THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
Ottawa, Thursday, April 11, 2024
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met with videoconference this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(1), in consideration of financial and administrative matters; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), in consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Lucie Moncion. I’m a senator from Ontario, and I have the privilege of chairing the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
I would now like to go around the table and ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from Quebec.
[English]
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
Senator Loffreda: Tony Loffreda from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Senator Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Boehm: Senator Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Plett: Senator Donald Plett, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Claude Carignan, Mille Isles, Quebec.
The Chair: I also want to welcome all those who are following our proceedings across the country. Honourable senators, before we get to the first item of business, I want to officially welcome Shaila Anwar and congratulate her on behalf of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration for her appointment as a clerk of the Senate. We look forward to working with you in this new role as of May 6. Honourable senators, Shaila will be attending our committee meetings from now on to help facilitate her transition into this new role.
You will remember that at the meeting of February 8, 2024, the committee adopted the 23rd report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, which included a proposal for a pilot project that would be implemented by the Internal Economy Committee and its subcommittees. The purpose of this pilot project is to simplify the work of the committee and our subcommittees by making meetings more efficient and reducing the number of presentations required during each meeting.
This morning, we are beginning the pilot project with the first item of business, which is approving the consent agenda. As a reminder, the items on the consent agenda are ones that are non‑controversial but that require our approval. A briefing note, a form and other supporting documents will always be submitted in advance for such items, but no presentation will be required.
If you have any questions or concerns about an item after reading the supporting documentation, that item will be removed from the consent agenda and added to the regular agenda to be discussed in more detail later in the meeting. The items remaining on the consent agenda will then be approved as a bundle to make things more efficient.
For today’s meeting, we have only two items on the consent agenda, and they are the public part and the in-camera part of the minutes of the meeting of February 29, 2024. Honourable senators, do you have any questions or concerns about either of those two items? Seeing none, can someone move the following motion:
That the consent agenda be approved.
Senator Boyer moves the motion.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Honourable senators, the second item of business is a report of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets regarding committee budgets. It is my understanding that Senator Loffreda will make opening remarks. Shaila Anwar, Clerk Assistant, Committees Directorate, and Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, are here in person to answer any questions. As usual, this presentation will be followed by a question and answer period. Senator Loffreda, you have the floor.
Hon. Tony Loffreda: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
Good morning to all. Honourable senators, I have the honour to present first the twenty-sixth report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets recommending the release of funds to permit two committees to conduct fact‑finding missions.
The Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators requested $162,560 for a fact-finding mission to London, England in relation to their study on matters related to the code and case of privilege concerning events relating to the sitting of November 9, 2023.
The Committee on Transport and Communications requested $45,095 for two fact-finding missions — one to Montreal, the other to Hamilton — in relation to their study on the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure.
Your subcommittee recommends that CIBA approve the release of $207,000 dollars and $655 for three committee travel activities leaving $1,674,345 for the remainder of the fiscal year. Your subcommittee encourages both committees to look for reasonable ways to reduce their expenditures.
Unless there are any questions, I recommend the adoption of the report.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?
Senator Plett: Senator Loffreda indicated that this was asked for and approved because of events that happened in the Senate. I think that is incorrect. I think this committee was doing a study and when they came and asked for money, I don’t think they ever said it was in relation to any event that happened in the chamber. They are rewriting and working on the Conflict of Interest Code for Senators generally and that is why they are travelling there. I really think that should be taken out of the record, that this is not as a result of anything that happened in the chamber.
Senator Loffreda: We’ll take it out of the record.
The Chair: Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Senator Plett.
[Translation]
Senator Loffreda moved:
That the twenty-sixth report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be adopted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Go ahead, senator.
Senator Saint-Germain: I insist that Senator Plett’s comment be taken into account and that we adopt the amended version of the report.
The Chair: Okay, it is noted. The amended report will be adopted. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? The motion is adopted.
Honourable senators, the agenda includes a second report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets regarding a cafeteria update. I invite Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, and Marc Lacelle, Director, Building Operations, to join us as witnesses. It is my understanding that Senator Loffreda will make opening remarks and that Josée, Pierre and Marc will answer our questions. Go ahead, Senator Loffreda.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Honourable senators, next I have the honour to present the twenty-seventh report of the subcommittee which makes recommendations on food services in the context of the efficiency review on the activities and services provided by the Senate Administration.
Over the past few years, the Senate Administration has been mandated to find different options for cafeteria operations. Neither of the Senate’s two cafeterias generates enough revenue to cover operating costs due to declining customer numbers and rising cafeteria operating costs in recent years.
We were told that the most effective option is to temporarily close the East Block cafeteria as part of a pilot project using an intelligent vending machine instead. The cafeteria in the Senate of Canada Building would continue to be operational.
Your subcommittee recommends:
That CIBA approve the continuity of services for the Senate of Canada building cafeteria as well as a temporary closure of the East Block Building cafeteria as of July 1, 2024;
That CIBA approve the implementation of a one-year pilot project at the East Block Building under which an intelligent, specialized vending machine containing food prepared by the House of Commons will be purchased at a cost of approximately 22 000$; and
That the Property and Services Directorate be authorized to enter into an expense initiation estimated at $330,000 and that the memorandum of understanding with the House of Commons be renewed, for one year, until June 30, 2025, for:
the provision of catering;
the provision of cafeteria services at SCB; and
the provision of services related to the EB for the pilot project for the vending machine.
Unless there are any questions, I recommend the adoption of the report.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for the officials. Did I understand correctly that there is a pilot project under way right now in the House of Commons?
Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: That’s right. We have the same vending machine in the Valour building.
Senator Carignan: Since we have a good working relationship with the House of Commons, why not wait until it completes its pilot project and then make a decision based on how successful that project is? Why should we get involved in this, if it doesn’t work out there?
Ms. Labelle: The goal was to provide an alternative if we close the East Block cafeteria. Food will be available from the vending machine 24/7, unlike at the cafeteria, which closes at 2:30 p.m.
The cafeteria in the Valour building is not being completely shut down. The usage data for the vending machine cannot be 100% comparative because there are still services open in the Valour building, even though the hours of operation have been reduced.
Senator Carignan: Yes, but there is still the matter of accessibility, usability, freshness and machine breakdowns. All of that will count in the analysis of the pilot project results. To me, it would be wise to wait for the results of the House of Commons pilot project before we stop providing this service. I do not know what you have in terms of a usage survey, but the survey by Carignan and Carignan tells me that most of the people who use the service are maintenance and security staff, and perhaps even some construction workers. This is a service that is offered to our support staff and that seems to be very appreciated.
If the number of people using that cafeteria is not quite as high, it is because there are more people who work here than on the other side.
Ms. Labelle: During weeks when the Senate is sitting, the volume of use on Mondays and Fridays is about half of what it is on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Usage almost doubles on those days.
Generally speaking, we do not usually plan to have a cafeteria in a space that is not occupied by senators. The main purpose of the planning objectives is to have a cafeteria where there are senators working. Obviously, other staff and institutions are also allowed to use it, for example, in this building the Parliamentary Protective Service and the Library of Parliament are also allowed to use the cafeteria.
Senator Carignan: From a human resources perspective, where we are trying to be an employer of choice and where there are more and more companies offering their employees free meals — and I am not saying that we need to go that far, but maybe we should lean a little more in that direction — should we not review our philosophy and provide the same service to our employees so that senators and their staff can benefit from it? Should we not make our staff a priority? I think that would be worthwhile from a human resources policy perspective.
Ms. Labelle: Yes. When we looked at this situation with the House of Commons Food Services, the goal was not to eliminate food services altogether but to offer an alternative. That’s where the suggestion for the vending machine with healthy options came from. The vending machine will sell the same types of things that you can find in the fridge in the Senate building, for example, salads and hot meals and soups that can be reheated in the microwave. These options are replenished every day by an employee who seems to be one half of a full-time equivalent and who does this on a regular basis.
Healthy food, access to food is still —
Senator Carignan: Like a ham sandwich.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much. If I recall, the last time we discussed this was April 2023, and there was a lot of discussion about the East Block cafeteria. I recall asking if we could do a survey of the people using it to see what kind of services they would like.
If you do a calculation of usage around East Block — and this is more of what Senator Carignan was saying — not only are there 100 senators’ staff and most senators’ offices, but there are Parliamentary Protective Service, or PPS, staff who use that cafeteria on a typical day. The post office is there, and the employees of the post office use that cafeteria. The cleaning staff, maintenance, construction workers — there are a lot of people who use that cafeteria. Frankly, that cafeteria, different from the Senate building, actually has a kitchen where they cook food. Have we done that survey of employees of the Senate, along the lines of what Senator Carignan was saying, to see what kind of food services they like — when they use cafeteria services — what services are adequate and have good quality food as opposed to ham sandwiches in the refrigerator or a machine?
I mean, I can give you an example of the Senate of Canada Building cafeteria. I went to get a salad, and it was in the fridge, which is what you say you’re going to put in the machines, and the expiry date was two days earlier. I picked up every salad — and they’re open, so it’s not like putting money into a machine and you get whatever comes out, then you look at it and the expiry was two days earlier. This was chicken and salad. You’re not going to eat chicken and salad that expired two days earlier.
Who is going to look after the machines? This is an open fridge in the Senate of Canada Building cafeteria that is attended to. You can go to someone, there is someone standing there, and you can say that you just paid for this but it expired two days ago and they can deal with it. What can a person do when they go to a machine, put their money in and get something that expired two days earlier?
I’m not sure if you’re comparing it to the open fridge we have in the Senate of Canada Building and saying that is the kind of service we’re going to provide. I’m not sure your employees — and I’m talking not just senators’ employees but Senate employees who really love that cafeteria because they can get good quality, hot food.
I’m just trying to understand if we’re being penny-wise and dollar foolish. Have we done the appropriate survey and talked to employees to find out their habits and when they use the cafeteria? Sure, there are efficiencies you can make. It doesn’t have to be open on non-sitting weeks or open in the summer. There are efficiencies.
Ms. Labelle: Thank you, senator. In terms of our discussions with the House of Commons, of course, we’ve communicated with the House of Commons about the newly installed vending machine in the Valour Building and encouraged occupants to use that particular machine. Of course, that is managed by the House of Commons.
In the case of the East Block, we were told and assured by the House of Commons service that we would customize the content of that vending machine. So the intent is, if there is an appetite to implement this, to work to issue a survey to see what kind of variety of foods, and then we can list items that the House of Commons can provide in that type of vending machine. And we can work, as part of the pilot project for the Senate specifically, with our occupants, to customize the vending machine to our specific requirements for food.
Senator Seidman: But it’s still a vending machine, though. So there is nothing you can do when you get a product that has expired — and I believe the products that are in the fridge in the Senate come from the House of Commons’ facility. So it would be the same products from the same facility.
All right. I’ll leave time for other people, but have you done a survey of users in advance of making this move, which is what we discussed last year?
Ms. Labelle: Not on the usage of the cafeteria, which is a fixed menu that is managed by the House of Commons. Typically, for example, if there is a specific meal on a Tuesday, it would be that same meal across the board at the House of Commons. We’ve also explored other options like looking at price increases, for example, but that’s not something that is a link to be explored at this time for one cafeteria. There is a similar approach with all cafeterias across the precinct.
Senator Seidman: So you haven’t done the surveys of customers’ habits and preferences, but you’re just deciding to close it down —
Ms. Labelle: We have the statistics of usage. Essentially, lunch is the most popular, followed by breakfast closely, and after 2 p.m. there are barely any sales except for coffee and some snacks, and that is mostly applicable to this building because the East Block cafeteria closes at 2:30 on sitting weeks.
The Chair: I am going to ask two follow-up questions here. Senator Seidman mentioned that we discuss this every April. Could you give the reason why we discuss this in April every year?
Ms. Labelle: Thank you, chair. The reason we discuss this every March or April is because we need to renew the memorandum of understanding on a yearly basis with the House of Commons for the provision of catering, the Senate of Canada Building cafeteria and the East Block cafeteria. The proposal in the efficiencies report was to proceed with the renewal of the MOU, of course, for catering services, the provision for the Senate of Canada cafeteria, and to explore the pilot project vending machine. Just as an aside, with the vending machine — we know we will not have cafeteria provisions in the Chambers Building, which is a temporary building for senators, 40 Elgin — should we not wish to proceed following the completion of the pilot, we can always re-utilize that vending machine in that building, so it would not be a lost item in that sense.
The Chair: Second, we haven’t done a survey on usage, but we have done follow-ups on costs and on the money that is coming in. So we have a cost analysis of that cafeteria, and we have been doing it for the last four or five years, if I’m not mistaken.
Ms. Labelle: We’ve done it on a regular basis annually, and we work quarterly with the House of Commons on the actuals that we receive in terms of invoices, but similar to pre-pandemic, and it was worse during the pandemic for the SCB cafeteria, but we are still seeing a deficit. Basically, the sales don’t match with the cost of the sales.
Senator Seidman: I understand all that, but look — and I’ll leave it at this — all I have to say is this is a working building. It’s a working environment, and this is a service to all the employees. You’re not there to really make a profit on it, as far as I can see. So there are other ways to save money and make it function so we’re serving employees. I will just leave it at that. Thank you.
Senator Boehm: All of my questions have really been asked, but I wanted to associate myself with Senator Seidman’s comments. Thank you.
Senator Plett: I actually do as well, but I do want to, at the same time, defend a little bit what is being presented here. I don’t think that Josée is closing anything down. Josée and her team have been asked to do something, and they have been asked by the Senate and senators to do something, and they have been asked to find efficiencies. These are the efficiencies they came up with. So I want to, first of all, Josée, commend you for that.
I think we are using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito here. I also do not think that this cafeteria was ever installed in East Block in order for the Senate to make a huge profit. It was installed there to provide services.
I was in East Block for a number of years, and I used it regularly. Was that enough for it to turn a profit? Probably, the way I eat, it was closer to making a profit when I was there than it is now.
But nevertheless, we ask our people who work here for us to find savings because spending has gotten out of hand. I don’t want to make this about saying, well, in the last eight years, spending has skyrocketed or whatever, but it has. We have gone way up, and then we ask Josée to find us efficiencies, and there is a limited amount you can do. Then we get efficiencies like, well, let’s stop supplying towels at the gym because that will save us a few thousand dollars a year because the gym isn’t being used often enough. Again, the gymnasium in Victoria Building was put in as a service, not for something to make money. We need to, first of all, keep that clear. These are not there to make money.
I’m disappointed, Josée, when I hear that you have not surveyed the people in these offices. First and foremost, the best thing would have been to ask each and every senator in East Block, “How do you feel about this,” and get a direct opinion. I would also like to get an opinion from each and every senator in the Victoria Building because I assume they use the machine at Valour. Maybe. I would like to know if they do. To me, that would be a logical way of — no? Why?
The Chair: Well, I have coffee in my office, and I bring my lunch.
Senator Plett: Oh, okay. Well, fair enough. So you don’t. And if nobody does, then maybe — again, I was in Victoria Building for a while, and we had a little cafeteria in the bottom of Victoria, which I also used. That was closed. We had the restaurant then on the other side, so that was fine. I could walk across there. I use the cafeteria here because this is now where my office is.
So I use the cafeterias, and I’m wondering how many senators do. Instead of statistics and instead of how much money it makes, we should find out who uses it, and that decision should be made by the Senate.
Having said that, Josée, however, we tasked you to bring us efficiencies, and that’s what we do. So we should not be attacking the messenger here who is trying to do what she has been told to do and bring us some savings. I appreciate that.
I’m not a big proponent of it — although I’m part of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, or SEBS, so I’ll take responsibility for having it here as well, but I asked my questions there. I ask those same questions now, that before we close because, pilot project or not, we understand — and I’ll be very brief, chair — that pilot projects turn out to be permanent. I think if we close that cafeteria down and put machines in there, that cafeteria will stay closed. We need to realize that. It’s never opening up again.
Let’s be very sure we are doing the right thing, because it’s quite easy to say, “Well, let’s try this for half a year or a year, and if it doesn’t work, we’ll go back again.” We’re never going back if we close it down.
For that reason, at least, chair, I’m very hesitant to support this at this point. I think we at least need to get the feeling from each senator in the affected buildings and get an opinion — and from staff, for sure. I don’t know whether we have an obligation to provide services for our staff. They typically are travelling from home and can maybe bring a soup and sandwich from home. I even do that when I come here. My wife, God love her, packs me some sandwiches for the week because they’re better than the ones I get here at the cafeteria, and I go and get myself my bowl of soup at the cafeteria. Maybe if I stopped doing that —
The Chair: Okay, senators, let’s —
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair. I’m hesitant, chair, but I’ll leave it at that.
The Chair: Thank you. Now, I’m going to close this after Senator Carignan.
Senator Dalphond: I will start by saying that I voted against the closures last year. I haven’t changed my mind, even as a member of SEBS. This question is to you, Josée.
It says here that the cost for the year just ending for the East Block was $133,000. What was the forecast last year when we reviewed it? I think it was a bit higher.
Ms. Labelle: It was a bit higher, senator, but we still have the financial pressure of $38,000. There are a couple of things. You’ll see that the actual forecast for this fiscal year is also higher because the salaries of the employees at the cafeteria have remained static. We anticipate cost increases for that and also for provisions for CPI for this fiscal.
Senator Dalphond: I understand that budget here includes the forecasted increase.
Ms. Labelle: Correct.
Senator Dalphond: The cost last year, or the subsidies we have to provide, is lower than what was expected. The second page of the report says, of course, that if we go for the options that have been discussed, we have to buy new machines or rent them. The proposal is to buy these new machines and the cost is about $22,000. Also, it says that the food in the machines will be discarded after a day or two. So there will also be that cost associated with the waste.
What will be the ultimate saving? If I say that we’re saving $133,000 now, but we have to incur $20,000 or $22,000 plus the cost of the waste, what is the ultimate benefit? What’s the size of it?
Ms. Labelle: Ultimately, right now, the forecast, if we maintain status quo, would be the $410,000 that we had provided for the full usage and the provisions for what I just mentioned earlier. You mentioned the $22,000. We propose to purchase the machine because renting it was $15,000 a year. In any case, rent or buy, you have to factor in that half of an FTE needs to swap the food, make sure that the expiration dates are okay and do the due diligence that they would in the cafeteria anyway for the same food on top of O&M of the machines, so we need provisions for that. All of that was factored into the provisions for the cost. Essentially, I believe roughly $60,000 was factored in, all things considered in that sense: Salary and O&M purchase.
Senator Dalphond: But we’re talking about closing this cafeteria, which represents one third of the subsidies because of the big part here, the lion’s share.
Ms. Labelle: Correct.
Senator Dalphond: The savings would be about $60,000 a year if everything goes as forecasted?
Ms. Labelle: Roughly, yes. Do we expect our new machine O&M —
Senator Dalphond: That is $1,000 a week or so to prevent employees such as people from security and so on, from having access to hot food, especially in the winter when they don’t have to go far away, or on a day when it’s raining, and so on.
I think we are pushing our employees to work on the Hill and not to stay home to work. I would like to offer them — Senator Carignan and other colleagues have made the same point — an environment that includes accessibility to food that happens to be subsidized, but it’s also subsidized for both senators and MPs. For me, I think it’s part of the well-being of the Hill. For $60,000, I certainly will not vote for that.
Senator Moodie: I would like to support what Senator Seidman has said. A survey should be done to ask the question before any change is made and it should include senators, as Senator Plett said.
I understand that it’s reasonable to take the available data on cost efficiency. It’s an important part of the decision making to do that, but it’s also important because we care about the quality of the workplace that we have here and the environment that supports our staff to be a healthy one. I think it’s important we ask that question of our staff and of our senators before we make any moves.
I want to remind us of the fact that we did stop the food during late sittings here in the Senate for senators and we have not stopped hearing about that. There are continual ongoing complaints. I think we should learn from our experience and we should be asking the question and seeking the feedback. It’s a part of the process that I think is a reasonable one.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: No. That’s okay. Others have already talked about running the cafeteria to turn a profit. What is the goal?
The Chair: Senator Loffreda, do you want to comment on that or shall we move on to adopting the report?
Senator Loffreda: We could do a survey. I agree with what I’ve heard from most of the senators who spoke about this regarding the well-being of our employees and everyone. We want to encourage them to come work in the office, despite the fact —
[English]
I was part of SEBS when we adopted this report. We are looking for efficiencies. I’ve always said that he who doesn’t care for a quarter will not be worth a quarter. We’re looking for efficiencies. It’s discussed annually. I think it’s only fair maybe to go back, take a survey and listen to the people. I have always said that it’s 80% listening and 20% talking and reacting. So let’s listen to what personnel has to say.
The intentions were good. We want to be fiscally responsible at the Senate. Those were the intentions. We do have a cafeteria here that could be used and the walking distance from the East Block to here is not very far. We figured that those staff who do want to use the cafeteria — and our cafeteria is not being fully used — could use our cafeteria. We would have senators use our cafeteria. We figured that was an acceptable alternative, yes, to save. As I said, he who does not care for a quarter will not be worth a quarter. Every dollar counts to save a few dollars for the taxpayers.
However, I do agree; let’s survey the staff and the senators and then take a more thorough and knowledgeable decision. Everybody has an opinion. A judgment is based on facts, experience and research. Let’s do the adequate research, do the surveys, come back and settle it once and for all because we discuss this annually. I think we should put an end to it. No decision is the worst decision, so let’s decide. We either keep it or we encourage staff and senators to use our cafeteria here, which will be much more profitable. It serves us very well. I often eat at our cafeteria here. The walking distance is nominal.
If I can finish on a positive note, it’s encouraging to tell our staff and our senators to walk, get some exercise, grab a lunch, walk back to their offices and get some air. The intention was a healthy one.
[Translation]
The Chair: I just have one question. When do you have to sign the renewal agreement with the House of Commons?
Ms. Labelle: Normally the agreement must be renewed 90 days before it expires in June. It is April now, so we are already well within that 90-day period. The House of Commons is aware that this discussion is happening today and that the agreement cannot be signed until —
The Chair: May 1?
Ms. Labelle: Exactly.
The Chair: In that case, is two weeks enough time to do the survey?
Ms. Labelle: I would have to work with my colleagues in the Communications Directorate, but that might be tight.
The Chair: What I’m hearing is that it will be next April. Thank you for the report, senator. We all agree to put off this decision once again.
Thank you, Josée and Pierre. I think you are going to stay with us for the next two items on the agenda.
Senator Carignan: Excuse me, Madam Chair. I just want to say one thing. It was just said that we renew this agreement every year. We are not putting it off. Next year, we will look at the issue again, just as we would for any contract that is expiring. We are not putting off the decision. We make it every year.
The Chair: That is what is happening. We put it off every year, senator. I was a member of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets for five years. I am no longer a member, but this conversation has been coming up every year for five years now.
Senator Carignan: Yes, regarding the renewal of the agreement.
The Chair: Yes, regarding the renewal of the agreement, and every year we have the same conversation about closing that cafeteria. The problem that was created over the years —
Senator Carignan: Perhaps we should leave this item open?
The Chair: Perhaps, but there may also be differences of opinion. The fact is that when we were in the Centre Block, the cafeteria there met the needs of all the staff and senators, but since we started working from different buildings, there have been additional costs.
Given that Senate spending is up, we asked representatives from the Senate Administration to identify operational efficiencies and ways of cutting costs. This is part of the low‑hanging fruit, some of the costs that are currently being examined.
[English]
Senator Plett: I really apologize — and God love our translator, she was really trying to keep up with the exchange you and Senator Carignan were having — but when you’re both speaking at the same time, she couldn’t keep up and I couldn’t understand. I would like to know what the decision is now.
The Chair: The survey won’t be done in time so we’re pushing it back to next year one more time.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
The Chair: That’s what I was saying, one more time.
The next item is a third report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets concerning the efficiency review of the activities and services provided by the Senate Administration.
David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, will join us as a witness. Again, it is my understanding that Senator Loffreda will make opening remarks on that, and Pierre and David will assist in answering questions.
Senator Loffreda: I just want to quickly say it’s a low‑hanging fruit here, but with the accumulation of numerous low‑hanging fruits, we’ll arrive to a substantial amount of savings. Like I said, every dollar counts. They are low‑hanging fruits for those listening, but it is important to look at that and the easy and low-hanging fruits like the cafeteria.
In the meantime, my last comment on that, we can take the survey and next year when we do contemplate this decision, we’ll have a thorough survey that has been sent to all senators and staff, and we can take a thorough decision once and for all and not review it annually in SEBS. Those who were part of SEBS took the decision to bring it forward to acknowledge that this was a low-hanging fruit that we could contemplate cutting.
My next report is the twenty-eighth report on Senate laptops in senators’ offices.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the 28th report of the subcommittee, which makes recommendations on providing Senate laptops in the context of the efficiency review.
The Senator’s Office Management Policy and the Senators’ Office Expense Index indicate that every senator and staff member may receive one laptop paid for by central funding.
However, while some senators have one or two full-time staff, other senators choose to hire part-time staff, students, interns or have volunteers working for them, creating the need for a greater number of laptops. The number of laptops per senator’s office varies from 1 to 10, excluding House Officers.
Options were presented to your subcommittee to establish the maximum number of laptops attributed per senate office. Your subcommittee recommends that the Internal Economy Committee approve option 1, to limit the number of laptops to a maximum of four devices per senate office; that the number of laptops per senate office be reduced by attrition; that a communiqué be sent to inform senators; that the Senators’ Office Expense Index be modified to reflect the change.
Unless there are any questions, I recommend that the report be adopted.
The Chair: David, do you have anything to add?
David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: That was very clear. Thank you, Senator Loffreda.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?
[English]
Senator Quinn: This is a contrast compared to the last discussion. I’m not going to go back there. Thank you for the work that the team did. We spent 40 minutes on that and we talked about employer of choice. We used that phrase in the previous discussion.
Here we’re talking about being an employer of choice, bringing people into the Senate, probably a younger group of people. Come work in the Senate and, by the way, we’re not going to give you the tools to completely be able to do your job. I think this is wrong. We need to completely rethink this. I don’t know how we can be an employer of choice if we cannot give the tools to the young folks who will be working in the Senate. It’s up to the senators regarding the number of employees and up to the Senate to equip those employees.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I agree with this proposal. I am surprised to see that we are talking about 10 senators who are non-compliant with the policy. One senator’s office has 10 computers and, to me, that poses a security risk. That means that interns have access to computers that are connected to the Senate network and I do not think that is justified. This proposal is reasonable and I support it.
The Chair: I would like to add, as in any circumstance —
[English]
Senator Quinn, this is a comment that probably will alleviate your concerns. Steering always has the opportunity or the option of providing exceptions. When circumstances will be adequate, there are exceptions that can be granted. So it’s just to avoid the — I’m using the word with caution — abuse of usage. That’s what we’re saying here, but exceptions can be approved by steering.
Senator Quinn: If I may, I’ll stand by my previous comment. I do want to recognize what my colleague said, and I would think there are methods of putting restrictions in terms of the breadth of usage of equipment. But in any case, I would also suggest that people who come in as interns and what have you may bring in their own devices and start using those devices in ways that may compromise the Senate information. I’m just worried about if there is abuse of equipment, and then I would expect that would be dealt with and not bring in a broad-based rule that says we’re not going to equip our employees to do the work we’ve asked them to do.
Senator Loffreda: With respect to your comment about Senate information and security, that question was asked. It’s a very important question. You raise a very important issue. We obtained assurance that is not the case. There is adequate security when they do go into our systems. And so we’re satisfied on the security aspect. We would not make a recommendation if security was at stake here. I want that to be clear.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: I’m looking at the report. In the background information, it excludes House Officers, however, when I look at the options 1 and 2, it doesn’t exclude house officers. It doesn’t explicitly say that this doesn’t include house officers. I wonder if you could add that in when we’re actually voting.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Quinn: Just for my own clarification, what would be the rationale for excluding house officers, leaders, and so on?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: They have more employees. The opposition has more employees than one senator.
Senator Quinn: I understand that, but there may also be more temporary people, more interns.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: No, full-time staff.
Senator Quinn: So we’re only talking about permanent staff? I’m sorry, okay. So that needs to be clarified too, permanent staff versus temporary staff.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: No, it’s per office, but it just excludes house officers.
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for your questions. I mostly appear here for reasons of IT security. Rest assured that I would not recommend something that would bring additional risks to the Senate.
Senators, by and large, hire one or two employees, and all of these employees should have a laptop to do their work. What we’re talking about today are employees who are part time, maybe volunteers, maybe work for three months and whatever. We would offer those employees another secure way to connect. I hope this answers your question.
Senator Quinn: Only so far as they would use their own device.
Mr. Vatcher: They can use their own device and connect to a virtual desktop.
Senator Quinn: The policy is for full-time employees?
Mr. Vatcher: Essentially, yes.
Senator Quinn: Maybe we should state that. If I had three full-time employees or two, fine, but it is full-time employees who want to get it installed.
Mr. Vatcher: The number of employees in senators’ offices is regimented by their office budget. That’s why they don’t have five, six or seven full-time employees.
The Chair: It’s not all — as you said — full-time employees. Some are part-time. When we hire students, they are part-time. They can be there for three or four months. The thing is that we are capping it at four.
Senator Quinn: I understand that, chair. I’m just trying to tie the logic together: Full-time people have just been told that part‑time or interns can use their own devices because we have the means to give certain access.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Quinn: I may decide to have four or five people at $30,000 a year. That would be my decision as a senator running my office. I may decide to have two. If we have full-time people, then they need to be equipped. That’s what I’m saying. We’re comfortable with the fact that four is reasonable, but I don’t need four in my office; I only need three. I’m just saying that we need to ensure we are seen as an employer of choice by providing full‑time people with the equipment required.
Senator Loffreda: Senator Quinn, you’re making good points, but I think four is reasonable. Like we said, we have to arrive at a number. Four is reasonable. I said it right off the top and in English so that everyone could understand and so that it was not subject to interpretation: Senate laptops and senators’ offices. That is clear. There is no amendment required to this report. There are other needs when it isn’t a senator’s office. Those needs are full-time, part-time and interim. We can’t limit those offices, but that was clear from the beginning.
Senator Plett: I’m good as well. I think the question should be called. I think it’s very clear. Temporary people need to be limited. We have had senators who have had 10 interns at one time — no control. We need to have control. I’m fine.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Loffreda:
That the twenty-eighth report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be adopted with an amendment to explicitly exclude house officers from the limit of four devices.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
The next item is the last report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets concerning privately owned residences and daily allowances.
Senator Loffreda: Those were cost savings we presented, and there is a song that says, “Two out of three ain’t bad,” but we’ll keep bringing forward cost-saving opportunities and take the decisions here. Even if there are low-hanging fruits, it is very important to present those low-hanging fruits to see if we can accumulate and arrive at substantial savings, and we are fiscally responsible at the Senate of Canada.
I move on to my twenty-ninth report on privately owned accommodation.
Honourable senators, finally, I have the honour to present the twenty-ninth report of the subcommittee, which follows a request from CIBA for the subcommittee to examine the daily allowance for privately owned accommodation to determine whether an adjustment is necessary for 2024-25.
Your subcommittee heard that the allowance for senators who reside in privately owned accommodation while in the parliamentary district has not been increased since 2019. The current rate for privately owned accommodation is $50 per day. Applying the inflation rate as of April 1 would increase the daily rate from $50 to $58. Your subcommittee recommends that CIBA increase the daily rate for a privately owned accommodation by the inflation rate Consumer Price Index, or CPI, truncated average, effective April 1, 2024.
Unless there are any questions, I recommend the adoption of the report.
Senator Quinn: The National Joint Council, or NJC has established $50 per day. Is this $50 per day applicable to the other place? Are they increasing their rate? I’m wondering why the Senate would step outside the guidance given by the National Joint Council.
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you for the question. We basically look at the mixed council, but the Senate has its own calculations for the allowance. It just happened that in the past it was the same. It mirrored what the joint committee and the joint council had. In this case, we’re catching up with inflation, and — to our knowledge thus far — the joint council has not yet revised their numbers.
Senator Quinn: I’m just wondering if we should have any concerns about stepping outside the NJC or what the other place is doing and setting a precedent by increasing the $50 to $58. I know it’s not a lot, but we’ve talked about expenses here of less significance, and I’m just wondering why we’re doing something outside the NJC.
Mr. Lanctôt: The answer is to keep up with inflation, essentially.
Senator Quinn: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments? If not, it was moved by Senator Loffreda:
That the twenty-ninth report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be adopted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Item 3 is the Long Term Vision and Plan report. Colleagues, there are items in that report that need to be discussed in private, so we will bring this item to the closed session because of sensitive information on privacy issues. So, this will be brought back a little bit later.
We move on to item 4, which is the report from the Subcommittee on Human Resources regarding senators’ regional offices. It’s a continued conversation that we have had from before. Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, Human Resources Directorate; Élise Hurtubise-Loranger, Senior Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel; and David Plotkin, Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, will now join us as witnesses.
[Translation]
Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable colleagues, with the collaboration of the administration team, I will present the highlights of this report before we answer your questions.
In June 2023, your subcommittee asked the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to prepare an analysis of the regional office issue in the context of broader committee discussions about the Senate implementing occupational health and safety requirements. We presented this analysis to your subcommittee in October 2023.
I will share some of the highlights.
Regional offices are Senate workplaces and we propose adding to our policy a new section, section 5.14.3 — the Senators’ Office Management Policy — to clarify that regional offices are Senate workplaces under Part II of the Canada Labour Code. Under Part II, the employer must ensure that the health and safety of their employees is protected. For the purposes of that part, the Senate is the employer and senators are supervisors of their staff members.
As far as occupational health and safety training are concerned, there is another requirement under the CLC. Pursuant to the Senate Policy on Occupational Health and Safety, senators and employees are already receiving training on this. Given these training requirements that are already in place at the Senate, your subcommittee believes that senators and employees working in regional offices do not require additional training sessions at this time.
As for occupational health and safety representatives, the new section that we are proposing, section 5.14.4, clarifies that, in accordance with the Canada Labour Code, an occupational health and safety representative must be appointed for each regional office.
Finally, the regional offices must be located in leased commercial spaces under proposed section 5.14.2.
Every office must be located in leased commercial spaces, thus eliminating the possibility of establishing a regional office in a private residence, including that of a senator. As for accessibility requirements, proposed section 5.14.5 sets out that the Accessible Canada Act applies to regional offices. As such, they must be accessible to everyone.
There are three other mandatory clauses we want to see included in lease agreements. First, the accessibility standards and occupational health and safety requirements are not static and may evolve over time. Your subcommittee therefore recommends that senators be required to include a mandatory clause in their lease agreements such that the lessor is expected to co-operate with the senator to resolve any compliance issues resulting from the change.
For the provision on retrofit costs, retrofits to common areas of a commercial building would be the lessor’s responsibility, while retrofits to the rented office space would be the lessee’s, therefore the senator’s responsibility under the lease agreement. Proposed section 5.14.8 of the SOMP provides that retrofit fees — including construction and consultant fees required to ensure compliance with occupational health and safety and accessibility standards — that are not the responsibility of the lessor of the commercial space under the lease agreement are paid from the senator’s office budget. The lessor cannot be a family member of the senator leasing the commercial space for obvious reasons.
Your subcommittee recommends that the Senators’ Office Management Policy provisions permitting regional offices that were adopted before the Senate was subject to occupational health and safety legislation under the Canada Labour Code and to accessibility requirements under the Accessible Canada Act, be amended. We propose these changes in the appendix. I presented the essentials here. We recommend approving the proposed amendments in the appendix and requiring senators with existing lease agreements to comply with the new provisions on regional offices when their lease is renewed.
I will close by saying that so far, four senators have this type of office. In a few weeks, with one senator retiring, that number will drop to three offices.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Saint-Germain.
This is a conversation that has been held several times. To follow on the recommendations made by the committee, some adjustments have been made to the proposal and that is the result of your work. I thank you for your work and I thank all those who have worked on this file.
Are there any questions or comments?
[English]
Senator Plett: I have just one very brief comment. Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain, for the report. You said at the tail end that there are four senators who now have regional offices and it will go down to three, as a matter of fact, in a couple of days, sadly. I don’t know who they are, but the three senators may well be here for the next 20 years, and they are allowed to have regional offices when I’m not. I’m not asking for one. I use my office in my home. I used to have a regional office. I’m not advocating by any means. I fully support not having regional offices out of the home for a number of reasons you explained, but I do struggle with the grandfathering of the other ones when we have no idea how long that will be.
It’s a comment. I’m going to support the report at the end, but at least it’s a comment that I would maybe like to have addressed.
Senator Saint-Germain: Élise may want to tell more about this currently. The three senators are from three groups, yours, mine and the progressives.
A question that has been studied by the committee is that we’re not MPs, and we need to make sure that these offices have representatives during the whole week. Otherwise, the question has to be asked why we have empty offices but for Mondays or Fridays. That’s the first point.
I concur with you. We need to challenge the reason why we have these offices. With the new requirements under the policy, these senators will have to comply with these. They have to afford it, pay for this within their own Senate budget, and we will see what their reaction will be.
One of these senators is an Indigenous senator. In her band, it seems to be very important to have this gathering location where the senator can meet with her fellow citizens, members of the band. This is an explanation that we received and that we took into account. But wherever the regional office is, all these legal obligations will have to be complied with.
Élise, would you like to add anything?
Élise Hurtubise-Loranger, Senior Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: I have nothing to add.
Senator Plett: I would just again say that we could all have reasons why it would be helpful. I could also see why it would be helpful for me to have one. To me, that doesn’t hold water.
I would like to see us say that every senator that has a regional office has six months or eight months to try to close down. We are making exceptions here for some senators, and those exceptions are being made by a small group of people who say, “Well, you have a good reason to have one and the rest of us don’t.” I don’t think setting up two tiers of senators here is the correct thing. We either have a policy or we don’t have a policy. I do support the policy. However, I do not support the grandfathering of the senators.
Having said that, I still won’t vote against the report.
Senator Saint-Germain: At the end of their annual lease, they will have to comply with the policy, so there is no grandfather clause as for the compliance with the policy.
Senator Plett: This is my last comment; I don’t want to make this a debate. If I wanted to have an office now, then I should be able to make the same argument. As long as I comply with the policy, I should be able to have an office.
The Chair: Yes, you will and you can.
Senator Plett: I will? Even with —
The Chair: Thank you. Senator MacDonald followed by Senator Boyer. Colleagues, we still have a lot of items and we’ve discussed this on three occasions so far.
Senator MacDonald: I’m surprised to hear we have regional offices. We’re here discussing trying to save money, and I’m curious, how much are these regional offices costing?
I’m completely against this. We shouldn’t be making exceptions of this nature. If we’re going to show ourselves and the public that we’re trying to save money, this is the place to start.
I will be voting against this, for the restrictions.
The Chair: Just so you know, senator, the cost of these offices is coming out of the senators’ office budget. It’s not extra money given to a senator. It’s the choice he makes out of the use of the office budget.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I have a question about security. I already checked. I wondered about the usefulness. I will stand behind the majority.
As far as security is concerned, we have an alarm system, set‑up and home review program. I want to be sure that in the case of a person with an office outside of their home, that the security system is focused on the office and not on the home, so as not to add extra security costs.
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: That falls under institutional security. I will turn to Mr. Lafrenière. I do not know if he is prepared to answer the question. Julie is here too.
Julie Lacroix, Director, Corporate Security Directorate, Senate of Canada: That is a very good question.
So far we have not done any security installations in the regional offices. However, in some cases senators who have a regional office have consulted us. We do threat and risk assessments on the location and we have given them advice. If they have security measures in place, they are the ones who took care of it and that comes out of their budget.
[English]
Senator Quinn: I agree 100% with what you’ve presented. However, I want a slight clarification. You that said we’re not members of Parliament; we are in public. We are members of Parliament. We’re just not part of the elected lower house.
Senator Saint-Germain: Our budgets are not —
Senator Quinn: I’m just making the point that we’re members of the Parliament.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you.
Senator Boyer: Every time this topic comes up, I say the same thing. We’re talking about one of our senators that is working in a remote area where the Senate is not very common to the people around. It’s important to have a presence in the community. But I am also noting that this is on reserve, so it’s federal. It would be under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1982. If we have the new requirements coming in, is that going to cause a problem as far as the implementation of the accessibility or has that been worked out?
Senator Saint-Germain: This would apply, yes.
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: Whenever we extend the workplace, the obligations continue. That goes for the occupational health and safety regime, which is not something that employers can contract out in any way. The same goes for the Accessible Canada Act, which is an extension of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Whenever we extend the workplace outside of the precinct, those obligations continue.
Senator Boyer: Thank you.
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: You’re welcome.
The Chair: Thank you. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Saint-Germain:
That the fourteenth report be adopted and that the twelfth report, presented on November 9, 2023, be considered for information only.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator MacDonald, you wanted to vote against. Do we put it on division?
Senator MacDonald: No. I was against the idea in principle.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
The next item on the agenda has to do with the parking policy. Julie Lacroix is back as a witness. I believe that Julie will be making opening remarks. Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, and David Groves, Parliamentary Counsel, will also be in the room to answer any questions, if necessary.
As usual, this presentation will be followed by a period of questions.
Julie, you have the floor.
[English]
Ms. Lacroix: Today I’m presenting our Senate parking policy for your consideration and approval.
[Translation]
As you may know, the current Senate parking policy is from 1999 and should have been updated to better reflect the current parking practices at the Senate.
[English]
The following guiding principles frame this policy’s implementation: transparency, which means that the parking privileges are allocated using established eligibility criteria; consistency, which means that objective criteria are applied to allocate parking spaces; and efficiency, which means that parking is administered in a way that makes optimal use of the available spaces in support of parliamentary functions.
[Translation]
It is in keeping these principles in mind and thanks to the useful comments from our partners that I believe that this policy, as presented today, effectively modernizes our parking framework to not only meet the new realities of the Senate, but also reflect the current realities and established parking practices, which have changed a lot since the 1999 policy was approved.
[English]
Allow me to highlight two key elements of this policy. First, we’ve incorporated provisions that we hope will incentivize carpooling. This goal is to encourage staff to use more environmentally sustainable methods of transportation. Additionally, the allocation of parking spaces is to be completed in a fair and transparent transaction and ensures that temporary accommodations are provided when required.
[Translation]
We have also added new provisions on accommodations for medical and accessibility reasons so that the Senate continues to respect its requirements, commitments and obligations on accessibility under the Accessible Canada Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the parking policy on accommodation measures.
[English]
In this revised policy, we propose that those who telework would be able to access a parking space on the days they come on site via an online reservation system, subject to availability of spaces.
[Translation]
If the policy is adopted by the Internal Economy committee today, we propose that the revised Senate parking policy come into force on July 1, 2024.
[English]
Further, a 12-month grandfathering period will also be applied to all existing permit holders who are also in possession of a telework agreement whereby they are working at least 50% of the time from home and are no longer eligible for a guaranteed parking space in a prime location in the new policy.
[Translation]
The day the policy comes into force, new employees who do not meet the eligibility criteria will not be able to get a guaranteed permanent parking spot.
[English]
This provides clarity that new hires at the Senate who subsequently enter into a telework agreement and telework at least 50% of the time will not be eligible for a dedicated parking space. This will also no doubt reduce the waiting list for parking and increased availability of parking spaces to those who come on site five days a week.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, the topic of parking can sometimes stoke up a lot of interest, even passion within the Senate community. I want to note a key aspect: Everyone will continue to have access to parking. It may not be the parking spot they are used to or the location may not be their first choice. However, the new temporary parking spots can be reserved through an online reservation system and will be located near the shuttle service.
I will be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: I can assure you that I have studied this policy with a keen eye.
[English]
Senator Quinn: I found this briefing note very helpful. I must admit that I park in the Chambers Building. When I came to the Senate after working many years in the civil service, I assumed that I was either paying for my parking spot out of my paycheque or I was receiving a taxable benefit. I don’t pay attention to this stuff, but when I read this note I realized that I do neither. It’s a parking spot that’s provided to me.
An Hon. Senator: No. It’s a taxable benefit.
Senator Quinn: It’s a taxable benefit? No; it’s not.
Ms. Lacroix: Not for senators.
Senator Quinn: Not for senators.
Ms. Lacroix: I’ll let David speak more to that.
Senator Quinn: Maybe I’ll finish my comment first. I was taken aback when I read this note, realizing that I’m getting a parking spot in downtown Ottawa for free. I was further taken aback when I understood that the rationale for this is that it’s for the safety or the security of the institution and I guess my security, but I’m not so sure on that.
My question really comes down to the introductory paragraph, the legal implications. I find them very interesting and I would like to hear more about that. In particular, if a senator doesn’t have a car but is allocated a spot, that senator may choose to give that spot to the employee and the employee is receiving a non-taxable benefit in parking in downtown Ottawa. I didn’t realize any of that. I just wasn’t sure where we are in terms of the legal taxation framework. I thought I’d just ask that.
David Groves, Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: I might recommend, because we would be speaking about issues that relate to legal advice that we give to the institution, that we go in camera if that’s all right.
Senator Quinn: Sure.
The Chair: Thank you, David. Are there any other questions, colleagues?
Senator Moodie: The question I have is around the point score system. I guess this applies to the lineup for who gets what first.
My question is related to seniority. Within general parking availability on the Senate side, the executive staff get recognized and so they jump line. Where do we acknowledge seniority within a senator’s office, for example, the directors, and so on. Are we — and if so, how — recognizing them beyond the time you have spent in the Senate?
Ms. Lacroix: That’s a very good question. We are recognizing the seniority based on the hiring date. We’re applying it fairly. For anyone within a category of MMG and above, based on the operational needs and the requirement to be at the office, there are guaranteed a parking space. For SEN10 and lower, it’s based on seniority and hire dates, and that applies to all.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Any other questions, colleagues?
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Thank you for this report. I would like to address the last point on the last page, the proposal to lease 25 parking spots at an annual cost of $68,000 — which is much more expensive than the cost of the cafeteria — to offer temporary spots. What is the purpose of this? There is low‑hanging fruit, but there is also high-hanging fruit.
Ms. Lacroix: Essentially, it is to accommodate people and minimize the impact on those who do not meet the criteria, such as people who have a telework agreement. They do not know how often they will come to the office, and these temporary spots will allow them to free up their existing parking spots. We will be able to see how teleworkers use these spots in a one-year period. We will change all of that at the end of the year and determine whether we need these spots.
What I can say is that we conducted a study of people who end up on the waiting list, people with telework agreements. These 25 spots could not only reduce the waiting list significantly, but also ensure that people who come on site regularly can have access to a parking spot in a prime location. During the first year, we will keep track of usage and make proposals if we see that it is possible to reduce the number of spots in the long term.
The Chair: That is good. We will come back to the discussion in camera for Senator Quinn’s questions.
I recommend that we move on to the information — to the items for information purposes. We have to go in camera. We have an invited guest for the matter of the Audit and Oversight Committee. I will quickly move on to item 7 and the other business and then go in camera.
Honourable senators, the next item has to do with the items sent for information purposes. You will recall that during the meeting of February 8, 2024, the committee adopted the 23rd report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Part of that report proposed that items not requiring a decision be sent by the secretariat. On Monday, the secretariat will send a bundle containing the documents for information only.
This week, three documents were sent for information. They were the following documents: the report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure on the decisions referred to the Internal Economy Committee; the report of Senator Duncan on her travels to Alaska; the reports of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets.
Honourable colleagues, note that, as usual, the combined quarterly financial report for the second and third quarters of 2023-24 will be shared with the members of the Audit and Oversight Committee for information. Senators, do you have any questions or comments on the documents you have received for information purposes?
Thank you. We will move on to item 8, or other business. Are there any topics you would like to bring to our attention for discussion at other meetings?
Not seeing any, we will briefly pause the meeting and then move to in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)