THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 30, 2023
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET], pursuant to Standing Order 12-7(1), to consider financial and administrative matters; and in camera, pursuant to Standing Order 12-7(1), to consider financial and administrative matters.
Senator Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. My name is Lucie Moncion. I am a senator from Ontario and I have the privilege of chairing this committee. I’d now like to go around the table and ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Audette: [Innu-Aimun spoken], Michèle Audette, senator from Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: Good morning. Pierre Dalphond, De Lorimier division, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
Senator Forest: Good morning. Éric Forest from the Gulf division in Quebec.
Senator Loffreda: Good morning. Tony Loffreda from Montreal, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Smith: Good morning. Larry Smith from Montreal, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
[Translation]
The Chair: I also welcome all those following our deliberations throughout the country.
Honourable senators, the first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the November 9, 2023, meeting, which are in your kit. Are there any questions or amendments?
[English]
Senator Plett, I assume that you would like to move the motion that we adopt the minutes of November 9, 2023. Senator Plett moves the motion.
Are we all in agreement, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
The next item is the continuation of our discussion on the twelfth report from the Subcommittee on Human Resources regarding regional offices. Élise Hurtubise-Loranger, Senior Parliamentary Counsel, and David Plotkin, Parliamentary Counsel, will now join us as witnesses. Welcome.
I understand that Senator Saint-Germain will make opening remarks and that Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger and Mr. Plotkin will assist in answering questions.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain, the floor is yours.
The Honourable Raymonde Saint-Germain: Welcome, Élise and David.
At our last meeting on November 9, you will recall that I presented the twelfth report of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, which focused on the challenges of using regional offices in light of the Senate’s obligations under the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Accessibility Act.
[English]
In discussions following the presentation of the report, the Deputy Chair of the Human Resources Subcommittee, Senator Seidman, proposed an amendment to the original recommendations, which seemed to receive the assent of the other members before we decided to postpone the decision on these recommendations to allow us to discuss them with our respective caucuses and groups. The amendment provides that until the end of the commercial resident space, senators who have such a contract would be able to continue, and be allowed to do so.
We had to consult with our members, each and every group. I did so with the members of the Independent Senators Group, my group. The comments I received were on two sides.
[Translation]
The senator in my group who has a regional office in a commercial building would like to continue using that office. He has no objection to a moratorium and is satisfied that the lease will be respected until its expiry date.
Senators in my group, particularly Indigenous senators — and I’ll leave it to a colleague to speak clearly on this — raised the fact that, for Indigenous senators in particular, it’s important to have a meeting place that is a regional office, not their place of residence. In the case of the Independent Senators Group, this consultation raises some reservations about the proposal. I’d like to hear from my colleagues on this point. Then I’ll have — it depends on our conversation — a recommendation, an amended motion to put to you.
[English]
Senator Plett: I am not sure that I have comments, but I do have one question. Of course, I may have further comments if and when Senator Saint-Germain suggests that we allow certain regional offices. At first blush, I would say then we may also have some suggestions as to why others should have some. Be that as it may, I will not speak to that until I hear it.
We also raised it at our caucus, as was suggested. We did not necessarily have pushback on not having regional offices. Two of our senators have regional offices. One is retiring in the not-too-distant future and he was okay with it, and the other said that he would live with it as well. The questions were more around why. I explained to our caucus that when I asked the question here about why MPs could do this and we couldn’t, I was told that staff in an MP’s office were the staff of the member of the House of Commons and staff in the Senate were the staff of the Senate and not my staff or your staff. I received some significant pushback in my caucus on that issue. They didn’t agree.
I am not sure who the right person is to explain this. As I said, there was significant pushback from people who have been here for quite a while saying that they did not agree that the staff were not our staff. I do not know if that is for Philippe Hallée or for the people at the other end of the table, but I would like it clearly explained why these are not our staff. We hire them, we sign contracts with them, we suggest how much money they get. Sometimes we are overruled by somebody else and we are told now you are going to give them a raise retroactively, and I am not quite sure why that happens. Nevertheless, I would like that explained if I could.
Élise Hurtubise-Loranger, Senior Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel: This has been a question that has come back a few times. We have briefing materials prepared in the past about this. It is under the Parliament of Canada Act. The Senate, as represented by CIBA, is the employer of all Senate staff. This is something that is provided under legislation. Under chapter 3 of SOMP, it is clear that technically it is the Human Resources director who hires and terminates senators’ staff members under the direction of the senator. This is how we are set up under statute and under our policies.
The Chair: Are you all right, Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No, but I do not think that I will get a better explanation than that. I find the way that we are operating here to be strange. The Parliament of Canada Act pertains to the members of the House of Commons as well as to us.
I am not sure that this is an item. At the end of the day, we will vote on this. I’m not sure what the urgency is because we only have, apparently, four regional offices, one of which is closing in the not-too-distant future. We’ve agreed that he can keep his office and that we can’t spend more time getting a legal opinion. I’m not sure that I accept the explanation that I just received, but I will not debate it further.
Senator Quinn: Further to what Senator Plett said, my understanding is that if the senator hires a staff member at that regional office, the contract is between the senator and that person. Is that correct? Or is it between the Senate and that person?
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: Is it about the lease or about the employee contract?
Senator Quinn: No, it’s about the person working for a senator in a regional office. Is it the senator who hires and is responsible for that contract or is it the mother house?
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: They continue to be staff of the Senate hired under SOMP, so that would make them an employee of the Senate. Their manager is the senator, but the employment relationship is between the employee and the Senate.
Senator Quinn: Related to that, when the Senate hires a contractor, for example, is that contractor then subject to the Canada Labour Code and the things that we have to do underneath that, occupational health and safety and things of that nature?
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: If they are on Senate premises, some obligations under the code would apply. The code is set up for the employee/employer relationship. If someone were injured on Senate premises, we may still have liability issues.
Senator Quinn: I’m interested in the contractual matters. I just wanted some clarification there.
Senator Boyer: I raised the issue of Indigenous people and the ability to not close the door on the possibility of having a senator with an office in the region, say, on reserve. I am thinking about Senator Christmas and when I visited Membertou, and how important it was during my visit that I was able to gather with the whole community that was coming out of the office of Senator Christmas.
The other thing that needs to be recognized is the special relationship that Canada has with Indigenous people. That puts Indigenous people outside, in a way, to consider that there should be an exception to the rule of not having regional offices in the future. The special relationship is under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes First Nations, Métis and Inuit. It’s only Indigenous people in this country who have these constitutionally protected rights.
That is important for me. It is something I needed to bring forward, namely, that if we are able to put an exception and an ability to have an exception into any policy that we bring forward about the regional offices, I think it would be important because it would allow more friendly relations between the Senate and Indigenous people in this country. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Boyer. Do you require an answer or it was just a statement?
Senator Boyer: That was a statement for consideration.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Quinn: My question was going to come back to the fact that each of us, as senators, has a budget. We have responsibility as senator managers. I’m still wondering why, as RCMs, that we are not accountable for the management of that budget. If a senator chose to have a regional office — if that was going to facilitate their job — then why wouldn’t that be allowed to happen? That is, provided that the senator takes the appropriate steps to ensure that the Labour Code is being respected for the people engaged in that regional office and that it is being taken into consideration how that office is set up and run at their expense from their budget. Why is that not an option?
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: This is a policy choice for this committee to make. Our role was to highlight the complexities of implementing an OHS framework in regional offices. There are certain complexities and risks that come with that. If the committee is comfortable with those risks — and that is what we raised at the Human Resources Subcommittee — that is fine. It’s a choice.
Senator Quinn: There is risk in the office I have right now, I suppose.
In any case, we have responsible people as senators who are used to running things in their careers. As long as they cover the expenses that are necessary to respect the rules, then why would we put a restriction on them? That is a question to contemplate as we consider this topic.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Quinn.
Senator Smith: I had a visit with one of our new senators, Paul Prosper, yesterday. Senator Prosper approached me and he wanted to discuss the issue of having an office. He was a chief in Truro, Nova Scotia. He was very soft-spoken and polite in asking if this would be a possibility.
We discussed and had the same type of feedback that we have heard from Senator Boyer and Senator Audette on the importance of the regional office in terms of the interaction with his community. I said that I would bring it forward to this committee for discussion. He was up front and said, “I can live with a decision that is made by CIBA, but I would appreciate the opportunity.”
I felt it was important to put this in front of everyone because it is another issue that is similar to some of the other outstanding issues. I agree with Senator Boyer that it is important we have these special relationships. Paul has that special relationship that he has nurtured over years that should be able to continue on. He was up front about saying, “I can get a good deal because I know these folks. It can be something that is reasonable.” I said, “Before we get to the really reasonable, let’s see what the ground rules would potentially be.”
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Plett: I have one question and one comment.
I touched on this a bit. A year or two ago, we were suddenly told that we needed to give all of our staff a significant bump in pay. Some of that was covered by the Senate, but going forward it would be covered by us. We were not given an increase in our budget, and many senators were at the maximum on their budget. Suddenly, they had to scramble to find money to pay for raises to people. This had not been precipitated by those staff members — certainly not by senators — but by somebody, somewhere in the dark corners of the Senate who had decided that this would be done because labour negotiations dictated that we would give them raises.
We have just been told now that we are not the employers; we are only the manager. Do I have to get approval for a hiring? Am I allowed to fire? It sounds to me like, if I am only the manager, I have to call somebody and say, “This person isn’t doing a good job. Do you think that I should be able to replace this person?”
I would have to get permission. That comment is simply something that gives me pause to say no to this entire request because I have just been told that I cannot hire and fire somebody because I am only a manager.
We used to run this place, senators, and we are turning this over. We are turning this whole Senate over to Senate staff. I have a problem with that.
As far as doing a carve-out for certain regional offices, I’m absolutely opposed because I also have a unique relationship with a group of people that I represent — not constitutionally guaranteed, I agree. But if we do something for one group of people, it is not that we would have one office in a province; we might have three offices in a province. In Quebec, there are regions; the rest of us are simply a province.
We have six senators in Manitoba. We could all six of us say that we have a special relationship with a certain constituency. At the end of the day, I will be prepared to go with either allowing regional offices or not, but not allowing regional offices for some senators and not for others. First, I do not think that is right. Second, I do not think it is right when staff tells me I am the manager and not the boss. I struggle with that. That opens a Pandora’s box here that we don’t want to get into, and that is what I just heard, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett. Do you require an answer, or it was a comment?
Senator Plett: If there is an answer to that, then I would appreciate it.
The Chair: Okay, thank you.
Senator Moodie: Could we have some clarification? I hear some discussion about senators having staff back in their regions. I want to ensure I am clear on this. Should we go through with this vote, will senators still continue to be allowed to have their staff back in their regions?
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: Yes. Senators have remote workers who work from their own homes in their home province. This change would not affect that possibility.
Philippe Hallée, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel: To speak to Senator Plett’s concerns, to put things back in perspective, we do not have an opinion on how you should manage your offices. That was not the point. The point here was that we were asked to provide a legal opinion on whether there are some legal risks associated with regional offices. That is what we did. We provided that to the Subcommittee on Human Resources, or HRRH, and you have that report before you. That is all there is.
Senator Plett: Thank you for that. I am not challenging that.
In the answer I received to the question that was asked — or maybe Senator Quinn asked the question — I was told that I’m only a manager, not a boss. If I want to remove somebody for whatever reason — they can’t do their job or even just lay them off — the answer I got to the other question, basically, would say that I have to get somebody — I don’t know whose office — to say I can remove this person, because the answer I received was that I am a manager, not an employer.
Mr. Hallée: As a senator and manager, you have a lot of latitude over your staff. That is well established in the legal framework of this place that you have a lot of latitude. It is just that we manage the employees of the Senate in a fairly consistent way, and CHRO will help you in every possible step to recruit and also to terminate employees.
Senator Plett: I have latitude as long as I have permission to have that latitude. Somebody has to give it to me.
I’m sorry; I don’t think we need to debate it. The answer was quite clear: I’m a manager, not a boss.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: I’m going to speak in French. To begin with, I just want to remind you that, perhaps a year and a few moons ago, to the great joy of my little office, Nadine Gros-Louis and I, we learned that we could open an office in Wendake; a big thank you to those who worked in favour of this. Thank you also for discussing this situation and consulting your respective groups; that too, I understand.
You know, with my new moccasins, I’m not attached to any group and I’m going to learn, through reading and talking with my colleague Senator Saint-Germain, that the subject is up for discussion. I’m closely following what’s going on and I see that decisions may be made to have a grandfather clause for those who have offices and perhaps eventually withdraw them.
Of course, I’m going to react, in the sense that the Indigenous issue is important, indeed, Senator Plett, but there’s also the question, when you look at all this and you’re appointed to the Senate, of the importance, for any senator, of reaching out to the people you deal with on a daily basis when you’re not in the House. For me, having an office was important for a number of reasons; it was the COVID period, remember, then the work went on in hybrid mode, finally quietly resuming in the House in person full-time.
I was 51 at the time; I have children, I have grandchildren. There are people back home, it’s really Innu at home, lots of family members coming and going. I think it’s important to maintain the professional side of things. There’s a line to be drawn to ensure the confidentiality of our documents, our files and the work we do. This office has become a solution for me and has enabled me to bring the hybrid side out of my home into a safe, professional space and in a community in Wendake. This space is a building that requires electronic chips and electronic keys to enter. It’s an organization that will be working with 22 First Nations communities, so we’re in a space where we’ll be collaborating with people who don’t necessarily know the Senate. That’s part of our mandate.
However, on the health and safety side of the premises, I made sure to find a space where we were going to respect the rules, where we would be compliant and where we would make sure that our documents would also be protected. It’s like taking my office out of the Senate and having to find the same space again. We refused to go to places that were desperate to have us and chose another space that met my criteria and what the Senate was asking of us.
In addition, we’re going to pay for insurance even though the building has liability insurance, and I’ve added that as well. I’ve sent you a letter indicating how much this will cost me per year from the Senate budget in case something should happen. As for the grandfather clause, I can understand that, but in 5 years, in 10 years — I’ve still got 22 years to go, health permitting. We mustn’t close ourselves off to something that might one day be a hybrid Senate — I don’t know what’s going to happen. It may be difficult to undo what we’re proposing to do now.
If I meet all the rules, if my office meets all the rules in terms of occupational health and safety, in terms of the safety of the premises.... My team has taken the training, we answer every month and since then, all this has even had a personal influence, there are things I don’t do at home anymore, because I learned thanks to the training that you can’t. Since my house burned down not too long ago, I’ve obviously become very vigilant about these things.
I encourage us, First Nations, Métis and Inuit from Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, whatever.... If we meet the rules and important criteria, I don’t see why we have to close these offices right away when we know that we’re moving towards a hybrid Senate, maybe not in my lifetime, but it will happen eventually — I hope in my lifetime. I invite you... Those who follow the rules to the letter and are careful should be celebrated and encouraged, because it has a positive effect.
I’d like to end on a more... note. People didn’t like the Senate in my area, in my environment. Today, because there’s someone there full-time, there’s an education going on. Today, they act as witnesses; they bring something new to our debates, something we didn’t have before. I’m not talking about Indigenous people, I’m talking about people from the Quebec government, people who are part of Quebec society and who didn’t understand why the Senate existed. Now, when they come to see us, when we discuss and improve bills that come from them, it has an effect on those who come from Quebec and say: “Bah, the Senate.” Today, they will follow us or participate a little more in our work. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Thank you, colleagues, for the commentary. It’s very helpful.
I want to go back to something Mr. Hallée said in response to Senator Plett, about what’s before us — apparently the group asked that the risk be assessed from a legal perspective. From my experience in government, we are never going to get a report back that doesn’t have some element of risk. It’s about how to balance that risk and if you are willing to accept that risk. It seems we’re being given a black-and-white situation here that says we’re either going to have offices or not. Is it acceptable to have the risk? That is the first point.
The other point I would make, and it was Senator Plett who raised this, is that it’s almost like we’re behaving like the Treasury Board itself with respect to insisting on increases in different areas and absorbing them from within, which begins to affect the ability of senators to maybe completely do their job as they’ve been doing it because as you freeze budgets and bring in new requirements, those budgets cause less effectiveness somewhere in the chain.
That’s a whole other issue, but I did feel compelled to talk about the risk element. I have years of experience dealing with the Department of Justice, and there wasn’t one time where I wasn’t told, “It’s an 80-20, it’s a 75-25.” There is always an element of risk. How much risk are we willing to accept? Quite frankly, with 40 regional offices, senators are not going to operate in an office, I don’t believe, that doesn’t have procedures in place that are in the interests of the employees and their safety.
I just think it’s a question of balance here. It’s not a black-and-white type of an affair, but if we make it a black-and-white decision, then we’re back to what Senator Plett said, either we do it or we don’t do it, notwithstanding the comments that I think are extremely valid from our colleagues who are First Nations people representing areas where they’re integrated with those folks.
Back to what Senator Plett said, I’m a New Brunswick senator. I don’t represent Saint John; I represent New Brunswick citizens. I choose not to have a regional office. Someone else may decide to do their job more effectively in perhaps a more remote area of New Brunswick and they decide they want to have a regional office. I’m never going to dispute that with them. That’s their choice. Let them manage their budgets, and then we’ll have to deal with the responsibilities with respect to absorbing costs forever within. That’s what the Treasury Board does with departments, and it doesn’t work.
The Chair: If I may, it goes back to a comment that I made last week saying instead of not being able to have offices, draw up the parameters within which we can have an office. That means we can accommodate those who want an office, but I will give Mr. Hallée the floor.
Senator Plett: I wanted to make a comment on that when Mr. Hallée is done, please.
Mr. Hallée: Very briefly, I want to agree with Senator Quinn. I don’t disagree with you at all. That’s why Élise pointed out in her remarks that this is a policy decision. The senators are making the policy. We were asked to provide the legal angle to it, and that’s what we did. That’s all there is to it.
As is the SOMP. Essentially, the SOMP is, as the name says, a policy that has been put in place by senators for senators’ management. That’s why we say right now, this is the legal framework that we are working within, which is decisions that were made before us that, essentially, senators’ staff are members of the Senate staff. That is a difference with the MPs, but that is essentially a policy decision that was made by the Senate.
Senator Plett: I just want to make a bit of a further comment to what you said, chair, and what I think I understood you to say. I would support us having Senator Saint-Germain’s committee or whoever coming back to us with a plan under these parameters. You can have an office, but you have to follow these parameters. Then it will be our decision to make, whether I want to follow those parameters or not, but to simply tell me I cannot have it — Senator Audette made a very good observation being in a province that really doesn’t support the Senate. She has good reason. She represents not only the Indigenous people but many people there.
If we have more difficulties because of insurance reasons or whatever, because of the labour codes, come back and tell us if you followed these parameters. If it’s the Senate that will be doing that lease and you have to have it in your budget or whatever, I will readily support that, not just being told no.
I don’t have a regional office either, and I have no intentions of getting one, but I think if we give anybody the opportunity, we should give everybody the opportunity and follow some strict criteria, chair. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Plett. I was going to conclude exactly along the same lines as you. The origin of the mandate of the Human Resources Subcommittee is linked to the change in the Labour Code; we realized that our policy for managing senators’ offices is not adapted to these changes, that there is confusion between a senator’s home office and a regional office.
The conversations we’ve had this week and last week in committee are very enlightening for the subcommittee. Tomorrow morning, the subcommittee will meet. I propose to pause this conversation so that the subcommittee, in light of the comments we’ve heard and with the collaboration of our legal team, can review the situation and make a new proposal at the next meeting of the Internal Economy Committee.
The Chair: Is it agreed, colleagues?
Thank you very much, Senator Saint-Germain, Élise and David.
[English]
The next item, colleagues, is a report from the Subcommittee on Communications. Mélisa Leclerc, Director General, Communications, Broadcasting and Publications Directorate; and Julia Zayed, Accessibility Officer, will join us as witnesses. As usual, this presentation will be followed by time for questions.
I understand, Senator Smith, that you will make opening remarks and then Mélisa and Julia will assist in answering questions. Welcome, ladies. Senator Smith, the floor is yours.
Senator Smith: Thank you, chair. Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the Subcommittee on Communications’ second report, which includes a report on intellectual property requests; second, a report on accessibility; third, an item of reimbursement for paid social media subscriptions; and fourth, an item on the clippings. The report on intellectual property requests is for information only. The other three items require a decision from this committee. Let’s get right to it.
The first item is the quarterly report on intellectual property requests. As you will recall, we decided in May 2023 to let Communications and the Law Clerk’s Office handle requests for commercial uses of Senate intellectual property that are “insignificant in nature.” These requests had previously been assessed by CIBA steering. For transparency, we directed Communications to provide quarterly reports on requests. Your subcommittee heard that during the third quarter of fiscal 2023-24, the Senate received just one request, which was approved. The details are in the report, but it had to do with broadcasting testimony from young witnesses who appeared before the Indigenous Peoples Committee as part of Voices of Youth Indigenous Leaders, a good-news story for the Senate. I want to emphasize here that Communications ran the request by Senator Francis, who approved it as committee chair.
So we have a good system in place. Our officials are doing their jobs and making sure to seek approval from the appropriate senator when these matters arise. Your subcommittee is comfortable with this level of oversight, and we see no need to change anything at this time.
Second, the report on accessibility. Your subcommittee received a presentation from the Senate Accessibility Officer about the 2023 Senate Accessibility Plan progress report. A copy is in your bundle.
As you know, the Senate faces a number of legal requirements related to accessibility. Your subcommittee heard that Senate Administration has been working full tilt to accomplish its objectives. The directors are buying into the importance of this work, and the Senate Accessibility Officer is coordinating these efforts so we are pulling in the same direction.
The role of the Senate Accessibility Officer is to coordinator, prioritize and communicate the administration’s implementation of accessibility objectives. The role was created because accessibility is an enormous undertaking that affects every directorate in administration. We’re talking about everything from accessibility document templates to website protocols to automatic doors. The Senate Accessibility Officer knows the big picture holds the directorates accountable. In turn, that helps gives us transparency from the administration because the Senate Accessibility Officer knows the file, what’s working and what needs to be prioritized and can answer our questions. That’s the good news in this report. Your subcommittee heard that consultations have yielded a great deal of information about what is working and what isn’t from visitors and witnesses with disabilities, as well as our staff.
Among the people consulted were witnesses who testified during the Social Affairs Committee study of Bill C-22, the Canada Disability Benefit Act, where special accommodation measures were put in place. One big take away is that we have a lot of useful tools already, but we need to do a better job at spreading the word. The administration is already acting on this and other feedback.
Otherwise, the report outlines the progress made toward this year’s goals. Your subcommittee is very pleased to note that 11 of 12 goals have been achieved. The outstanding goal is related to standards for wayfaring and signage. PSPC and the administration were hoping to make use of national standards set by Accessibility Standards Canada, but those standards are only expected to be finalized in 2026.
Your subcommittee notes the Accessible Canada Act requires the Senate to publish this progress report by December 20, 2023, and to notify the Accessibility Commissioner, so your subcommittee will be seeking your approval of the report today.
Before I read the recommendations, one other issue emerged during your subcommittee’s discussions. Your subcommittee heard that the Senate Accessibility Officer does not have ready access to information about disabilities and barriers that our own employees may be experiencing. There’s no question that employee privacy must be protected, but your subcommittee would like to see anonymized information shared with the accessibility officer. Among other things, this could really help prioritize internal objectives so that our staff have the support they need to do their work in a barrier-free environment.
Accordingly, your subcommittee recommends that CIBA approve the 2023 Senate Accessibility Plan progress report and direct that the Senate administration make available anonymized information about the nature of disabilities that Senate employees experience to the Senate Accessibility Officer.
Our third item is about whether paid subscriptions to social media platforms should be eligible for reimbursement from a senator’s office budget. There is currently no provision in the Senators’ Office Management Policy that addresses this. I don’t use social media myself that much, but I know many of you are active on many different platforms. Your subcommittee understands that paying for social media can give you advantages that a free account does not. On Twitter or X — or whatever it’s called this week — more people see your posts if you pay, and you get some extra functionality too.
Since social media can serve senators in their parliamentary functions, your subcommittee is of the view that it would be appropriate to amend the SOMP to permit reimbursement. The financial implications are fairly minor. Paying for X, LinkedIn and YouTube Premium would run you about $570 per year, and the administration can handle processing the additional expense claims if subscriptions are on an annual basis and eligibility for reimbursement is restricted to senators’ accounts.
Before you say “sign me up,” I need to emphasize that you may have to change how you use your social media if you take the money. Senate Administrative Rules state that Senate resources may be only used for parliamentary functions of senators and/or in the service of the Senate. That means some types of partisan activity, like fundraising and commercial activity, would not be permitted if the Senate pays for your social media. Unfortunately, your subcommittee believes this is a choice that senators should make for themselves and we are informed an amendment to SOMP is required if social media subscriptions are to be an eligible expense. Accordingly, your subcommittee makes the recommendation to amend SOMP, which is found in item three of our second report.
Moving on to the fourth and last point. I expect this item may generate some discussion, but at the end of the day, I think it’s pretty straightforward. Your subcommittee was made aware that some senators have indicated that they object to the inclusion of certain media sources in the Senate media clippings. It’s understandable. Since I was the publisher of the Gazette 20 years ago, the media landscape has become increasingly fractured, the line between news and opinion blurred, and it has become harder to figure out which sources are more likely to be reliable. That’s just where we are now. Canadians are reading, watching, listening and subscribing to a wider variety of news sources that don’t follow the traditional model. The clippings exist to provide senators with an overview of media mentions relating to senators and the Senate. It is a snapshot in time; nothing more, nothing less. It’s not an endorsement of the content. Thank goodness — this is for Senator Plett — because the Toronto and Winnipeg newspapers looked pretty foolish picking against the Alouettes in the playoffs. I’m sorry, I couldn’t help myself.
In practice, the clippings are compiled from sources for which our third-party service provider has distribution rights. Your subcommittee is informed that senators regularly request additions to the clippings. This can be accommodated when our service provider has the distribution rights. This is a purely legal question and has nothing to do with the quality, source or the political bend of the publication. The current practice is to include media coverage from all sources that our service provider has access to.
While we could argue about the relative merits of one source or another, your subcommittee believes it is important to know what is being said right across the spectrum. Your staff, and certainly Communications staff, need to know what issues are being talked about and how they’re being talked about so they can provide us with the best possible advice and support.
Accordingly, your subcommittee recommends that CIBA endorse the current practice of including all Critical Mention sources with public mention of the Senate in the media clippings, and directs Communications to amend the disclaimer in the clippings to add this line:
Sources are automatically included if they are available on Critical Mention and if the article or clip mentions the Senate or a senator’s name.
Before I move to the adoption of the report, Mélisa Leclerc, Director General of Communications and Publications, and Julia Zayed are ready to take any questions you may have on these four items. I thank you very much for your time and patience.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Thank you is very much, Senator Smith, for your excellent report. I will say I’m pleased to note that 11 of the 12 goals due to be completed in 2023 on the accessibility issues overall are completed. I’m really pleased to hear that because I know that has been a big project in the Senate, and it is critical to achieve. Thank you.
I have a question about the paid social media subscriptions. If I read the briefing notes here that I received, it says, “the advantages of paid social media subscriptions,” but then there is another paragraph that says:
. . . certain types of partisan and commercial activities, for example,would not be permitted on social media platforms funded from a senator’s office budget.
I’m not really sure what that means because, as we know, senators on X or Twitter — whatever we’re calling it — make all kinds of posts. Are we going to monitor what they post, screen them and say that they are posting certain kinds of partisan activities that they are not allowed to post and so now they can’t pay for the subscription on Twitter through their office budget? I’m just not sure what this means.
Mélisa Leclerc, Director General, Communications, Broadcasting and Publications Directorate: We consulted with our legal team on this. It is a legal interpretation of some SARs rules where Senate money cannot be used for partisan or political purposes. I think in the past some Senate resources were used to promote certain things, and the legal team had to provide an analysis of this.
In terms of monitoring, we can’t monitor every single account and post, but if things are brought to our attention, I would have to report back, I assume, to the Subcommittee on Communications or the steering committee of CIBA, and a decision would have to be made. I would not make that decision. I think the rules are clear that Senate money cannot be used for — I don’t know if Philippe or Gerry want to add anything to this.
Senator Smith: The basic premise is there must be trust with the senators. We have an expectation, I think, amongst all of us that we’re honourable people. Part of being honourable is ensuring that we use good judgment in what we do. From what I understood when we sat down and reviewed it is that the last thing we would like to have is someone always looking over your shoulder and saying, “You shouldn’t do this or that.” We’re more interested in making sure that the appropriate news gets out there. We have a way of doing business together and a relationship together and we’re all trying to aim for the same thing.
That’s all I can say other than the technical point that Mélisa would raise.
Senator Seidman: I think it’s dangerous. If we’re going to be monitoring senators’ social media because they’ve now paid a subscription, maybe we ought not to be paying subscriptions. I just don’t know, but I think it’s extremely dangerous to start monitoring senators’ social media and then for someone to decide that what they have posted on their social media is somehow inappropriate. There can be all kinds of motives to decide that. Who will decide that? We really should think carefully about what we’re doing here. That’s my parting word.
Senator Plett: The question has been answered, but I want to echo what Senator Seidman said. Senator Smith, I fully endorse the comment you made about trust. I fully endorse that we’re honourable people.
When I got appointed to the Senate, I spoke to — and I’m not sure what his title was; it doesn’t really matter — somebody quite high up in the staff of the Senate who explained to me what I could and could not do as a senator, and so on. We talked about travel. Of course, I was allowed to travel on Senate business. I asked him, “Well, who determines what is Senate business?” I clearly remember his answer to me, “Senator, you do. You have the title of ‘honourable.’ That means that you are to be trusted to do the right thing.”
Since that day, we have had moves to suspend senators, Senate inquiries and investigations. We have had senators writing letters about somebody not acting ethically so they have been brought before the Ethics Commissioner and the Ethics Committee all on the word of some senators. I think those days, unfortunately, are gone. If we have a line like this in there, let’s not kid ourselves, some of us are more partisan than others. There is no doubt about it. But there will be complaints brought forward on a regular basis to Mélisa Leclerc, who says she will turn it over to the subcommittee. It is a dangerous, slippery slope to have this in there. Mélisa says that we are not supposed to use our social posts for partisan purposes, whatever the rules. The fact of the matter is that I get paid every month, and fairly much on time, for doing my Senate work. But if I decide to go and operate in somebody’s election campaign, I am not asked to donate some of my paycheque back for that time. That’s a partisan activity that now is, in a roundabout way, being paid for by the Senate.
This, colleagues, is a dangerous slope. I cannot support a report that has that line in it. Again, I want to commend you, Mélisa, Senator Smith and your committee, for the report. Overall, I think it’s a good report, but that line is so absolutely subject to the opinion of a certain person who files a complaint and then you, Mélisa or whomever, will have to deal with that complaint whether you like to or not. Somebody will then have to make a decision that I shouldn’t have done that.
So, colleagues, I hope we can consider taking that paragraph out of this report.
Senator Boehm: Thank you to Senator Smith and the Communications team for a very excellent report. I just have one comment on the first item, in fact, the item that Senators Seidman and Plett just raised.
For those of you who are on Twitter, there is the non-binary grey checkmark that you can achieve, as I have, which means you get Twitter X for free and there is no payment involved. But that puts you in that grey zone category. Some of us are comfortable in that; others not so much.
I want to focus on item 4 and the inclusion of media sources in the clippings. We have, through the company Critical Mention, a new approach now, a new scan. While I agree that it’s important to get all sources and all mentions, Critical Mention does not look at international media and international sources. Increasingly, our Senate and senators show up in international publications of some significance. That is simply not there, but you will have letters to the editor from disgruntled Canadians on whatever subject. Those will appear.
My recommendation would be to work with Critical Mention to see if there could be some fine-tuning so that international sources would also be covered because they’re covering some of the big stories involving Canada in the world — India, China and other things. If we have a clipping service, then we should ensure that we have a scan that goes a bit broader than our own borders.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Good morning, Mélisa and Julia. I apologize for asking a question about $210 a year, but I have to ask. In your proposal, will the maximum Twitter subscription of $105 per site be allowed? Currently, we have a request on hold awaiting the decision of the Finance and Procurement Directorate, because we’re told that it’s possible that we may no longer be able to subscribe to the higher level of Twitter, which allows for a greater number of characters. In French, that’s important to us. Do you have a limit? There are two levels of Twitter subscription: maximum and regular. I understand that the maximum would be allowed, but I want to be sure, because it is not specified.
Ms. Leclerc: I don’t know if Finance approves a minimum amount right now, but I don’t think so.
Senator Saint-Germain: Pending that decision, they are refusing to approve our application for $210 per year.
Ms. Leclerc: I’d have to ask the Finance Directorate to see if it’s approved currently, but I don’t think so.
The Chair: Thank you, Mélisa. We will check.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Thank you very much for the excellent report and the work you’ve done. My concern is around item 3. I take a slightly different perspective to the one that we’ve heard about already.
I think the question we face now and have had issues in the past is about social media. Currently, the Senate has no oversight of what we, as senators or staff, do on social media. This has been tested. We don’t have the ability through rules to address what we may consider to be dishonourable behaviour.
I’m concerned that we are embarking on paying for access to social media, where we have absolutely no ability, or oversight, or influence on what is done by individuals. That concerns me.
We go beyond political postings. There are abusive and vexatious postings. Choose whatever word or language you like. The fact is, right now, we are testing it. We’ll see in a week or two. But we have no control, so why would we engage in paying for and supporting an activity we have no control over as an organization?
I would strongly suggest that item 3 be reconsidered as a recommendation and that we not offer to pay for social media postings.
Senator Loffreda: This is an interesting discussion. I agree with Senator Seidman. Although trust is the currency of every relationship, and I think every senator is trusted — this is why we’re here in the Senate — but the motives may vary amongst senators. I agree that some are more partisan than others, and if you are to attack a senator, you would attack where he is most vulnerable. And if we put these rules forward, I believe that we are opening a can of worms. It is very dangerous.
If you want to have a successful social media strategy, for example, many people tell us, we post our committees, we show Canadians what senators are doing, we post almost every committee intervention and Senate intervention. I think that Canadians do like that. I get feedback.
A successful strategy is also to humanize the person or the senator. For example, if I post a picture with Danny Maciocia and Anthony Calvillo because they won the Grey Cup, congratulations, and finally it’s back in Montreal, is that Senate business? Someone is not happy because I voted against their bill or didn’t vote for the bill, so they might attack me by saying I’m posting something on social media that is not Senate business. That is a small example. We don’t do much of that. People tell me we should do a lot more of it because the most likes I get are from pictures or posts such as those. We can try to save the world, but the picture will get more likes than trying to save the world. That is what social media is all about.
I think it opens a can of worms, and it is dangerous going down the path of putting strict rules. I don’t mind paying for it myself. I’m responsible for my own brand. I would never post anything that is going to harm the Senate because if it harms the institution, it harms the senator themselves. As you said, Senator Smith, trust is the currency of every relationship. Why do we have to have such strict rules?
Every senator has a voice. We’re here to speak and sometimes be partisan. Let’s face it. Sometimes we have a reason to be partisan, and we should be. I think that we are opening up a can of worms. I will tell you, if that is the policy, I don’t mind paying for it myself.
Senator Marshall: Mélisa, what is happening over in the House of Commons? Are the MPs charging these types of expenditures to their office budgets? Is any oversight provided over there? Do you have that information? I would be interested in knowing what they are doing over there.
Ms. Leclerc: I don’t know. I have the feeling they don’t cover those types of expenses, but we would have to check to be 100% sure. I am looking at my manager of social media here to see if she has the answer, and she doesn’t know. I don’t know if Pierre knows. We can check and get back.
Senator Plett: I have a fairly strong feeling they do.
The Chair: This is something we would have to verify.
Senator Marshall: I would be interested in knowing, especially if they can charge these types of expenditures to their accounts, and especially if they are providing some sort of oversight. I doubt that they are, but it would be interesting to know if they do and how they do it.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Marshall. I will close the discussion after this, if you don’t mind, because there are other items on the agenda, and I think we have a good idea of where we are going here.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for the presentation; I would like to confirm that I understand correctly, because in reality, some are indeed more partisan than others. In my Senate-paid account, I can’t post partisan publications. If I have an account that I pay for myself, can I be partisan? Do I understand the spirit of your policy?
Ms. Leclerc: That would be a good interpretation; I could compare it with copyright. If a senator decides to use the Senate emblem for a political campaign, there’s no monitoring to find out how the emblem is used — I can’t really find out, it would be impossible, because I don’t have the resources to do that. On the other hand, sometimes certain things are brought to our attention — for example, such and such a senator has published this, is it acceptable? I’m asked for my opinion. I then check with the Law Clerk’s Office and usually report to the Communications Subcommittee or the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration for a decision. It’s possible that certain things will be brought to our attention, but I don’t have the ability to do oversight.
If you were to decide to go ahead and approve this new policy, this amendment, I don’t have the ability to do oversight and audit all the accounts. However, if someone brings something to my attention, I must bring it to the attention of the committee so that a decision can be made. I don’t have a very definitive opinion on this problem; I wanted to bring it to your attention precisely to have a decision, because I see several problems. It happened to the Finance Directorate, which received a request to find out whether an application was eligible. Since it wasn’t mentioned anywhere, we decided to bring the problem to the attention of the Communications Subcommittee to discuss it, because we see problems that could arise and we wanted senators to make the decision.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Boyer: Thank you for this report. I want to support what Senator Boehm said about inclusion of a global source in the media clippings. I think that is really important and would add to the whole concept of what we need to know. For instance, I have done several interviews all across the world on reproductive crimes and reproductive injustice. I think it would be very important for the Senate to know that and, indeed, for Canada to know that. Likewise, I’m sure Senator Boehm has many other examples as well that would be very important for everybody to know. Thank you, Senator Boehm, for bringing it up. I hope we can go ahead and do this.
Senator Plett: I will be brief. I want to respond to what Senator Marshall asked about the House of Commons. Without breaking any caucus confidentialities, I regularly sit at my Manitoba caucus meeting, for example, and we discuss around the table posts that members of the House of Commons are going to make. They are reminded regularly that you can do these posts in your parliamentary budget. They are partisan posts of all kinds. That is their job. Their job, more than ours, is 100% partisan. They most certainly are being paid for those subscriptions. However, I appreciate, Mélisa, you said that you would check, and I will wait for you to do that.
In reference to what Senator Moodie suggested about certain offensive types of posts, racism or whatever, I think there are already laws and rules in place that don’t allow us to do that, and I certainly support that. In reference again to what Senator Loffreda said, there are many different types of partisanship. There can be political partisanship or partisanship on social values or social issues where there are strong views on either side. Now, all of a sudden, I post something that somebody else has a strong objection to and they file a complaint. This is getting close to when I tear my shirt in the Senate and dump on the government for what they are doing, and I repost that. That is about as partisan as you can get.
This is getting very borderline in me not being able to post what I say in the Senate. I think, chair, this is so slippery that we need to at least review that paragraph very carefully before we adopt this report.
The Chair: We agree. Senator Dalphond, you are my last questioner. It is a promise.
Senator Dalphond: Let’s put ourselves in the perspective of the reader who reads these tweets. They do not care if it is paid by the Senate or by the senator. It is a senator making comments. If he makes political comments or not, it is the same. It is a senator making comments. I have a tendency to believe, at the end, further to the discussions that we have had, that we should pay for all of them. Some will use it for political purpose; some won’t. It would be difficult. For the reader, it doesn’t matter who pays for it. He or she gets the message.
The Chair: Colleagues, following the discussion we have had this morning, I would like to know if you would like to adopt the report, but ask that items 3 and 4 be looked at again by the committee and that they come back with adjustments to what has been proposed to us. Are we comfortable with this, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Could I have a mover for the motion?
Senator Boyer: I so move.
The Chair: All in agreement? Carried. Thank you, colleagues.
[Translation]
Thank you, Ms. Leclerc and Ms. Zayed, for your work on the accessibility file. It’s really very good.
Item 4 concerns a budget request.
[English]
Senator Cotter, I think you are here for our next item, which is a request for some funds to update the legal documents that you work with.
Hon. Brent Cotter: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m somewhat intimidated by this audience. I have never been here before. I hope never to come back.
Each year, we and the other place amend the Criminal Code. Each year it gets a bit bigger and newer — if I can put it that way — and, hopefully, better. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs spends a lot of time in its consideration of criminal laws, as you know, and it’s a valuable reference source for each of the members of the committee. This is a request for funds to be able to obtain copies of the most recent Criminal Code for the availability of committee members.
I do not think that this committee spends a lot of money. This seems to be a legitimate foundational expense. I hope that you will agree and approve it.
[Translation]
The Chair: Can someone move the motion?
Senator Forest: I move the motion.
The Chair: Senator Forest raised his hand first. I think that’s fantastic.
[English]
Senator Cotter: Is it better for Senator Forest to propose it rather than Senator Dalphond? Senator Dalphond would be one of the beneficiaries, as will I.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Forest moves that the motion regarding the budget request for the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee be adopted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Motion agreed to.
[English]
Thank you, Senator Cotter, for attending this morning.
Senator Cotter: Thank you. With your indulgence, I’ll excuse myself. I am busy in another room, working on behalf of Canada’s farmers.
Senator Plett: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Chair: We now move on to item 5.
Colleagues, this item on the agenda concerns a budget deficit relating to the 30th annual session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE, i.e., the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Jeremy LeBlanc, Deputy Clerk and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs, joins us as a witness. As usual, this presentation will be followed by a question period.
Welcome, Mr. LeBlanc. The floor is yours.
Jeremy LeBlanc, Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs, Senate of Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
In July, the Parliament of Canada hosted the thirtieth annual session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Vancouver. Delegates from 49 countries attended to debate and pass resolutions on a variety of topics ranging from Russia’s war against Ukraine, to migration, to plastic pollution, to artificial intelligence.
While the conference itself was a success, several factors contributed to the total budget approved by CIBA and its equivalent in the House of Commons being exceeded. This is a very unusual occurrence since conferences that Parliament hosts are almost always delivered within the funding provided. Indeed, the typical budget utilization rate for conferences is around 80%, with surpluses returned to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly annual session faced a number of unique and unprecedented challenges that have resulted in a substantial deficit in the conference budget.
[Translation]
As with any conference organized by the Parliament of Canada, we are obliged to reserve blocks of rooms for participants at various hotels located in the vicinity of the meetings. In order to retain these rooms, the administration has signed contracts with five hotels guaranteeing them a certain level of revenue. As is often the case with bookings of this size, the contracts included certain penalties to compensate the hotels if a certain level of occupancy was not achieved. Responsibility for these accommodation costs is transferred to conference participants as they book rooms. The budget for every conference we organize includes an amount for attrition penalties, which typically amounts to $15,000 to $20,000, in the event that agreed occupancy thresholds are not met.
In this case, attrition penalties were well above the usual amounts, partly due to lower-than-expected conference attendance, but also because many delegates chose to stay at other hotels further from the city centre.
[English]
In relation to attendance based on past sessions, the agreement we signed with the OSCE PA required Parliament to make arrangements for 700 participants at the conference but only 365 delegates attended alongside 163 others, including members of the diplomatic corps and support staff, for a total of 528 participants at the conference. Already this is 25% lower than what we were expecting.
Compounding this was the decision by a third of the participants who did come to the conference to stay at hotels some distance from the convention centre at other hotels, not the ones with which we contracted. This is a phenomenon that we have never encountered before. It could perhaps be explained by other Parliaments feeling similar pressures to some of our own parliamentary associations where they are looking to stretch their budgets a bit further in the face of rising travel costs. This may be especially true in the case of the OSCE PA, where delegates were travelling to Vancouver, some distance from Europe where the conference is traditionally held.
[Translation]
Our experience of hosting the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Halifax in August 2022, where attendance was higher than expected and hotel room blocks were completely sold out, led us to believe that conference attendance had returned to pre-pandemic levels. This did not prove to be the case for the annual session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and, as a result, Parliament was unable to reach the contractual occupancy threshold for four of the five hotels.
Although we were able to take a number of steps to reduce our liability, which are summarized in the briefing note, the combined penalties at these four hotels were for 1,400 overnight stays, with a total value of $596,000.
[English]
In addition, the costs associated with technical and audiovisual support at the Vancouver Convention Centre were higher than forecasted. As has previously been noted in other submissions, consolidations within the AV event support industry has led to increased costs at a number of conferences. This is the second contributing factor to the cost of hosting the annual session this year.
There were cost savings in other categories of the budget, including some larger categories such as salaries and hospitality, but these were not significant enough to erase the uniquely high level of attrition penalties and additional AV costs. As a result, the conference finished with a deficit of $649,000, which we anticipate being able to absorb from within existing funding. As with all interparliamentary budgets, these costs are shared between the House of Commons and the Senate, with the Senate having 30% of that amount.
I want to empathize for you, senators, that my team and our partners recognize the seriousness of these cost overruns and I want to assure you that steps are being taken to avoid a recurrence of such events when hosting future conferences.
While our margin to manœuvre in terms of negotiating contracts with major hotel chains in popular markets at peak times of the year is, perhaps, somewhat limited, we are working closely with our materiel and contract management staff to identify areas where improvements are possible. We also are being much more conservative in projecting attendance at potential conferences, especially given the vastly different experiences we had between hosting the CPA conference in Halifax and OSCE conference in Vancouver. While we have always selected a range of hotels of varying levels to offer delegates, we will be more sensitive to the fact that participants may put cost issues ahead of convenience of access to the conference venue.
[Translation]
Thank you for the opportunity to explain these exceptional circumstances, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Leblanc.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Mr. LeBlanc, thank you for your presentation. The initial budget was quite substantial. It is 35% over budget. I notice from the paper that the House of Commons, if you look at the split, will have to come up with $454,000. Have they already dealt with the matter?
Mr. LeBlanc: The issue was to have been raised at the Board of Internal Economy last week, but we did not reach that point in the agenda, so it will be presented next week.
Senator Marshall: What happens if we do not approve the extra money for the Senate’s share? Because my inclination is to not approve it. It is quite a substantial amount over budget, and I don’t really understand how it could have happened. What happens if we do not approve our share?
Mr. LeBlanc: The submission isn’t being presented to request additional funding. The challenge we have is that we have signed contracts and have a contractual obligation to pay those amounts. We have paid them, and the deficit has been incurred.
Senator Marshall: You are just telling us that we went 35% over budget.
Mr. LeBlanc: We are informing you that the deficit has increased, indeed.
Senator Marshall: I think there is a problem with the budgeting. I must say, it is very concerning, especially in the current economic times when people are lined up at food banks while we’re looking at a $1.8 million event that went 35% over budget. That does not look good on either the Senate or the House of Commons.
Senator Boehm: Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc, for your report. I attended that conference as one of the delegates. I want to compliment you and your staff for the fine job that you all did in making it a success. Nonetheless, like others, I am obviously concerned about the cost overrun and I have a few questions related to that.
The first one is with regard to the number of delegates who actually came. The OSCE PA would have indicated an expectation of so many delegates. We probably knew in advance that Russian and Belorussian parliamentarians would not be coming. Why? Because we had sanctioned them and they would not get visas. Others may not want to make the long journey to Vancouver. At any point, was there contact with the OSCE PA in Vienna to say that numbers might be lower?
Related to that, as Canada, we host conferences and major international events all the time. We have developed a certain amount of expertise. While it is interesting to compare to the Commonwealth meeting in Halifax, Vancouver and Halifax are two very different markets when it comes to hotel costs, as you well know. Did you, your team or the contracting team have occasion to talk to others, outside of Parliament, for example, in the Government of Canada, about experiences on attrition rates? I recall in 2018, we had a major event in Charlevoix, Quebec. We had booked all hotel space from Quebec City up to the Saguenay fjord and then released it as it was discovered that we did not need those spaces. Often a lot of that is for security personnel from different countries.
We have a lot of best practices in Canada and in the collective to draw on. I am wondering whether you had a chance to do that or, in the future, if you would consider speaking to people about that. We have a G7 summit coming up in 2025, for example, which will be another big event.
Mr. LeBlanc: Thank you for those two questions. Indeed, we work closely with the International Secretariat in terms of the projections for conferences. They were very much based on the experience of other OSCE conferences where the average attendance was, I think, 670 or 650, in that range of participants, delegates, observers and members of the International Secretariat staff. Seven hundred didn’t seem like an unusual projection. In fact, the last time that Canada hosted this conference in Toronto, we had a higher number of participants than we were expecting. The idea that hosting in Canada would lead to much smaller delegations is not one that our past experience of hosting this conference would have borne out. Obviously, the economic climate has changed since the last time we hosted in 2008, and I think that that had an impact in terms of delegates’ perspectives.
In terms of the consultations, we work closely with our contracting staff in negotiating these contracts with various hotel chains. You are quite right to say that the markets in which we are operating can vary, so the terms and conditions of the contracts in a market like Vancouver in the middle of July would be different than negotiating a contract in another part of the country at another time of year. But the contracts that we have are not dissimilar to ones that we have had for other conferences. I am not aware that we have had consultation with the government in terms of their hosting, but you are right in saying that we have a fair amount of experience in hosting conferences of this size and have not encountered a problem like this before.
The particularly unique case of delegates choosing to stay at other hotels is one that is surprising and frustrating for us. One of the things that we want to explore is whether there are ways of placing more obligations on the individual delegates. Some of these costs were related to delegates who cancelled their participation and did not attend the conference. Rather than them being on the hook for those fees, we end up being on the hook for them because the rooms were not occupied. If they cancelled before a certain date, it comes back to our contract. Changing the balance between the responsibilities of the delegates and responsibilities of the host is something that we’re exploring.
Also, we’re looking with the international secretariats in terms of being able to share the liability between the parliament and the International Secretariat. The International Secretariat imposes certain conditions on us that we are required to follow in order to host the conference. There is room for negotiation in those agreements with the International Secretariat to be able to share the risk associated with hosting, perhaps, more equitably.
The Chair: Colleagues, we need a half-hour for one item. Unless your questions are absolutely crucial to the discussion, I would like to ask that we limit our time. Really, it is an important half-hour that we need in camera. I am sorry to cut you short. Senator Boehm, I am sorry to have cut you short. Please go ahead.
Senator Boehm: That’s okay. I could go on for a long time on this. That is fine. Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: I will make it short. It is concerning when we do have close to $1.9 million and 35% over budget. We’re not here to approve; it has been dispersed. My interest — perhaps we could have this answer in writing later — is how does it not happen again? You mentioned justifiable factors. Why was there no saving categories like in the past? Why are we going from a surplus to such a deficit? Is it in the timing, interest and hotel contracts? I have read that it was a rigid contract. There are a lot of questions, so maybe you could get back to us in writing later on.
It is 35% over budget, and to be informed of that in the exceptional times we are living in, it would not justify our presence here in this committee if we did not raise those questions.
The Chair: Colleagues, I do not want to precipitate this conversation. If you agree, we could ask Mr. LeBlanc to return and we will finish this discussion. This is just for information purposes. We could have this discussion again at, most likely, our next meeting.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: It’s urgent in the sense that we’re going to host the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie in July. I’m very concerned. I expect that, at our next meeting, specific measures will be put in place so that we don’t have to deal with this. In my opinion, this is totally unacceptable, given the scale of the deficit in the public funds we manage. It’s very short-term: we’re talking about July 2024. This worries me.
Senator Saint-Germain: I’d like to conclude with a solution, but first I want to thank Mr. LeBlanc for his candor. I’d like to point out that our decision this morning should take note of the situation; therefore, to the extent that the House of Commons decided to assume its 70% share, to the tune of $454,300, the Senate would assume its 30% share, or $194,700.
As for the future, I no longer know of any international conference that is held without the participant being held responsible for covering his or her own hotel room costs and penalties if he or she fails to show up. It is true, particularly in the case of La Francophonie, that some associations have grant funds to encourage the participation of delegates from developing countries, in which case it is these associations that must guarantee payment. Under no circumstances should Canada, as host country, take the risk of assuming the cost of hotel rooms. I even question the need to have a budget margin in our forecasts to cover the accommodation costs of those who don’t show up. We need to manage this differently, and there are solutions.
The Chair: If you’re comfortable, we can ask Mr. LeBlanc to come back and ask him questions about the file. Would that be all right? Thank you.
[English]
Senator Plett: If he’s coming back next week, I’m happy with that.
The Chair: In two weeks.
Senator Plett: In two weeks, but far enough up on the agenda that we can have a very fulsome discussion on this because I’m also very unhappy with it.
The Chair: Thank you. Colleagues, items6 and 7 will be postponed to the next meeting. We will go in camera, change our agenda a little bit and work on one item only for the next half-hour. Are we in agreement on this, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)