THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 23, 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), to consider financial and administrative matters; and in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), to consider financial and administrative matters.
Senator Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Lucie Moncion. I’m a senator from Ontario. I have the privilege of chairing the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
[English]
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the card on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please take note of the following preventive measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.
If possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Only use an approved black earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.
Thank you all for your cooperation. I will now go around the table and ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Good morning. Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Good morning. Senator Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest from the Gulf division in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Good morning. Senator Tony Loffreda, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Hudson, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from the De Lorimier division in Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Landmark, Manitoba.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
The Chair: I would also like to welcome all of those across the country who follow our deliberations.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, the first item is the consent agenda for approval. As a reminder, the items on the consent agenda are uncontroversial but do require our approval. For these items, a briefing note, form and other supporting documents are submitted in advance, but no presentation is required.
For today’s meeting, we have the following items on the consent agenda: the minutes of the public portion of the May 2, 2024 meeting; the minutes of the in camera portion of the May 2, 2024 meeting; and a request for a proposal on uniforms.
Honourable senators, do you have any questions or concerns about any of these items?
Could someone move the following motion:
That the consent agenda be approved.
Senator Forest moves the motion.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
[English]
The next item is the annual update concerning translation and interpretation services. Maxime Fortin, Principal Clerk; Jean‑François Lymburner, Chief Executive Officer; Matthew Ball, Vice-President of Services to Parliament and Interpretation; and Annie Trépanier, Vice-President of Policy and Corporate, will join us as witnesses. As usual, these presentations will be followed by time for questions.
Welcome Ms. Fortin, Mr. Lymburner, Mr. Ball and Ms. Trépanier.
Maxime, I believe you will begin with some opening remarks this morning, to be followed by Mr. Lymburner, who will provide an annual update on translation services to the Senate. Maxime, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Maxime Fortin, Acting Clerk Assistant, Committees Directorate, Senate of Canada: Good morning, everyone.
[English]
I’m here as the representative of the Senate Administration responsible for the partnership agreement between the Senate and the Translation Bureau.
I will start by saying that, again, this year, I can confirm that the Translation Bureau has been able to meet requests for services for Senate sittings and committee meetings during their regular time slots, and according to the pre-pandemic schedule. At this time last year, we told you that we saw a significant decrease in reported interpretation-related incidents, including incidents that caused meeting interruptions and cancellations, and I can confirm that thanks to our collective efforts to reduce health and safety risks, and senators’ cooperation in implementing best practices, this trend continued this year.
[Translation]
However, as you know, this issue continues to pose certain risks. We were reminded of this matter a few weeks ago when the Translation Bureau received new directions under the Canada Labour Code concerning acoustic incidents and specifically the Larsen effect. This was the third direction in just over a year. The institution faces a major risk in terms of the continuity and reliability of this key service for parliamentary business. As a result, we’re continuing to work with our partners in the House of Commons and the Translation Bureau to find ways to both provide and improve service delivery, such as exploring new technology, while protecting the health and safety of all participants.
I’ll stop here to let the Translation Bureau give its remarks. I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Maxime. Mr. Lymburner, you have the floor.
Jean-François Lymburner, Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m joined by my colleagues Matthew Ball, Vice-President, Services to Parliament and Interpretation; Annie Trépanier, Vice-President, Policy and Corporate Services; and our partner Maxime, who just spoke.
I acknowledge that we’re gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.
I’m pleased to be here today to update you on the linguistic services provided to the Senate. The Translation Bureau is proud to help the honourable senators serve Canadians in the official language of their choice. The ongoing support provided by our language professionals is the key to ensuring true equality between English and French in this place.
I would like to extend my greetings to Charles, Patricia and René, who are in the booth to support us today.
[English]
Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee, this past year has been one of continuous improvement for the Translation Bureau. We have continued to strive to protect our interpreters. Thanks to our administration colleagues for cooperating in this matter to enable us to implement a number of measures to reduce the risk of feedback, also mentioned as the Larsen effect, in accordance with the recent labour program direction we received last month.
These measures help us to avoid not only the human consequences of acoustic incidents but also their operational consequences, namely, service interruptions, and few interpreters we can provide to meet Parliament needs.
Protecting our interpreters also means protecting our interpretation capacity.
[Translation]
We know that you care deeply about interpretation capacity. We’re still working to strengthen it. In 2023, we successfully renewed the open contract that provides quick and easy access to a pool of freelance interpreters. We’re also still holding our accreditation exam twice a year and actively promoting the exam to attract as many candidates as possible. I should point out that the latest exam took place as recently as May 10. We should know the results by late June.
Our efforts to boost the next generation of interpreters are progressing better than ever. I have personally met with Canadian universities. Some of these universities have shown a real interest in creating new interpretation programs. In addition, we’re preparing to introduce scholarships for future interpreters that the government announced in the 2024 budget.
[English]
On the translation side, we are closely monitoring the quality of the text that we deliver and doing everything in our power to meet demands by the deadlines. I am glad to report that in 2023-24, we were able to accommodate all the substantial increases in parliamentary translation, with 71 million words translated versus 56 million in the previous year. That is a significant increase.
When documents are suitable, we speed up the translation process using technology, including machine translation and artificial intelligence, always under the watchful eyes of our language professionals. Artificial intelligence is an essential tool achieving efficiency all along the translation process.
[Translation]
Lastly, Madam Chair and honourable committee members, I encourage you to keep using the feedback button that we made available a few years ago to share your thoughts on our services. The Translation Bureau is committed to meeting the needs of the Senate, and your feedback really helps us to constantly improve.
Let me close by emphasizing that the Translation Bureau’s language professionals must be able to read, understand and compare, while ensuring the meaning and quality of a text. They’re trained and qualified to perform these vital roles for the Parliament of Canada.
I welcome your questions and comments.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lymburner. Are there any questions for our witnesses?
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for your presentation. First, I would like to say how much I appreciate the service quality.
My question concerns a point that you raised last year in your report, although you touched on it a bit less this year. It relates to meeting the needs of the honourable senators, to quote you.
Last year, you talked about the shortage of skilled labour. I would like you to elaborate on what you mean by qualifications, in the context of a broader labour pool that could help you address this shortage.
There are five qualification levels for interpreters, from one to five, according to the classification standards. We also hear about levels four and five, meaning levels yellow and green. Some people are concerned about the potential for lower hiring levels and, in this case, less qualified interpreters. I want to hear your thoughts on the yellow and green categories and on how interpreters in the yellow category can help us fill this labour shortage.
Mr. Lymburner: Excellent question, senator. We’ve already discussed qualifications in previous appearances. Advanced skills are required for the level needed to interpret a meeting such as the one being held right now. I referred to the exam that took place. These exams don’t have high pass rates. They’re really difficult. While at university, most translators will, at some point in their academic career, discover their ability to perform the job of an interpreter. That said, in a parliamentary debate or meeting, clearly the best translators are suited to the job.
The key part of the question is whether other needs could be met by people with slightly fewer qualifications.
I’ll also tie this in with academics. Enrolment in language programs across the country has been declining. There are a number of reasons for this. Perhaps artificial intelligence and the information that they hear or read in the newspapers are driving fewer young people to study in this field. The Translation Bureau is working closely with the universities to try to attract younger and younger students to the translation and interpretation professions. To this end, we focused on lower levels in order to bring young people into the Translation Bureau earlier and support them. I realize that this can give the impression that quality may be going down. However, that isn’t the case at all.
Senator Saint-Germain: That answers my question, thank you.
The Chair: I have a follow-up question. Will these interpreters need to take the exam again to reach the green level?
Mr. Lymburner: I’ll ask Mr. Ball to answer your question about the exam. He’s an expert and a marker.
Matthew Ball, Vice-President, Services to Parliament and Interpretation, Translation Bureau: Thank you for your question, senator.
The Translation Bureau has had its own quality standards for a long time and is careful to maintain them. The Translation Bureau used to hire interpreter interns. These candidates hadn’t passed the accreditation exam, but had the potential to improve, the basic skills and the aptitude to become qualified interpreters. This is nothing new. We supervise these interns who work with us, either for the government or in Parliament, but who are doing internships. They’re always supervised and someone is always there to pick up the microphone in the event of a problem. I would like to reassure the honourable senators that the Translation Bureau has been doing this for a long time. We’re still expanding our pool. We send and assign the best interpreters to Parliament, but others are on the way to becoming excellent interpreters. This is nothing new for us.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Mr. Lymburner, last time you were here, we had a bit of a discussion about best practices and how to proceed. We now have some new methods in place, and they’ve been in place for a few weeks. I’d like to know whether you have a way of monitoring their effectiveness because, as we all know, we’ve been through various iterations on the technical side. We’re just not clear whether all of these new measures and, of course, the advisory that occurs at every meeting, are having an impact. Do you have any early returns, as it were?
Mr. Lymburner: Excellent question. Absolutely. First of all, I understand that those measures cause some adjustments and delays, at one point, to make sure everything is stood up. The sound is a very complex matter. Acoustics is a science that is very difficult to nail down. It’s a train of measures, which is another additional challenge. Typically, when you have time and you have lab time, you can do one measure at a time to understand which measure is doing what. In the case of the instructions that we received, it was pretty clear. It was declared that in order for interpreters to come here and to do their work, we had to make sure that we were making a significant adjustment in order for them to be able to work. We were very concerned about their ability to send the interpreters to work. The train of measures were in place.
The feedback is a function that is happening. I know that you’ve been back in person at the Senate, which is great and we welcome that, but at the same time, as you can see with the microphone, the biggest problem right now is feedback. Basically, it is what is coming out of an earpiece and a microphone.
The good news about that is, as I mentioned the last time I was here, the number of incidents in 2022 were in the hundreds. Last year, we were significantly below 100, and this year we have only had five related incidents to our service interruptions. The numbers are working in our favour.
The issue right now is that those that are left are the ones that are most damaging, which is the Larsen effect. That is why we work closely with Labour Canada and our colleagues. It’s a team sport to manage the sound, the height of the ceiling — every room is different. So far, we’re can report that we have a very limited — zero risk is probably never going to exist, but our members are showing that it is working.
We’re still trying to mitigate. I heard, chair, your opening remarks. You had some comments. A few weeks they were longer, and today they are shorter. We see that the behaviours are giving some dividends right now.
I will take the opportunity here. I know that sometimes in the heat of a meeting, it’s still the way people are moving. Last week, probably some of you remember there was an alert on our phone that came out all across Ontario and Quebec, so most of the meetings around town had the big buzz about the phones that were coming in. So there are some instances where if a phone is left with a high volume near a microphone, it could create something.
We’re monitoring, but we’re clearly seeing the trends are all going down, and hopefully we’ll master that.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is about artificial intelligence technology tools to ensure efficient, effective and faster services. I would like to know where things stand. I saw that a call for tenders was launched for a new product. With the acquisition of these new technologies, can we expect to receive translations as quickly as possible?
That said, I have some strong complaints about translation, as you probably saw in the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency. Our report will be tabled almost a year and a half late because the Translation Bureau can’t translate the documents in a timely manner. I must compromise my constitutional rights by identifying documents that I would like translated, rather than having all the evidence translated. I’m really angry about this. I don’t understand why the tools aren’t available for simultaneous translation right now.
Mr. Lymburner: Thank you for the question.
In a previous appearance, I said that we were using artificial intelligence tools to speed up work. This led to a number of articles in the Canadian and international media. However, I would like to point out that the Translation Bureau has been using artificial intelligence tools since 2017. A number of tools are used at different stages of the translation process.
For example, when it comes to sorting documents for translation, developments are taking place. Artificial intelligence, as you can read across the country, is affecting the Translation Bureau and making processes faster in general. We hear about a six-month cycle, with some tools doubling speeds and providing new capabilities.
With this in mind, the Translation Bureau currently wants to make sure that we have the latest tools at our disposal.
Let’s be clear. At the Translation Bureau, we have language experts who can revise these texts. We use artificial intelligence in a sensible and appropriate way to increase efficiency.
Regarding the second part of your question, time is often of the essence. You would like to obtain documents quickly. To that end, the tools help speed up the process, depending on the classification of the documents. For certain secret and top-secret documents, the Translation Bureau still has a very small artificial intelligence tool kit. For protected B or unclassified documents, we can access a larger tool kit that helps speed up the process. Rest assured, we take an integrated approach with our language professionals, who can also make sure that people remain at the heart of our process. Recent articles have raised many concerns about the translation of documents using artificial intelligence alone. However, this doesn’t happen at the Translation Bureau.
This can help speed up the process, which brings me to the third part of your question about the Rouleau commission. We were on the joint committee together, so I’ll let Ms. Trépanier talk about the latest update.
The commission process is different from today’s process. We work with our colleagues at the Privy Council, who act as intermediaries with the commission and give us the documents to translate. It’s a bit different. We translate all your Senate documents within the required deadlines. In this case, a number of documents, such as articles and the index, were requested, and the time that it can take...
Senator Carignan: [Technical difficulty—Editor] and I don’t expect to have them until September. I’m forced to look for documents in French.
Mr. Lymburner: I hear you loud and clear when it comes to deadlines. At the last appearance, the Translation Bureau committed to translating documents quickly as soon as it received them. Unfortunately, we can’t start translating documents that we don’t have.
However, we could speed up the sorting process and use tools or machines to check whether we already had the translated documents on file at the Translation Bureau. This was done.
I’ll ask Ms. Trépanier to provide an update on the emergency measures commission and the fact that it’s rather unique. It isn’t the same model that we have here.
Annie Trépanier, Vice-President, Policy and Corporate Services, Translation Bureau: Thank you.
In March, I can confirm that the Translation Bureau received part of the first 80,000-word index delivered in early April. You identified 72 documents from this index for the Translation Bureau to translate. As far as I know, most of them — 66 documents — have been delivered and translated. As far as I know, these are the only documents that the Translation Bureau received for translation. We’re ready to receive other documents. We’re working with the Privy Council Office, or PCO, to obtain these documents. The Translation Bureau is ready to translate any other documents that you may want to receive.
Senator Carignan: To put this in perspective for my colleagues, the invocation memorandum, or the memo that the Prime Minister used to activate the emergency measures, still hasn’t been translated. I still haven’t received it in French.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you for your presentations. I will address you, Mr. Lymburner, because you did make mention of the measures. My question is a pragmatic one.
As you can see, I’m sitting here as a dinosaur with hard copy, a binder, papers and a pen, and I prefer that, but I have this problem. I don’t use my earpiece that often, but sometimes I do, and so I have this issue. I’m now being very visual, as you see. I have to keep it under my binder and then close my binder on top of the earpiece, so I have this situation, and then I worry if I’m writing, I’m maybe impacting the earpiece.
The location of the earpiece, even in the Senate Chamber, is a consistent issue. I’m wondering if you have some way to help us understand the problem that some of us face.
Mr. Lymburner: Excellent question, Madam Chair. There are a few pieces in it that I would like to answer.
I will go back to the instructions that we received last month, which basically gave us a weekend to make sure those measures were put in place. When you have such a crunch time to ensure you will sit in your place on the Monday coming, in both chambers, so all the rooms on the Hill and here were reviewed. Obviously, the very low-tech solutions were put in place to ensure that business continuity was a possibility, hence the stickers.
I know there are many people that were involved in all organizations — the Senate, the House of Commons, the Translation Bureau — to put in measures.
We also have the little sign that I think we all have, but we do understand, and there are fancier technological solutions being explored, and I have to be careful because it’s not all within our control box. I’m working with great colleagues to see if there is something that would be a little easier.
We also have accessibility issues. We had to change the earphone. It was mentioned here. We acquired hundreds and hundreds of new ones, so we changed them. We received some comments that some senators and some people in the House of Commons prefer the new ones, but obviously you will understand that there are other people who were very used to the former one and they’re not happy.
There are solutions that could be as precise as maybe having your own set, and that will benefit. I just want to be clear, because this can be used for the next meeting, they’re going to be clean, but they’re not personal devices. If it was pushed a little inside your ear, it will almost reduce the potential of Larsen effect even more. So when you listen to the news, for example, people have a device inside their ear. In the setting that we have right now, it’s just sitting on top, which creates that possibility of feedback. So there are measures. Obviously, we don’t want you to come to meetings with your own headset because there are some obvious reasons why we would like to be as discreet as possible.
There are some other solutions using Bluetooth. Everyone is familiar with the headsets that we use without any wires, but, again, that comes with a slightly different behaviour — everybody will have to make sure they carry their own — and then it could also reduce.
We’re looking into this to minimize the impact on you and how you conduct your sessions. Thank you for the question.
The Chair: Thank you. I have one of my own.
[Translation]
Do you use freelance interpreters? If so, what percentage of the work is entrusted to them?
Mr. Lymburner: I’ll try to answer, knowing that I have an expert beside me. About one-third of our interpreters are freelancers. It’s a small community in Canada and around the world. Some of these freelance interpreters are former Translation Bureau employees, so we all know each other on a first-name basis.
Right now, two-thirds of our interpreters are Translation Bureau employees and one-third are freelancers. Obviously, we look at costs and availability. In other circumstances, meetings can also be held when the interpreter works remotely.
I should point out that, when the interpreter works remotely and uses a Zoom platform, as is the case here, the feedback and Larsen effect issue doesn’t come into play. The sound is digitized, so the risk is lower. That’s always a possibility too.
Obviously, it’s better to have our interpreters on the Hill and available. In specific cases, a freelance interpreter may be an option for a certain job. In the teams — I referred to our three colleagues in the booth today — we try to have a mix during presentations to ensure a smooth flow of information. We continue to work.
I’ll close by mentioning that the last time I was here, I was asked about looking for people internationally; yes, we’re doing it and there’s interest. We might be able to bring qualified interpreters into the country for very intense sessions to increase our capacity.
Currently, the impediment to this option is making sure people are in Canada. Some countries or organizations are starting to use interpretation services outside their borders, which is not an option for us. So we’re working very hard with our government colleagues to increase access to an international pool of people.
The Chair: If I understand correctly, these people would come, for example, from Europe for a day or two; we’d fly them here and then they’d come back to interpret for a few days. Have I understood correctly?
Mr. Lymburner: Thank you for the question. What I wanted to say is that our sessions, like the ones occurring right now, are very, very intense, so I was talking more about a period that might run from March to June, for example, when there are a lot of committees and the sessions run very late, sometimes even until midnight. During the period we’re familiar with, in autumn and spring, people could come to work for a period longer than a day, obviously.
Actually, these people ask us if they can do it if they’re in Australia or Belgium; it’s not a possibility in Canada for obvious reasons.
The Chair: In Canada, are the vast majority of your interpreters here in Ottawa, or are they all over the country?
Mr. Lymburner: The vast majority are here in the booth. I think you’re working with our colleagues who are dealing with the renovation and eventual moves; we don’t really know how it will all work in the future, in the next 10 years, but indeed, the work is done on the Hill. Even during the pandemic, I think all the buildings were virtually empty, but the interpreters were still here and they always showed up. That’s the model we prefer.
In other cases, for certain conferences or for an important meeting that moves around and for which we can use remote people, at that point, we’ll draw as far away as we can when it’s possible to do so. It’s a double-edged sword; if people had a choice, they might all want to work remotely or telecommute, whereas for us, it’s a team effort, and a team can be redeployed if ever there’s an issue.
There are no spare resources when interpreters are assigned to meetings. If a debate goes on until midnight, as in the case of the number of hours for a truck driver, we have to monitor it very closely. We’re constantly reassigning people. It’s a model that could bring us some relief, but one we need to approach with caution.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions or comments?
Senator Forest: I’d like to follow up on what you just mentioned. For example, if the session goes on until midnight, when calculating your hours…. A trucker stopped at a rest stop doesn’t count that in his logbook. So when there’s a one-hour bell for a vote or a suspension, is that counted as work time or is it counted more as a recovery period?
Mr. Lymburner: The knowledge I’ve acquired since January, when I joined the incredible Translation Bureau team, would lead me to say that the number of hours are tracked very precisely.
Of course, when interpreters are replaced and they stop listening, at that point it’s not counted as active hours. There are several difficulty codes and coefficients. Not all meetings and interpreting sessions require the same level of concentration; it can vary.
I’ll again take this opportunity to turn to my colleague Mr. Ball, who will be able to give you more details.
Mr. Ball: Interpretation time is counted when interpreters are at the microphone and when hearings are taking place; when there are suspensions or votes, this does not count as interpretation time.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ball and Mr. Lymburner, and Ms. Trépanier and Ms. Fortin.
[English]
Senators, there are no more comments or questions for the Translation Bureau, so we will move on to our next item.
The next item on our agenda is a report from the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan. Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate and Louise Cowley, Director, LTVP & Accommodation, Property and Services Directorate, will now join us as witnesses. And Jasen Webster, Deputy Director, LTVP, Security Project Planning and Delivery, Corporate Security Directorate is also with us. It is my understanding that Senator Tannas will make a few opening remarks and that Josée and Louise will assist in answering questions.
Senator Tannas, the floor is yours.
Hon. Scott Tannas: Thank you, chair. Colleagues, I have the pleasure to present the Long Term Vision and Plan Subcommittee’s ninth report. This report includes four recommendations related to the Centre Block Rehabilitation Program. As you have all received a copy of the report, I won’t get into the specific details about each item.
In brief, the subcommittee met in May with Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, to discuss the following items: a proposed land acknowledgement at the Parliament Welcome Centre, the revised surface parking layout around Centre Block, the cloning and replanting of several elm trees around Centre Block and the decorative arts program for Centre Block.
Accordingly, the subcommittee is now ready to recommend the following to you: First, that CIBA approve that PSPC proceed with proposed engagements with Indigenous stakeholders to design and incorporate a land acknowledgement as part of the Parliament Welcome Centre project; that both administrations participate in the design process; and that the preferred design be presented to the Senate and the House of Commons for endorsement. I’ll note for the record that our LTVP subcommittee colleague Senator Boyer objects to this proposal going forward without the department having engaged in consultations with an elders’ circle.
The second recommendation is that CIBA advise PSPC to proceed with incorporating the parking layout for the 109 surface spaces around Centre Block into the final landscape design, with the 109 parking spaces on two sides of the building, east and west, and a biodiverse area on the third side, which is the north side, facing the river, and that the department be asked to continue to collaborate with the Senate Administration and consult with the LTVP Subcommittee during the design, development, construction and installation phases, to ensure their continued alignment with the Senate’s stated requirements.
The third recommendation is that CIBA advise PSPC that the Senate approves of the planting of six elm tree clones on the east escarpment of Parliament Hill.
Finally, the fourth recommendation is that CIBA approve the five primary decorative arts locations being proposed for the Centre Block and the Parliament Welcome Centre and that PSPC continue working with parliamentary curators to identify themes for primary locations and advance design concepts in coordination with the Speaker’s office.
Honourable senators, that’s my summary of the report. We are here to answer questions — Ms. Labelle, Ms. Cowley and I — if you have any. Once we’ve dispensed with questions, I will move to adopt the report and ask I, as chair of the LTVP subcommittee, be authorized to communicate our recommendations to the minister on CIBA’s behalf. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tannas.
Senator Boyer: I just want to explain a little bit about why I objected to going ahead without the review of an elders’ council. We had spoken about the elders’ council in the Indigenous Senators Working Group because, when I became a member of LTVP, it was noted that there were many questions about Indigenous people and Indigenous content within the new Centre Block and the work that has been done.
I brought it back to the Indigenous Senators Working Group, and it was discussed that if we could have an elders’ council that was put together by the House of Commons’ Indigenous members and the senators who are Indigenous could put forward names of elders that could advise on these things rather than me or another Indigenous senator or another one here. Then we wouldn’t get the whole concept of what an elders’ council would be able to put forward and advise accordingly.
That’s where the idea of an elders’ council came from. It was talked about at PSPC. Just by this recommendation, by seeing proposed engagements with Indigenous stakeholders, raises a red flag. If you are paying attention to the news, there are a lot of issues about identity and engaging with Indigenous. We don’t know if they actually have section 35 rights that are protected by the Constitution Act, 1982.
If PSPC actually put this elders’ council together on the advice of the House of Commons and Indigenous senators, we would probably have something that would give us wise advice and be able to gather and answer all of these questions from a very broad perspective that would have the credibility that’s required and that we need in doing this type of work.
If anybody has any questions about that, I would be happy to answer. I didn’t want to lose this. I didn’t want the elders’ council to get swallowed up. I needed it to be in here, and I needed it to be in words, because we need to keep working toward that so we are not engaging people who are not Indigenous who say they are. We need to have due diligence in being able to do this right.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Boyer. It’s a very good comment and a very good thing to do.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I would like to know if building underground parking garages has been included in the parking options to be studied. Given that a significant part of the development around Parliament is underground, I was wondering if this possibility had been considered.
Firstly, we’d reduce the carbon footprint. Secondly, in winter, it’s more practical; thirdly, we can increase the number of parking spaces and, finally, we prevent vehicles from wandering among the tourists and various groups around Parliament Hill.
I always think that at some point, someone’s going to get hit.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Originally, in the Long Term Vision and Plan there was a proposed parkade that would be on the escarpment to the west of the Centre Block. That was dropped for a number of reasons, one of which included that it was enormously expensive. The thinking was that as long as we could return the same amount of parking spots to Centre Block for senators and for members of the House of Commons, such that their parking is looked after within the security perimeter, that was important. With a parkade for those people within the protected security perimeter being cost prohibitive and not connected — you’d still have to walk in your galoshes all the way through the field to get to Centre Block — it was felt that we should try and stick to what was there before.
This replicates what was there before in terms of the number of spaces, but takes some of the spaces that were on the north side on that drive that goes behind which has such an iconic view from the river. It widens the parking on the west side and the east side a little bit, but we wind up with the same number of spaces.
You’ll recall that I was here talking about some disagreement a few months ago about any spots, and is what was arrived at after a lot of discussion with the National Capital Commission and with our colleagues in the House of Commons. The three groups came together and it was decided that the best idea, the most economical idea, was to focus on keeping what existed before, specifically for local MPs and local senators that drive that work and need those spots within the secured perimeter.
We all know there are a lot of opportunities downtown right now with the change in work habits and so on, and there will be other solutions for staff, et cetera, that will come over time. In terms of this project and the Centre Block, this is what we’re talking about here.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I’m always surprised that cost is an issue for the state, while across the street, the City of Ottawa is demanding underground parking from private developers building office buildings.
When it’s the state, they don’t plan to build underground parking on the grounds that it’s expensive. I find that rather incongruous.
[English]
Senator Tannas: The cost, just so you know, was $1 million per stall to build something on the Hill that would fit into the park-like atmosphere of Parliament Hill.
The Chair: Thank you for that clarification.
Are there any other questions, colleagues? If not, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Tannas:
That the Ninth Report of the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan be adopted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Carried.
Colleagues, I have the honour to present the twenty-eighth report of the Subcommittee on Procedure and Agenda, which deals with the inclusion of certain sources in the Senate media clippings. I believe the report speaks for itself, however, Mélisa Leclerc, Director General of Communications, Broadcasting and Publications, is present in the room today to assist with questions if necessary.
In a nutshell, the steering committee of CIBA has concluded that exclude excluding sources would pose a number of risks. Steering members therefore recommends that Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration endorses the current practice of including all Canadian critical mentioned sources that meet the criteria of having a public mention of the Senate, a senator or a senator who retired less than one year ago in the media clippings; that the Communications, Broadcasting and Publication Directorate reach out to the Library of Parliament to encourage the promotion of the library’s subscription to PressReader; and that the clippings disclaimer be amended to state that sources are automatically included if they meet the criteria and that the Library of Parliament has media monitoring experts that can curate international news and other relevant resources that are of interest to parliamentarians and their staff.
Does anyone have questions or comments on what is being provided in the report?
Senator Boyer: I have an issue that I’d like to discuss, if that’s all right. It was one of the media clippings in March 2024. The title is, “Canada’s Indigenous Burial Hoax is Still Very Much Alive.”
This is actually denialism, and it’s residential school denialism. Having the Senate promote something like this is extremely painful. The Indigenous Senators Working Group met about this on an urgent basis because of the harm that promoting this type of racism causes. I just want it on the record that this type of information coming through our media clippings is dangerous, and the harm that this one has caused has been great. A letter is forthcoming to CIBA from the Indigenous Senators Working Group on this issue.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Boyer. I will bring maybe a little clarification in what the clippings do. The clippings don’t promote anything. They just provide information on what is in the different newspapers so that senators are aware of what is being written. It’s not a promotion that Communications is doing, but we understand the harmfulness of some of these things that are provided.
Mélisa, I don’t know if you want to add to this. Thank you. I’m not sure, senator, if I’m answering your question, but we do get the problem.
I would like to know what remedial measures you are looking for.
Senator Boyer: That will come from the Indigenous Senators Working Group by letter when everybody has had a chance to contribute to it. It will come in writing.
Senator Moodie: I would like to weigh in on this because I think that one of the issues here is, obviously, the balance between free speech, free access to information and the question of, as a public leading organization and institution in this country, the press releases, the information we bring from the media ourselves, willingly, to the Senate and expose our staff and ourselves to is somewhat our responsibility to make sure that we’re comfortable with what we’re bringing into this institution.
I think one of the big risks here is normalizing the very extreme, whether it be literature, ideas or concepts, because they are fed to us, and we see them with such regularity as they pop up in these media sources that some of us could become convinced that these are acceptable positions. I think we have this important responsibility to try to find that balance without restricting access.
I would say with regard to any solution that we have where we are vetting, one of the things we had before was the sources — with the previous way that we received our information — were more mainstream, certain level of media outlets that were considered acceptable and chosen. So we took care of the extremes in that regard. We weren’t being exposed to the extremes of what are essentially very different sources of information, which we may want. I’m not judging what people want, but we have this responsibility, I think, to guard against normalizing ideas that are offensive and that, as a society, we have rejected.
I would raise the concern that we need to find a way to select the information that we bring forward, that we can limit the information if it is offensive. We need a process to identify those and to be able to say we would take these off the feed. That’s my only comment.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Moodie.
Mélisa, do you have any comments on this?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I have a question about a hypersensitive issue. The media clippings are not intended to promote an idea that may or may not be offensive, but to give us the information so we can be in a position to react.
Upstream of the preselection done by those responsible for preparing the press clippings, on what principles do they decide that such and such an article should not be part of it? That seems like a very sensitive issue to me — and it’s giving them a big responsibility.
Normally, if we meet the standard that it affects the Senate or a senator, if it’s part of the press clippings, it’s up to us to decide whether to react afterwards. It’s an extremely sensitive subject and I don’t agree that it should be managed upstream by civil servants who will decide whether we can have access to the information or not.
Senator Carignan: I agree 100% with Senator Forest. In fact, we need this information, because if the comments distributed are hateful, I want to know that a newspaper has made or published hateful comments so that I can react. If I don’t have this information, I can’t act. So that’s the purpose of the press clippings.
[English]
Senator Plett: I just want to echo the last two comments that were made by Senator Forest and Senator Carignan. We cannot ask Senate Communications to editorialize media coverage. If the Senate or a senator gets covered by a source available to the data service Senate Communications works with, it should be in our clippings.
At the end of the day, each of us has the liberty to read an article, listen to audio/video coverage or not. And I fully identify with what Senator Boyer said. I didn’t see the article. I fully take her at her word, but it was the article that was offensive, not the media clipping. The media clipping just simply pointed it out. We can’t limit or exclude sources because they are on one side of an issue or on another side of an issue. If these sources covered the Senate, we should have access.
I just got the media clippings here as we were having this meeting. I’m reading some of the headlines, and they quote mentions of the different senators who were included. That’s what the clippings do. Senator Moodie raised the issue of whether we are delving into freedom of speech here by doing this, and I think we would be. I think we either eliminate media clippings, or we continue with the way it has been done.
So I fully support the report, chair.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I wanted to approach this from another angle. We negotiated or accepted a discounted contract for the press clippings; it was the deal of the century. It’s important to remember that when we contract for professional services, the lowest bidder isn’t always the best. I’m sorry to say it again, but personally, I thought we were taking a lot of risks, especially with an American firm. Unfortunately, it turned out that way. I think this is a good lesson for the future. Sometimes it’s cheaper to invest in better professional services. I know this is an aside in the conversation, but it makes me feel better.
[English]
Senator Moodie: I just wanted the opportunity to respond, if I could. I’m not suggesting upstream vetting. I’m not suggesting that we put the burden on our Communications group, that they decide what we see. I’m suggesting, and I want to be clear about this, that we develop a process that’s accessible to any one of us or a staff member to take issue with a media feed and to be able to make a change. And that change would be removal from our feed, if, through the process that we establish, it is determined that this, in fact, is not acceptable to us.
I think it is good practice for us to be prepared to manage issues like this. That’s what I’m suggesting.
Senator Plett: Censoring it.
Senator Moodie: Well, you may call it that, Senator Plett. The issue that I have, from the world I come from, is that things are not always perfect, and we have to be prepared to deal with them in a way that everyone understands is a fair approach and a reasonable approach. We don’t want to be caught with our pants down, so to speak.
Senator Plett: I come from the same world you come from.
The Chair: Colleagues.
Senator Moodie: I’m talking about the medical world and the health care world, where we are frequently process-driven and have to be sure and certain that we’re putting in place safety and clear procedures that protect people. That’s the position I’m talking about. Sorry.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Moodie.
Senator Boyer: I just want to add that I do agree with looking at a process, but I also want to remind everyone about reconciliation in this country, and reconciliation we have with Indigenous people does not promote racism and cause harm, and that’s what I believe that this type of talk does. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Boyer.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Just quickly, in one of the recommendations it says that we need to endorse current practices, including all Canadian Critical Mention sources that meet the criteria. What is the criterion? I think the very base of this conversation is we can’t and probably shouldn’t vet, but we should be looking at the sources that we allow to come through.
What are the criteria that we have in place for the sources?
Mélisa Leclerc, Director General, Communications, Broadcasting and Publications, Communications, Broadcasting and Publications Directorate, Senate of Canada: If there is a mention of the Senate of Canada, a mention of a senator, current senator, and if there is a mention of a senator who retired within the past year.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: My question is specifically about if we have any criterion of what source. For example, there are some online publications that call themselves news but are certainly not news, and if we don’t have a criterion for who and what we allow the source — it’s not the article that matters, because there are inflammatory articles published in mainstream media and there is nothing we can do about that. But if we’re going to have certain sources — which I don’t want to name here — that are not news, that are parading as news, we need to talk about the source, not the actual articles, who we allow in.
Ms. Leclerc: Right now, we include everything that our service provider, Critical Mention, has in their database. I also want to point out that, in order to respond to Senator Saint-Germain, in the past we used to go through the Library of Parliament, but Critical Mention is their service provider. So what we did is to cut the middleman, basically, to reduce the cost so that the clipping is now generated automatically, but it’s the same service provider, same database, so to speak, Critical Mention.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: For example, if I was doing a literary review as an academic, I might look to 800 sources, but I would have criteria about those sources because I don’t want anything that’s not scientific. I want to be sure that in that science area, due diligence has been done, and I can see the methods of every single source that I would include.
I don’t see how this is any different, that Critical Mention does no critical thought around the source. I’m not talking about whether it is a source from the left or the right or political or nonpolitical, but what is their methodology? How does that source fact check that what they’re saying is true? There are opinions around facts, but if we don’t know what the source actually believes and how they come to publish an article, how can we include it in our media? We should be a fact-based organization. So what we’re reading should be fact-based.
The Chair: Agreed. Now, all the points that have been made are excellent. The issue is related to the fact that we are asking Communications people to do some kind of editorial work. Now, I understand where you’re saying that if we look at the database on which Critical Mention works and we try to find the right sources, then we could probably bring another level of quality to the clippings that we are receiving. This is what I understand.
From here, we could keep on going the way we are doing it for the moment, but we could ask Communications to look at this at the source level and see if anything can be done via Critical Mention. You might say no, Mélisa, but it is just something that could perhaps be done at that level.
Ms. Leclerc: Again, it’s an editorial decision. One thing I see that could be a solution is that we just take whoever is accredited from the press gallery in Ottawa, if they have an accreditation. But then you’re limiting a lot. In the past —
The Chair: No, that’s not —
Ms. Leclerc: How do we decide if a source qualifies and who is behind this source?
The Chair: No, that is not quite — we’re not saying just Ottawa. This is an issue that we’ve discussed before. I think it was journalism versus other sites that are not necessarily journalistic. But I’m opening up another discussion here.
What I was suggesting here is that you look at Critical Mention to see if there is anything there that could be looked at, or maybe just bring the list of sources or whatnot.
Senator Boehm: Just a couple of thoughts. I don’t know about anyone else, but for me the clipping service tends to be rather incidental. I will go to other sources to look for my news. We’ve had a discussion before. I feel that our service is wanting in the sense that it does not pick up anything that is international. I realize that is expensive, but guess what? Our Senate does get mentioned in the international media as well from time to time on issues or what we happen to be debating at a certain time.
For me, this is one tool of many that I would use to inform myself. That said, and I echo what Senator Saint-Germain has said, you get what you pay for. We have a low-level supplier here, and the net is cast wide. I do not think we should put it upon our very talented Communications staff to editorialize as to what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. There are some freedom of expression issues here, but that said, as Senator LaBoucane-Benson and Senator Boyer have mentioned, there are some sources that are a little bit suspect. They are not traditional, but they get caught up in this tremendous net that goes out through the algorithm.
The discussion is very useful. We need to be mindful of material that can be injurious and that can reinforce certain stereotypes that can be racist and disrespectful, but we are, after all, looking at news, and we should be as self-discerning as we can.
That said, if the Communications Directorate can come up with something that works in this particular context — I suspect it won’t be able to, nothing against the professionals in there, but it’s just the nature of this beast — well, then by all means, we should look at it. But we’re stuck with something here, and, of course, the technology at the same time is changing very quickly, as are the algorithms. I fear that as we move further down the road, we’re going to get a lot more of this. Maybe this should be a standing item we look at from time to time.
The Chair: Colleagues, I’m going to give another 10 minutes for this discussion, and then we move on to something else.
Senator Plett: I’ll only take a minute or two, but, again, Senator Boehm said much of what I would have said, so I won’t repeat it. I do disagree that we or Mélisa or anyone should determine what is an accredited, legitimate news source. That’s not their business.
I would disagree with some here on what a legitimate news source is, possibly, and others would disagree with me. That’s not what the clippings are doing. They’re not promoting anything. If I’ve mentioned somewhere, if I’ve said something and there is a media outlet out there that has mentioned me, what Mélisa and her team are doing is saying that this is where Senator Plett was mentioned. They’re not writing this; they’re not promoting it. Don Plett or that media source has promoted it, and all Mélisa is doing is pointing out that this is out there.
For us to start saying that we’re only going to allow things that we agree with — even to be told that it’s out there — is censorship at the highest level. It’s mind-boggling. If we want to have this debate, let’s have the debate, but not in regard to this report today. The report is to continue doing what we have done, and if we want to have a further debate, my suggestion would strongly be that we drop this completely, not start asking them to censor what they make available to us. I would rather we have nothing than someone trying to decide what I should or should not read. I’m an adult. I will read what I decide I should read, and all they’re doing is pointing it out. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: To answer quickly, Ms. Leclerc, could you send us what the company describes as the “potential sources of information” they have in their bank? That might answer the question. We know that you identify keywords, including the Senate. There are other methods, like Google Alerts. I put in my name and see if there are any items I want to track or any participations. Another example: I put “Canada champion” in my Google Alerts, and every time Canada is a champion, I see it. This allows us to track certain things.
As Senator Boehm was saying, there are other sources of information. I don’t know if people realize that Press Reader is free — it’s the Library of Parliament. I can see all the British media to read about what’s happening in relation to the U.K. elections. You can consult the Spanish newspapers to find out where they stand on the recognition of Palestine — if you read Spanish, of course. There are other free sources where you can find additional information. So far, I think the job is well done with the system we have.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: I have a lot of empathy and compassion for Senator Moodie and Indigenous people. We live in an era of miscommunication, misinformation and disinformation. We’re all aware of that. But like in every department or function that the Senate has or will have, I think it’s important to define those objectives. What are we trying to achieve through those press clippings? We have to get to the root of the problem. What is the objective — I won’t define it here — and what is that mandate?
Speaking for myself, positive or negative, I will always get a call when it’s in the press by somebody, maybe by somebody in my former life, friends or colleagues. I’d like to know if what they are talking about is positive or negative, factual or non‑factual. If it’s non-factual, I’ll prepare a response accordingly. In this case, the committee is preparing a response for what was said. If they’re not aware of it, how could they prepare a response? That’s my opinion on it. I think it’s good to know.
It’s unfortunate that we have such articles. I’m not saying that it’s positive — it’s negative. But I think we could prepare a response accordingly to it if we are aware of it. If we are not aware of it, then what do we do when people address us with such a situation?
I would like to know and keep reading those articles, positive or negative, about the Senate, myself, the ISG or any committee I sit on, for example. If there is something that has been said about the Banking Committee, I would like to address that, positive or negative. Many of the articles I read, especially today, are not always factual.
The Chair: We agree. Thank you, Senator Loffreda.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: It would be interesting if the Communications Directorate could inform us of the criteria our supplier uses to manage source credibility. I think the issue here is the credibility of sources, so that information doesn’t come from just anywhere. I’m sure the supplier has criteria to ensure that the source is credible. It would be interesting to have a little report to tell us on the basis of what criteria this supplier decides to include a source in our press clippings.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: But don’t you do that already with credible sources?
Ms. Leclerc: Right now, we take everything available in the database. The goal is to include as much as possible. Based on the previous system, I used to get calls almost every day from a senator’s office saying that their name was mentioned, it was not included in the clippings and asking why not. Now we don’t get those mentions anymore because we include so much information. We don’t get as many calls because we include everything that’s available out there.
I can look into contacting the company and asking exactly what criteria they use to negotiate access and copyright to their database. I’m sure we can provide that.
Senator Moodie: Not to belabour this point, but I think we need a process by which people can give feedback and be able to identify where there are issues with a particular feed or something that’s particularly disturbing. Whether it’s communications and they’re tracking it or, as Senator Boehm suggested, we leave it on our agenda item as something we revisit, we need a way to track whether this is a problem or not. Right now, we don’t have that.
The Chair: At the end of all this, Mélisa, you have a bit of work to do, and you’re going to be getting back to us on a few of the items that we have discussed.
Can I get a mover that the twenty-eighth report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be adopted? Senator Plett so moves.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you. There is going to be a follow-up on some of the items that we’ve discussed today.
[Translation]
The next item on our agenda this morning concerns the draft internal audit charter.
Colleagues, the Steering Committee of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met with the Steering Committee of the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight (AOVS) last February to discuss the roles and responsibilities of the committees. Following this meeting, AOVS sent us a draft internal audit charter for our opinion and comments. The purpose of this charter is to ensure good governance within the Senate and the internal audit function. It will serve as a road map to guide internal audit activities.
Honourable senators, do you have any questions or comments on the document that has been provided to us? I have a few. I’ll get to them fairly quickly.
With regard to the internal audit charter, there are three points in the charter where the auditor’s independence could be compromised. I recommend that we write a letter to AOVS, identify these points and talk to them about the independence issue so that they can reassure us on this element.
The second element that isn’t clear is that the French and English versions don’t say the same thing. I’d like clarification on the differences between these versions when it comes to procedures in relation to internal auditing.
The last point is the issue of staff work interruption. The document states that the internal auditor has access to staff at all times. This can be an operational problem when there are people who are continuously interrupted in their work to answer questions.
These are the three points discussed at the steering committee.
So, we propose sending a letter to AOVS to ask them to take up these points, respond to us and give us some assurances. We would like assurances about the auditor’s independence, the alignment of the English and French versions, which should be identical, and the terms of reference, which should be clear for the audits, to keep interruptions to staff work to a minimum.
In addition, in the French document, there are various syntactical errors that need to be corrected. I also propose in this letter to work with Ms. Maxime Fortin, who is the clerk of this committee, to put things in order.
So, that is the suggestion I am making. Do you have any comments?
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Madam Chair. I too compared the two versions; you had alerted me and you were absolutely right: There are changes in meaning beyond syntax errors.
With all due respect, however, I have one reservation in endorsing the recommendation about staff access. The fundamental principle of an audit committee is to have access to documents and people who can shed light on the audit. I think we’ll have to be subtle in the wording so as not to give the impression that we want to curb or limit access. That’s my comment.
The Chair: Thank you, but that’s not the intention. When an external auditor comes to do an audit, and especially with the auditors we currently have, they are at a distance. So they ask for all the documentation they need to do their job. The documentation is sent to them, they do the checks, they issue their series of questions and then they contact the person — it’s often a person they’re going to ask questions of. I want to make sure this mandate is clear, but it’s not clear in the document. This gives access to all documents to anyone, at any time. In normal audits, there’s a process that exists, and that’s what I’m proposing the internal auditor be asked to do.
Senator Saint-Germain: I will still, with all due respect, maintain my reservations, because in the public service audits I have experienced, limiting access to a designated person or persons is bad practice.
The Chair: I understand, but we’ll put it in the letter too, if you don’t mind, quite simply. Does that suit you?
[English]
Senator Loffreda: With respect to the chief audit executive, I have just a few concerns or questions.
It does state that he will lead the internal audit function and report directly to the committee. He is also accountable to the committee for administrative matters such as the approval of internal audit, which is on page 18 of 31.
My concern is the CAE and the internal audit function will have no direct operational responsibility — I’m fine with that — or authority over any of the activities audited, and it will not be involved in the design and implementation of internal controls, processes or mitigation measures that address institutional risk.
I understand him not being involved in the design, but would there be an expansion if there is any weakness, any recommendations or anything he’s seen elsewhere that we can adopt? Internal control is essential in every accounting system. Some clarification on that point would be welcomed.
The Chair: Thank you. There is also another area in the document where he can sit as an observer when the risks are being assessed and looked at by administration, and that is the concern on independence. That’s why, adding to your comment, I think it’s important that there is —
Senator Loffreda: Coordination.
The Chair: Yes, but there also needs to be an independence between the different —
Senator Loffreda: But you get my point.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other comments? If not, colleagues, we will send a letter to AOVS with the concerns, and Mr. Manchanda will be with us on June 6 to present the audit plan, so we can have questions for him at that time. A letter will be prepared, drafted, and we will be sending it out to AOVS.
The next item concerns the protocol relating to the death of a senator in office. Greg Peters, Usher of the Black Rod, will now join us as a witness.
Colleagues, this matter was brought to the attention of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure by the leaders and facilitators who asked us to consider adding a provision directing committees not to sit following the adjournment of the Senate pursuant to section 2.2.1 of the Funeral Policy information sheet.
Senate leaders had suggested adding a new section to deal specifically with committees scheduled to sit the day a senator in office passes away. It was further suggested that the new section also contains the ability for leaders to provide exceptions for travelling committees and for meetings that are in the public interest.
Following the request, your subcommittee considered the matter, and you will have noted in your bundle a letter from the Usher of the Black Rod, who consulted with the Speakers’ office, who is also in agreement with the proposed additional text. As such, the information sheet for the Funeral Policy and the Death of a Senator: Senate Administration Actions and Responsibilities Checklist will be updated accordingly.
Mr. Peters, do you have any comments for us this morning?
Greg Peters, Usher of the Black Rod, Senate of Canada: No, thank you, chair. I think it’s fairly self-explanatory in the letter. We’ve consulted, obviously, with committees and more broadly to ensure that the addition provides the necessary flexibility to committees in the case of a death of a senator.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Tannas: Leaders discussed this and brought it forward because of what happened with the death of Senator Shugart and complaints from various members of the Senate that the response of the Senate was to adjourn. We did. The response of committees varied. Some met; some didn’t meet. It was unclear who decided whether to meet or not meet. When you get the news, you have to make decisions quickly. Presumably, it was a small group, not consultative, et cetera, because there isn’t time to consult a whole lot of people.
There were decisions made for meetings to go ahead that many of the committee members objected to and had no opportunity to do anything about. There were meetings that didn’t go ahead where people were equally — so we were looking for something that’s clearer than this. This is kind of what happened on the day and it didn’t produce a satisfactory result.
I would suggest this is guaranteeing and formalizing what happened on the day of Senator Shugart’s death, and if that’s the will of everyone, then fine, but this is not a solution. This is formalizing that what happened and what we heard from our members was not satisfactory.
Senator Plett: Again, I’m finding myself agreeing always with what the previous speaker said. The leaders got together, and we formalized something and sent that. Now we’re being asked by the Usher of the Black Rod and the Speaker, in a formal way, to continue to do exactly what we were doing that we weren’t happy with in the first place.
This is unnecessary. With all respect to our Usher of the Black Rod and our Speaker, this letter is entirely unnecessary. This is what we did. We weren’t happy with what we did. So I’m not sure why this came back to us. We needn’t discuss this at all if this is what we want to do — not have a policy — because that’s what we’re saying here — let’s not have a policy. Committees can do what they want to do; committees can decide to suspend; the Senate can decide to suspend.
I think personally when we have a sitting senator passing away while the Senate is sitting, while we are in session, it is disrespectful for us not to recognize that, and even more disrespectful when some do it and others don’t.
We need a policy that either we don’t do it, or we need a policy that we do it, not that while those that want to respect — and I’m sorry, some would disagree with this — the senator and those that don’t. I’m certainly not willing to support this document because now we’re saying let’s let everybody decide what they’re doing, and that’s status quo.
Madam Chair, I hope we can get back to discussing a policy that we want to adopt, not doing what we’ve been doing until now. We weren’t happy with what we did, and here we have a letter telling us that’s exactly what you can do.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett. I think that the thinking behind this was — and we understand the question of respect that the leaders were bringing forward — associated to the circumstances. When an event like this occurs, there are circumstances where committees that don’t have, and I will say it in French if you don’t mind.
[Translation]
Some committees have no issues with witnesses. For example, if Global Affairs has witnesses coming from another country, it may be more difficult to postpone the meeting than to end the meeting and adjourn out of respect for the senator who passed away.
[English]
What we are trying to do here is out of respect for the person who is deceased, but also understanding there might be circumstances where having a closed policy may bring more problems. We are saying maybe we can keep this flexibility but be aware that it is important that we do try, as much as we can, to adjourn whatever we are doing, unless there are things that cannot be postponed. You will tell me, Senator Plett, that nothing cannot be postponed and we can always pick up things at another date. We agree. It’s just that it’s sometimes extremely difficult. It’s just leaving that flexibility.
Senator Plett: I want to respond to what you are saying.
The Chair: Mr. Peters will add, and then you will respond, Senator Plett.
Mr. Peters: If I may, Madam Chair, we had a situation, either when the Duke of Edinburgh or the Queen passed away. We had two committees, one in Quebec and one in Alberta. We spoke with the clerks at the time. There was an incredible expense put into the Alberta one with witnesses attending and so on. The solution there was to break for an hour, to have a statement and then continue because of the investment that the Senate had made and the timing around those witnesses and their availability.
In Quebec, it was a very highly charged political visit following what happened at a mosque in Quebec. So it was very important that that continue and not be cancelled and so forth.
Those are just a couple of examples.
I think it’s important for honourable senators, for chairs of committees and their clerks to have some level of flexibility so that, at the unfortunate time of the passing of a serving senator, we’re not painting the chairs of committees in a corner to have to cancel a committee meeting if there is considerable expense, depending on where that committee is.
That was the sense around this, Senator Plett and Senator Tannas, in consultation with the Speaker’s office and with committees, to provide that flexibility where we can.
There will be on-the-fly decisions made. For instance, when former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney passed away, there was a meeting between the clerk and me in the antechamber to basically, on the fly, look at the adjournment of the Senate and so on in collaboration with the Speaker.
I think there will be always an element of that depending on the issues around the time of death. But the intent here is, after broad consultation within, to provide the necessary flexibility for committee chairs and so on, and hoping that there will not be something as similar as it was last time with Senator Shugart.
Senator Plett: I’m sorry, Mr. Peters. I completely, totally disagree with you. I don’t think you’re comparing apples to apples when you’re talking about a mosque continued in Quebec. I’m not asking for people outside of our Senate to stop their meetings when one of our colleagues passes away. This is a close person. We are a close-knit group, even if we are full, 105 people. This is one of our colleagues. I’m sure most of our colleagues would like to time their death in such a way that it doesn’t impact or inconvenience anybody. Unfortunately, that isn’t possible unless they have assisted suicide. Other than that, it’s not always timely.
You know, colleagues, there will be decisions, and with all respect again, the Usher of the Black Rod and the Speaker is not broad consultation. That’s two people.
I suspect, colleagues — not because of who is the Speaker, but whoever the Speaker would be — that if the Speaker passed away, all committees would cancel no matter who is scheduled to appear as a witness. Who are we inconveniencing? I’m sorry. So we inconvenience a chair of a committee or even a committee or witnesses, we are going to make decisions based on who passes away as to whether or not we suspend, and that should not be.
I say this tongue-in-cheek: Don Plett passes away, and everyone will say, “Well, let’s have a party and really have committee meetings.” And when someone else passes away, “Well, let’s stop.” That is the fact of the matter. Decisions will be made based on who passes away. That is wrong. That is why the leaders did this. That is why the leaders requested it. That’s broader consultation than what we had with this letter.
I’m sorry. We either have a policy, or we don’t have a policy. But we don’t have a letter given to us that says you can decide for yourself. That’s what this committee is supposed to do.
The leaders requested something, and that request is being ignored by this letter. Let’s not put ourselves into the position that we decide on the importance. If the Leader of the Government in the Senate would pass away, I would say we would stop all committees.
We’re putting ourselves into a position where we’re going to make decisions on the fly, and that’s not right.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: I 95% agree with Senator Plett.
Senator Plett, I wonder if you would agree with this. Let’s talk about MAID, for example, and we were up against a Supreme Court deadline. If somebody had passed away, we had not met and we wouldn’t have met that deadline, I think that the majority of our chamber would have been really upset with the outcome of that because we were up against a court-imposed deadline, and the matter was of public interest.
I wonder if you would agree, though, in that very special circumstance, that we as a chamber should have the very small flexibility to say, “Yes, we have a court-imposed deadline, and we must not miss that deadline.” I wonder if you would agree with that.
Senator Plett: Let me respond to that. First of all, yes, I would agree with you, Senator LaBoucane-Benson.
I do not agree on that particular scenario, because that would have meant that for only two, three or five hours we wouldn’t have had that law. We made that case when we argued against that. Even that wouldn’t have been the end of the world because it wouldn’t have been that we would have never passed this law. It would have only meant it would have delayed it a bit.
Be that as it may, yes, I do agree with you. That is why we should have a policy. Our Senate is capable, with leave, of changing anything. So we should rather have the policy and under those types of circumstances ask for leave to continue. I think everybody would give leave under those conditions.
However, this allows the chairs of all the committees or the steering committees to make their own decisions. That I can’t support.
Senator Tannas: I was going to make the point that there is a failsafe already. The suggestion of the leaders was that the leaders would decide. I would be fine to have the Speaker decide, if that would help. If there is a jurisdictional twist here where the Speaker believes that she’s the one who should make these decisions, which is maybe a sub-message here — I don’t want to put words in her mouth, and it actually doesn’t matter. Ignore that. The fact is, somebody needs to make a decision on exceptions.
The rule should be that committees are cancelled, but if there is something in the national interest — we talked about it — we would make that decision. But it would be one decision, not seven decisions from seven different people who knew the senator and liked or didn’t like them, it is important or it’s not important, we were expecting it or we weren’t expecting it — whatever. One decider, and then it’s out of everybody’s hands.
We’re talking about something where we’ve received the news in the middle of the day, as we did in that case. There are decisions that have to be made. If what helps is that the Speaker makes the decision on what committees should meet or not meet, for me personally, that would be fine.
There is a failsafe in what we were recommending, and we said the leaders could quickly caucus and say, “This committee or that committee, et cetera,” or “No, we’re all done.” But it would be that we’re all done unless there is something in the national interest and somebody makes the decision on what the national interest is quickly. Thank you.
Senator Saint-Germain: I’m joining the voices of my colleagues. I think that this proposal, with all due respect, is enshrining anarchy in our rules. I do believe that in an extraordinary situation we can actually use the notwithstanding rules of the Senate clause to say that this specific committee would sit, and then the chamber would decide. But this is not sustainable and would lead to the chaos that we went through when Senator Shugart passed away. This is why I think we should stick to the leaders’ decision.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I don’t remember the letter exactly, but if the leaders have written a letter in which they suggest that they are the ones who decide and agree that the committee can sit when there is an exception outside the province or the country, I think we should review all that, put the subject aside and come back with a proposal in line with the agreement between the leaders. Traditionally, when the leaders agree on something, the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has pretty much always followed the leaders’ recommendation.
The Chair: Thank you; we know that what was proposed provided that flexibility on the spot.
[English]
This decision, and whatever we decide on this policy — and it’s not a policy, it’s a practice — is within the Rules of the Senate. They’re in SARS and in the Rules of the Senate, so they need to be changed at the Senate level. We will take this into consideration, as you are proposing, Senator Carignan, and bring back more discussion on this.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: If we have to change the Rules, we’ll change them. Imagine a situation where there’s a deadline, where there’s a death.
The Chair: There are all kinds of circumstances, and we aimed to give flexibility so we wouldn’t be caught in a straitjacket. We understand the different nuances that can exist within a procedure that we’re trying to standardize by allowing exceptions. We’ll keep an eye on it and see where it takes us. Does that suit you? Thank you very much, Mr. Peters. Are there any other questions we’d like to address in public?
In that case, we’ll suspend the meeting briefly so the clerk can make sure we’re in camera. However, before we do, I’d like to remind everyone that meetings of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration are held in public most of the time.
Only when the committee is dealing with sensitive issues, such as salaries, contracts and contract negotiations, labour relations and personnel matters or safety, are these items discussed in camera.
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration wishes to be as transparent as possible about the important work it does. I would ask the clerk to inform committee members when we are in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)