THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 31, 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, 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, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you all for your cooperation.
I would like to go around the table and ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from the De Lorimier division, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Loffreda: Tony Loffreda, Montreal, Quebec. Good morning.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Good morning. Éric Forest from the Gulf division, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Carignan: Claude Carignan from the beautiful province of Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: I would also like to welcome all of those following our deliberations across the country.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, the first item on the agenda of our public meeting 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 item on the consent agenda: the minutes of the proceedings in public and in camera from October 10, 2024.
Honourable senators, are there any questions or concerns about any of these items? Seeing none, could someone move the following motion?
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.
[English]
The next item on our agenda is a report from the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan. Josée Labelle, Director General of the Property and Services Directorate; Louise Cowley, Director of Long Term Vision Plan & Accommodation; and Julie Lacroix, Corporate Security Directorate, will now join us as witnesses. Also present in the room is the Clerk of the Subcommittee, Marie-Eve Belzile.
It is my understanding that Senator Tannas will make a few opening marks and the witnesses will assist in answering questions. Senator Tannas, the floor is yours.
Hon. Scott Tannas: Colleagues, I have the honour to present the Long Term Vision and Plan Subcommittee’s twelfth report which contains two recommendations which deal with the 2024 LTVP plan update and the parliamentary campus tunnel strategy.
Your subcommittee met with representatives of the Senate Administration and Public Services and Procurement Canada, known as PSPC, on October 23 to receive an updated LTVP plan.
This was an important and well-overdue update to the 2006 LTVP plan, and it also included an updated framework of new guiding principles reflecting the evolving needs of parliamentarians, progress made to date and future work required to prepare the Parliamentary Precinct for the next 150 years, while seizing opportunities to reduce risks and operating costs along the way.
During this update, your subcommittee has received confirmation from our administration officials that elements of key importance to the Senate, including security, parking, accessibility and senators’ parliamentary office accommodation have been taken into consideration when preparing the updated plan and that they are aligned with the previously confirmed Senate requirements.
The 2024 LTVP plan update also identifies that senators’ parliamentary office accommodations are being planned in three core buildings: Centre Block, East Block and the Senate Office Complex, which is just about to begin construction and is located on the eastern portion of Block 2, the same block that has the Victoria Building at the west end; the office complex is at the east end of that same block.
The plan aims to consolidate Senate Administration into a single building at the end state of the project.
While the 2024 LTVP plan update is not a fixed blueprint for the program, following the presentation received your subcommittee feels comfortable recommending the approval of its guiding principles and the planning assumptions for Senate-occupied spaces so that the department can seek the necessary funding to implement the updated plan.
Your subcommittee also received an update on future planning assumptions for the design of the parliamentary campus tunnel network. Senators may recall that the Senate and House of Commons approved the creation of an underground networked loop that will connect all parliamentary buildings, both north and south of Wellington Street in 2022. Your subcommittee received an update on the preliminary estimate of the rough order of magnitude of hard construction costs for the tunnel network, along with a series of planning assumptions regarding their use, level of security, accessibility, access control points and construction.
Information provided to your subcommittee in 2022 was that the rough order of magnitude estimated for hard construction costs for the two north-south tunnels was approximately $180 million but, following a feasibility study, we have been informed that this estimate has now increased to approximately $200 million. Although your subcommittee expressed its concerns about the escalation of these costs, we were informed by the department that design efficiencies will be evaluated during the schematic design phase of this project. With this in mind, your subcommittee is comfortable in recommending that CIBA approve PSPC’s planning assumptions for the design of the parliamentary campus tunnel network.
Your subcommittee also recommends that it be authorized to communicate these recommendations to PSPC on behalf of the Internal Economy Committee, or CIBA. Accordingly, I ask that the twelfth report of the LTVP Subcommittee be adopted and I ask that, as chair of the LTVP Subcommittee, I be authorized to communicate these recommendations to Public Services and Procurement Canada on behalf of CIBA.
I would be pleased to answer any questions and as the chair mentioned, I am accompanied by officials here this morning. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tannas. Are there any questions or comments, colleagues?
Senator Plett: I have a brief comment. Of course, I am a member of this committee. I will not question it. I was there for some of the meetings, not all of them.
I take some exception to the word “comfortable” because I am anything but comfortable. I want to be on the record here as saying I am anything but comfortable in recommending increases like $20 million for this tunnel network and so on and so forth. I think it is unconscionable the way these numbers are being thrown around, these increases that we have constantly before we even start construction, and we have increases like that.
I think we should at least choose our words carefully when we write reports, because concerns were expressed at the committee meeting, Senator Tannas, that were anything but comfortable.
I know that you did not write the report. You are delivering the report, but that is a comment only and not a question. Thank you.
Senator Smith: Senator Tannas, I read somewhere that there seems to be not a conflict but some question as to where the MPs should be housed in consideration to where we’re going to be housed.
Obviously, my sense is that we should be trying to protect our own turf and be reasonable with other people.
Do we have a clear pathway going forward at this particular time, or is there some question as to the House of Commons pulling some form of a power play on the Senate in terms of giving preference to some of the locations of their members?
Senator Tannas: It is true there has been a need to accelerate the emptying of one of the House of Commons buildings, which is specifically the Confederation Building.
As a result, we in the Senate agreed to exit the Victoria Building early so they could begin construction of the west end of Block 2 and, while Confederation undergoes major renovation, MPs would move there.
Still, even with our leaving Victoria Building early and the Block 2 west being built, there is still a shortfall in the needs that the House of Commons has in the short term until everything gets finished.
We have made clear to the House of Commons that we have the three buildings here. We have some flexibility on the space we have while some of our buildings are under construction or renovation, we can help solve that problem and are prepared to do that.
We are not prepared to support some kind of an expropriation of Senate buildings by the House of Commons for their control. We would work with them. We are talking about something that is six, seven or eight years in the future. It will change five times before then.
We have said let’s agree. We have a mechanism. We will start some discussions with our folks on the opposite side in the other place over the next little while. I do not think that we have a concern, Senator Smith.
Senator Smith: Okay.
Senator Tannas: I think we will be able to manage it between members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate. We need Public Services and Procurement Canada to build the buildings. The rest of it we can sort out.
As to Senator Plett’s comment, I agree with you, Senator Plett. “Comfortable” was probably not the word. In my edit of it, I maybe should have emphasized that we spent a lot of time talking with PSPC about a 10% increase in costs, especially at this early stage and especially with the experience we know we have and however many years into the future we are dealing.
These are big numbers. We signalled — and they agreed — that we wanted to ensure that we explored ways in which, particularly with the tunnel network, we could economize and still get it done.
At the end of the day, the tunnel network provides important updates to security, which, back in 2006, were significantly less. It was a different world.
There are ways in which we can get that done. I also think that we cannot understate the amount of operating costs that it will save, having that tunnel network as well. We have to find ways.
There is so much new construction. There are questions of whether it should be tunnelling under Wellington Street or whether chunks of the system could be incorporated within new building envelopes at the front end so that you are travelling in basements rather than through tunnels. We will see. Everything is still on the table. Your committee — and Senator Plett is a vital part of it, as are Senator Forest and Senator Boyer — will make sure that we explore and encourage PSPC to explore every opportunity.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I invite you to consider alternatives, as it’s a lot of money just to get across Wellington Street. If you enter through the East Block — you can get there through the doors now, even at the end, although I don’t know why the doors aren’t open — you can go to the Centre Block, through the interior. If you start from the Victoria Building and enter the West Block, you can get to the Centre Block, all through the interior. The tunnels’ advantage is getting us across Wellington Street. We’ve been crossing Wellington Street for ages; is it worth $240 million to cross under Wellington Street?
[English]
Senator Tannas: I will say that in the end state, more than 50% of parliamentarians will have their offices south of Wellington Street. Part of this is the fact that we have to start planning for up to 500 parliamentarians in the House of Commons. That is a part of the reality. We will have more than half of parliamentarians across the street.
Wellington Street is part of the plan. For security purposes, there is a pretty good case being made that Wellington Street should be a part of the Parliamentary Precinct in and of itself, similar to what we see in places like Washington, London and so on.
I take your point. Again, the way it is now we have a bus system that chews up significant operating costs. That could be mitigated substantially with a tunnel.
There are all of those things we have to take into consideration in addition to the security aspect.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: What’s the status of the discussions? If the City of Ottawa becomes the owner of Wellington Street — I don’t know where negotiations stand — and if Wellington Street becomes pedestrianized, the issue of safety virtually disappears along with the related controls. I think that if we take part of the $240 million, the City of Ottawa may be open-minded enough during the negotiations to give up this part of the street.
[English]
Senator Tannas: We asked about that at the meeting, Senator Carignan. It is our understanding that there has been an offer put in front of the City of Ottawa, and they have not yet responded.
There is hope that there is a potential for an agreement to happen in fairly short order. We have been hearing that for a while too. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I agree with Senator Carignan’s questions and comments in every way. I would just like to add that, if we take this to the extreme with these major costs, we will in no way solve the problem of parliamentarians travelling elsewhere in Ottawa, including to our hotels. I think it’s an expense that’s extremely difficult to justify.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions?
[English]
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Tannas:
That the Twelfth Report of the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan be adopted, and that the subcommittee be authorized to communicate this decision to the Public Services and Procurement Canada, on behalf of CIBA.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Carried, on division.
Thank you, Julie and Louise.
The next item on the agenda follows CIBA’s request to develop a framework surrounding commemorations and events related to diversity, equity and inclusion. Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, Human Resources Directorate; and Annie Carpentier, Director, Talent Optimization and Employee Well-Being, Human Resources Directorate, will now join us as witnesses.
Good morning, Toni and Annie. You may now begin your presentation. As usual, the presentation will be followed by time for questions.
Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, Human Resources Directorate: Good morning, senators. Commemoration observations and inclusion events seek to celebrate members of equity-seeking groups by celebrating accomplishments and raising awareness regarding cultural and historical chapters in Canadian history.
Dating back to 2021, Human Resources has been communicating commemorative dates on various dates and months on an annual basis. These commemorations mirror those of the federal public service and represent various employment public equity groups. We have issued communiqués via SenGlobal sharing commemoration events and resources intended to increase awareness and provide avenues for learning.
Beyond these communiqués, Senate employees joined our Hill partners in a non-partisan Parliament Hill contingent for the annual Capital Pride Parade in 2022 and 2023. We have a memorandum of understanding with the Canada School of Public Service, where employees can find resources that speak to and promote inclusion. CSPS offers over 50 products focusing on Indigenous learning and inclusion.
In April 2024, we partnered with the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion, and this partnership with CCDI is key to our objective of expanding our offerings on inclusion and related topics, and adding commemorations and resources about groups that have not normally recognized to date.
Notably, senators, when employees participate in events that are during off hours, like weekends or after hours of work, they do so on their own time. We are creating avenues for accessing events, but they are not working hours, so to speak.
Human Resources also promotes the Parliament Hill Employee Network Group. This offers employees the opportunity to find and form groups where they can share their lived experiences. These groups are employee-led and they follow established terms of reference implemented by heads of HR across the precinct. We currently have three groups in place.
HR will soon be discussing a recommendation for an inclusion vision and strategy for the Senate Administration at an upcoming meeting with the Diversity Subcommittee and the Human Resources Subcommittee. We will recommend that a framework for inclusion form part of the anticipated vision. The strategy or framework will be presented to CIBA.
In the meantime, senators, there are four options proposed as an interim solution outlined in the briefing note shared with you, pending a longer-term solution. The administration recommends the status quo — that we continue to share some commemoration events at the level of the Senate Administration.
Thank you, senators. We are happy to answer any of your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Francis.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much for the presentation and for your department’s work, thoughtfulness and presentation today to develop a plan.
I have a question. When I read “partnership,” I start to think about what that means. You state in the briefing note “the partnership with CCDI.” I would like to know more specifically what that means; what kind of partnership?
Ms. Francis: It is a contract with CCDI. We see the word “partnership” in terms of the type of contract that we have, for access. CCDI offers a suite of resources, webinars and key resources that employees or managers can go to. It has a manager’s corner as well to help them support conversations with employees around inclusion events, unconscious bias and different forms of training. But it is a formal contract, senator.
Senator Seidman: Could you explain CCDI?
Ms. Francis: The Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion. It is a company that focuses on diversity learning, education and training.
Senator Seidman: It’s a private company.
Ms. Francis: Yes.
Senator Seidman: So “partnership” really means a contract; we have a contract with them.
Ms. Francis: It’s a contract, 100%. It is a contract.
Senator Seidman: I wanted to be sure about that. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you. I really appreciate your opening remarks and the clarification you just made.
I think the option of following the practice established by the federal public service is unavoidable, and you’re making it your first option. I think that’s really good.
You said there are three groups in place right now that are employee-led, and these groups have special status. Can you tell us which groups those are? I understand that they are employees of the Senate and that this is with a view to inclusion and diversity within the institution. Which are those three groups?
Ms. Francis: Thank you for the question, Senator Saint-Germain. They are the Rainbow Table, the Middle Eastern North African Group and the Network for Persons with Disabilities. These are groups on Parliament Hill, which includes the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament.
Senator Saint-Germain: So it’s also a collective initiative that helps achieve economies of scale.
Ms. Francis: Exactly.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Plett: I want to thank you, Toni, for your presentation, but you caught me a little bit off guard. I was looking at my notes here, expecting to hear about the four different options, but I did not hear about them. Could you please repeat what your proposal is for us right now? My mind was trying to decide which of these options are preferable and suddenly you are at the end of your report. Please, if you could, and then I will have some further comments.
Ms. Francis: Thank you, senator. No worries. Would you like me to review the four options?
Senator Plett: It says “proposal for interim plan,” and then you say four options are available. Are we not discussing those four options today?
Ms. Francis: We can certainly discuss those four options. Option one is maintaining the status quo following the federal public service. Option two is expanding the list, and there is an appendix A that outlines the list of the groups and dates of all of the important commemorative dates celebrated or recognized by Heritage Canada. The effective management of that would be difficult. Additional resources required. Option three is to stop the practice of sharing the commemorations under the DEI umbrella via SenGlobal. Option four is to request recommendations for commemoration events on a case-by-case approval basis at CIBA.
Senator Plett: I’m sorry if I was not coming across perfectly clearly. Are you asking us to pick one of these four options?
Ms. Francis: I’m recommending option one at the level of the administration. That is the recommendation, senator.
Senator Plett: It says for “interim.” What does “interim” mean? For how long?
Ms. Francis: With the Diversity Subcommittee and Human Resources Subcommittee, we are going to recommend the development of a vision and strategy for inclusion. Under that, we will expand or relook at the longer-term solution with the support of those subcommittees and, hopefully, the direction of the clerk.
Senator Plett: I wish that you had not given us four options and that you are telling us your option one, because I do not like option one; I like option three.
Ms. Francis: I know.
Senator Plett: But clearly we are not being asked to select an option here. I struggle a little bit with that. We have four options given to us and then we are told that you cannot choose one of those.
Ms. Francis: You can. It is a recommendation for option one.
Senator Plett: Okay. I am not sure whether this is going to come to a vote, and I will not jump up and down on my desk here over this. I would like us to consider stopping the practice of sharing any of these commemorations on SenGlobal. That would be my preference.
My next question is a follow-up to what Senator Seidman asked. Why do we need to go outside to get outside services to help us here? You are very capable, you have a good team, yet we are going and hiring outside companies again to help us with that. I think we are capable of handling our own affairs here. Please tell me why we have to go outside.
Ms. Francis: I have a fabulous team. We do a lot, and we want to continue to do a lot. However, there is a small team responsible for employee recognition, inclusion, performance management — what else do you do, Ms. Carpentier? The list is long — succession planning, supporting managers in a variety of programs and policy development. If we are to do the job that we expect of ourselves and senators and employees should expect of us, sometimes we need a little help.
The idea is where we can’t spend a lot of time on one thing, where we need to be economical in the use of our time and be more strategic as a team, we need to go out and get services that are ready-made packaged and we are not building something, because it already exists out there. We don’t want to reinvent the wheel. So I’m complementing the expertise and skill set of my team with products that are already out there that empower them to do their jobs much more successfully and on time.
Senator Plett: Thank you for that. Again, I just want to be on the record. We have our SEBS Subcommittee. Our very capable chair Senator Forest chairs that committee. We are tasked many times with trying to find cost savings. So we find cost savings, and we say that every department is obligated to find some cuts and maybe that means losing a few people. To me, this is a backdoor way of well, we have to lose some people so we would rather hire an outsider and then we have done our job on both fronts, we are getting the job done and yet saving money here as we just let two people go, so we are saving $200,000 and, however, we are going to hire a private firm to replace those two people.
Madam Chair, with respect — and I thank you, Toni, for the presentation — I do disagree with the proposal. I would like to see us go with option 3 that was given to us as a choice. That would be my choice. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you, Toni, for your presentation. I’m pretty much on the same page with respect to a question on CCDI, although I do believe that all groups should be recognized. It is an important practice. I would agree with option one. I don’t have a problem with option one. But we are going to talk about procurement next. Have all possibilities been explored? Why do we need an external firm? What’s the cost of the external firm? How will they help you? For example, I have a bill in process in committee for the month of March, Hellenic Heritage Month. I know that all groups are not recognized as of now, but recognizing all groups would be mission impossible for one. So where this contract or this service ends and why couldn’t we do it internally. We do have resources. Our Library of Parliament analysts are great. I see all their committee work, and I haven’t seen better in my career. We are trying to limit expenses.
Ms. Francis: Thank you, senator. The contract provides unlimited access to everyone in the institution. It is a $5,000 contract. We have been really smart about how much we are putting into an item like this where it can already, as I said, give us the opportunity to deliver webinars and support managers in conversations, build on the education. Unconscious bias was something that CIBA approved training for quite some time ago. These items are continuously available for individuals.
When I talked about providing or recommending to the Human Resources Subcommitee and Diversity Subcommittee a vision and strategy, one of the things we will do is unpack everything we are doing and look at recommendations that challenge us helpfully in areas in cost even if it isn’t high, and look at the entire plan of what we are doing within that.
So this is about an interim solution. We are very mindful of the need to unpack what we are doing now even if it isn’t complicated and see what we can do from a cost perspective and efficiency perspective, using the talents of the people we have here and ensuring we build a sense of belonging for all employees that ultimately, from an employer-of-choice perspective, is the goal.
Senator Loffreda: My concern is the $5,000 doesn’t become $50,000 and $150,000. I have seen that before — everywhere, not just here. So that’s my concern.
Ms. Francis: Noted. Thank you, senator.
Senator Boyer: Thank you, Toni and Annie, for your presentation. My question deals with CCDI. You have mentioned the Indigenous aspect of being able to access webinars and other things that are Indigenous based. Does that come from CCDI?
Ms. Francis: I mentioned that for the Canada School of Public Service.
Senator Boyer: Is there anything that CCDI can access as far as an Indigenous focus? Is there anything Indigenous in there?
Ms. Francis: Yes, I believe so. They cover absolutely all the groups for sure, senator.
Senator Boyer: And we don’t really have any Indigenous people working in your department, correct?
Ms. Francis: Correct.
Senator Boyer: Thank you. It would be very important for me to ensure that there is an Indigenous focus coming through to our staff at all times. Thank you.
Ms. Francis: Yes.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments?
Senator Plett: Just one more comment. Again, I’m quite frustrated that we are doing this, but what guarantee do we have, Toni, that we don’t have additional groups recognized, and what guarantees do we have, as the practice has clearly become, that the louder groups get the prioritization and the smaller groups are being ignored? When I look at this list on page 15, I think I can see exactly where this whole thing is going and it frustrates me. I don’t support it, but what guarantees can you give us, Toni, that we stay with that list of eight that we have listed on page 15?
Ms. Francis: The recommendation, senator, is status quo. So at this point, we will continue to do exactly what we have been doing should CIBA approve that. For the longer term discussion we will have with the Human Resources and Diversity Subcommittees, if we see a need or if we recommend anything longer or bigger, if that’s even the way we go at this point, we will absolutely share that with the subcommittees and ultimately with CIBA in terms of the way forward. But for now, this is an interim solution of status quo.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
The Chair: Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That we maintain the status quo with some commemorations being shared at the level of administration.
Senator Saint-Germain moved the motion.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Plett: Chair, I’m not going to ask for a recorded vote, but I would like it recorded that I am opposed to this.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you. So it is going to be carried with one opposing vote. Thank you.
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Toni.
The next item is the update to the Senate Procurement Policy. As usual, this presentation will be followed by a period of questions. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, is with us as a witness. Welcome, Pierre. The floor is yours.
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you. Honourable senators, we recently updated the Procurement Policy, which came into effect on November 17, 2022. This update sought to add the new position of Clerk of the Senate and remove references to the “Executive Committee,” as well as increase different limits to reflect the inflation experienced in recent years.
The key changes to the policy include: increase of the amount requiring the use of a competitive procurement process; increase of the amount requiring CIBA’s approval for contracting with third parties and with other parliamentary entities or government organizations; increase of the maximum allowed to enter into an emergency contract for employees other than the procurement team members; clarification of certain requirements specific to the Audit and Oversight Committee; standardization of terms and definitions.
[English]
It is recommended that CIBA approve the results of the policy review for the Procurement Policy with an effective date of November 1, 2024.
This concludes my report. I will be pleased to answer any questions and receive your comments.
[Translation]
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for the report, Pierre.
[English]
There are eight main objectives and it is well covered. I have a question on one of them. Objectives and alignment, transparency, accountability is fine. Cost-effectiveness, value for money is fine. Supplier selection, compliance, performance measurement are fine. Technology and innovation are fine too.
I have a question on risk management. What risk management processes are embedded in the policy to address supplier performance, ethical concerns and potential supplier chain disruptions, which we have seen in the past? How does the policy mitigate risks associated with vendor dependency or limited supplier competition?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you for the question. There are several aspects to your question. The aggregation of the needs is one of the measures we have in place to make sure we understand what we need in the longer term.
For each type of service and product we are buying, we also look at a specific strategy for procuring. In some cases, for example, we would sign contracts with multiple suppliers to ensure that, in the long term, we can rely on more than one contract or one supplier. It is case by case. We don’t have specific rules in our policy. But we look at the specific products and services we are buying and are establishing a proper strategy based on the market.
Senator Loffreda: That comforts me. I see the others all as a heading. The risk management I did not see as a heading. Maybe in the future review of the procurement policy we could put it as a heading, especially today given the risks involved with supplier management, geopolitical risks and the fact that many times we see there are limited suppliers. I would recommend that it be a heading for the future maybe.
Mr. Lanctôt: If I may, the strategies are evolving as well, so it is hard to embed strategies in a policy because we evolve the strategies as the market conditions change. For example, a few years ago, we were doing a lot of contracts with fixed prices for a longer period. Now we have to adjust because suppliers don’t want to sign contracts for five years with fixed prices, so we have adjusted our strategy. If we embed too many requirements in the policy, it becomes very hard to manage. We have to be flexible.
Senator Loffreda: The dynamic is not static. I respect that. I am comforted by your answer.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt. I have a couple of clarification questions. For goods and services, we have updated to reflect what’s happening elsewhere.
My question is about contracts that you initiate, to use an example, that are under $150,000, say it is $50,000. You don’t have to come back to CIBA unless the cost exceeds that $150,000 limit. Is that correct?
Mr. Lanctôt: That’s correct, yes.
Senator Quinn: What if a contract is entered into for $50,000, where that $50,000 becomes $100,000 or $125,000? And this happens quite often in the public services. At the end of the day, the people sitting around this table are the Senate, and it is often the smallest contracts that cause the biggest problem. What red light do we have so we know that a contract that has been initiated outside CIBA has an extraordinarily large percentage increase, not just bringing it above $150,000 but may double or be one and a half times the initial cost? How do we get that red light?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, senator. This is an interesting and good question. If we are talking about sole-source contracts, if we do a contract for $20,000 and we increase it to $50,000, with the current limit at $40,000, if we exceed the limit, we have to come back. We apply the adjustments or the amendment to the contract. We still apply the rules and the limits. If we increase beyond the limit, we come to CIBA and ask for approval, the same as we would have done if it was an original contract.
As for the $125,000 for procurement process, if we do a procurement process of $90,000 and we have to increase the value of the contract and it exceeds the limit, again, we come back to CIBA and ask for approval to proceed with the extension or the modification of the contract.
Also, in our policy we have a limit on the amount we can increase a contract, so for a contract that is a competitive procurement process, we can only increase the amount by 50%. There are multiple features in our policies to ensure that we are following —
Senator Quinn: For clarity, I was focusing on the competitive contracts less than $150,000 that, as I say, may be 50, so a 50% increase. Again, it is the small contracts that become the problems for the institution. How do we know a contract that was $50,000 for providing some goods or services all of a sudden has a 40% increase, something that the public might say is excessive? Because a 40% increase can be considered excessive. How do we get notified? At the end of the day, people around this table are the people who are going to be held to account for contracts. And it does happen. How can we be advised if something has gone awry that wasn’t expected?
Mr. Lanctôt: If it is a contract, a competitive procurement process below $125,000, the current limit, let’s say $50,000, it is competitive and we increase to $75,000, there is no requirement to obtain additional approval. If we exceed 50%, then we have to come to CIBA.
Senator Quinn: I’m not suggesting approval. I’m suggesting notification so that we know. That’s the only thing I am asking. It is $150,000, not $125,000 under the new policy. I thought I should raise that because it seems we get killed with little things.
Mr. Lanctôt: If the committee feels there is a requirement to report on changes to contracts, we would be pleased to provide this information. It is also published. This is information that is published — all changes to our contracts.
Senator Quinn: I understand that, but we are not going to be looking at the changes. Just so we are aware.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt. I understand that we are in the process of updating all of this, given the changes concerning the clerk. If the spending remains under the $30,000 threshold for equipment and under the $50,000 threshold for services, we can go by mutual agreement. To keep our managers alert and concerned about getting the best product for the price, are we asking them to justify going by mutual agreement, even if it’s below the thresholds? For example, we go by mutual agreement because it’s the current supplier. Do they have to give reasons for going by mutual agreement, even if it’s below the thresholds?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, senator. Indeed, as far as possible and reasonable, even below the threshold, we always encourage the use of a competitive process — not necessarily an open process, but we certainly ask that suppliers be contacted. If we decide to go by mutual agreement, we have to justify the decision.
Senator Forest: That’s being done right now. Congratulations.
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt.
[English]
Senator Plett: I’ll be brief. Initially, I had no concerns, but the answers that you gave Senator Quinn caused me some pause at least. I was of the impression that for a sole-source contract renewal, you didn’t have to come back to CIBA if the contract remained unchanged or increased in line with inflation. Clearly, I was wrong. You are saying you can increase the size of a contract by 50% without coming back to CIBA for approval. Did I understand that correctly?
Mr. Lanctôt: It depends. Again, it is not a unique answer. If it is in a sole-source contract below the threshold, and the increase makes it go above the threshold, we have to follow the approval rules in the policy and come back.
Senator Plett: Maybe answer this first: What is your threshold for sole-source contracts? Let’s deal with actual numbers.
Mr. Lanctôt: Currently, it is $25,000 for goods and $40,000 for services. We want to increase to $30,000 for goods and $50,000 for services.
Senator Plett: A few times you used the number $125,000. Where was that number from?
Mr. Lanctôt: The $125,000 is for the competitive process. If we have a competitive process, if it is below $125,000, we don’t need to come before CIBA, but if the competitive process is above $125,000, we require CIBA’s approval.
Senator Plett: So if it is $126,000, you have to come back.
Mr. Lanctôt: That is correct.
Senator Plett: And that is the current policy.
Mr. Lanctôt: It is the current policy, and we will increase the $125,000 to $150,000, because we are increasing the amount.
Senator Plett: So you are asking for that to be increased to $150,000, and once we approve that, the next year, if you sign a contract for $150,000 or less, you wouldn’t have to come back. Is that the request?
Mr. Lanctôt: Yes, if it is competitive.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Senator MacAdam: I noted some exceptions mentioned several times regarding the Standing Senate Committee on Audit and Oversight. I just want to be sure that I have a clear understanding of how it all fits together. Is Audit and Oversight subject to the current procurement rules before we approve any amendments? Are they subject to the procurement policies right now?
Mr. Lanctôt: Yes, AOVS is subject to the policy and will continue to be subject to the policy with a few exceptions.
Senator MacAdam: Okay. So they will still be subject to the procurement policies in the future except for in those areas where exceptions were noted.
Mr. Lanctôt: Exactly.
Senator MacAdam: Has the Audit and Oversight Committee approved any of their own policies to cover off the areas where we are taking them out of our policies?
Mr. Lanctôt: Audit and Oversight has to comply with the procurement policies and process. They have to respect all the thresholds. What is being removed is the obligation to come to CIBA for approval because as a committee of the Senate, they have to bring their budget to the Senate. Therefore, coming to CIBA was deemed as redundancy in the process.
Senator MacAdam: They are still required to follow the policies, but they don’t always have to come to CIBA for approval of some procurement.
Mr. Lanctôt: Yes. If they come to us and want to do, for example, a contract for a certain amount, like $75,000, we are going to tell them they have to respect the policy and do competitive. They cannot bypass the requirements of the policy.
Senator MacAdam: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Quinn: My question was related to that of Senator MacAdam. I apologize, I should have raised it when I had the floor the last time.
Why the exceptions for audit? I hear the response to the question, but the Audit and Oversight Committee is part of the organization and the organization’s rules and, in my past experience, the organizational rules even for the audit function. They didn’t have the ability to create their own acquisition policies, they had to follow departmental policies. Why the exceptions in the Senate?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, senator. They don’t have the authority to create their own policy, they have to follow the procurement policy. It still supplies to them. The exception is only for the approval process.
Today, if I want to purchase a certain amount, I would have to come to CIBA for approval. That’s the only exception that is granted in the policy for AOVS — they don’t have to come to CIBA. The logic was that if they want to do an audit — and an audit is basically the work we do collectively, CIBA and the administration — they don’t necessarily have to ask for permission to make a contract to audit us. That’s the logic behind the exception. It’s also the fact that their governance requires their budget to be approved by the Senate.
Senator Quinn: Again, this is just an observation. This is the first time I have seen an exception for a component of a department to have exceptions. They follow the rules, but they have exceptions. I know that my past experience is that an audit would come to the executive committee through the CFO to seek the increase in whatever the function was they were carrying out, even if it is an audit reflecting on the minister. I’m just curious as to why there is that exception. I understand what you are saying, I don’t necessarily agree with it.
Mr. Lanctôt: The governance is different for this committee.
Senator Quinn: That’s the problem.
Senator Plett: I don’t want to belabour this, but I want to second what Senator Quinn said. At the last CIBA meeting, we questioned some of the activities of the Standing Senate Committee on Audit and Oversight, and we didn’t like some of the things they were doing so we put a bit of a hold on some of that stuff. Now we are coming along and saying, “Let’s give them free rein to run their own show.” That is the impression I’m getting here. I also wonder why we are giving them special permission. Again, that is an observation.
The Chair: That is how their charter was put together, senator.
Senator Plett: I don’t need to like it.
The Chair: We don’t need to like it at all.
Senator MacAdam: I have a quick question. There is a provision that says:
(4) Changes to an existing contract may be made in accordance with the following . . .
(c) The duration of an existing contract that was approved by CIBA may be extended without seeking further approval from CIBA if the contract value has not been reached.
I’m wondering whether deliverables can be significantly delayed even though the contract value has not been exceeded and there is no requirement to come back to CIBA. The reason I ask this is because sometimes vendors are selected because they can deliver by a certain date and some things that are deliverable may be more significant than others. I’m thinking of cybersecurity or some kind of a contract where we need to do things quickly. I’m just wondering if this is stringent enough. Can you explain more about what this provision means?
Mr. Lanctôt: Essentially, what the policy is trying to avoid is that we want to have strict and rigid controls, but at the same time we need flexibility if we increase a contract. If we change the date, for example, for a couple of weeks, we don’t want to overload the system by having to come and ask for approval to extend for a reasonable period.
That’s why we are saying if there is a significant delay or a significant change. This is where there is a bit of judgment involved. It depends on how long original contract is, how long is the delay and what portion of the work is delayed. We had an experience in the past where the delay was — I’m just using this example — a presentation to this committee that was to be prepared. There was a delay in the timeline of the committee to receive the report, so we had to extend. We are trying to be practical but still have controls that are rigid and stringent enough to provide you with the assurance that we are doing this.
Senator MacAdam: I understand a couple of weeks, and I understand not busying CIBA with small minutia, but I wonder if this addresses well enough the risk that could arise from something important getting significantly delayed by a contractor that we selected based on the premise or expectation that they were chosen and one of the key factors they were chosen was that that they could deliver on time. I think it is an important thing to consider.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator MacAdam. These are good points.
Are there any other questions or comments?
[Translation]
Could a senator move the following motion?
That the amendments to the Procurement Policy be approved;
That the targeted implementation date of the updated policy be November 1, 2024;
That the changes to Schedule A of the Senate Administrative Rules be approved.
Senator Forest so moves.
[English]
Senator Quinn, do you have a question?
Senator Quinn: Yes. Your own comment was that there has been some good points raised. Rather than approve this, should we not take a bit of time to re-examine those good observations to see if there is an adjustment required?
The Chair: Senator, I understand that they are good points. I have been on CIBA for a number years. We review many contracts that go over the amounts and we also receive information from administration when we have situations where deadlines not met and contracts are extended.
As Pierre said, it is not something that they will let go. They follow all of these things.
We were talking about having flexibility within the policy. I think the policy is made like that. It is a good point. It is something we could keep in mind if this occurs within the next couple of years.
Senator Quinn: My point, chair, is that I hear clearly what you are saying. But this is the policy. This is the foundational piece of this activity. If there has been a good observation despite the commentary, isn’t this the time to reflect and fix it?
The Chair: We could if it is the will of the group.
Senator Quinn: That is up to the group.
The Chair: It is just to add a sentence or two to the motion that has been brought forward. Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you, Senator MacAdam, for your comments. They are important comments.
Do they need an amendment? I know that we have this clause, and the last paragraph is, “Any procurement process deemed by the Chief Financial Officer” — which is Pierre — “as requiring the attention of CIBA.”
I think that Pierre will be well informed to take into consideration the points raised by Senator MacAdam and to bring the matter to us if delivery or similar issues were to happen.
To me, they are important concerns.
The Chair: Is what you have been providing as information enough to give you the comfort level that you are looking for?
Senator MacAdam: I think some of the mitigating measures are very important. It is good on a go-forward basis. Maybe next time the procurement policies get reviewed as a whole, we could look at the language. I am okay with the way it is because I think that there are mitigating controls.
The Chair: Senator Quinn, are you comfortable with this?
Senator Quinn: No.
The Chair: Any others uncomfortable with what is being provided here? No.
May I suggest that you vote on division, senator?
Senator Quinn: Yes.
The Chair: Senator Forest has proposed the motion.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Quinn: On division.
The Chair: Carried, and we will note that.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Pierre. I understand you’ll be staying for the next item.
[English]
The next item is an update to the Senate Administration delegation of financial authorities policy and metrics. Pierre, you may begin your presentation and, as usual, it will be followed by time for questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, Madam Chair. Honourable senators, the policy and detailed matrix on delegated financial authorities were reviewed and updated by the Finance and Procurement Directorate to align it with the one clerk model. Other proposed changes were completed in conjunction with the amendment of the Procurement Policy. One of these changes was the increase of certain amounts and limits to consider inflation since the last update. We noted a few areas where the policy would benefit from being even clearer or more explicit, hence the changes proposed in the briefing note.
[English]
The other key change is the addition of a new financial authority under subsection 6.13 of the matrix to formalize the current practice to provide honorariums and gifts to First Nations, Inuit and Métis who collaborate with or assist the Senate of Canada during functions.
It is important to make these changes at this time to keep our policy current. The implementation date would be November 1, 2024, same as the procurement policy we just discussed.
This concludes my report. I would be pleased to answer questions and receive your comments.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?
Senator Plett: Is this terribly time sensitive, chair?
The Chair: It is not necessarily time sensitive, no.
Senator Plett: I would ask that this be postponed until the next meeting, whenever the next meeting is. I have some specific questions, and I am not quite prepared for them now. I see some things here. If this is time sensitive, then we will do it, but I am asking that this be postponed until the next meeting.
The Chair: Colleagues, do we agree to postpone this item until the next meeting?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
The Chair: There may be a time limitation here.
Mr. Lanctôt: We have to implement this revised delegation at the same time as the procurement policy because amounts are aligned. Here we would have a difference that would cause challenges.
Also, currently our Clerk of the Senate does not officially have authority on expenses. It is not time sensitive.
The Chair: This policy and the other one work together.
Can we suggest that you bring your concerns forward, and we will see what we can do? We could approve this, then come back with the caveat that there may be some questions.
Senator Plett: I can tell you where my concerns lie. But, no, I am not prepared to specifically — and I apologize. For some of us, our caucuses are dwindling in size, so some of us have a lot of stuff, and we do not always read everything in as timely a way as we should. That is my fault, no one else’s.
There are issues here on items 7 and 9, specifically, where I have a number of questions. I would like to do a study on it and ask a few questions away from the committee, so that is not even an issue at committee.
The Chair: Pierre, you would be comfortable with postponing the date of the —
Mr. Lanctôt: The procurement policy to match that new delegation of authority? Yes, no problem.
Senator Plett: Thank you. I appreciate that.
The Chair: We would postpone it until the next CIBA meeting.
Senator Plett: I will either have no concerns, or I will have them itemized properly.
The Chair: Duly noted, senator.
Thank you, Pierre.
We are going to move on to item 6, which is the update on the Senate’s Rapid Antigen Testing Program.
[Translation]
Thank you, Pierre.
The next item on the agenda is to provide direction to the Human Resources Directorate on the program offered.
Annie Carpentier, Director, Talent Optimization and Employee Well-Being, and Shankar Thaleshvar, Senior Advisor, Occupational Health, Safety and Wellness, are with us as witnesses.
As usual, this presentation will be followed by a question and answer period. Annie and Shankar, the floor is yours.
Annie Carpentier, Director, Talent Optimization and Employee Well-Being, Human Resources Directorate, Senate of Canada: Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable senators.
[English]
We are here today to provide an update on the Senate’s Rapid Antigen Testing Program for the detection of COVID-19 and to obtain a decision on proposed options.
[Translation]
Starting in December 2021, rapid test kits were provided free of charge by Health Canada. However, in May 2024, Health Canada announced the end of that program for this fall, which means that the Senate will no longer be able to obtain these tests free of charge.
The communicable disease management model currently in place in the Senate is effective and includes a number of preventive measures to mitigate the risks of transmission in the workplace. These include the wearing of masks — masks are always available to those who need them — and the self‑assessment tools available on IntraSen to help employees determine whether their presence in the workplace is recommended. Nevertheless, some people remain vulnerable and may require rapid testing.
Therefore, we recommend that the committee approve option 2, allowing the Senate to maintain a limited stock of five boxes, each containing five individual test kits. The tests will be available to senators and staff on request. The Human Resources Directorate will work with the Finance and Procurement Directorate to build up a new stock of rapid tests based on their availability on the market. The program may be re-evaluated at the end of the 2025-26 fiscal year and no additional funding will be required.
[English]
Thank you, senators. We will be pleased to take any questions that you have.
The Chair: Just so that colleagues are aware, steering has discussed this item and has recommended that we keep a small supply of these antigen tests, somewhere around the number of 25. Just so you know.
Senator Seidman: Thank you for the presentation.
I wish to say that this program served a really important role during the COVID-19 pandemic when we had ongoing public disclosure of prevalence and incidence rates regionally. We don’t anymore. We get no information, and provincial governments are not maintaining their programs, as you say.
Here are my concerns. First, there is no quality control of the test kits anymore, so you would have to procure them privately. As a result, there could be a false sense of security. The test kits themselves could produce a high degree of false negatives and positives, given that there is no quality control. There are serious questions about the reliability of the test kits themselves.
Second, I would suggest that most people these days simply do not question what type of virus they have. There are some who do because they have immune system issues. That is a fact. However, I would say that we have to ask serious questions about the unintended consequences of handing out any test kits at all for the reasons of reliability.
Senator Plett: I should have spoken before the epidemiologist spoke because she is the whiz here, and I was going to say some of what she has said and now it will look like I borrowed from her speaking notes because she is the brains on this. But I wish to echo some of that.
I will share a personal story here. A month-and-a-half ago, my wife and I both got what I would say a fairly uncomfortable or sick. We thought that we had the flu. Nevertheless, we thought that we would do the responsible thing because we had to go and visit my mother in a nursing home. We thought we would do the responsible thing and test ourselves for COVID, even though some of us question some of that, even; maybe it is just the flu. Nevertheless, I went to Shoppers Drug Mart, as I had in the past, to get test kits. Shoppers Drug Mart said they no longer give out test kits. I went to my local pharmacy down the street from my house, and they had some because the doctors there were not giving them away anymore either, so they gave all of them to the pharmacy and said, “Here you go.” So they were still giving them out. She said, “We think that they are still reliable, but here you are.”
We went home and we tested ourselves. I was not real uncomfortable, I thought that I had a slight case of the flu, I did not feel great, but my wife was actually quite ill. I tested positive, and she tested negative. We did this a number of times. She was down and out for almost a week. We kept on testing, and she kept testing negative and I was positive. After a day or two, I felt okay and I did what I had to do.
Certainly, it goes to what Senator Seidman said about the reliability. If we are doing this, if we are giving people false hope here, I do not think that is right. The fact of the matter is that we are all being paid a pretty good paycheque. I think if I need a test, I can go and buy myself a test for whatever price we are talking about here. I do not know that we should be spending a whole lot of time talking about a $1,250 item here on this in order to give people a false sense security.
I am certainly opposed to us doing this in any way. Who knows whether those test kits at that we will have laying there will have expired? I do not think that this is proper.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: To save on testing proactively, will there be a COVID-19 vaccination campaign? If we have a campaign, there will be fewer tests to do.
The Chair: On November 7 and 21.
Senator Forest: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: The rationale behind having five kits in which there are five tests were for some senators who do want to have access to a test, whether it is accurate or not. We have no problem saying we don’t do this anymore if that is the recommendation of this group. We will gladly end the program and ask senators and staff to go to their local pharmacies.
Senator Seidman: The cost of this is minimal, yes. That is not the issue. The issue is liability. That is my big question here. You are handing out test kits.
There is no question that some senators and staff have health issues that make them want to be very aware of what their situation is. If they rely on a test kit that you give them, and that test kit is expired, came from a private company that has not had proper quality control or the test kit no longer recognizes the new strain of the virus, there is no sense of the further development of these test kits and their reliability. That is all that I’m saying to you.
I’m not objecting that senators and staff have access to test kits, I’m just questioning the liability on us, all of us, giving them those test kits when there is no quality control.
The Chair: We agree.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: The companies that manufacture the tests do conduct quality control. We’re talking about $22 and five boxes, so $110. We have a high-risk clientele. Most senators are over 60 or 65 years of age. Some have underlying illnesses. They’re all at risk and they’ve all had their doctors recommend to get vaccinated against COVID.
I’ve had symptoms occasionally. I wanted to test myself, but I was between two meetings and didn’t have time to run to the pharmacy to see which one still had tests. We’re an employer. We have a health and safety obligation to our employees to have tests available to reassure those who need reassurance. Let those who don’t believe in the tests not use them and be at risk. We have members of staff currently on leave because of COVID who have missed several days of work. It’s almost weeks now. Some people are more at risk and more affected by this. Not all bodies are the same.
I don’t even know why we’re discussing this. I’ll make the proposal and if it doesn’t go through, I’ll pay for the five boxes.
Senator Saint-Germain: Very quickly, my angle is complementary. It’s also a prevention angle. We provide masks, but very few people wear them. I personally sometimes wear one to protect myself from those who don’t and who should. I’d like to make one recommendation: When you provide information about this program, whether it continues or not, I’d like to see a reminder of best practices, particularly that of wearing a mask when you have symptoms and even more so when you have confirmation that you have a cold or COVID-19.
[English]
Senator Plett: I do not wish to be on the opposite side of my colleague and friend, but we are here typically three or three‑and-a-half days a week. If on Wednesday I get sick and I want to test myself, I should go home. If I am sick, I should go home. So should the staff. We should go home. We should go and test ourselves. We should not be here testing ourselves and staying here.
I’m sorry; this policy makes no sense. We have the danger of having test kits that give us false readings, and we’ll accept those readings. I will be sick, and I will accept the reading that says negative so I will go to a committee meeting because my test said negative. I shouldn’t be here if I’m sick. I should go home, but we have already wasted over $1,250 in discussing this.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I won’t be there tonight, my nose is running.
The Chair: The proposal I’m bringing to your attention…. I’ll provide some context.
[English]
If we have tests, we understand that they may not be as accurate as they were. Procurement will make certain that, if we do keep the tests, the expiry dates will be respected and that the supply is available for people who do want to ask for these things. We will rely on the common sense — my favourite thing to say — of our colleagues that, if they are sick, they will be going home and doing the proper things.
What is being proposed by Senator Carignan is:
[Translation]
That the Human Resources Directorate work closely with the Finance and Procurement Directorate to build up a stock of rapid test kits;
That the program be re-evaluated at the end of the 2025‑26 fiscal year.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: The motion is carried on division.
[English]
Thank you. Item 7 is items that were provided for information.
[Translation]
This week, six documents were sent for information: the quarterly report on intellectual property requests; a senator’s report for travel abroad; an update on the 2022 round of collective bargaining with the Public Service Alliance of Canada; the report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure for decisions reported to the Committee on Internal Economy; the 2022 and 2023 report on the Senate Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy; a briefing note on telework.
Honourable senators, do you have any questions or comments on these documents?
Seeing none, are there any other issues that should be addressed in public?
Respected colleagues, for your information, at the last steering committee meeting, we instructed the clerk to hold a satisfaction survey on services to senators in June 2025.
As a result, no formal survey will take place this autumn. Are there any questions or comments on this?
We will now suspend the meeting briefly so that the clerk can ensure —
[English]
Senator Plett: Excuse me, chair, you are going so fast here that I could not keep up with you.
I would like an explanation about why — clearly, I was not at that CIBA meeting — we approved a personal trip for Senator Pate to travel to Oslo. I am not asking for a vote on that, but I would like it explained, please.
The Chair: It is an approval that was presented to steering. It was approved by steering. That is the information. It was on Bill C-64. She was invited to attend a meeting in Oslo, Norway as a speaker and as someone who was sponsoring the bill to receive information coming from other jurisdictions in the world that already have programs that provide certain drugs or medications for different ailments that people have. That is a post-trip report.
Senator Plett: So steering approved a trip for the sponsor of a bill to go and discuss that bill in Oslo, Norway. Was the critic offered the same trip?
I am blown apart here by us sponsoring or approving any trip, whether it is the sponsor of the critic, because, let me tell you, I will be suggesting that I make a few trips as the critic on some bills to other countries. I’m blown apart that this would have been approved and that this would not have come to this table. Clearly, it has happened, but at least it is on the record how absolutely out of line it is that we have done that.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Saint-Germain: First, for clarity, I was not aware of this request. This senator is from my group. It came directly to the steering committee. I want to say that.
Second, I’m surprised that when a senator is invited — on whatever topic they are supposed to speak to — as a keynote speaker that the hosting association is not paying for the trip. I am surprised about this.
Senator Tannas: Yes. I would say that I had similar surprise. In the past, I have certainly participated in public CIBA meetings where brave senators came forward with proposals to travel — in public — and were refused. I don’t know when the practice changed.
Maybe we need a motion so that there is clarity on it. That would be good. As Senator Plett said, it is too late for this one, and that is fine, but maybe we should. If steering feels that they need some kind of direction so as to not to invite or encourage or even agree that they would listen to a request for foreign travel — we have worked very hard to avoid as a Senate to close that door and make it extremely difficult to have that happen — I think we should do that. That is what I wish to see. Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: I wish to speak to this as well. I was surprised to see it. When I first came to the Senate, I was on Internal Economy for a couple of years. I do not think that there is anything wrong with us approving travel if it is appropriate. I think we should be open to that. I am surprised that a request like this was not brought to the entire board. We should all speak to it, and I think it should be public. That is my concern. We need some clarity and direction on this. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions on this?
Thank you. It is duly noted.
There is nothing we can do, senators, about this. We will discuss it at steering, but I cannot provide anything more. We have heard your comments this morning. Steering is here. We will take it under advisement.
Senator Plett: I am sorry, chair, Senator Tannas suggested that maybe we should bring forward a motion. Steering approved this. Now steering will decide whether or not they made the right decision. I think that they already decided they made the right decision. You are hearing comments here from the rest of the committee that does not believe in this.
I do not think that it is appropriate for this simply to go back to steering to do this in camera meeting with steering again and say, well, we think we made the right decision. Senator Seidman was the critic on that very bill — and a very able critic — and here, a group of four or five senators decided.
I was at a CIBA meeting when a senator was turned down. She had made a trip and had to pay out of her own pocket, and we refused to reimburse her. She travelled on a human rights issue that I would suggest was as important as this.
To me, it is mind-boggling that this happened. We are going to have requests coming from all directions for future travel if we believe that we can allow someone to travel on legislation. It is very easy to get an invitation from somebody to be asked to be a guest speaker, very easy.
Why are we as a Senate sending someone to Oslo, Norway to be the guest speaker at a conference?
Senator Quinn: Perhaps Senator Tannas would be willing to make the motion that he is thinking of.
Senator Tannas: I can make the motion as an ex officio member. I can’t vote for it, but I would if I could. I will make the motion that CIBA agree today that any requests for foreign travel by any senator would be in public and with the full committee, requiring the approval of the full committee.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Saint-Germain: If I may, I would add to this motion, which I support, that we develop criteria for approving these trips so that senators know the criteria before they come.
Senator Dalphond: My recollection is that at the end, we were unanimous to adopt that, but I certainly appreciate the comments, because we had some comments. It was not an easy rubber stamp. I think this would provide good guidance. I’m not opposed to that motion at all.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I support the idea of having criteria, because when these exceptions arise, we discuss them for a very long time. We could save time. These decisions are never interesting to make.
[English]
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Tannas that:
Any request for international travel be brought to CIBA in a public forum and that criteria be developed for acceptance of any of these travels.
Any comments? Questions?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Anything else for the good of the public?
[Translation]
We will now suspend the meeting briefly so that the clerk can ensure that we are in camera. Before we suspend, however, I’d like to remind everyone that meetings of the Internal Economy Committee are mostly held in public.
It is only when the committee addresses sensitive topics such as salaries, contracts and contract negotiations, labour relations and personnel or safety issues that they are discussed in camera. The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration wants to be as transparent as possible about the important work it does.
I would ask the clerk to notify committee members when we go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)