THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
Ottawa, Thursday, February 8, 2024
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(1) of the Rules, to consider financial and administrative matters, and in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1) of the Rules, 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 Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Now I would like to go around the table and have my fellow senators introduce themselves, starting with the senator to my left.
Senator Dalphond: I am Pierre J. Dalphond from Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: I am Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I am Éric Forest and I represent the senatorial division of the Gulf, in Quebec.
Senator Loffreda: I am Tony Loffreda from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Seidman: I am Judith Seidman from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Landmark, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I am Claude Carignan from Quebec.
The Chair: Welcome to everyone across the country who is following our proceedings.
Honourable senators, the first item on our agenda this morning is the adoption of the minutes of proceedings from December 14, 2023, which is in your package. Does anyone have any questions, or amendments to the minutes?
[English]
Senator Quinn: So moved.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Quinn has moved the following motion: That the minutes of proceedings from Thursday, December 14, 2023 be adopted. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[English]
Item 2, honourable senators, concerns the annual financial statements of the Senate of Canada and audit results. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer; Nathalie Charpentier, Comptroller and Deputy Chief Financial Officer; as well as Suzanne Gignac, Partner, Assurance; and Niguel Givogue, Manager from Ernst & Young will be joining us this morning. Good morning and welcome.
It is my understanding that Senator Forest will speak first, followed by a presentation from Pierre Lanctôt and the representative from EY. We will then move to questions, and then as is our typical process, senators will have the opportunity to speak to auditors privately with the auditors without staff present before we continue our meeting agenda.
[Translation]
Hon. Éric Forest: Good morning, honourable senators. I will now take a few minutes to discuss the highlights of the Senate’s results for the fiscal year 2022-23 and the financial position as of March 31, 2023.
First, I should say that new accounting standards came into effect on April 1, 2022. Details about these new standards can be found in note 2(m) of the financial statements. The only change in the financial statements resulting from the implementation of these standards is the addition of note 14 regarding risk management.
I will now discuss the Senate expenses as presented on page 2. Overall, the Senate’s total expenses subject to budgetary spending authorities reached $105.2 million for 2022-23.
These results indicate an increase in expenses of $11.7 million compared with the previous fiscal year, which represents an increase of 12.5% compared with the previous year. Two main reasons explain the expenses increase of $11.7 million in 2022-23. The first is the increase in salary and benefits of $4.9 million.
The second is the increase of $4.6 million in transportation and communications costs, as well as an increase of $400,000 in professional services, hospitality and meals, mainly due to an additional 27 sitting days and the easing of pandemic measures and lockdown requirements.
I will now elaborate on some of the highlights from the Statement of Financial Position found on page 1. The due from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $3.2 million is primarily the result of timing differences, namely between the moment when transactions are recorded against parliamentary appropriations and when payments are made.
The accounts receivable and advances, note 4(a), of $3.8 million mainly consists of amounts receivable from federal government departments and agencies of $3.7 million and from other parties, $96,000.
The accounts payable and accrued liabilities, note 4(b), of $6.9 million consists of accrued liabilities related to salaries and wages, payables to external parties for the purchase of goods and services, and payables to other government departments and agencies.
The increase of $2.4 million compared with the previous year is mainly due to the settlement of a claim against the Senate, an increase caused by an additional workday payable at year-end, an increase caused by the salary economic increase, the return of cafeteria services in the East Block building along with an increase in operational costs.
The tangible capital assets in note 5 on page 14 show that as of March 31, 2023, the Senate had $5.7 million in capital assets, which represents a decrease of $900,000 compared with the previous year, due to the capital asset acquisitions of $1.1 million being lower than the amortization expense of $2 million.
This concludes my presentation. Unless you have any questions, I will now turn it over to Ms. Suzie Gignac, partner at Ernst & Young, who will provide the audit results to the committee. If you do have questions, I will ask Mr. Lanctôt and Ms. Charpentier to answer them.
[English]
Suzanne Gignac, Partner, Assurance, Ernst & Young: Thank you very much, senator. I’ll take a moment to walk you through our audit results, which have been provided in advance. To start, I’d like to thank you for having us here today and also to thank the Senate management and team for their support in completing the audit. They were very timely in providing us information and responsive to our questions.
Looking at our executive summary, we have our results on the left. We completed the audit for the March 31, 2023 financial statements. We’re substantially complete at this time. There are a few items left to be done but that’s very common at this point in time. We currently expect to issue an unmodified opinion, which is a clean opinion. The opinion will state that we believe the financial statements are fairly stated in all material respects in accordance with the relevant standards.
Our areas of emphasis were in line with our plan. I won’t go through them in detail, but we do perform various procedures, including a walk-through to understand the process, as well as different testing. It might be detailed testing for key items, which would be large amounts or random samples. As well, we may perform confirmation, substantive analytic procedures and subsequent events work up to the date of the financial statements being approved.
In the next column, we have the scope of our work. Our work was consistent again with the plan presented on February 9, 2023. We did take a substantive audit approach, which means we did not rely on controls at the Senate. In accordance with our plan, we have preliminary materiality of $2.7 million, which was 2.5% of estimated expenditures, and that did not change throughout the audit. We continued with that throughout the audit.
The open items are completing our subsequent events up to the date of approval as well as some inquiries of management and committees. We have a letter of representation that’s been provided in our results, as well as we’ll need evidence of final approval.
Moving down in our executive summary to additional points to consider, we’re required to consider — as a part of Canadian Auditing Standards — fraud and risk of management override. There were no fraud risks identified other than the risk of management override, and we performed detailed journal entry testing to support that looking for unusual items and it did not identify anything.
We’ve included in our results uncorrected differences. All uncorrected differences relate to prior-year differences that were flowing through in the current year. They are not material, and they do not impact our audit opinion. There were no disclosure deficiencies.
For our appendices in the required communications, this appendix covers off everything we’re required to provide to those charged without governance. I’ve covered off most of it just now, but to add to it, we did not identify any unusual related-party transactions. We did work over independence, and we are independent of the Senate in providing our audit opinion. No fraud or non-compliance with laws or regulations was identified. As noted, new accounting and audit standards were applied appropriately.
We have also finally included, in appendix C, some business insights. This is really just information from Ernst & Young thought leadership that may help support you in your role on the committee.
That’s all I was going to speak to. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Forest and Ms. Gignac. Are there any questions or comments for the witnesses?
Senator Loffreda: My question is for our auditors. Usually, our compliance testing on the internal controls determines the amount of substantive testing, but you stated that you didn’t rely on the internal controls at the Senate; you relied upon your substantive testing. Was there any reason for that?
Ms. Gignac: Essentially, we did that because it’s more efficient and effective in doing the audit of the financial statements at the Senate, in particular. Given what’s included in the financial statements, it’s more efficient to do a substantive audit than a controls-based audit.
Senator Loffreda: Usually, doesn’t the extent of the compliance audit determine your extent of the substantive testing and leads to less testing because you rely on the internal controls?
Ms. Gignac: It does, but there’s a lot that goes into testing internal controls in the first place. So we have to assess whether it’s better to test the internal controls and then reduce our substantive testing or just do a fully substantive. Our view is that fully substantive is a more efficient and effective way to audit.
Senator Loffreda: So it’s not a reflection of the internal controls?
Ms. Gignac: Not at all, no.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for Mr. Lanctôt or Ms. Charpentier. I assume it’s a typo, but the explanation for the $3-million salaries surplus says this in French:
Un excédent de 1,9 million de dollars a été dégagé du budget pour les salaires des employés des sénateurs, des agents supérieurs de la Chambre des communes et des caucus et groupes...
I assume that it’s a typo and that it should say “du Sénat.” We don’t have people who work at the House of Commons, and we don’t share any revenues or salaries with the House. I just want to be sure.
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Senate of Canada: That’s right, but I’m trying to locate the passage you’re referring to.
Senator Carignan: It’s on page 11 of the report.
The Chair: It was translated that way in French.
Senator Carignan: It’s in the translation. In the French, “Sénat” — Senate — was translated as “Chambre des communes” — House of Commons. It’s a translation error. We’re going to have to increase the translation budget.
Mr. Lanctôt: You’re right, we don’t have any employees from the House.
Senator Carignan: We’re going to lend them to the Privy Council Office.
The Chair: That’s fine. It’s a translation error. Are there any other questions or comments? I don’t see any.
[English]
Colleagues, as I mentioned earlier, it is a good practice for senators to meet privately with their auditors following an audit. At this time, I would ask that we go in camera. I request all officials and staff to please leave the meeting, except for representatives from Ernst & Young, senators and the recording secretary, who will act as clerk for this portion of the meeting.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, it was moved by Senator Forest:
That the Twenty-Fourth report be adopted and that the financial statements be tabled in the Senate and that, as per the division of responsibilities between CIBA and the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight (AOVS), the internal Financial Highlights Report of the Senate of Canada’s Audited Financial Statements for the Year Ended March 31, 2023, and the Financial Statements for the year ended March 31, 2023, as well as the Audit Results for the year ended March 31, 2023, be shared with the members of the AOVS Committee.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Thank you very much. We appreciate the hard work that you do, and the work of your teams.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, the next item on the agenda is the twenty-third report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, regarding the budget for living expenses.
Senator Forest, the chair of the subcommittee, will now present the report, supported by Pierre Lanctôt and Nathalie Charpentier.
You may go ahead, Senator Forest.
Senator Forest: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the twenty-third report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets.
As part of its report on the Senate Main Estimates, CIBA has approved an increase in the budget for senators’ living expenses, and by the same measure, the elimination of the additional living expenses budget and the supplemental sitting budget.
Your subcommittee has considered options for the senators’ living expenses to better meet their needs. The purpose of this report is to complement CIBA’s budget decision and propose consequential changes to the Senate Office Management Policy in order to do the following: set the maximum nightly rate for commercial accommodation in the parliamentary district at $275, and replace the calculation of the maximum nightly rate with the average nightly cost of a stay; and when it is more economical to proceed this way, charge the cost of a weekend stay in the parliamentary district between two parliamentary sitting weeks to the travel points system, by deducting one point rather than charging the expenses to the basic living expenses budget.
Your subcommittee proposes that these changes be adopted and come into effect on April 1, 2024. I therefore recommend the adoption of the report.
With me are Pierre Lanctôt, the Chief Financial Officer, and Nathalie Charpentier, Comptroller and Deputy Chief Financial Officer. They are available to answer any technical questions and provide more details regarding the proposed changes.
The Chair: Does anyone have any questions or comments? Thank you, Senator Forest. Since there are no questions, the following motion has been proposed by Senator Forest:
That the twenty-third report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be adopted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Agreed.
The next item on the agenda is the twenty-fifth report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, regarding the sole-source contract with the House of Commons.
Once again, the chair of the subcommittee, Senator Forest, will be presenting the report, supported by Pierre Lanctôt and Nathalie Charpentier.
The floor is yours, Senator Forest.
Senator Forest: Thank you. This is the last report I will be presenting this morning. I promise.
Honourable senators, I have the honour of presenting the twenty-fifth report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates.
Your subcommittee examined two requests for sole-source contracts with the House of Commons. These were for broadcasting and information technology services, and the replacement of multimedia components in the Senate committee rooms and the chamber.
Both requests were made under section 1.6.9 of the Procurement Policy, requiring CIBA’s approval for all acquisition of goods and/or services with an estimated total value of $125,000 or more.
The House of Commons has considerable expertise in these areas, and the Senate has been doing business with the House for some time. Therefore, to avoid any disruption of services, your subcommittee recommends allowing the two sole-source contracts.
However, for future contracts, your subcommittee believes that it would be appropriate to conduct a comparative review of available options and associated costs to achieve a level of service equivalent to that provided to the Senate by the House of Commons.
Therefore, your subcommittee recommends the following:
That CIBA approve the renewal of the sole-source contract for services provided by the House of Commons for (i) broadcasting; and (ii) information technology;
That CIBA approve entering into a sole-source contract with the House of Commons for the replacement of multimedia components in the Senate committee rooms and chamber; and
That a review be conducted in 2024-25 to compare the cost of services provided by the House of Commons with other possible options.
I therefore recommend the adoption of the report. Pierre Lanctôt and Nathalie Charpentier are available to answer questions, as am I.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Forest. Does anyone have any questions or comments?
Senator Forest has moved that the twenty-fifth report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be adopted. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Motion carried. Thank you, Senator Forest.
[English]
Colleagues, the next item is a report from the Advisory Working Group on Artwork and Heritage Assets.
Senators, this report is for information only and was circulated prior to the break in December. The same report was also included in your bundle. The report is, in my opinion, excellent and very clear. If there are any questions, Senator Cardozo is here, and we will answer questions. If not, I will ask that this report be approved.
So are there any questions on the Advisory Working Group on Artwork and Heritage Assets report?
Seeing none, Senator Cardozo, thank you for being with us today. There are no questions.
We move on to the next item. Thank you, Senator Cardozo.
[Translation]
The next item on the agenda pertains to the mandatory use of headsets by witnesses who appear by video conference.
Jean-François Lymburner, the new CEO of the Translation Bureau, and Matthew Ball, Vice-President of Parliamentary Services and Interpretation, will now join us as witnesses.
Maxime Fortin, Principal Clerk, and Shaila Anwar, Clerk Assistant, are also in the room this morning to answer your questions.
Welcome, Mr. Lymburner. I gather that this is your first meeting in your new role. We are putting you on the hot seat two weeks in. Welcome to the committee. I believe you have some opening remarks before I turn things over to Senator Boehm. Go ahead.
Jean-François Lymburner, Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau: Thank you, Madam Chair. Honourable members of the committee, thank you for the invitation.
I want to point out that my colleague, Matthew Ball, Vice‑President of Parliamentary Services and Interpretation since 1999, is here as well. He has been here a long time.
It’s an honour to be the Translation Bureau’s new chief executive officer. I’ve long admired the bureau’s critical role in supporting Canadian public servants and parliamentarians. Now that I’m a part of the bureau, I’m even more impressed to see hundreds of language professionals at work every day so you can conduct your business in English, French, Indigenous languages, sign languages and foreign languages.
What’s even more impressive is that the bureau has been doing this work for 90 years. This year marks the 90th anniversary of the Translation Bureau’s creation in 1934. Actually, it’s a double anniversary, since 2024 also marks 65 years of interpretation in the Canadian Parliament. I’d like to acknowledge Émilie Savard, Bryce Graham and Hélène Régimbald, who are in the booth today supporting your work.
[English]
Honourable members of the committee, one thing that has not changed throughout the bureau’s existence is its commitment to meeting the needs of Parliament. This commitment has driven the bureau in the past few years as it tackled its most recent challenges: the health and safety of interpreters and strengthening its interpretation capacity.
A lot of work has already been done on both of these issues. When I arrived, I was extremely pleased to learn that the number and the severity of health and safety incidents have decreased significantly in 2023 compared with 2022, and that the Translation Bureau was able to satisfy all regular interpretation requests from the Senate last fall.
That said, not everything has been resolved. I know that it’s sometimes difficult to meet last-minute requests and that acoustic incidents are still occurring once in a while. Client service and occupational health and safety are priorities for me, and I will continue to work closely with partners at the Senate to resolve and improve the situation.
[Translation]
I want to thank the honourable senators for their understanding and cooperation. The fact that you are mostly holding your sessions in person helps greatly to prevent incidents and ensure good sound quality. It is very impressive to see that most of the people are here in person. I do want to point that out. I would also like to thank the Senate Administration, which is a great help in finding solutions.
Honourable members of the committee, Matthew and I are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lymburner.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Thank you, Mr. Lymburner and Mr. Ball, for being with us today as witnesses. This is an important issue that I have been wanting to raise since last November, actually, and I do so as the chair of a committee here, Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
On March 9 of last year, I wrote to the CEO of the Translation Bureau, Dominic Laporte, regarding several problems with interpretation services, headsets and sound, which were impacting the work of our committee. I understand that this letter, on which our chair, Senator Moncion, was copied, was discussed at a steering meeting of this committee in March of last year.
I received a response from Mr. Laporte, and the reason I bring this up today is that I think some problems persist, and, in some instances, the rules regarding headsets strike me, as chair, as quite restrictive for witnesses.
Let me explain that. I really care about occupational health and safety. I think we all do. We’re aware of sonic incidents — including some that occurred in this very room — and that to a degree they persist. So health and safety are most important, and, of course, our interpreters do a really great job.
However, some of the requirements are difficult. We have had to deny witnesses who are willing to appear because it’s very difficult for Amazon to deliver a headset in Sudan. We wanted some witnesses from Jerusalem in the context of the current crisis and we could not do that. I fear this impacts the effectiveness of our committee. It’s a bit embarrassing too, and there are reputational issues as well. Many witnesses join us from around the world. It’s that kind of committee. They can’t come here, so we do the tele-witness type appearance.
I’m just wondering if this status on approved headsets is fixed in time. In other words, is there any way this will evolve in a technical sense and still respect the health and safety of our interpreters but also allow a committee to exercise its function? I am certainly aware of the Canada Labour Code provisions that apply in this case, and we have been talking about the issue informally. However, I’m just wondering whether we’ve got this policy now, and it’s not going to evolve. In your comments, you suggested that there is movement forward, but it confuses a lot of our potential witnesses. We also run into those who feel they are beneath all of this and we should just accept the witnesses as they are, and we reject those. That’s another reason.
For those who cannot get the headsets in time — sometimes things move very quickly, depending on issues — it remains a problem. I would like to have some reassurance that you’re working on this and that we’re looking at some forward movement, because it really does impact our work.
Thank you.
Mr. Lymburner: Senator, you raised very good points. I am familiar with both letters — the letter that came in and the letter that was my predecessor’s response to you. Some of those incidents were referenced in the letter. In fact, if you look in terms of timing — and I’m glad you mentioned the Labour Code — they had several instructions, and they came down pretty hard about the type and model of the headsets at the time.
The good news is that the world has evolved into this so far. We have been working not only with Canada but with other jurisdictions around the world. Despite the fact that we do have certain models of headsets that are available to you at the Senate and also at the House of Commons, we’re trying to make sure those are also similar in nature. The technicians in this room who are supported by the Senate are also familiar with these headsets.
Basically, simply, the headsets that we’re looking for are mainly about the microphone. The hearing is not really something we are considering. That being said, right now, we can also confirm — because I believe at the time at least one of the incidents, which was unfortunate, was when the Honourable Mr. Axworthy was involved — that at the time, it was really strict in terms of model.
Right now, we’re also in a position where we work with our experts and partners to look at the ISO standard of those headsets. I know when you have witnesses coming from outside or internationally — I don’t think there are any today — if it were the case that they come out of a NATO or United Nations meeting or something and they have a headset they feel is a quality one, I think there is a period of about 72 hours during which we work with our colleagues through all kind of tests. If we can get the ISO specification of the model, it’s my understanding — and I will make sure that we can confirm that — that there’s an amount of time we have to confirm that it is an ISO-compliant microphone. This is the main thing. The only clarification I would add — and I read the other incident that happened — is that despite the fact that sometimes the headset is a good one, there are some tests that are being done.
When there are a lot of issues with the bandwidth in the regions that you spoke about, they kind of manage what is going on through the conduit, and sound could be compressed. Our interpreters in the cabin today need to receive high-quality sound because they talk, listen and watch you at the same time. So there could be issues that are not related to the headset that could also lead to an impossibility to perform their work.
I hope it kind of clarifies a few items.
Senator Boehm: I would like to follow up on two points. Part of the problem was the evolution of standards. We would have witnesses who had an approved headset and then be called back a few months later and still have that approved headset but find out it was no longer approved. That was the case in the one instance.
The other thing is that just setting this all up and doing the sound test takes up a lot of committee time, and I know that increased during the pandemic when we were doing a lot of virtual-type meetings.
Again, I just want that reassurance that there is movement on this. The big thing is consistency — you’re not moving the goalposts, as it were.
Mr. Lymburner: Yes indeed. Of course, some headsets were available early on in the crisis. I looked at 2020, 2021 and 2022, and they’ve changed as we’re learning and working with our partners. I just want to reassure everyone that the bureau is working with the best experts available from a sound engineering standpoint — the universities, our colleagues at the National Research Council Canada, or CNRC, and also some audiologists — to try to really understand. However, the world, as I mentioned, is also moving forward on this. Just as we all experienced different types of systems when the crisis came in — Zoom, Google Meet — there is a lot of standardization happening, and the quality is a lot better.
That doesn’t mean there won’t be some incidents. I just would like to reiterate it’s kind of a supply chain. It’s a sound chain, but it’s kind of a supply chain. There are different components that, at the end of the day, could have an impact on the sound that our interpreters are getting in their ears when they’re supporting us.
Senator Plett: Before the pandemic, we did Zoom calls and had witnesses coming in and testifying, and we never had this issue. I appreciate, as Senator Boehm says, the work and health situations that we have, and we want to protect our interpreters, but what has changed in that regard? I’m not following that. We didn’t do this. We had witnesses regularly — international witnesses — who came on and everything worked. Now, all of a sudden, we have this issue with headsets.
Certainly, Senator Boehm’s committee would be one of the most significant ones for having people from all parts of the world. I can understand that. We have problems here just in our own area. We were in a Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets meeting just a week ago where I think we started about 45 minutes late, and there were only four or five of us on the call. It took that long to get everything organized. I can well imagine the frustration that the chair of Foreign Affairs must be facing.
Why the difference now? Why do we need different headsets now than we needed three years ago? You would think that everybody would have changed. Even in Africa or Israel, the headsets would be a better quality today than they were four years ago, and yet somehow they have to be a headset approved by our Parliament as opposed to a good headset somewhere else. What has changed?
Mr. Lymburner: That is a very good question and a very good point. You assume that there were some witnesses coming from abroad or from outside using, at the time, Zoom. But even then there were other systems being used at the time.
That being said right now, unlike in this committee here, 90% of the committees meeting in the Government of Canada have at least one person online when people are meeting. That was not happening at that time. It was less frequent. The two instructions we got from the Labour Code force us to look into the cause and do deep analysis. We don’t have all the data yet, but we have been able to reduce the number of incidents.
Basically, the amount of time you spent with witnesses from outside and the quality of the sound seems to have some effect on the health, safety and hearing of the interpreter. As I said, I want to reassure you that we’re working with the best experts to understand exactly if it is the number of hours or the more frequent meetings.
In my short time at the bureau, I’ve understood it’s very different when people are from a different system and they are not using the set-up that is in both chambers and that, over time, there is some degradation of the health and the hearing of the interpreter. We’re trying to measure that. As I said, one of the recommendations was to make sure that the microphone was broadcast quality and unidirectional as well. I’m not saying that before some of those were not, but the fact is that there is some standard that can guarantee we’re not getting the earphone mics or the Bluetooth a lot of people were using. You probably see some of those coming in. They’re very expensive but they don’t meet the quality required for the interpreters and for the hearing of the interpreters.
Matthew, do you want to add anything on this point?
Matthew Ball, Vice-President, Service to Parliament and Interpretation, Translation Bureau: If I may, Madam Chair, there is partly an administrative and partly a technical reason for the changes. On the administrative side, there was a Labour Program investigation and a direction issued by the investigator of the Canada Labour Program that stipulated that interpreters could only provide the service when the delegate or the conference person was using an ISO-compliant microphone. That’s part in answer to the first question, which was partly that there is an administrative reason as to why there is a change in the policy or in the procedure.
On the technical side — and I’m not an expert technician but I am an interpreter so I understand it from that perspective — there are circumstances where the correct microphone is used but for all the reasons that Mr. Lymburner explained, for technical reasons, even with the proper microphone, the sound quality could change over the course of a meeting. Someone might do their sound test and the sound is fine and then for some reason — the bandwidth or compression or algorithms used by platforms — the sound may deteriorate. The interpreters are there to do their best. They are trying, but sometimes if they can’t hear they will need to interrupt service because ethically they will not make up what they’re not hearing.
Maybe just to explain why sometimes it might appear for senators that the sound quality is good and the interpreters are still not able to interpret, you need to remember that interpreters are speaking while listening and processing what you’re saying and interpreting it, so there is a sound overlap of their own voices. I hope that gives some of the context.
Senator Plett: It doesn’t. I don’t think it entirely answers my question. Mr. Lymburner, you alluded to meetings in the House of Commons that always have at least one person attending on Zoom. That’s not the case with our committee meetings. We have our committee meetings in person. There are no Zoom committee meetings. Some subcommittees do. Committees meet in person, so the only people on Zoom would be witnesses, which is no different than it was before the pandemic. In the Senate, we’re back to exactly that.
Everything has improved because of necessity during the pandemic. Yes, we have great interpreters. When an interpreter can’t understand, very regularly he or she will interrupt and say the interpreter can’t understand, so I accept that, but I don’t think that is the issue here. If that was the only issue, we would limp through, but we’re being told that it’s supposed to be government approved or Senate approved or somebody’s approved headset because of health and safety, not because they can’t understand properly.
Were there a lot of injuries to interpreters prior to the pandemic? That’s the only thing we should concern ourselves with. We should obviously strive to improve. I’m not suggesting that at all. However, if it’s only because they’re having a hard time hearing, I’m sorry, we should be able to continue and Senator Boehm should be able to continue with his witnesses and not have that witness drop off because the interpreters are having a bit of a difficult time understanding the witness. They have taken time to be at that meeting.
If it is a health and safety issue, that’s one thing, but if it’s only a matter of inconvenience, then I’m not sure that I support the policy that’s being put forward.
Were there many injuries to interpreters prior to the pandemic?
The Chair: Before I ask the witnesses to answer, Gerry would like to intervene.
Gérald Lafrenière, Interim Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments, and Chief Legislative Services Officer, Office of the Clerk of the Senate and Chief Legislative Services Officer, Senate of Canada: I will let the Translation Bureau answer the question about the injuries. It’s their employees.
Just going back to pre-pandemic, I will go back to my years as a committee clerk when I was there. It is true that witnesses used to appear virtually. Maybe what senators weren’t aware of is all of the work that went into having witnesses appear. They wouldn’t appear from home. They would be asked to attend a studio that had certain standards. Their MMS would come two hours before the meeting. We would do sound checks with the witnesses. The work we’re doing now is much more efficient than the work we did in the past to ensure there was good sound quality.
I won’t answer for the Translation Bureau and their employees, but just going back into the history, a lot of the work we’re doing now with Zoom and the new features we also did with the old system, and it was a lot more difficult to get witnesses to appear because they had to go to a city downtown where there was a studio that met our standards for quality. I wanted to put that on the record.
Senator Boehm, just to be clear, there is no doubt that during the pandemic, the goalposts changed. We were dealing with something new every day. At some point we got the health and safety order that we had to deal with and had to ensure a safe workplace for the employees.
I met with the Translation Bureau on Monday to discuss the issues. There is no doubt that there is more flexibility now today than what we had in the past. The reason the Senate went to the seven approved headsets is that the more common the headset, it means better quality sounds for the interpreters. If there are 27 headsets in a meeting, they have to play with the volume. They have to adjust certain things. So the idea of having the one headset for everyone is for sound quality purposes. It’s not necessarily health and safety, but we have established a protocol — and Maxime is here — that for exceptional purposes, especially with your committee but it can apply to all committees, as long as the headset is ISO-compliant, and we are aware before what the headset is, we can share the information with the Translation Bureau and they can share that information with the interpreters. Everybody is satisfied that we have met the standard and we’ll be able to proceed.
Things have changed since the times you’ve complained, and hopefully we’ve adopted a process that will satisfy your needs moving forward.
Senator Plett: I’m sorry. That does not answer my question at all. My question had to do with health and safety. Were there more injuries before the pandemic than now? If there is an inconvenience, Gérald, I don’t care about an inconvenience. We don’t stop a meeting because of an inconvenience. We stop a meeting if there is a health and safety issue. So that’s the issue that I want to address. If it is a health and safety issue, were there many injuries before the pandemic?
Mr. Lymburner: I’ll start answering and then turn it over to Matthew for before the pandemic. The number of incidents related to health and safety significantly increased after 2020. There is a wide range of those incidents. Some are caused over time because of exposure or bad sound quality that could impact the hearing of the interpreter. They could have a degradation of their hearing. That is one category. There is another category that some of you may have witnessed, and we’re calling it acoustic shock. Either a microphone goes off or things like the buds fall down on a microphone and there is a big noise. In some meetings, a microphone is left open which creates a buzz.
In the worst cases, an interpreter had to be removed from the interpreter booth and it’s almost like a concussion type of response. There are a certain range of incidents. They were obviously a lot more prevalent during the pandemic. That got us into better control. So now we’re measuring, and we’ve put protocols in place for interpreters with our colleagues so when such a thing as an acoustic shock occurs, we’re following a protocol of being removed, seeing a doctor.
As I mentioned, we haven’t found everything and don’t understand everything just yet, and that’s why we’re working with doctors at the University of Ottawa, the NRC and other places around the world to better understand the long-term effects of spending more time with all kinds of different sounds that come through our system.
I understand the inconveniences, and those have significantly reduced by over 60% in the past year. That’s significant. Everybody is better understanding the technology, and we’re able to support.
But those health incidents are real. It’s also linked to our capacity, as you know. Capacity is a big issue on the interpreter side of the house at the Translation Bureau. Losing one, two or three has a huge impact on our ability to support.
The Chair: Mr. Ball, do you have anything to add to this?
Mr. Ball: No, I’m good. I think Mr. Lymburner gave a good synopsis of the situation.
Senator Boehm: I want to ask a fairly precise question. What is the chain in terms of decision making? In one instance of the committee that I chair, I cancelled the meeting at the outset because the interpreter said it wasn’t working for her. Is that a decision that is taken by the interpreter and then it’s up to the chair, or can the interpreter go to their supervisor or to you, as the case may be? Is there a protocol for these decisions?
In that particular instance, we lost all of our witnesses, and committee members had to leave because we cancelled the meeting.
Mr. Lymburner: That’s a very good question because I asked the same questions on the incident per se. I learned — and it’s pretty impressive — that it’s almost like there are a series of green lights that need to occur before a meeting can proceed with interpretation. That includes sound quality. In the room here, the microphones are okay. That’s the first thumbs-up. When they’re getting into their system and there’s a quality, there’s also a certain frequency range that has to be within the quality sound for them to proceed.
In this particular case, I’ll turn to Matthew for exactly what happened, but my understanding is that things might have been okay in the room here — we were able to hear — but how they were working back there and what they were getting were not sufficient in terms of the quality.
Also, the timing was that we were following very tight procedures we were asked to follow to make sure everything was under the tolerance and the level that were prescribed to us with those two instructions. I believe, right now, we have a better understanding.
In terms of the decision making, maybe I’ll turn to you, Matthew.
Mr. Ball: Sure.
We recently resumed doing the sound tests prior to the committee meetings. At that point, it’s the opportunity for the interpreters to hear the sound right before the witnesses are appearing. As I mentioned earlier, there are occasions where, despite having the proper headset, for whatever technical reasons, the interpreters will feel that it’s not possible that they can interpret hearing the witness properly. In those cases, they report it to the office and decisions are made by the Senate Administration and the meeting chair as to how to proceed.
Senator Boehm: So the interpreter would not call a supervisor?
Mr. Ball: If they can’t hear at that point, yes, they would contact our office and let them know what the situation is.
Senator Boehm: I just want to add for the record that you see the cards in front of you for best sonic practices. I know committee chairs at the beginning of a committee meeting usually read out a statement about best practices as well.
I think we all care about this issue, but just to conclude — and I won’t intervene again — we want to be efficient and consistent while being concerned about safety, of course.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Boehm.
[Translation]
I have a question about the answer you just gave regarding the interruption of committee meetings. I believe you just said that the decision is made by the committee chair, committee support staff and the interpreters. I’m not sure it always works like that.
I gather that you have a protocol for deciding whether a committee meeting will be cancelled. We’ve seen committees with 40 or so people involved and all of a sudden — I’m not talking three minutes — we’re told that interpretation services are no longer available and the meeting can’t run so the committee is adjourned.
We end up in situations like the one Senator Boehm described. How are we going to address these issues going forward? This is an integral part of our work in the Senate. We understand the importance of safety, but we are also talking about something that is very important to our work.
Mr. Lymburner: I had an opportunity to see all the protocols that were introduced, which have been mentioned. I also had an opportunity to watch and listen to most of the Senate’s committee meetings in 2020, including CIBA’s. During those meetings, the majority of people were participating virtually. A lot of discussions were held, and we are really at a different place. I want to confirm that these are really best practices and protocols.
As for the interruptions, certain incidents can cause variations in the sound quality during the meeting, from a connectivity or electricity issue to a fire alarm. A number of incidents can cause a change in the quality while a meeting is under way, and right now, we are working together on that. This is a team sport. A number of groups of our Senate colleagues handle the technical component — some of them are back there — and you have the interpreters.
In terms of the chain of command and the protocol put in place with the chairs, I’m going to ask Mr. Ball to provide more details on that.
Mr. Ball: I think it depends on the type of interruption. An interruption can last just a few seconds, with the interpreter simply saying that they can’t hear what’s being said, but the proceedings and the committee carry on for a few seconds. It’s really important to have a common definition of an interruption.
For example, when the sound quality deteriorates during the meeting, the interpreter lets the members know that they can no longer hear the witness and a decision has to be made. The interpreter notifies the clerks and technicians of the issue they are experiencing, but the decision as to whether to continue with the meeting is ultimately the administration’s.
The Chair: So, that’s a protocol I’d like to have. Instead of making an immediate decision to cancel the meeting, couldn’t there be a 10-minute delay where we redo the sound tests and double-check everything? Provided it’s not a health and safety issue.
However, at the moment, from what I understand — I was on one of the committees where a meeting was cancelled — the line between the interruption, the end of the meeting and the resumption of work may not have been entirely clear. Ultimately, the meeting was brought to an end.
Could we have that protocol of at least 10 minutes, which would allow people to stay put and continue to work?
Mr. Lymburner: Those are very good points. I’ll double-check the protocols to make sure there’s a pause to assess the bigger picture and make an informed decision with all the partners. That makes a lot of sense to me. What do you think, Mr. Ball?
Mr. Ball: Absolutely. As far as we’re concerned, it’s up to the Senate and the clerks to decide whether or not to hold the meeting, interrupt or take breaks during their hearings. We’re here to serve you, if there’s a problem with sound quality or service interruption, the interpreters are here to work with the multimedia team and the clerks to resume service as soon as possible.
In the past, there were times when the meeting proceeded with the next witness or with a witness in person until the technical issues could be resolved, but as the technical environment is not the responsibility of the Translation Bureau, we always work with you and the Multimedia Services team to try to resume service as soon as possible.
The Chair: Very well, thank you.
[English]
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to our witnesses and to your whole team of wonderful translators who provide us with an invaluable service, which you’ve heard many articulate here today. I’m glad to see we’re even making some progress today on suggestions for improvement, because I know you want them as much as we do.
My question is higher level. You know from us what we need to function, both in terms of bringing in witnesses from across Canada from places where there are bandwidth issues and other issues, which you’ve heard from Senator Boehm, where we need to bring in the witnesses. We desperately need the voices of those witnesses from all over the world.
You must be plugged into your professional network of interpretation and translation around the world — people who grapple with these same issues. My question is more on the proactive side and is big picture. Knowing the business that we’re in, the struggles that we have and the absolute need to have these voices brought in for our deliberations, decision making, et cetera, what do you do to plug into the best practices in your field in order to meet these kinds of needs that you see here?
Mr. Lymburner: Thank you very much, senator, for the question. I think that’s a very good one. Obviously, what the pandemic brought to all of us is that we were all part of the same condition. It’s one of the few files that we can deal with our colleagues — the evolution and future of work, the implementation of hybrid all happened at the same time, at the same pace pretty much all around the world. Obviously, the Canadian government, in terms of having bilingual support, cannot compare to every country, but we know the organizations that are dealing with similar conditions. We mentioned the European Parliament, the United Nations and we’ve worked with, as I mentioned, the University of Marseilles. We had about 28 studies coming in. You’re absolutely right, the conditions and benchmarking we’re able to look into are not only local or within Canada or in the United States, they’re all around the world, and we’re trying to get the best practices.
In some areas, incidents were pretty much similar to what we are living. Others had a bit less, so our team is talking to these jurisdictions to try to understand. Sometimes it was because they would not — we’ve seen meetings recently where witnesses are two streets away from here and they’re still doing it from their office without a proper headset — some jurisdictions they would make sure that, when possible, witnesses are in person.
We definitely continue to learn. Matthew and I and others behind me, we have assigned a director only to look at health and safety in support of the two houses. We’re going around the world to find out if there’s anything we can learn to apply best practices, I would say it’s not only in the field of interpretation because the technology is also changing rapidly. Just things like having satellite internet that a few months ago had issues, now it’s getting better. The services are getting better for bandwidth and connection. That opens up the possibility for you to bring witnesses maybe from the North where, several months ago, it was very difficult. That is changing as well in the chain of sound, and we’re working with the best around the world. Thank you for your question.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other questions, colleagues? I’m looking at the time.
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Mr. Lymburner and Mr. Ball, for the explanations. Senator Boehm, thank you for raising the question. It’s always a pleasure to have you here and to hear your explanations of the various issues that help us function better as a whole, as a Senate. Thank you very much.
[English]
Colleagues, the next item is an issue that has been raised by our colleague the Honourable Senator Carignan regarding living expenses, budget for privately owned.
Senator Carignan, I understand that you would like to move the following motion:
That the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be mandated to examine the daily allowance for privately-owned residences to determine whether an adjustment is necessary for 2024-25; and
That subcommittee present its final report to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration no later March 31, 2024.
Are there any questions on this, colleagues? If not, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[Translation]
The next item is the steering committee’s report on efficiencies for subcommittee and working group meetings. Shaila Anwar, Deputy Clerk of Committees, is with us this morning and will be able to assist us on this matter, if required.
Dear colleagues, I have the honour to present the 23rd Report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure regarding scenarios for reducing the number of subcommittees and working group meetings.
Honourable senators, the report before you stems from a request the Steering Committee received from Senate leaders and facilitators and fits squarely within the efficiency review initiative. The goal is to find ways to make meetings more efficient in order to reduce the length and number of meetings without precluding important discussions addressing key decisions.
Before submitting our recommendations to CIBA members, I sent an email to the leaders and facilitators of the various groups. In this message to the leaders and facilitators, I presented the three options in our report.
The first proposal aims to implement a set calendar for CIBA and sub-committee meetings and to establish annual information agendas.
The second proposal is to conduct a pilot project introducing the concept of a consent agenda and adding a section entitled “For Information Only.”
The third proposal aims to merge and amend the mandates and membership of certain subcommittees and working groups. We propose the following groupings: the Steering Committee and the Communications Subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Human Resources and the Subcommittee on Diversity, and the Subcommittee on the Senate Expense Budget and Committee Budgets and the Credit Card Task Force.
That would leave us with four committees: Steering and Communications, Human Resources and Diversity, SEBS and Credit Cards, and the Subcommittee on LTVP. We would be left with two working groups, Environment and Artwork and Heritage.
You have the report, which proposes a pilot project for the prospective agenda, we’re also proposing pilot projects for the consent agenda and information items. The report sets out how we would proceed, then discusses merging the work of certain committees with similar mandates and revising those mandates.
At the end of the fiscal year, it is proposed that your committee recommend that proposal number 1 be implemented immediately, as this is an administrative measure that would ensure more efficient and equitable operations for all CIBA subcommittees and JWGs.
Your subcommittee recommends that proposal 2 be implemented on a pilot basis so that members and staff can make the necessary adjustments to work plans and processes, and that CIBA and subcommittee members be invited to provide feedback and comments by March 2024 to track the benefits and challenges implemented from this proposal.
Third, your subcommittee recommends that CIBA continue the discussion and study of option 3 with the merging of committees and working groups. While doing this exercise, we are also looking to establish a meeting agenda so that CIBA subcommittee meetings would meet while the Senate is in session on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays while working groups would meet on Mondays, Fridays or session weeks when the Senate is not sitting.
So, I’ve given you a quick overview of the work done on this. We’re asking you to think about it and provide your comments; you have further details inside the memo. I didn’t want to read it out because it’s long; you’ve had time to read it.
If there are any comments or suggestions regarding the proposals, we can discuss them this morning and see where that takes us. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Boyer: I read with dismay the merging of the Subcommittee on Human Resources and the Subcommittee on Diversity, and I am vehemently opposed to it because the issues we deal with at Diversity are very unique and very specific to Indigenous people, Black people and other vulnerable populations. I believe if we merge it into HR, it’s going to be assimilated into the common issues, and I oppose it completely.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Any other questions or comments on this or on anything else that is being proposed?
Senator Plett: I have reservations about — and I’m not saying I’m opposing it. It’s a study or whatever you’re doing now. It’s fine. I am not in favour of committees or subcommittees meeting when the Senate is sitting. Our numbers are getting lower. I believe we should continue with the same system that we have until that regard until the next Parliament and that these types of decisions should be made at the start of a Parliament, not towards the end of one.
On behalf of the Conservative caucus, I would oppose that committees meet when the Senate is sitting. We need our senators available in the chamber when the Senate is sitting.
The Chair: I’m sorry; I meant not during the sitting of the Senate, but during the weeks when we are here in Ottawa. So the time slots —
Senator Plett: I’m sorry. I misunderstood, then.
The Chair: My apologies.
We meet every two weeks. CIBA meets every two weeks on Thursdays, so the time slot from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. would be one week for CIBA and the other one would be for the different committees. This way, we would have a specific time when the subcommittees of CIBA can have proper meetings. One of the issues that we’ve had in the last few months was associated with the fact that we did not have any meeting times and we had to postpone items over and over again because of no time to meet and it was difficult for our staff to organize these meetings.
Senator Plett: I fully support that.
I take a little bit the opposite approach of Senator Boyer as far as merging. I believe committees are still masters of their own destiny, and if the Diversity and Human Resources subcommittees are merged, they would be able to make a decision on what issues they deal with on any given week. If it’s issues of diversity, they can designate an entire meeting towards those issues.
But we have too many subcommittees right now, which is what you’re trying to deal with, and in order to do that, some committees have to be merged, so I support that.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett.
Senator Seidman: On proposal 2, your pilot project with for information, meeting agenda items sent out in advance of the meeting — that’s an excellent idea and these are excellent proposals.
Generally speaking, they’re not actionable items when we get them for the meetings, but we might have comments. How would you deal with that? Would there be a separate agenda item still for comments or questions about those items?
The Chair: I will explain. It’s the same with the consent agenda. Anything that you want to be pulled out from the information or the consent agenda and put on as discussion during the meeting, you will always have that opportunity at the beginning of the meeting. I will always be asking the question. So if at some point you say, “I would like to speak about this item,” then we bring it up. It will be at the end of the agenda, but it will be discussed. If it’s not at that meeting because of lack of time, it will be at the next, but it will be followed through.
Senator Seidman: Okay. Thank you. That’s helpful.
The other point I would like to make is just to give a bit of history around the Diversity Subcommittee and the HR Directorate.
There has been a huge evolution of the diversity file in the HR Directorate over the last number of years. Enormous evolution. Now there are people designated within the HR Directorate who are looking after the diversity aspect of the Senate. They have a large responsibility, but they also have an enormous capability. They deal with these issues on an ongoing basis as far as the Senate is concerned.
I don’t find it so alarming to talk about merging those two subcommittees. I think the Diversity Subcommittee — and there was an advisory committee as well on diversity as well — did good work. They did their job well. Now a lot of that is subsumed by specialists within the HR Directorate. I’d just like to put that out there as a bit of history and background on that issue. I don’t oppose that combination. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Seidman.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: It seems to me that there is a missing element in the analysis as far as efficiency is concerned. That is the stability of the members of the subcommittees, which leads me to fundamentally question this decision to have, here and there, now and then, one member or another from another group as a member of the subcommittees.
I’d like to make a specific plea for the Human Resources Subcommittee. We all know that it discusses sensitive and complex human resources issues, where we often spend more than one meeting on the same file. For my part, I would propose that this practice no longer apply to the Subcommittee on Human Resources from now on, on one hand, and on the other, if there were to be a merger between the Subcommittee on Human Resources and the Subcommittee on Diversity, that this merger not take effect before next April 1, because we have ongoing files for which I believe only current members should be permitted to sit on the subcommittee.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain. Duly noted.
Senator Forest: I have an operational question. If we merge the working group and the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets (SEBS), I was thinking of the committee with the mandate we just had. If we integrate credit cards and broadcasting assessments, how will we be able to integrate the membership, the new mandate? Because it changes the mandates of the merged committees. Will there be a new resolution from CIBA to amend the mandate and composition?
The Chair: Actually, Senator Forest, that’s an excellent question. Each committee will be asked to review its mandate. You will receive proposals on the work to be done.
However, there’s also the time when you’ll be working on certain files. There will also be an agenda associated with that. Because in the notes, you have everything relating to the agendas, which are projected. So you would also have periods in the year when you would discuss certain subjects.
So, yes, the mandates will be revised and will take into account the recommendations submitted to you, and you will be able to discuss them within your committee, in addition to the provisional agendas to rebalance the workload. For example, the SEBS committee, as we understand it, is a committee that should meet quarterly and not —
Senator Forest: Annually.
The Chair: Ad hoc; sometimes you meet three or four weeks in a row and then there’s no meeting for four or five months. So there would be some predictability in the agendas you’d be working with. Therefore, as part of the exercise we’re now undertaking, we need to review the mandates. I don’t know if I’m answering your question.
Senator Forest: Will the mandates be resubmitted to CIBA?
The Chair: That’s right.
Senator Forest: Very well, thank you.
The Chair: I’d like to add to the concern —
[English]
To your point, Senator Boyer, one of the ideas that we have would be that the HR Subcommittee would be divided, let’s say, into two components, where one meeting you would be dealing with HR items and another meeting you would be dealing with diversity items. In this way, diversity items are not lost because of priority given to HR items.
I think it can be worked out, but again, I understand your opposition to this. We will keep it in mind, but we would like to explore different options, and I think that’s where we’re going with this.
Senator Boyer: As long as it wasn’t subsumed into the other.
The Chair: No.
Senator Boyer: Thank you.
The Chair: We understand the issue.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much. As I understand it, you’re recommending the first two proposals. You’re not necessarily recommending the third proposal. You’re inviting conversation and debate on that, right? I would like to know because I’m also concerned, and I am here representing Senator Moodie. The last thing Senator Moodie would want to see — I think she’s open to a merger, but not to be submerged, to be pushed underwater, submerged.
What will the next steps be in consideration of that third proposal, which is not yet being recommended? We’re having a bit of a conversation here, but what else do you — I think you asked for written submissions processed from here to decision point. This is what I’m asking about.
The Chair: Shaila, I will ask you to respond to this one.
Shaila Anwar, Clerk Assistant, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: Senator, I think it’s something that the clerks will bring forward to each of the subcommittees, that this was adopted by CIBA. We have an instruction to look at the mandate, to make recommendations and see what works and doesn’t work.
I think it would start with subcommittee, and the recommendation is that the subcommittees bring forward proposals. I believe it’s by the end of May or March, in the coming months. Then, again, I presume the discussion will happen here.
Senator Quinn: One observation for me is that the credit card committee was established to look at a very specific thing. It has a natural life. I’m not so sure that we need to spend a lot of time. We extended it, much to my chagrin, from June of last year to June of this year. That’s when it is supposed to have completed its work.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Quinn: It was moving at a terrific snail’s pace. Senator Downe has now taken my spot on that committee, but I did a lot of work during the summer, and it seemed that the issues were clear cut.
All I’m saying is that I don’t know why we would consider a merger of that committee and another committee, but let it finish its work. Let it change the date of reporting. It must be nearly finished its work by now.
The Chair: We agree. It was just the question of having meeting times for your group. So that’s why we’re saying if it’s merged with SEBS, that would clear up that item. So it’s more of an item than a working group, but we are very open to finishing the work on this one.
Senator Quinn: In terms of what Senator Boyer said, I’m on both of those subcommittees and I didn’t understand or realize there was an issue because each of the discussions are quite distinct and important. So again, I don’t recall having any issues or being aware of any issues with our committee’s leadership, our chairs, scheduling meetings. We all were flexible in responding to those demands.
I’m not sure if there is a translation issue — I don’t know — but it seems like we’re getting into the micromanagement arena a little bit; that’s probably my lack of experience, but I find this all fascinating. That’s my comment.
Senator Francis: I’m kind of the new kid on the block here. I want to support what Senator Boyer said in her comments. Diversity issues are so important as we move forward. It is important — however we do it — that they don’t get lost with HR issues. I wanted to make that brief comment.
Ms. Anwar: Just to address your point, Senator Quinn, we’re trying to take out the micromanaging that senators and their offices have to do. There are times we have instances where it takes 60 to 70 emails to come up with an appropriate date and time for committee members. Many senators are on those emails, but often it’s the staff, and it becomes quite cumbersome.
I did a chart of the membership of CIBA as of Monday, and we have one larger caucus and three smaller caucuses, and there are members of this committee that are also members of four other committees plus steering committees, chairs of other committees.
I remember one week in November or December where there was a SEBS meeting one day, an LTVP meeting the next day and then CIBA on the third day, and I believe everybody would have gotten a 90- to 100-page bundle.
I certainly don’t have time to read that much information, and I don’t think senators do either. So we’re trying to economize the time that you have and eliminate some of those administrative annoyances.
If you don’t see it, I’m very happy about that, but I do think a lot of senators do see it. So that’s our goal.
Senator Quinn: I certainly don’t see all that background noise, and I’ll call it that.
Ms. Anwar: We try to hide that from you.
Senator Quinn: You’ve done an excellent job with me. The reality is that I understand that we’ve opened subcommittees. You don’t have to be a member of CIBA to be on a subcommittee. We need to take better advantage of that. Just because I’m on CIBA and I ended up on two subcommittees, it doesn’t necessarily mean that I need to be there. Quite frankly, when Senator Downe was talking about the other one, I said, “absolutely.”
We need to take better advantage of that decision to allow non-CIBA members to do subcommittee work. That’s just an observation.
The Chair: It’s a good comment. These are discussions that we need to have.
One of the important things, which I think Shaila mentioned, is that we have asked the administration to look at efficiencies. One of the areas where we have the most inefficiencies is how we work with our subcommittees and our working group within the CIBA functioning. That’s why we are looking at finding efficiencies, and the resource-intensive work we have to do.
The other thing was that we were also asked to cap the number of FTEs, and whenever we add a new subcommittee or a new working group, that adds to the workload of everyone. These are important factors to think about.
With the information that we heard this morning — the diversity question, the question of having non-members on HR — these will be taken into consideration.
I will read the motion, but keeping in mind that these two items — diversity and non-members — be taken into consideration, but it’s not in the motion that is written, but it’s there, please, so we will be adding it in. It says:
Your subcommittee recommends that proposal 1 be implemented immediately as this is an administrative measure that would ensure a more efficient and equitable operation for all of CIBA subcommittees and working groups;
Your subcommittee recommends that proposal 2 be implemented on a pilot project basis so that members and staff have time to adjust work plans and processes; and
It says that CIBA and subcommittee members could be asked to provide feedback and comments by — we had put March 2024. We know the timeline is very short; maybe we could put June 2024 — to monitor the benefits and challenges of implementing in all aspects of this proposal.
And finally:
Your subcommittee recommends further discussion and consideration by CIBA and by the subcommittees on option number 3 where we are talking about merging subcommittees and working groups and looking at mandates.
Could I have a mover for this proposition, keeping in mind the other two items?
Senator Saint-Germain: I so move.
[Translation]
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: The motion is carried. Thank you.
[English]
The next item is the result of the fall survey with action plan.
[Translation]
I’m going to ask David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, and Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, who are also present this morning, to answer questions if necessary.
I’d like to thank the Administration for its work on this file and I congratulate you for the very positive results.
Ms. Legault, you can consider us aware of the results as well as the action plan. Can you summarize the survey results and next steps for us?
[English]
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer, Office of the Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of CIBA, Senate of Canada: In the fall of 2023, senators and their staff were invited to participate in a survey to provide their level of satisfaction on the services provided by the administration.
We wish to thank all of you who took the time to provide feedback on the services we provide.
The survey was focusing on three things: the overall experience of senators and their staff with the service, the response time and the effectiveness in issue resolution. In total, we received 59 responses — 20 from senators, and 39 staff members responded to the survey.
While this only represents 15% of the total number of respondents, some offices basically decided to name one person to complete the survey on their behalf, so the representation might be a little bit better than it appears.
We are pleased to report that the survey’s overall results are very positive. Of the 12 directorates within the Senate Administration included in the survey, 10 services meet or exceed expectations for more than 90% of the respondents. The survey also identified areas the administration may improve upon, including the waiting time with IT service desk and the transition to Unit4 with processing expense claims.
Following an analysis of the survey results, each directorate has identified targeted actions to address the feedback. The report in your bundle summarizes the survey results and also these actions.
I can also confirm that the Senate Administration has already implemented several concrete actions to address the feedback we received. These include reallocation of staff assigned to process claims. This is within the cap. It’s a reallocation; there are no additional FTEs. There is also the launch of an on-site e-booking service for IT service desk, and we also provided additional training opportunities for the improvements that have been made to Unit4.
In terms of next steps, we wish to share the results and action plan with all senators and senators’ staff following this meeting, and we intend to monitor satisfaction going forward. However, we will ensure the survey’s length is much more focused and succinct, based on the feedback we’ve received.
If there are any questions, we would be happy to respond.
The Chair: Thank you, Pascale. Because I am the manager of time, we don’t have a lot of time left in our meeting, and we have quite a few items that are left that we would like to attend to. Regardless, we are open, and if some of you would like this item to be brought back at another meeting, we could also do that.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for this. I had a quick question on e-booking. Is that a ticketing kind of system where you will know that your request has been dealt with? Is that what e‑booking is about?
Ms. Legault: Not exactly. We do have a ticketing system in place for when a call is made. The e-booking is really for someone who has a service that is not necessarily urgent; for example, they would like to have a new feature in their office or to have something installed. They can go and set up an appointment at two o’clock in the afternoon. This way, e‑booking can be done as opposed to waiting for a service that is not urgent. It can be taken care of at a time that is convenient for the senator’s office when there will be someone available as opposed to waiting in line.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions?
I will add that the service that we get from IT is exceptional, because when you even try to call Bell, they tell you that you have about 20 minutes to wait before you can be serviced. Here, they will take charge of your computer, and they will do the fixing while you are working. It’s not always as quick as we would want them to have things functioning, but I say we receive an exceptional service from IT and from all the staff who work with us.
Senator Dalphond: At Bell, they would say, “Your call is important to us.”
The Chair: Indeed.
Now we are off to item 8.
Senator Forest: This morning, Bell announced they cut 10% of the staff.
The Chair: So you will wait a half an hour more.
We are going under “other matters” in the open session. There is just one item that was brought to us that we will be studying and bringing back to this committee. It’s international travel when burner telephones are being provided. It is around the protocol that is associated with the restrictions for the Senate, which are different from the restrictions from the other place. So we will be studying this item, and we will be bringing it back to this committee.
Is there anything else under “other matters”? We can go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)