THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 10, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9 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, and 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 cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, please place it down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you to everyone for your cooperation.
I would now like to go around the table and ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Good morning. Pierre Dalphond from the De Lorimier division in Quebec.
Senator Loffreda: Good morning. Tony Loffreda from Montreal, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
Senator Forest: Éric Forest from the Gulf division in Quebec. Good morning.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: [Innu-Aimun spoken] Michèle Audette from Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Plett: Donald Plett, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Good morning. Claude Carignan from the Mille Isles division of Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I would also like to welcome all those who follow our deliberations across the country.
Before we begin, I have received a request to remove item 4 from the report, so if we are in agreement, item 4 would be brought forward at another meeting of CIBA. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
[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 proceedings in public and in camera from September 26, 2024; the annual report of the Joint Interparliamentary Council.
Honourable senators, are there any questions or concerns about any of these items? Seeing none, could someone move that the consent agenda be approved? It is moved by Senator Loffreda. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
The second item concerns the Senate of Canada’s annual financial statements and the results of the audit.
We have with us this morning Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer of the Finance and Procurement Directorate, and Nathalie Charpentier, Comptroller and Deputy Chief Financial Officer of the Finance and Procurement Directorate. We also have with us Suzie Gignac and Sonia Leblanc, both partners, from the Assurance department at Ernst & Young. Please take your seats.
Good morning and welcome, everyone.
I understand that Senator Forest will present the financial statements, and then our external auditor will present the results of the audit. Pierre will be available to answer questions and, as usual, senators will have the opportunity to speak privately with auditors in the absence of staff. We will then return to the agenda for the meeting.
Senator Forest, the floor is yours.
The Honourable Éric Forest: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I assume that you read the results of our 2023-24 fiscal year. I’ll spare you the 24 pages of our report. I’ll just share the main points of this hearing.
Overall, the Senate’s total expenses subject to budgetary spending authorities reached $114.1 million for the 2023-24 fiscal year. These results indicate an increase in expenses of $8.9 million, or an increase of 8.4%, compared to the previous fiscal year.
There are three main reasons for this increase. The first reason is an increase in salary and benefits of $4.8 million, which we implemented while staying within our full-time employment ceiling. The second reason is an increase of $2.4 million resulting from the senators’ pension plan adjustment recorded under the direction of Treasury Board. The third reason is an increase of $1.4 million in transportation and communications costs, mainly resulting from the average number of senators being higher and higher prices.
I tried to keep my remarks short to leave as much time as possible for your questions. We’re ready for your questions. If you have any questions, Ms. Gignac, Ms. Charpentier, Ms. Leblanc and Mr. Lanctôt are here to answer them.
The Chair: Colleagues, do you have any questions about the financial statements?
[English]
Senator MacAdam: I’m wondering about the pension plan adjustment, if you could elaborate on that. Could you elaborate on the adjustment of $2.4 million?
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: Yes. Thank you, senator. The pension plan is the pension plan of the parliamentarians, and every three years, the Chief Actuary of Canada is doing an assessment of the plan, looking at the funds. It was determined last year that there was a shortfall in the plan. The Treasury Board, which is responsible for managing the fund, has been instructing us to record an additional expense of $2.4 million.
Senator MacAdam: So it’s for an unfunded actuarial liability. Is that basically what it is?
Mr. Lanctôt: That’s correct.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: For professional services, hospitality and meals, we budgeted $8.9 million. We spent $3.7 million. That’s a big difference. I’m obviously happy to see that, but didn’t we budget too much for this expense? Why did we budget so much?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you for the question, senator. Basically, for professional services and hospitality, we calculate a ratio for senators’ offices budgets by looking at the historical data. This year, we saw a significant variation in the use of budgets for professional fees and salaries. There was less spending on professional services than in recent years. That’s the main explanation.
Senator Carignan: In 2023 as well, it was $2.8 million.
Mr. Lanctôt: That’s right. However, we were looking at the historical data over a longer period. As you no doubt recall, the pandemic changed our figures to some extent. We don’t use the average for the year before, since there were fluctuations. We use an average over a number of years. Next year, we’ll reassess this formula. We can see a new trend compared to the situation four or five years ago.
Senator Carignan: I understand that, if a senator hires a contract employee rather than a salaried employee, it falls under professional services. Is that right?
Mr. Lanctôt: If the transaction is contractual in nature, yes, as opposed to employee status. Transactions of this type are much less frequent than they were three or four years ago, for example.
Senator Carignan: I understand. Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: I want to thank the team for being here.
[English]
Thank you for all of your good work.
I have a quick question. I’m on the Senate Estimates committee, as you know, and I have asked a lot of questions there. There is one based on Senator Carignan’s question that comes to mind.
We have a $10.679 million surplus. One is that transport and communications also comes out as $2 million more — or 19% — we have 33% in information and publications. I’m questioning why.
To my main question, I do know we have buffers on the budgets. On the corporate side, when we would budget, we would do the opposite. We would put it as low as possible to give an incentive to minimize costs. Here, for good reasons I guess, we do the other; we allow for a surplus or a buffer. In determining next year’s budget, will we use the actual as a base or the budget as a base? How would you determine next year’s budget?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, senator, for the question.
One thing we have to keep in mind is that we always budget for between 100 and 103 senators. That’s what we’ve been using in the last three years, and that makes a big difference when we end up having 90 senators instead of the 100 for whom we planned. That’s one of the reasons we have such a difference.
There are also the committees that have travelled less than we had budgeted for. That’s the second-biggest expense.
In terms of next year and what we will do, we’re not going to use this year’s actual, because we know, for example, there will be more senators; we have more senators already this year. We already look at what’s reasonable versus a targeted number of senators, as well as what the norm would be, for example, for travel for committees.
Senator Loffreda: Okay, that’s fine.
I’m just curious. With the average number of senators, year after year, we are rarely at 105 or 100, but you still budget for that. If you take the average of the last five years — I’ve been here five years — I don’t think we ever hit 105 or 100. Why don’t we take the actual historical reality and budget on that? It would give the incentive to minimize costs. That’s the goal, right?
Mr. Lanctôt: We tend to look at what’s happened in the past. For example, at some point, we were at 105, which is the maximum. We lowered it to 103 and to 100.
The cognition is that we don’t know what is coming up in terms of nominations. Just in recent times, we’ve gotten more than we had. So if we’re using last year’s average, we’re going to have a shortfall at the beginning.
We really try to look at current standings, retirements, et cetera. Again, there’s no trend. At the same time, we don’t want to be short if there are nominations.
Senator Loffreda: The consequences would be otherwise. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: For the benefit of the people who are tuning in and who don’t have access to all the documents, can you tell us the actual expenses compared to the budget and the actual increase in expenses compared to the previous fiscal year?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you for the question. Our actual expenses are shown in the financial statements for 2023. The figure was $151,137,000, including services received without charge.
The Senate’s cash expenses were $114,125,000. The previous year, compared to $114,125,000, the figure was $105,192,000.There was another increase. Senator Forest explained the main reason, which was salary increases. Those were the amounts in question.
Senator Saint-Germain: Good. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions about this first part of the financial statements?
[English]
Ms. Gignac, it is your turn. You have the floor.
Suzie Gignac, Partner, Assurance, Ernst & Young LLP: Thank you, everyone, for having us here today. We are the Ernst & Young auditors of the Senate financial statements.
I’ll kick off with a quick thank you to the Senate management team for their help and support in getting us through the audit. They were very responsive, timely in responding to our requests and provided us with all the information we needed.
I’ll look at our executive summary at a high level and speak to the various issues within the executive summary. We are substantially complete in terms of the audit at this point in time. We were substantially complete around July 31 and were waiting for the meetings to complete the audit. We do expect to issue an unmodified opinion, which is a clean audit opinion. We have a few items left to do, but that’s common at this point in time. We’ll do them today, and then we will be prepared to issue the financial statements.
Our audit scope was in line with what we presented in our plan earlier in the year. We do continually reassess, so if there are changes or imbalances, we’ll adjust our strategy to some degree based upon that. We had preliminary materiality of $2.9 million, which is in line with prior years; that is 2.5% of expenditures. That is the level at which an error or omission would be expected to impact the decision of a user of the financial statements.
Areas of emphasis were similar to prior years. We focus on the expenditures, the payables, the various benefits that are provided by the Senate, as well as services received without charge. For these various accounts, we primarily perform a substantive audit, which is detailed testing. We do confirmations, substantive analytics and detailed testing of expenditures.
We do consider fraud, as well, as part of our audit. We have to assess whether we believe there are areas of risk of fraud. We did not have any specific areas, but we always have the presumed risk of management override. For that, we extract the entire GL and do various procedures to see if there is anything unusual. Nothing was identified. If there is anything to be brought to our attention, please feel free to do so at any point in time.
We did not have any corrected or uncorrected misstatements. We did not have any disclosure deficiencies as a result of the audit. As I said, we will complete our remaining audit procedures today so we can issue the final opinion. We included in our report some appendices as well, including required communications, which I mostly covered off on just now. I will add that we are also independent of the Senate.
We included the draft letter of representation, which is what we will ask management to sign today to support that they have provided us with all relevant information and responded to all of our requests and questions. We’ve also included some thought leadership just for the benefit of those on the committee.
As part of our audit, we can sometimes issue a management letter, which would include whether we identify any deficiencies in controls as a result of our audit that we want to bring to your attention. We do not anticipate issuing a management letter. We have not identified anything of that nature to bring to your attention.
The Chair: Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Gignac?
Senator MacAdam: I was wondering about the independent auditor’s report, but you’ve explained that. You have a few procedures that you’re finishing in order to issue that report because it wasn’t in the document. I understand that you need to do certain things before you can sign off. I’m an auditor myself. There are all kinds of procedures.
I’m wondering about your threshold for immaterial errors where you wouldn’t ask management to correct an error.
Ms. Gignac: It would be 5% of $2.9 million, so approximately $145,000.
Senator MacAdam: So you wouldn’t expect an adjustment if it were lower?
Ms. Gignac: Lower than that, it would not get carried in the summary of audit differences. We had nothing above that in our summary of audit differences.
Senator MacAdam: Another question I had was on audit risk related to cybersecurity. My understanding is that, under the audit standards, more consideration is given to cybersecurity risks in your procedures in the last number of years? Am I correct about that?
Ms. Gignac: It’s at a high level, so we get an understanding of what management has done from a cybersecurity perspective. If there are any specific cyber issues that come up, then there are extensive procedures undertaken. We didn’t identify anything specific related to cyber.
Senator MacAdam: That’s good to hear. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I would like to draw your attention to note 7a, concerning the actuarial shortfall.
I gather that one expense difference in the results reflects the fact that the Senate had to cover an actuarial shortfall in the parliament pension plan. However, note 7 states that we aren’t required to make contributions for any actuarial deficiencies in the employee plan. I see that the plans are different in that the obligation to cover actuarial shortfalls applies to parliamentarians, but not to employees. Is that right? Do you know why there’s a difference? As far as I remember, when we carried out the pension reform, we were supposed to have a cut‑and-paste version of the public service plan, except in terms of performance.
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you for the question. Basically, Senate employees contribute to or the Senate uses the public service employees’ pension plan. We pay a set amount to Treasury Board for that plan. The Treasury Board administers the plan. Given that dozens of organizations make contributions, it isn’t practical to reallocate actuarial gains and losses. As a result, Treasury Board manages the gains and surpluses for all government employees.
The parliament pension plan is more limited. It’s administered once again by Treasury Board, which, by law, decides how to manage surpluses and shortfalls.
Since I’ve been in the Senate, in the event of a shortfall, the Senate and the House of Commons make an additional contribution at Treasury Board’s request.
Senator Carignan: So there’s a difference between the two?
Mr. Lanctôt: There’s a difference between the two.
Senator Carignan: I understand that these are two different plans. However, the actuarial shortfall must be covered in one plan, but not in the other?
Mr. Lanctôt: Exactly. It would be challenging for the government to divide an actuarial shortfall among the different organizations.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: I would like to question the materiality of 2.5% of expenditures to clarify that. I do know it’s on quantitative factors, qualitative factors and the context of shareholders. But is 2.5% similar to an arbitrary amount in most of your audits of this size? How did you determine that, and why not 1%, for example?
Ms. Gignac: It’s very much in line with other organizations that would be doing things similar to the Senate, although I would say the Senate is somewhat unique. We generally do 1% to 3%. The higher end is 3%, and that is generally where you have a viable organization, you have funding and you don’t have debt. The Senate is at that end of the spectrum, so we would expect it to be at the higher end, although we don’t go all the way to 3%; we stay at 2.5%.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions for Ms. Gignac?
Colleagues, as I mentioned earlier, it is a good practice for senators to meet privately with their auditor following an audit. At this time, I would ask that we go in camera. I would request that all officials and staff please leave the meeting except for the representative from Ernst & Young, senators and the recording secretary, who will act as clerk for this portion of the meeting.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, it was moved by Senator Forest:
That the thirty-third report be adopted; and
That the financial statements be tabled in the Senate; and
That, as per the division of responsibilities between CIBA and the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight (AOVS), the internal financial highlights report of the Senate of Canada’s audited financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2024, and the financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2024, as well as the audit results for the year ended March 31, 2024, be shared with the members of the AOVS Committee.
Is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[Translation]
The next item is item 2b, which concerns the Senate of Canada Building and East Block cafeterias. It’s the Senate estimates and committee budgets for the Senate cafeterias. Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, is joining the meeting as a witness. Senator Forest will give the opening remarks and Josée will be available to answer questions. As usual, the remarks will be followed by questions.
Senator Forest: Honourable senators, it’s my honour to present the 35th report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, which makes recommendations on food services.
At the request of the committee on internal economy on April 11, 2024, the Property and Services Directorate launched a survey of senators, Senate staff and parliamentary partners who use the Senate cafeterias at the East Block and the Senate of Canada Building. The survey asked for feedback on the food services offered. It concluded on July 19, 2024, and was completed by 369 participants. This includes 32 responses from senators and 260 responses from senators’ staff and the administration. This participation rate is high compared to other Senate surveys. There was a high number of respondents from the East Block in particular.
Comments from the survey clearly indicate that respondents value and rely on the services provided by the cafeterias. A number of them said that access to cafeterias in these buildings was essential given the demands of their jobs. Based on the results of this survey, your subcommittee recommends maintaining the status quo regarding food services currently on offer in Senate-occupied buildings. To maintain the current food services provided, your subcommittee recommends the following:
That the Property and Services Directorate budget be increased permanently by an amount of $95,000, and by an additional $10,000 each following fiscal year until 2028-29, and that the funding requirements be reassessed thereafter; that the memorandum of understanding between the House of Commons and the Senate for the provision of cafeteria and catering food services be extended for one year plus three option years until March 31, 2029, for an estimated total of $1,675,000 over four years, or $710,000 for the East Block cafeteria and $965,000 for the Senate of Canada Building cafeteria; and that the Senate administration share the survey results with the House of Commons for their action and consideration, such comments on food quality and extended options for various dietary requirements, within the scope of the current food services memorandum of understanding.
If you have any questions, Ms. Labelle is here to provide accurate answers to address your concerns.
The Chair: Josée, do you have anything to add?
Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: No, Madam Chair.
Senator Saint-Germain: I want to thank the chair of the subcommittee. This is a really good presentation. It was vital, in the wake of our discussions, to have this review and proposal. My only question concerns the $10,000 annual increase starting in 2026-27 and continuing through 2029. Why not keep pace with inflation? I don’t understand the logic behind the $10,000.
Ms. Labelle: This includes forecasts for food cost increases, salary increases — because the budget covers salary increases for unionized employees in the House of Commons cafeteria — and everything involving maintenance, such as ventilation. We have maintenance costs related to food services at both the East Block cafeteria and the Senate of Canada Building.
Senator Saint-Germain: Was this your way of anticipating inflation?
Ms. Labelle: In other words, yes.
Senator Saint-Germain: That answers my question. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, Josée. I have to say congratulations, because we finally did the survey. I am delighted to see that we did, given that every year, we threaten to shut down the cafeteria, in East Block, especially. I’m not surprised by the results, in the sense that it is what we heard. If you look at East Block, it is Senate staff who predominantly inhabit that building. The fact that they value the cafeteria isn’t surprising to me, given everything we have heard in the past, but now we have the data to substantiate it. It is an example of why data is important and why we shouldn’t make decisions without properly checking and doing the kinds of surveys that are necessary.
If I look at the actual survey itself, I know that we have a very large number of respondents based on other surveys, but I don’t know what your methodology was. There is nothing in here to say how you approached the survey. Did you send it out en masse? Did you send it to certain people? If you could just tell me, I would appreciate knowing.
Ms. Labelle: Excellent question, senator. The survey absolutely did not ask whether or not we wanted to close the food services, but rather a survey on questions with respect to the food services offered, the appreciation and usage so as not to bias any of the results. That was first. It was sent to Sen Global. We also worked with the parliamentary partners that have access to the building, for example, PPS and the Library of Parliament. Essentially, everyone who can access the cafeteria who works in the parliamentary precinct had the opportunity to respond.
Senator Seidman: Excellent. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I saw in annex 4 of the survey the question about the East Block cafeteria, which closes at 2:30 p.m. If you depend on the East Block cafeteria for your meals and snacks, what do you usually do if you need to buy food after that time? We can see that a number of people go out or bring things from home. Almost two-thirds of the people who use the East Block cafeteria do this. Have you considered offering a service after 2:30 p.m., either by extending the hours or with an alternative method? I know that the closure options involved keeping the vending machines. I’m not in favour of this closure. The survey tells us that most respondents don’t want it either. However, have you considered installing vending machines so that some type of food service can be provided after 2:30 p.m.? Customers are leaving.
Ms. Labelle: The sales data received shows that sales usually take place at breakfast time, when people buy snacks and especially at lunch time. Sales are highest at this time, especially when the Senate is sitting. There were very few sales after 1 p.m. or 1:30 p.m.
However, the survey did ask the question. Unlike in the Senate of Canada Building, the East Block cafeteria closes at 2:30 p.m. Occupants either brought their own food for dinner or headed to the House of Commons cafeteria or this one, depending on where their work took them during the day. The report and the recommendation to not raise costs per se sought to maintain the status quo. Our recommendations focus only on breaking even, so to speak, and maintaining the status quo for services. A vending machine remains an option. For the time being, this isn’t included in the proposed costs.
Senator Carignan: I mean after 2:30 p.m.
Ms. Labelle: The vending machine, which served as the food service pilot project, isn’t included in the recommendation. The recommendation is simply to maintain the status quo.
Senator Carignan: I understand. I’m just asking whether you considered the option of extending the service after 2:30 p.m., either in person or by vending machine. I take it that you haven’t?
Ms. Labelle: When we first presented the seven options to the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, the options had been studied at that time. It involves an extra shift for the staff who run the cafeteria. A full shift of staff must be paid in order to open the cafeteria after 2:30 p.m. There are costs associated with that.
Senator Carignan: I understand all this. I’m smart enough to know that, if you increase the hours, you increase the working time of the staff. I gather that you haven’t considered the option of extending the opening hours after 2:30 p.m.?
Ms. Labelle: Not in this case, no.
Senator Dalphond: To that point, and to add to the discussion for those who weren’t here two or three years ago, several of us opposed closing the cafeteria in the East Block. I’m pleased to see that the survey showed that employees want it and consider it part of their working conditions, as Senator Carignan emphasized at the time. It obviously is.
We talked about opening and closing hours two years ago. To reduce the deficit, we agreed to reduce those hours and close at 2:30 p.m. However, I know that what’s available is two vending machines: one for soft drinks and one for chips and chocolate bars. Could we add another machine that has sandwiches or salads or something? I know there’s a chance food could be wasted. If it’s not a huge cost, we have to consider it. If it wouldn’t operate at a loss and if revenue offset expenditures, that’s a solution we need to look at. The hallway is big enough. They could add a third machine.
[English]
Senator Plett: I want to take the contrary approach to what Senator Dalphond just said. First of all, I think we should put this to rest. I think Senator Forest had something like 2028 in his report; I would like to make that 2038. We have discussed this about as much as we have discussed any issue that I recall.
The survey clearly indicated what you are proposing is what people want, and I don’t think we should muddy the waters by discussing this any further with any other vending machines. 2:30 p.m. is a reasonable time. The Senate basically sits Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Wednesdays we only sit until 4:00 p.m., and then people are in committee meetings. Many of the staff are with the senators in the committee meetings. When the Senate does not sit, very few of our staff are here in the evening hours for dinner. They might be in their offices during the day up until 2:30 p.m. in the afternoon. So it certainly isn’t necessary to extend any hours for staff or for senators, considering the hours that we sit.
I know Senator Forest either has or will be making a motion that I will be supporting. I really would not like us to not muddy the waters by trying to add anything to this discussion for the next four years. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett.
Senator Moodie: Like Senator Seidman, I wanted to thank you for doing this important study, because we now have some data. Annex 6 tells us, in fact, that when an intelligent vending machine was put into the House of Commons, 346 people did not touch it, as compared to 23. So I think that speaks to the fact that we probably don’t need that.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: The proposal is to look at what can be done after 2:30 p.m. In my opinion, there’s really no cost involved, because the products are already in the fridge and on display when we come in. It’s simply a matter of transferring them to the vending machine. I think it’s worth considering. I’m speaking as an East Block client, not a Centre Block client. It’s worth considering.
The Chair: We have the Honourable Senator Forest’s motion that the 35th 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.
The Chair: The motion is carried. We’ll move on to item 2c, adjusting the budget for living expenses for senators serving as House Officers. Chief Financial Officer Pierre Lanctôt will join us once again as a witness. I believe Senator Forest will make some preliminary remarks, and Pierre will help him answer questions.
Senator Forest: Honourable senators, during its last meeting, your subcommittee examined the budget for senators’ living expenses in the Parliamentary District for senators serving as House Officers. This review was deemed necessary following requests from senators performing such duties who were confirming that the current budget is insufficient to cover the expenses incurred by their additional duties.
As per the Senators’ Office Management Policy, a House Officer is defined as:
The Speaker, the Speaker pro tempore, the Leader of the Government or Government Representative in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader or facilitator of a recognized party or recognized parliamentary group, and their respective deputy leaders and whips.
It has been determined that an additional annual budget of $5,000 will cover the additional living expenses when House Officers stay in the Parliamentary District on days that fall outside the regular sitting calendar.
Accordingly, the subcommittee recommends: That senators who perform the role of House Officer as per the Senators’ Office Management Policy automatically receive an additional budget of $5,000 at the beginning of the fiscal year or on a pro rata basis at any time during the year as a result of the date of assuming office, effective with the adoption of this report. Are there any questions?
Senator Carignan: How many people is that?
The Chair: Twenty-one people.
Senator Carignan: Ten or so vending machines?
Senator Smith: I have a question for Senator Forest. Do you think adding $5,000 for those people will make it a regular part of their budget? Coming from my particular background, I would rather it be an exception, not necessarily an annual thing. If the money isn’t part of the individual’s budget, they can ask for additional funds. Is the $5,000 in the budget? Is this a one-time thing, or is it annual?
Senator Forest: Initially, the goal of the per diem adjustments we made this year was to get rid of all those exceptions that had to be handled case by case. It’s a budget, not an automatic allocation. There has to be an expense and an application for that spending allocation, but it’s basically a budget allocated to people in a House Officer role.
Senator Smith: If I understand correctly, this is because some senators are here four or five days a week and spend more time here.
Senator Forest: Exactly. That’s right.
Senator Smith: Is this a one-time thing, or will it be part of the budget every year?
Senator Forest: It’s annual.
Senator Saint-Germain: To answer Senator Smith’s question more precisely, the money isn’t in the senators’ budget, but when they hit their maximum, they’re authorized to be reimbursed over and above that amount up to $5,000. They don’t have to ask for special authorization, but they do have to submit receipts. It’s for those who need it. It’s not added to the budget. It’s an allowance over and above the budget if necessary.
The Chair: Are there any other questions? If not, Honourable Senator Forest moves that the 35th 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.
The Chair: The motion is carried. Many thanks, Pierre and Senator Forest.
[English]
Colleagues, the next item on our agenda is a report from the Subcommittee on the Long Term Vision and Plan. Josée Labelle, Director General of Property and Services Directorate; and Louise Cowley, Director of LTVP & Accommodation, Property and Services Directorate; and Jasen Webster, Deputy Director of the LTVP Security Project Planning, will now join us as witnesses.
Now, colleagues, regarding this report, we might not be in agreement with what the situation is, but the report and the recommendation is quite clear. So let us try to reduce the number of questions, because we won’t be able to solve the problem here. We will receive the information on where the committee stands.
It is my understanding that Senator Plett will make a few opening remarks, and the witnesses will assist in answering questions. Senator Plett, the floor is yours.
Hon. Donald Neil Plett: Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. I am doing this instead of Senator Tannas, who could not be here today. He is the chair of the Long Term Vision and Plan Subcommittee, but I have the honour, then, to present the committee’s eleventh report, which contains one recommendation.
You have all received a copy of the report, so I won’t go into all the background today; you can read the details. However, I will remind members that, last spring, the Chair of the LTVP Subcommittee reported to CIBA that the House of Commons was considering an option to use the whole of Block 2 for MPs needing to vacate the Confederation Building, including all 54 offices of the east tower of Block 2 as an interim space.
Colleagues, this building, which we now call the Senate Office Complex, has been identified as an end-state building for the Senate. The Senate Office Complex is intended for the relocation of 46 parliamentary office units for senators in the early 2030s, when the East Block is slated to close for rehabilitation. It will also have three Senate committee rooms and is being designed to include a dedicated and secure Senate business entrance.
These plans have been in the works since 2022. Senators have made decisions on their office locations based upon these plans and the anticipated construction dates for East Block and the Victoria Building. To add a personal note, those decisions have been made a few times and have had to be altered already.
What concerns the subcommittee the most was finding out the latest proposal for the House to occupy all of the Senate Office Complex if it is accepted. This could delay senators’ move out of East Block by at least seven years.
Last June, the subcommittee asked our administration officials to prepare a high-level analysis and to ask Public Works and Procurement Canada to provide other options that could accommodate the House of Commons.
As you will see in our report, we believe the House will need something in the neighbourhood of 34 temporary office spaces to cover the shortfall of office space if MPs need to move out of the Confederation Building sooner than they originally planned. However, PSPC is unable to provide us with precise timelines for when MPs need to begin moving out, when construction will begin and when the rehabilitated Confederation Building will be ready for occupancy again.
Based upon the number of variables that are unknown at this time, the subcommittee believes it is far too early to begin discussing a major change to the Senate’s long-term accommodation plans, which have been in place for a few years already. We also believe that our permanent end-state building should not be used as temporary space for MP offices. We are, however, willing to work with the House of Commons and with PSPC to find alternatives from the Senate’s inventory of office spaces as they become available. When senators start moving out of SCB and 40 Elgin and into permanent offices in the Centre Block and the senators’ office complex.
We have a recommendation that until PSPC is able to provide confirmation of exact dates for decanting, construction and occupancy of the Confederation Building, the Senate retain its current approved accommodation strategy, which establishes that all 118 senator offices will be located in Centre Block, East Block and the Senate Office Complex in the end state, and that the Senate commits to collaborating with the House of Commons and PSPC at the appropriate time to pray an additional 34 MP offices to the House of Commons to use as swing spaces for MPs as senators’ offices become available when senators are able to move out of 40 Elgin and the Senate of Canada Building and into their permanent offices.
Honourable senators, that is my summary of our report. Of course, we’d be pleased to answer questions. We have officials here from the property services directorate if you have technical questions, and at the end of that, I have a motion to move. In the meantime, colleagues, that’s my report. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?
Senator Plett: Wonderful. If there are no questions, I move the adoption of the report and ask that the Chair of the LTVP Subcommittee be authorized to communicate this recommendation to Public Services and Procurement Canada on CIBA’s behalf.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
We are now on item 5 for information. You have received the quarterly financial reports for the first quarter of the fiscal year 2024-25, and it was just for information purposes. Any questions or comments on the document? If not, we are going on to item 6.
[Translation]
Colleagues, is there anything else we need to address in public?
We’ll suspend the meeting briefly so the clerk can make sure we’re in camera. However, before doing so, I’d like to remind everyone that meetings of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration are open to the public most of the time. Only when the matters discussed are sensitive, such as wages, contracts and contract negotiations, labour relations and staff or safety issues, are they considered in camera. The committee wishes to be as transparent as possible about the important work it does.
I would ask the clerk to inform committee members when we go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)