair: I also welcome those following our deliberations throughout the country.
Honourable senators, the first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of September 28, 2023, which are in your bundle. Are there any questions or amendments to the minutes?
Can someone move the following motion:
That the minutes of Thursday, September 28, 2023, be adopted.
Senator Moodie so moves. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Motion carried.
The next item is the quarterly report as of June 30, 2023, from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, is now joining the meeting as a witness. I understand that Senator Forest will make some opening remarks and that Pierre will help him answer questions. As usual, this presentation will be followed by questions and answers.
Senator Forest: Good morning, everyone.
The Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets is honoured to table its 20th report. Your subcommittee received the financial highlights for the first quarter of fiscal year 2023-2024, covering the period from April 1 to June 30, 2023.
In the context of this report, I would like to bring to your attention three points of particular interest.
First, for fiscal year 2023-2024, the budget is $126,700,000. By the end of the first quarter, the Senate had spent $21.7 million, or 17% of its available budget. This is slightly lower than the 18% figure seen the previous year, when the amount stood at $21.5 million.
Regarding item 2, for fiscal year 2023-2024, the Senate is expected to generate an overall surplus of $8.4 million, mostly from the Senators’ office budget, since the utilization rate is not expected to exceed 80%, based on current and projected trends and owing to the lower number of senators than budgeted. The budget was established for 100 senators, but there are 92.
You will notice that section 3.4 has been added to the quarterly financial report. The new section presents the efficiency opportunities approved by the Internal Economy Committee, as well as the progress made in implementing them for fiscal year 2023-2024. Anticipated savings to date amount to $76,000.
After deliberation, the report was approved by your subcommittee. I am now pleased to proceed with the tabling of the Quarterly Financial Report of the Senate of Canada for the quarter ended June 30, 2023, for your information.
Thank you very much.
Pierre Lanctôt is with us to answer your questions about this quarterly report.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Forest. Do you have any questions or comments for Senator Forest or Mr. Lanctôt?
[English]
Senator Quinn: Welcome, Pierre. I have a comment and a question. First, this is a really well-done presentation in plain language. Thank you for that.
Reductions of 15% are going across government. Is the Senate involved in doing a 15% reduction, or are we exempt from that?
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you, senator, for your question. The Senate does not have to follow the 15%. We are not part of that program.
Senator Seidman: It’s good to see you, Pierre. Thank you for being with us. It’s a good report. I appreciate it. On page 15, of the report you have forecasted FTEs by directorate/sector. The second-to-last line shows “FTEs funded by a third party.” I am not quite sure what that means.
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you for your question. The positions funded by other entities are, for example, transcription, which is not paid for by the Senate. It is funded by PSPC, Public Services and Procurement Canada.
The Chair: They also fund the LTVP, the Long Term Vision and Plan, I think.
Senator Seidman: There are 43 FTEs funded by a third party. I’m still not sure what that means. Please help me.
Mr. Lanctôt: Sorry, I was thinking about one specific circumstance, but if we look at them, most of those 43 are related to LTVP. The expenses for those employees are not paid by the Senate; they are actually paid by PSPC. That is why we isolate them. The number of FTEs assumed in the Senate budget is 456.
Senator Seidman: I just wondered what “FTEs funded by third party” really meant. So you’re saying it’s mainly the construction or reconstruction or rehabilitation of Centre Block?
Mr. Lanctôt: That’s correct.
Senator Seidman: Those employees are funded from outside, but it’s included in the Senate FTE budget?
Mr. Lanctôt: They are part of our employees, but they’re not included in the budget per se because we are reimbursed. In our expenses, those 43 positions are not captured. We track them because they are positions that we assume, basically. They are part of our employees.
Senator Seidman: That really explains it. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments?
[Translation]
If not, thank you very much, Pierre.
Dear colleagues, for the next item, I am told that the article will be presented with a short summary, but that the decision will be postponed. Senator Saint-Germain, I give the floor to you.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is a request to add temporary funds over a two-year period — so this year and next year — for the Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate, which serves both chambers and handles the management of interparliamentary associations. Its total budget envelope in 2022-2023 was just over $4.3 million. This amount has remained the same since 2017-2018.
The Joint Interparliamentary Council would like a temporary increase in the parliamentary associations’ budget envelope of $430,050 for fiscal years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025. I will provide more details at the next meeting. This funding would be shared between the House of Commons and the Senate at a rate of 70% for the House of Commons and 30% for the Senate. Since the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy has not yet made its decision and considered this matter, and given the importance of the funds relating to the Senate’s contribution, I recommend that we defer our decision until the House of Commons has made its own.
[English]
Senator Quinn: I’m beginning to learn and understand more how important this work is. My question is around the temporary financing and I understand the request for that. What would it mean if, when the temporary funding expires, we had to live within the existing budget? What would the impact be and what decisions would have to be made with respect to decreasing activity or presence on different things? Has there been an analysis so we would have a better appreciation of what it would mean if we didn’t automatically make the temporary permanent?
Senator Saint-Germain: The subcommittee of the JIC studied the additional request for creating additional associations, and a decision has been made that we would have a moratorium. We will keep the status quo with the number of associations. As for the forecast for the coming years — further than two years — we are not there yet. We do believe that the planning for the next two years is the most realistic or pragmatic one, and at the same time, we will need to find alternatives. Some associations have already found alternatives to compensate for the increase in flights. Flying is much more expensive than it was, so some alternatives have been found.
We are also looking at maintaining, but for inflation, the budget so that it is not an additional increase to the taxpayers’ money. This is why the planning over these two years is appearing to us as being the most pragmatic and realistic and we will see in two years what will happen.
Once again, since the House of Commons is the one that pays the most, 70% of this additional funding will come from the House of Commons if it is agreed. So I recommend that we don’t make a decision here before we know about their own decision.
Senator Quinn: Thank you. I wasn’t recommending or asking to make a decision now. I was asking the value of having a bit of an impact analysis over the next six months so we know when the time comes, what the impact would be if we, as a Senate, said, “No, we are not going to increase by the amount that’s the temporary funding.” What would that impact be so we are in a better position when we come back and have that discussion?
Senator Saint-Germain: This is a very good question. Our impact analysis is for this year and the coming one, and next year we will further plan for two coming years. We’re not planning over three years because we still have to reconsider the additional requests that we have and also analyze the impacts of some associations, of their work and how we can make sure that we are efficient in interparliamentary diplomacy, focusing on the most impactful association and regions. This is very important and it comes before the financial planning for the coming years. It has to come before.
Senator Quinn: Thank you. We’ll continue to watch where we are going; that is what you’re saying?
Senator Saint-Germain: Exactly.
Senator Quinn: Very well. Thank you.
The Chair: We will get back to this subject after the House of Commons has decided which way they will be going.
Senator Quinn: Okay, thank you very much.
The Chair: You’re welcome. Any other questions or comments on this item? If not, we move on to Item 4 on our agenda. It’s the Delegation of Financial Authority Policy.
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, will join us again as a witness. As usual, this presentation will be followed by time for questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Lanctôt: Good morning and thank you, Madam Chair. Honourable senators, the revised delegation of financial authorities has been in place for just over a year and its implementation has gone well.
However, we have noted a few areas where the policy would benefit from being even more clear or explicit, hence the changes proposed in the briefing note.
[English]
These changes are not new requirements but simply clarifications and updates, as well as some alignment with other updated policies. I believe it is important to make these changes at this time to keep our policy current.
This concludes my report. I would be pleased to answer any questions or take your comments.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?
Senator Quinn: My question is pretty simple. I understand what’s being done here clearly, but in my past life, as a CFO, I always found it easier when I had the actual delegation documents so you can see the positions that are being adjusted or added. When I read down, I understand the positions but I’m not sure how they relate within the financial delegation document itself.
My request is that it would be great to see the delegation documents so that we have a clearer understanding of what exactly is happening within the document. As you know, it is a dynamic document.
Mr. Lanctôt: I appreciate the question. We didn’t include the full delegation because it is many pages, so that’s why we didn’t include the document per se as part of the briefing note. Where he tried to summarize in the table, but if you are interested in the full —
The Chair: The secretariat will send it over to all the senators so you will have it.
Senator Quinn: I was going to clarify. You say it’s several pages long. I find that interesting because when I was CFO for a $7.5 billion department, it wasn’t several pages long; it was two pages long. I would like to see the document to see how it’s structured. It might be something new to me. I’d like to see it. Thank you.
Mr. Lanctôt: No problem.
The Chair: For clarification, the matrix is one page and the policy is about 8 to 10 pages, so you will receive the full package.
Senator Quinn: I’m interested in the actual delegation document. Policy is great too. Thank you.
The Chair: We will minimize the information sent over.
Any other questions or comments for Pierre on this?
Senator Smith: Pierre, regarding number 8, for the Executive Committee members asking for an increase from $100,000 to $150,000 transfer of funds, can you give us a walk through of how this has evolved over time and what is this request based on?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you for the question. When we last updated the policy, we updated very specific amounts; prior to that, the policy was a bit more open. So we proposed specific amounts based on experience. But when we updated the policy, it was during the pandemic years. We didn’t have as many transactions as we normally do, so we realized that the amount we provided for the budget transfers, that’s only to transfer budgets between directorates. It means that if we have a surplus in one group — we don’t spend what we thought we would spend and we want to spend in another group — the Executive Committee is authorized to approve that transfer. We realize now that the amount we had included in the policy a year ago was too low and we’re suggesting a small adjustment.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments? If not, can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the modifications to the Delegation of Financial Authorities Policy and matrix to improve clarity on delegated authorities be approved; and
That the targeted implementation date of the updated financial delegation of authorities be November 1, 2023.
Senator Quinn so moves.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Carried.
Thank you, Pierre. I understand you will be staying with us for the next item on our agenda.
[Translation]
The following item concerns changes to the Senators’ Office Management Policy regarding the eligibility of expenses to move personal wall artwork to and from the Parliamentary Precinct.
This presentation will be followed by questions and answers. Pierre, you may begin your presentation.
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you. Honourable senators, last August, following a senator’s request, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure asked the Senate Administration to consider the required changes to the Senators’ Office Management Policy, so that the expenses of transporting a senator’s personal wall artwork from their residence to their Parliamentary Precinct office and back again would be authorized in the future.
The subcommittee’s rationale is that this approach would reduce the expense of renting art from Senate-approved suppliers.
[English]
It is proposed to add a new paragraph — which is paragraph 5.11.2 — to the policy that stipulates that expenses for transporting a senator’s wall artwork from their provincial or territorial residence to their office in the parliamentary district are eligible for expenses up to $1,000. Expenses for returning the same wall artwork to the senator’s primary residence are also eligible expenses for the same maximum amount. These expenses can only be incurred once during the senator’s mandate.
The Senate will not assume any responsibility for insurance, cleaning, conservation, restoration or costs related to the art, nor will it be responsible for any damage, loss or care of personal property. Senators will need to sign a waiver of liability regarding the artwork, which is prepared by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.
This concludes my remarks. I will be pleased to answer any questions.
Senator Plett: Thank you. Is this not something we have in place already with our moving to and from here? I didn’t have moving expenses to come here, but I believe I could have incurred moving expenses to move here. If I had a condo here, I could have charged the Senate for a move to Ottawa and a move back to Manitoba. Does this not come under the same thing?
I have some office furniture in my place in Manitoba right now that I bought during the COVID-19 pandemic approved by the Senate. They paid for a desk, a printer, a chair and so on, because during COVID, we had to work from home. I’m assuming that obviously belongs to the Senate. Walk me through that. I know this is perhaps deviating from what you have here, but this seems to me to be a duplication of what we already have.
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, senator. Actually, the current policy allows a move of furniture from your house to an apartment or residence in Ottawa, it doesn’t cover artwork. The new proposed policy is for artwork only. It’s an addition or a supplement to the move. It could be, in some cases, that senators don’t move an apartment or furniture, but with this new change, they will be allowed to move or transport artwork.
Senator Plett: Mr. Lanctôt, I’m sorry, I don’t understand this. If I had decided 13 years ago that I wanted to have an apartment here, and I would have moved a couch, a table, a bed and some artwork, are you telling me that you wouldn’t have allowed me to move the paintings if you allowed me to move the rest of it?
Mr. Lanctôt: If you move the contents of an apartment to a secondary residence in Ottawa and it includes some pieces of artwork, yes, it would be included. It would not be included if you moved the artwork from your residence to your office. That would not be covered under the current policy.
Senator Plett: Instead of moving a couch, a desk and a chair, I had just moved artwork, it would have been covered. To me, this is some bureaucratic something or other. We are saying that every time I have a painting I want to move, I can send another painting over here. I’m under the impression that I can make one move this way and one move that way.
The Chair: One is for the office because most of the artwork being transferred is for the offices of senators. The other one is for personal living accommodations, so they are two different things.
Senator Plett: So if I had moved my furniture, including artwork, to Ottawa, and I had an apartment that the furniture was moved to, I could ask to move the artwork to my office and that wouldn’t have been allowed.
The Chair: It is allowed.
Senator Plett: But it was all in one move.
The Chair: It could be done in one move, but there is a specific budget for senators who only move artwork.
Senator Plett: I’m sorry, to me this is someone trying to get around the rules by moving something. I have been here 13 years, and now all of a sudden we have to have a policy to move artwork.
The Chair: It has always been there, Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Then why are we dealing with it now?
The Chair: Because we are raising the amount from $500 to $1,000.
Mr. Lanctôt: Prior to this proposed change, it was not clear. In the way that the SOMP was written, the cost of transporting work from a personal residence to the office was not clear. We are trying to make it clear so that there is no ambiguity and put in a limit of $1,000. As in the case for moving, it is only once in and once out during the term of the senator. We’re trying to be more explicit so that senators are well aware of what they can and cannot do.
Senator Plett: Maybe it’s only me, but I don’t think it has made it clearer. I think it has made it more complicated. But that’s fine.
Senator Loffreda: To add some clarity — and I want to clarify the discussion we’re having — it’s not a bad policy. We’re putting a cap on the amount, which is $1,000. Some artwork could cost in excess of $1,000 to move, and we’re putting and cap on that and a limit on the number of times you can claim it. If that were not there, I would agree this is a policy that should be there, because we’re placing a limit of $1,000. Some artwork is so valuable that it could cost more than $1,000 to move it, and you might move it numerous times. All of sudden, I might like what’s in my office and do it numerous times.
You have to have a policy given that there has been a situation where there was no policy for it. You said one senator wanted to claim it. That’s my take on this, anyway. I may be wrong, but that’s the way I see it.
Senator Plett: I don’t want to get into a debate over it. I’m fine with it, but I’m sorry, Senator Loffreda, there already is a policy that we can only do once, so we don’t need to have that. That policy is already there. If all we want is to have a cap, let’s have a policy that deals only with a cap and not put other things into it. I would support it 100%.
Senator Loffreda: It was $500; now it’s $1,000.
Senator Plett: Fine. But we have a 20-page document here to say that we are going to increase a cap from $500 to $1,000. We don’t need that; we need one line.
Senator Loffreda: One line, I agree, but we need it. We both agree on that.
Senator Smith: I think the purpose of this was to avoid potential manipulation, so it is fairly cut and dry.
[Translation]
The Chair: Would a senator agree to move the following motion:
That the Administration be authorized to change the Senators’ Office Management Policy by adding the following section:
5.11.2 A senator may, once over the course of their tenure, transport wall artwork pieces (art) from their personal collection from their provincial/territorial residence to their Parliamentary Precinct office. Costs, totalling no more than $1,000, for packing, transporting and installing such art are eligible expenses paid from the senator’s office budget. Similarly, costs, totalling no more than $1,000, for removing and returning such art back to the senator’s provincial/territorial residence are eligible expenses. The Senate is not responsible for any insurance, cleaning, conservation or restoration costs related to the art, nor is the Senate responsible for any damage, loss or theft of personal property. Senators must sign a waiver of liability, as prepared by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, in relation to the art before incurring any expenses described in this provision; and
That these changes come into effect immediately.
Senator Loffreda moves the motion.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Motion carried.
[English]
Senators, the next item concerns an item that Senator Ringuette wished to raise at the last CIBA meeting. You will recall that we ran out of time, and I asked Senator Ringuette to communicate her concerns with the clerk so we could consider the issues at hand. Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, will now join us as a witness.
Colleagues, one of the issues that Senator Ringuette raised was the difficulty trying to speak to a representative from Canada Life to resolve an issue. She mentioned that she spent several hours on hold on the phone in late September without being able to speak to a representative. The situation reportedly got worse throughout the week, as during her final attempts, she was unable to be put on hold since the telephone waiting system was already at capacity.
Colleagues, the issue with Canada Life is not limited to the Senate. Some of you have might have seen that the other place has created a committee to investigate the situation.
Toni, could you’ll give us an update on the issue relating to Canada Life in the Senate?
Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, Human Resources Directorate, Senate of Canada: Good morning, Madam Chair and senators.
It has been 14 weeks of a difficult transition to Canada Life. At this point, we know that Canada Life has enrolled approximately 99% of plan members, but we still have a gap.
On September 11, Human Resources communicated with the organization that we had put together a plan that, should anyone be having difficulty contacting Canada Life with positive enrolment issues or claim issues, they could contact two members of our team, specifically Lyne Jaeggi for senators and Marie-Josée Maheu for Senate employees.
We’re supporting as many people as we can, and we have. Thank you, everyone, for your patience. The team has been working tirelessly with contacts at Canada Life and PSPC. We have weekly meetings that we participate in to be able to advance concerns and experiences that individuals at the Senate are having. We are supporting issues around positive enrolment. We’re seeing fewer of those issues at this time. We’re seeing a bit of an uptake on more claims issues; individuals are having difficulties getting through to have their claims issues resolved. We’re doing the best we can. So far, we have been successful in helping the individuals who have contacted us.
If any of you know Lyne Jaeggi, she’s a relationship-builder extraordinaire, so we have been able to establish a rapport and relationship with Canada Life to be able to get attention on the needs of our employers and senators. We are asking that individuals who have any difficulties — in terms of urgent medical needs or prescription refills — are contacted immediately. They have been responsive. They’re doing the best they can.
Ms. Maheu has also been great in helping Senate employees. We’re going above and beyond in making sure your issues are responded to and resolved.
We’re sending an update message; we should have one out shortly. Hopefully, it’s in inboxes this morning. That update is to reassure all members of this plan that Canada Life, under the direction of the Treasury Board and PSPC, are making improvements.
[Translation]
Canada Life acknowledges its service issues and is announcing the following changes, which plan members will be able to see: a significant increase in the number of agents available at the call centre; improved functionality of the member contact centre; updated website content to help answer common member questions; increased communication with pharmacies to facilitate claims processing.
There are improvements, but services still fall short of Canada Life’s needs. The company is confident that plan members will continue to see progress. Human resources will continue to provide assistance to those unable to reach a Canada Life agent: Lyne Jaeggi for senators — but for the next three weeks it will be Diana Tullio — and Marie-Josée Maheu, who is part of our Pay and Benefits team, for Senate employees.
[English]
I’m happy to answer any questions you may have. Please do reach out. We continue to do our best and work to support your needs.
Senator Plett: Thank you, Toni, for being here. Let me tell you that when I call my wife later today and tell her that we found somebody here in the Senate who’s going to help us, she will be shouting hallelujahs from the rooftops.
This Canada Life episode at least lets Pierre off the hook with Unit4 a little bit because we’ve found something that is worse than Unit4. It is just the most horrendous decision that has been made in my time here in the Senate. I don’t know who the idiot was who decided this was a good program, but we are getting no responses, to the point where we actually had somebody call my wife back by phone from Canada Life and tell her that they don’t deal on the phone. They called her on the phone to tell her they don’t deal on the phone.
I’m not going to belabour this. My dentist has been waiting since some time at the beginning of September for something from Canada Life. We don’t know who to talk to. We are getting nowhere.
So let me just say thank you. We will be contacting you later today to get the exact contact number of whom we will be talking to and prepare her for our phone calls and questions.
Thanks also to Senator Ringuette, if she’s the one who raised this issue, because it is a terrible system. We were doing quite well before. This is one of those situations where we decided to fix something that wasn’t broken, and it definitely hasn’t gone in the right direction.
Thank you, Toni.
Ms. Francis: You’re welcome, Senator Plett.
They moved 1.7 million people, so while I do not work for Canada Life, I would say that it’s an extraordinary feat to have happen, and it’s unfortunate that things have not gone as planned. The transition of files was to have happened by June 30 in time for the July 1 active date, but it’s something that’s gone very wrong. We’re sorry for their experience and more so for all members of the plan.
My colleague Monique Daigle will reach out to you, and we will get things straightened out as best we can.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much. With moving 1.7 million people, both sides of the equation knew how many people were being moved before the decision was made, so that doesn’t wash for me. Nevertheless, thank you, and we’ll wait for somebody to call my office. Thank you.
Senator Moodie: I agree with my colleague. Don’t take on what you can’t do. We knew it was 1.7 million and a gross underestimation of what was required — a complete horrendous mess.
Thank you, Toni, for helping me personally sort out my transition. However, all of us are now experiencing the next phase of dysfunction, which is the claims that are now a problem.
With what you’re hearing and in the discussions that you’re having with Canada Life right now around the issues and the potential solutions, are you satisfied that what they’re doing can actually take on the required scope of people, operators, the understanding of their staff, of how and what they should be doing? Are you satisfied that we will actually see some improvement here?
Thank you for putting somebody in place to help us, but the problems will continue — that is my expectation — in a major way. It seems as if there is a gross underestimation on the side of Canada Life as to what it is they’re doing and the scope of what they’ve taken on.
The Chair: I am not sure you’re in a position to answer the question.
Ms. Francis: That’s what I was going to say.
Thank you, senator. I’m not close enough to the conversations to say that. As I said, TBS and PSPC are providing the direction of their expectations to Canada Life.
We’re seeing improvements — that’s what the message coming out today will say — in terms of adding people to the call centre and contacting pharmacies. In one scenario, we did that to help one of our employees. They’re continuing to add volume in terms of their ability and to answer frequently asked questions by adding those to a website so people have information at hand.
Outside of that, I can’t confidently comment, not being at the table to be able to ascertain how things are going to go moving forward. All I can say is that we will stay ready to support. Our team members have other full-time jobs but will continue to prioritize this to support the needs of individuals of this organization.
Senator Moodie: Is it reasonable to expect us, as a Senate, with all of our employees and with the responsibilities in your department, to expect that you’re at such a distance? Why are we not having closer conversations about this to understand where and what we can expect in the future?
Ms. Francis: I think the position we find ourselves in is that we participate in a plan that is purchased. We jumped into a plan that was purchased and dealt with by the Treasury Board. As a member of the overarching plan, we don’t negotiate with the entities that they negotiate with to put a plan in place. The different departments don’t find themselves sitting at the table for these conversations.
Senator Moodie: I understand that, but do you get an opportunity to ask them what is happening and what they are doing about this? They contracted this.
Ms. Francis: Our team members are at the weekly meetings and we’re constantly reinforcing and sharing the concerns and experiences. Unfortunately, we’re not alone in that. I think they’re hearing it loud and clear from a lot of organizations.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
Ms. Francis: You’re welcome.
Senator Quinn: I feel so much better now because I know it’s painful going through transitions and service providers. Last week, my wife’s first call to them was an hour and 57 minutes. For the second call, things were getting better. It was an hour and 38 minutes. It was an improvement.
I find it almost reprehensible that we’re having to have Senate employees take time out of their busy days to deal with this issue. We’re all appreciative that you’re doing so, but it shouldn’t be taking place. This is a management issue on a contractual basis. As Senator Plett said, they knew the number; they knew how many were coming over. Did they hire and engage the appropriate number of increased staff to deal with that influx?
Our pharmacist has told us that they’re impossible to deal with. There’s another avenue of frustration on that level.
I find it a shame that your folks, who are already occupied and busy, have to be embroiled in all of this. It’s the Treasury Board, I believe, that needs to take this bull by the horns. It’s the Treasury Board who has to represent the Government of Canada and the employees and those who are part of this plan. They need to take these folks on and hold them to account.
There must be performance standards in a contract of this nature. It’s not a Senate issue. It’s a Treasury Board issue because it’s across government, and at the pharmacy level.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Quinn.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much. I agree with my colleagues. In listening, I’m getting a bit of PTSD on something called Phoenix. That disaster has been with us in a larger sense for a long time, and it’s still not gone.
Ms. Francis, I know you’ve got team members who are sitting and comparing and dealing with Canada Life, but are you, as head of HR, talking to any of your counterparts through the system not only here in Parliament and the other place, but also with the board or other departments? It seems to me that if we have 99% positive enrolment, as you said in your remarks, but the problem isn’t going away in terms of client service on the part of Canada Life, then a trend line should be established. If the trend continues to be two-hour waits on claims and the like, or phone calls telling you that you can’t use the phone to talk to people, then the company should be held to account. I agree with what Senator Quinn just said.
To do that, however, you must have a bit of a database or a sense on what the trend is because if it’s going to continue like this, we have a big problem.
Ms. Francis: Agreed. Thank you, senator. We have been receiving regular messages from Treasury Board and following their lead in terms of the updates, the information and the work that they’re doing. Certainly, I can add our data to the experience of others. Most definitely that’s something I can add to the to-do list. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Toni. Are there any other questions, colleagues?
Senator Loffreda: Just to summarize all that, I’ve often said lately that if it’s not broken, don’t fix it. If you fix it, you’ll break it. This is a good example.
I respect the fact that Treasury Board took that decision, but we need a plan going forward and some reassurances. As I said to my colleagues, “Don’t take on what you can’t or won’t be able to do.” When the decision was made, I assume assurances were made that they were able to service such a plan. I think we need reassurances at this point. I think promises were made at the time. What were they? Why were they not kept?
With respect to the comment Senator Quinn made, I would want to ask him this question but I’ll abstain. His pharmacist said they’re impossible to deal with. Was that before they took us on or once they took us on? That’s the question. When you take on a new contract, reputational risk should be your top priority or concern. We’re talking about the Treasury Board. I’m certain that we have looked at the reputation of Canada Life.
At this point, we need a plan going forward. Don’t just say it’s the Treasury Board, but get the plan from the Treasury Board. I would deep dive into what they did and make them accountable. This is an important issue — not for us but for our staff, for their families and for everybody else. It’s never about us. It’s about everybody else. We’ve got responsibilities here. I think we need a plan going forward. What’s going to happen? Why did it happen? How will we make it not happen again?
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Loffreda. Toni, do you have anything to add?
Ms. Francis: No. I think that’s a great point, Senator Loffreda. I will certainly contact them to see if they can give us an outline of what’s to come in the future and what expectations have been made of Canada Life.
Senator Loffreda: Why did you make that decision? At this point, we want to know. Like I said, it’s not about us. It’s about everybody else. We have responsibilities here.
The Chair: Senator Quinn, would you like to answer Senator Loffreda’s question?
Senator Quinn: Yes. It was last week. The name of the game is to get the contract. However, in contracts there must be performance standards that are obviously not being met or they were poorly evaluated at the time of the contract — one or the other.
The Chair: Any other questions or comments before I move on to other business?
If not, senators, before we proceed in camera, following a concern raised by the Honourable Senator Ringuette regarding the requirement to have more communication concerning the current COVID wave, the steering committee looked into the matter relating to the terms of frequency.
As a result, HR has advised us that they will follow the pattern waves to avoid being alarmist as well as overcommunicating to the point of desensitization or overcommunicating if a predetermined schedule collides with spikes in the community. We will keep you apprised when appropriate. Are there any questions or comments on this?
[Translation]
Dear colleagues, are there any other points we need to address in public?
In that case, we will briefly suspend the meeting so that the clerk can ensure that we are in camera. However, before doing so, I’d like to remind everyone that the Internal Economy Committee’s meetings are mostly held in public. It is only when committee members are examining sensitive issues, such as salaries, contracts and contract negotiations, labour relations and personnel or safety matters, that these items are discussed in camera. The committee wants to be as transparent as possible about the important work it does.
I will ask the clerk to inform committee members when we go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)