THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 6, 2024
The Standing Senate 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.
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, starting on my left.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from the De Lorimier division in Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from all of Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
Senator Forest: Éric Forest from Quebec’s magnificent Gulf division.
[English]
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, live from Hudson, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, High River, Alberta.
Senator Loffreda: Good morning. Senator Tony Loffreda, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Quinn: Good morning. Senator Quinn from the “picture province,” New Brunswick.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Landmark, Manitoba, the heart of the universe.
Senator Seidman: What do I say after that? Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much for these very humorous introductions.
I would also like to welcome all of those across the country who are following our deliberations.
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 23, 2024 meeting; the minutes of the in camera portion of the May 23, 2024 meeting; a request for a proposal on vehicle insurance; a report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration that formalizes a decision from the committee’s previous meeting on the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan.
Are there any questions or concerns about any of the items on the consent agenda?
Seeing none, could someone move the following motion:
That the consent agenda be approved.
Senator Dalphond: I so move.
The Chair: Senator Dalphond moves the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
[English]
Today, colleagues, we have a lot of items on the agenda. I’m going to be timing the discussions so that there are time limits on every discussion today. If I indicate that someone is the last speaker, I will not be taking any more speakers after I close an item. That is just for efficiency purposes.
Colleagues, the next item on our agenda is a report from the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Planning. Josée Labelle, Director General of the Property and Services Directorate, will join us as a witness. It is my understanding that Senator Tannas will make a few opening remarks, and Josée will assist in answering questions.
Hon. Scott Tannas: Thank you, chair.
Colleagues, I have the honour to present the Long Term Vision and Plan Subcommittee’s tenth report. This report includes two recommendations related to the Triad Material Handling Facility and future planning considerations for senators’ parliamentary office units. 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 PSPC and the Senate Administration to discuss the following items: the design and testing of the Triad Material Handling Facility, including the planned loading docks on the western escarpment and the corridors connecting the docks to the Centre, East and West Blocks; and future planning considerations for senator POUs. The senator POU future planning considerations will inform the detailed design development phase for the POUs, utilizing flexibility, required infrastructure, comfort, visual presence, sensitivity to heritage and furniture. There will be a move toward a paperless environment; multifunctional, ergonomic furniture; and a focus on sustainable materials that do not emit volatile organic compounds.
Accordingly, recommendation 1:
Your subcommittee recommends to CIBA that it advise PSPC to proceed with the Senate’s refined program requirements for the Triad Material Handling Facility with the following caveats:
That PSPC accommodate approximately 258 square metres of previously displaced programs from the Centre Block project back into the Parliament Welcome Centre. If these programs cannot be accommodated in Parliament Welcome Centre, they must be reincorporated into the functional program for the Triad Material Handling Facility along with any support spaces that are required to facilitate the proper flow of people and goods;
Given that the feasibility study to validate the reduction to three loading docks for the Triad Material Handling Facility is not yet analyzed and completed, the parliamentary partners’ requirement for at least four loading docks at the Triad Material Handling Facility remains; and
That PSPC report back to the subcommittee in the fall of 2024 to confirm that the design and evaluation of the design of the Triad Material Handling Facility meet the Senate’s requirements.
Recommendation 2:
Your subcommittee recommends to CIBA that the Senate approve the future planning considerations for Senators’ Parliamentary Office Units (POUs) in order to proceed with the design development of the modernized POU strategy and to advance the development of the furniture strategy contained within the POUs.
That’s a summary of my report, colleagues. I would be pleased to answer any questions. I am accompanied by the Director General of Property Services, Josée Labelle, if senators have any specific technical questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tannas. Questions or comment, colleagues?
Senator Tannas: Therefore, as chair of the LTVP subcommittee, I move that I be authorized to communicate our recommendations to the minister on CIBA’s behalf.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[Translation]
Colleagues, the agenda includes a report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets on committee budgets: in particular, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples and the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
I understand that Senator Forest will be making some opening remarks. Maxime Fortin, Acting Deputy Clerk of the Committees Directorate, is in the room to answer questions if necessary.
As usual, this presentation will be followed by a question period. Go ahead, Senator Forest.
Hon. Éric Forest: Thank you.
Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the 30th report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, which recommends the release of funds for one committee to undertake a fact-finding mission and another to hold a special event.
Your subcommittee reviewed two budget requests. For the first, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade requested $265,400 for a fact-finding mission to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, for seven senators and four parliamentary staff, including an exception to the financial policy for Senate committees to include a senator’s staff member.
This activity is in line with the study on Canada’s interests and engagement in Africa.
Your subcommittee recommends that the Committee on Internal Economy release funds for four senators to travel, instead of the seven requested, including the chair and one representative from each of the three other recognized parties and parliamentary groups, to make this trip.
The subcommittee also recommends that the exemption to allow one senator’s staff to travel outside Canada be rejected.
The total release recommended is therefore $178,300.
The second recommendation concerns the consideration of a second budget request from the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, for a total of $26,850, to hold its annual Voices of Youth Indigenous Leaders event as part of its study on constitutional, political and legal responsibilities and obligations to First Nations, Inuit and Métis. Your committee recommends that the Committee on Internal Economy approve the release of $26,850 for this event.
Unless there are any questions, the committee recommends that the report be adopted. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Branch, and Maxime Fortin, Acting Deputy Clerk, Committees Branch, are here if there are any technical questions regarding this report.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Forest. Are there any questions or comments?
[English]
Senator Boehm: Good morning, colleagues. I am here as both a member of this committee and, of course, the chair of the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee, so if a little bit of schizophrenia comes out in my comments, you’ll know why.
I’m very disappointed in this recommendation. I think the so‑called compromise of allowing less than half of the senators on the committee to go, on top of what we were already proposing, and on top of the two attempts we made last year to send the committee to Europe in support of a study that, in the end, was very well received, indicates to me that the subcommittee, and perhaps even this committee, do not take the mandate of AEFA seriously.
I do not see this as a compromise. I don’t think it’s particularly fair. I think it’s short-sighted to send one third of the membership of a committee abroad. To me, that’s not a committee visit. If you look at the long history of committee travel in this institution, the last one to Africa was 20 years ago. Entire committees went. We know, in practice, that an entire committee will not travel. There will be reasons why members of the committee cannot go. This is just the reality.
We proposed seven members, the chair plus six, because we were told to reduce the number of members travelling last year to Europe, as I mentioned. We did that last year. We calculated on the basis of premium economy, which is how senators and staff travel. We couldn’t do that this time because to get to Addis Ababa is a very long flight or series of flights and premium economy was not available.
We are now being asked to reduce the numbers even further. Our committee has 12 members. The recommendation notes that the four senators should include the chair and one representative from each of the three other recognized parties and parliamentary groups. There are six ISG members on the committee, so five are immediately out according to this formula.
Further, while it doesn’t explicitly state that the four should be from the steering committee, that seems to be the implementation. It’s important to note that the steering committee consists of four anglophone white men, two of whom are from Ontario and two from Nova Scotia. They are all good people, and two of them are even named Peter. We have a member of the steering committee right here, Senator MacDonald. However, that doesn’t really reflect the membership in my view.
It’s a little difficult to bear too — and I don’t want to mix these things up too much — that some parliamentary associations travel quite a bit, including to Africa. There is the Commonwealth group, the Francophonie group, the IPU, and the Canada-Africa group itself. It’s never really clear to us, at least not to me, what the purposes are and what the results are. We see the reports that are tabled at the beginning of our sessions every day, but it’s not clear that many of us read them or see them.
On the other hand, you have a committee that is doing, I would say, serious work. There are expectations out there for our Africa study, and we’re hoping to deliver on that. We had our first public meeting on the subject in December of last year. Since then, we have had 37 different witnesses for more than 12 hours of testimony across 10 public meetings. This is not an insignificant study. It could be I think really augmented by a trip into the field.
I should say that we chose — steering and, of course, the committee endorsed this — Addis Ababa because it’s the headquarters of the African Union. That precluded consideration of, well, let’s go to at least one Commonwealth country, or one from la Francophonie, or let’s go to a larger country, or let’s go further afield, all with the idea of trying to reduce costs as much as possible.
I have a few more comments to make. Thank you for indulging me.
On the rejection of inclusion of chair staff, colleagues here might recall that I voiced my concerns last June in this committee with this new policy in not permitting senators’ staff, even staff of the chair, to travel internationally. This is a foreign affairs committee. It does international work, and it is expected, usually, that we will travel. In the three years that I’ve been the chair, we have made two trips in support of a study: one to Washington and one to Europe, which I have mentioned. We have, of course, multiple staffers in our respective offices, and we know that the work they do and the advice they can provide is vastly different than that of administration employees, given the latter’s non-partisan nature. That is why, in my view, having a staff member from my office is important. This political and strategic element inherent in their work is part of what the team does, along the clerk and the one analyst proposed to go. That is a concern of mine. I know that CIBA did not include a provision that there could be exceptionality in this case.
I also want to point out, because this was not outlined in the SEBS recommendation, that three staffers are approved: one clerk, one analyst and one Senate security officer, the latter of which the committee has no say in including or not. It’s possible that CSD, our security people, will conclude that no security officer is needed at all. We have had some discussion of this in SEBS. I must question whether a security officer’s potential inclusion was a factor in the reduction and rejections of our proposal. Senators may wonder if this is normal practice on the security side. My understanding — and I think Julie Lacroix is here — is that CSD does in-depth security assessments in advance of every fact-finding mission, regardless of location, but usually after the budget is adopted. In AEFA’s case for this specific trip, our clerk was advised by her management to consult with CSD during the drafting of the budget, given the location of the travel. In my view, I think the security people should be allocated funds for the purpose that is designated in terms of a security officer travelling and should not necessarily come in this form.
I strongly believe this committee has spent public funds entrusted to it for travel very effectively and prudently. Our fact‑finding mission to Ethiopia would be no different. As has been discussed, I think it’s really unfair for committees to come in and try to propose and defend budgets with greatly inflated numbers with full refundability on tickets, because that’s what gets out there in the public view. We came in on the Europe trip at 58% less than the allocated function. I dare say that, on this proposed trip, it would be the same thing, but that’s not what is seen.
I think there has to be a broader discussion of how we look at allocating funds for travel, how we do our estimates, and to weigh whether the cost of a fully refundable ticket, in this case in a business class environment, is really worth putting out that much in terms of the budget as opposed to a possible penalty if the ticket is not used. I would say that the penalty would be far less than the price differential, but that’s just me and I’m not an economist. I really believe that having a serious discussion, apart from this particular issue, would be a good thing to have in this committee.
Thank you for listening.
Senator Plett: Thank you, Senator Boehm.
I could not agree with you more on the last issue you raised about us inflating numbers and so on and so forth. I have long said that we should make decisions, we should book our hotels and flights, and we should get bottom prices and that’s what should be presented. Instead, we are constantly doing as you suggested, basically allowing for the whole committee to go and use inflated prices on airlines. That gets out in the media. Then, later on, we reduce all of this, and that is not reported. I am an advocate of trying to change that, for sure.
However, when I sat on SEBS the other day when this was discussed, that was not what I took into account when I cast my vote on this particular issue. We took into account what we thought the trip would cost at the end, or at least that’s what I based my decision on. Other colleagues, of course, can do that on their own.
A few of the issues that you raised, I also want to raise.
I’m not sure why how many ISG members versus others there are on the committee plays into this particular issue. That’s simply the long and short of it. By saying that more ISGs should be allowed to travel, that’s not giving me any feeling that more people should be allowed to travel because that would give us a bigger study. That’s saying more people should be allowed to travel because that’s fairer. I’m not sure that is something we should concern ourselves with.
The SEBS committee also has more members of ISG than of any other caucus. When the decision was made, it was made by at least two SEBS members — one PSG member, one CSG member and one CPC member. The decision was just as one‑sided there, if you will. Of course, it was an in camera meeting, so I can’t go into how the vote went, but those are the numbers.
In the entire presentation, I have only heard about how unfair this is and about the good work that Foreign Affairs does. There is no argument there, certainly not from me. But I have not been convinced — either the other day at SEBS or today — how five members would do a better job on this trip than four members. I think that is, in essence, what we need to try to determine: How many members do we need to get a good report, not how many members do we allow to fly to Africa. That’s really all I have heard in either of the presentations — that’s it’s good to allow seven members to travel because of fairness or something other than that we’re going to get a better report if seven members travel than if four members travel. I would need to be convinced that this would result in a better report.
There is certainly no indication from SEBS that it should be steering that travels. That is entirely up to the committee. SEBS wouldn’t get involved in that at all. As a matter of fact, over coffee the other day, we were speculating on who might travel. In our speculations, it was definitely not all steering who would travel; it would be others, for many reasons — logistical, whatever. So that wasn’t an indication.
In terms of the staff travelling, again, if two staffers are travelling, I’m not sure what the third staffer would necessarily add. Maybe he or she would.
As far as security is concerned, I think it’s imperative, when we travel anywhere, that we ensure that there is security there. To me, at least, it was a reluctant addition — not that, well, we already have security travelling, and if security wouldn’t travel, we would have more money.
Let’s keep in mind that we don’t have any money. We’re running deficits in this country. We used to have more money when you suggested we had more people travelling and so on and so forth. Our country was in better shape than it is today. It is incumbent on us to try to become more efficient, and this is one way that we can become more efficient. To me, it is very important that we become more efficient. Thus, we have to start doing this.
You mentioned that we have had committees travelling whose work wasn’t as good as Foreign Affairs. Then let’s stop those committees from travelling. Let’s not say, well, they are travelling anyway, so let Foreign Affairs do more because we’re allowing committees that aren’t that worthy to travel. I’m sorry, but to me, those aren’t valid arguments.
I certainly have no problem saying here, in an open meeting, that my vote today will be similar to what it was the other day. My vote today will be that this report gets adopted.
I think we need to start tightening our belts. We need to start spending taxpayers’ money more wisely. I am forever standing in the chamber and talking about how unwisely it is spent. It would be inconsistent of me to then say that we should do something that I think the majority of the taxpayers, the majority of the people watching this committee, would say enough is enough. We have to start cutting back.
We have very experienced people — including the Chair of Foreign Affairs, Senator Boehm — who probably would be able to travel by himself and bring us a good report. I really believe that. I have every confidence that you would be able to do that. We are accepting that there should be more than that, but you alone would be capable of giving us everything we need.
Those are my comments, chair. I certainly support the report, and I really hope that the rest of the committee will as well.
Senator Quinn: The part of the presentation that stood out for me was the commentary about the committee. We take great pride in the work of our committees. My only comment is that if having greater exposure helps to strengthen the committee’s work in the long haul, then, to me, the investment is a good investment. I say that from the two occasions I have had to travel now — one to Washington and one to Thailand. I have to tell you that I feel so much more informed and better placed to understand significant issues. If we can support the work that we do through our committee, I would be in support of that. That is just a comment.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Simply as chair, I think it was raised by Senator Plett and Senator Boehm. One of the problems we have is how we do things, in that we have to submit a delegation plan with the maximum number of participants and the maximum expenses. In politics, perception is often more important than reality.
We should review this and hold accountable the people who submit a delegation or travel plan with realistic expenses. If there are cost overruns, they will have to explain them. History tells us that, in all our budgets, we spend between 50% and 60% of the authorized amount. We authorize a maximum amount that we will not exceed. That doesn’t encourage us to manage our decisions very carefully and responsibly. As chair of the subcommittee, I think we should examine this and make a recommendation to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Thank you, colleagues, for your comments. In particular, Senator Plett, thank you for your proposal to make me the foreign minister of this institution.
I just wanted to make a couple of comments.
I did not at any time suggest that other committees are not important in their travels. The reference I was making was to parliamentary associations, and that’s a totally different thing.
I agree with what Senator Forest just said. There are obviously perception issues here, and we have a perception issue on two fronts. One is obviously cost. We want to ensure that we’re using the taxpayers’ dollar in a fair way to achieve maximum results. The other is that, of course, we also want to have good, quality work. Our committee has come up with a very good report, for example, on sanctions and sanctions policy. That did not require any travel. The study on the foreign service did require travel, both to Washington and to Europe, and that went very well as well. There’s a lot of expectation for the study on Africa, including among African countries. A lot of work has gone into it already, and there will be more work going into it as well.
I appreciate, Senator Plett, what you’re saying because I agree with a lot of this, but I do not think fundamentally having a committee or a group of four go is really a committee-type visit. If that’s the way we’re going to operate in the future, then let’s take decisions and that’s how we would do it, I suppose. I worry about the perception then too about whether our institution is really serious about what it is conducting.
That’s all I wanted to say. Thank you.
The Chair: Senator MacDonald, you’re the last, because then I will have a recommendation for the committee.
Senator MacDonald: I have just a couple of comments. Full disclosure: I have already determined myself that I wasn’t going to go on the trip. I decided I wasn’t going to go because I didn’t want to travel, so I can speak to this with a little bit of open-mindedness.
I’ve been in the Senate for 15 years. I’ve done a lot of work, as you know, with Canada and the U.S. and with other parliamentary committees. Of course, I was chair of the Transport Committee and deputy chair of the Energy Committee. I did a lot of work with Senate committees. I have to say, in all honesty, that in terms of the quality of consistent work and the end product, I’ve had great confidence and great support for the work of the Senate committees. I think the Senate committee work is more consistent than the parliamentary group work. It’s not to be a criticism of it, but I’m very familiar with both. I think we make a long-term strategic mistake if we undermine the ability of our Senate committees to do their work. Of all the work we do in the Senate, I enjoy the committee work more than anything, and I think it’s the most productive. Just as a word of caution, I think we should be very careful in cutting the legs out from under our Senate committees. I think it’s a mistake.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator MacDonald.
We have a recommendation on an amount for the AEFA committee, $178,300. A number of travellers is put in under that number. If we were to provide the budget but don’t add numbers on the number of travellers, then that would give the Foreign Affairs Committee the flexibility to work within that budget. That way, if things are coming under budget, then they would probably be able to add more travellers to the equation. If this is something that we would be comfortable with, all we have to do with the report is approve the report but remove the limits on the number of travellers.
Senator Plett, you’re my last.
Senator Plett: That’s fine. The only reason I raised my hand is I wanted to speak to what you suggested, chair.
I think there’s a significant danger in what you are proposing because that will not eliminate, in the future, people coming to us with inflated prices and the number of travellers and then saying, “Well, give us the money and we’ll reduce the travellers,” or, “We’ll reduce the travellers but give us the money.”
Colleagues, we’re responsible for what we’re doing. Senator Boehm has told us that the numbers — sorry, I shouldn’t even say Senator Boehm. This is typical of what we do. We inflate our numbers, come with that and then say we can decrease it. We shouldn’t be doing that. We should be coming with real numbers.
My reason for my vote was clearly that I wanted this trip and this committee to be as efficient as possible, and that was sending four people for as low of an amount of money as possible. Now what is being suggested is to just use the money because the money is there. If we can save money — if this trip can be $150,000 instead of $178,000 — that should be our end goal. Your suggested proposal does not do that. Your suggested proposal is let’s definitely spend $178,000 and send as many people as we can for that. I’m sorry, that may not be the intent of the proposal, but that’s the way I read it.
At the end of the day, the committee will do what they will do, but I will be voting against amending the report. The report was done constructively by a range of every caucus. Every group was represented, and we made a decision. If we start altering subcommittee decisions, we’re going to have a hard time getting people to sit on subcommittees. We have four or five, whatever SEBS is, responsible people who came forward with a responsible recommendation. Let’s keep in mind that if we start altering subcommittee reports, it could have a bad effect on people wanting to be on subcommittees.
The Chair: There are two things here.
First, the policy is a committee policy. Whenever a budget is presented for trips, they have to budget for the maximum amounts. That’s within committee’s policy. It’s not a CIBA policy. That’s the first thing.
This budget has already been reduced by SEBS by 33%, which brings the amount to $178,000. My concern is that, again, it’s at maximum budget for four people. It’s just a question of flexibility here, looking at this particular committee. We would have to have the same kind of conversation for any other committee.
I’ll give it another five minutes if there are comments to be added.
Senator Plett: We are asking committees to try to bring back their numbers, and now you’re suggesting giving them a loophole not to do that. That’s, in essence, what this is doing.
SEBS decided that four people were sufficient to do this trip. There was nothing in Senator Boehm’s presentation today that told me why seven people would bring us a better report than four, other than saying the optics of us travelling only with four makes us look silly when we travel with only four people. To me, that is not a good argument. We were not told that we would get a better report with seven people. Now we’re trying to find a way to appease people that they can travel. That’s not what we should be doing.
The Chair: It’s a compromise.
Senator Loffreda: Some of the best work of the Senate gets done in our committees. I agree with that, and no question about that.
The other issue is we need real numbers. I know the policy says we have to incentivize senators and committees to travel and come back. We need real numbers when they’re presenting them to us. We have to minimize costs. We all agree with that, and I raised the issue.
With respect to the benefit of having seven senators, eight senators or nine senators instead of four, two or one travel — diversity. Senator Boehm did state here we have four White men travelling. We all know the advantages —
Senator Plett: He did not, Senator Loffreda. He said there were four White men on steering.
Senator Loffreda: On steering. Sorry. Correction, four White men on steering. We assume steering will travel, so that’s — we never assume. We shouldn’t assume. I’ll take that back, but diversity is important. If you have seven senators travelling, you can “increment” the diversity better, and a better report will result.
I believe it’s a fine compromise. Good management manages exceptions. It’s a fine compromise. We’re not inflating the budget. We did reduce it by 33% to $170,000. We’re not setting a precedent, just like we don’t want to set a precedent of four committee members travelling for each committee that has to travel at this point. Each committee has to come here and present a report, and we have to agree to it. We’re not saying to inflate the numbers. I agree with Senator Plett that we’re here to minimize costs, but the cost of $170,000 is a fine compromise.
I was going to suggest, chair, before you suggested it, that we have greatly inflated numbers, so why don’t we stick to the budget and have them determine how many senators have to travel? It would be a great exercise for the future. Minimize costs, present real numbers, and let’s use it as an example going forward as to what could be done.
But diversity is proven. It makes for better results. Not that we have to be 12 on this trip, but the more senators and the greater the diversity we can include on the trip, the better the report. I believe, from experience, that that’s what always happens.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Loffreda.
Senator Quinn: I agree with some of the comments — but not all — that my colleague made. Diversity is important, yes.
I go back to my finance days, and we have to be careful here. We say here’s a budget, and then we’ve already admitted that usually 60% is spent and 40% is not. In my company, I could sit in front of my staff or presenter and say, “All right, you’ve planned for the max. I’m going to reduce it by 25%.” It’s as arbitrary as say we should let them go and bring as many as they want.
On the report, there’s been discussion. I’m sure the chair has been involved in the discussions and in presenting things. Yes, I understand the disappointment, but the compromise seems good. I just worry that we’re setting a precedent that every committee will continue to have — I’m going to say — inflated numbers, because they go at the highest cost. If you spend to the top of the budget, then you’re going to be facing a situation, potentially, as over-expenditure.
You have to be careful. There are two days to cut it: Either we reduce all submissions by 40% or 30% — whatever the number is — or we be willing to accept that we might have over-expenditure. I’m thinking we need to be cautious about this. That’s all I’m saying.
The Chair: Colleagues, I’m going to stop the discussion there.
Are we in agreement with voting on the report as it is written, no changes to the report? We would approve the report as it is presented. It’s going to be $178,300 with four travellers, the same as the APPA report. We’re in agreement with this?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: And there are things we need to revisit on politics. Thank you.
Item number 4, the next item, is the second report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets concerning comparative analysis of broadcasting services. Mélisa Leclerc, Director General, Communications, Broadcasting and Publications Directorate; and David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, will join us as witnesses. As usual, the presentation will be followed by time for questions.
It is my understanding that Senator Forest will make opening remarks.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Honourable senators, I hope this report will be less sensitive.
I have the honour to present the 31st report of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, which deals with the comparative cost review requested by the Committee on Internal Economy on February 8, 2024, to obtain broadcasting and information technology services equivalent to what the House of Commons provides to the Senate.
As part of our Service Level Agreement, the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates was advised that the increase in costs was primarily due to a fairer analysis of costs by the new House of Commons management team, a reorganization of the workforce to address recruitment and retention issues, and inflation. The subcommittee was also briefed on the benefits of using the House of Commons as a service provider and the risks of going with an external provider.
Therefore, in light of the additional information on the services provided to the Senate under the Service Level Agreement with the House of Commons and the benefits it represents, it is recommended that a comparative cost analysis not be carried out, given the highly predictable conclusions of the analysis and the considerable resources such an exercise would require.
Unless there are any questions, I recommend that the report be adopted.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any comments or questions? Seeing none, it is moved by Senator Forest that the 31st report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be adopted. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: The motion is carried. Thank you very much, Mélisa and David.
Colleagues, the agenda calls for another report of the Subcommittee on Senate Expenses and Committee Budgets concerning committee budgets.
David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Branch, will stay with us and help us with this item. I understand that Senator Forest will be making some opening remarks. David Vatcher will assist him with that.
As usual, this presentation will be followed by time for questions.
Senator Forest: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the 32nd report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, which was mandated by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy on December 15, 2022, to conduct an efficiency review of the activities and services provided by the Senate Administration.
Your subcommittee has been informed that the number of landlines per senator’s office, excluding House Officers’ offices, varies from zero to seven, for an average of two landlines per office.
The overall landline annual expense for senators’ and House Officers’ offices represents approximately $100,000. Limiting the number of landlines attributed to senators’ offices to a maximum of two lines, including House Officers’ offices, represents a reduction of 96 landlines, for an estimated annual saving of $34,560.
Your subcommittee has also been informed that, although included in the Senate Office Management Policy, or SOMP Expense Index, TeleCanada calling cards and satellite phones are services that are no longer offered by the Senate.
Therefore, your subcommittee recommends that the number of landlines be limited to a maximum of two lines per senator’s office, including the offices of House Officers; that the number of landlines per office be reduced as of October 1, 2024; that a communiqué be sent to inform senators of this decision, if applicable; that the Senators’ Office Expense Index be modified to reflect the changes; and that TeleCanada calling cards and satellite phone and plans be removed from the Senators’ Office Expense Index as they are no longer used.
Unless there are any questions, I recommend that the report be adopted.
We can take questions in person and by phone.
Senator Carignan: Well done; it’s a good exercise to reduce phone lines. Sometimes these things are forgotten because it’s in the works, and now, with the new technologies, particularly IP telephony, I think it was useful to do that.
You’re talking about 28 of the 32 savings opportunities; the list isn’t there anymore. So it’s the 18th report; I don’t know where the 18th report is, so I haven’t seen the list.
Since we now have only one clerk, we should carry out studies on the efficiency of functions and positions, to see if there’s any duplication of functions and how we can reduce the size of the Senate’s apparatus in terms of tasks and functions. We could group them together. Sometimes it isn’t necessarily a matter of eliminating positions, but it frees up some of the hires that become unnecessary.
I don’t have the list of 28 savings possibilities, so I don’t know if this is one of the solutions being considered.
From time to time, it’s good to review the strategic plan, to look at the human resources plan, to review these structure and task elements and functions.
Senator Forest: It’s very good, indeed. On the one hand, the number of full-time employees has been frozen. This is an ongoing exercise where certain targets have been identified, but it’s clear that, with the aim of achieving greater efficiency, it’s really something that is done on a basis…. In fact, if we’re talking about job evaluation, we’ve put a cap on the number of positions.
Senator Carignan: The fact that there’s now a clerk, not three people…. There is currently no mandate to review the structures, to examine each of the positions again and determine whether there’s any duplication or anything like that. There’s no specific mandate?
Senator Forest: Currently, the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets has no specific mandate to evaluate the organizational structure of the Senate public service.
Senator Carignan: I mention this because, now that we have a clerk, it could be a worthwhile exercise.
Senator Forest: Agreed.
Senator Saint-Germain: To Senator Carignan’s very relevant point, I would add that I believe this is the mandate of the new chief officer of the Senate Administration, our clerk, Ms. Anwar.
Getting back to the telephone lines, I have a pointed comment to make, but the substance of my comment has everything to do with accessibility and responding to our clients. In my office, like everyone else, it was insisted that there be two stable lines that we don’t use, because I want someone to always answer. All of these calls are forwarded to my staff’s cellphones, so we’re paying unnecessarily for two lines in my office. This may be a special case, but I would have liked to free up those two telephone lines so that taxpayers wouldn’t unnecessarily be paying these charges for my office. It seems that this isn’t possible, and I appeal for more flexibility in the application of this decision.
David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you for your comment, senator. Over the past few years, especially with the pandemic, we’ve conducted exercises to reduce the number of telephone lines. We’ve also contacted all senators and their offices to reduce the number of lines. As a result, we’ve seen a significant reduction in the number of lines.
Now, given that more and more cellular telephones are being distributed — almost everyone in the Senate has a smart device — we really believe that the number of landlines, the fixed lines, can be reduced further. We believe that two lines per senator’s office is enough for a senator to be able to route calls to cellular telephones and ensure that all calls are answered properly. In my opinion, there is no minimum. If the senator wished, we could easily disconnect all the lines associated with their office and they and their staff could use only their cellular telephone as the main number for reaching their office.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Plett: I would not support the last comment that Mr. Vatcher made. I don’t want my land lines eliminated. In my office, 90% of the calls that come in on the land line are for me, not for my staff. People who want to talk to my staff are overwhelmingly calling their cell numbers because it’s just easier. They have their cell numbers there, they want to talk to them, they don’t have to go through a receptionist, and they just call them. Certainly, as a leader — and maybe if I weren’t a leader — my two lines are going fairly regularly, and I would not want to lose those two lines. I also believe that even as an officer or a leader, two lines are sufficient. I think it’s a good proposal, and I’d certainly like to support it.
The Chair: It’s a maximum, not an elimination.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: No, we have yet to reach the point where we’re asking for no landlines in offices but, no pun intended, we could call up the senators who don’t wish to have landlines and disconnect those lines if they agree.
The Chair: We need to be careful; at some point, if another senator moves into the office and needs a line, we might have to have one reconnected.
Senator Forest: We need to evaluate the costs.
Senator Carignan: I would oppose disconnecting landlines for safety reasons. When emergency measures are in place or emergency situations happen, cellular telephones no longer work because the airwaves get overloaded during certain events, such as terrorism-related events or when other emergency measures are implemented. At a certain point, the lines no longer work. We have to have at least one line for safety reasons.
The Chair: That’s an excellent comment.
The hon. Senator Forest moves that the 32nd report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be concurred in.
Is it your pleasure, hon. senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Okay.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Is there anything else we need to address in public? If not, we will suspend the meeting briefly so that the clerk can make sure we are in camera. However, before doing so, I’d like to remind you that meetings of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration are open to the public most of the time.
Only when the items discussed are sensitive matters, such as wages, contracts and contract negotiations, labour relations and staff — or safety — issues, are they considered in camera.
The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration wishes to be as transparent as possible about the important work of this committee. With that, I would ask the clerk to inform committee members when we go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)