THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 5, 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’d now like to go around the table and ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Loffreda: Good morning. Tony Loffreda from Quebec.
[English]
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Good morning. Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
Senator Forest: Éric Forest, from the Gulf division in Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Kuei. Michèle Audette from Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: Kuei. Pierre Dalphond, De Lorimier division, Quebec.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Landmark, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Good morning. Claude Carignan from the Belle Province.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to welcome all those who follow our deliberations across the country.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, the first item of our public session is the consent agenda for approval. As a reminder, items on the consent agenda are not controversial, 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 October 31, 2024, meeting (public and in camera portions), the minutes of the November 21, 2024, meeting (in camera portion) and the sole‑source contract for high-security locks.
Honourable senators, do you have any questions or concerns about these items? Seeing none, can anyone move the following motion:
That the consent agenda be approved.
Senator Saint-Germain moved the motion.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
The next item on the agenda is the 37th Report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets regarding the 2025-26 Main Estimates. Senator Forest, chair of the subcommittee, will present the report. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, and Nathalie Charpentier, Comptroller and Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, will assist him in this task.
Senator Forest, you may begin with your opening remarks.
Hon. Éric Forest: Honourable Senators, I have the honour to present the 37th Report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, on the Main Estimates for 2025-26.
Senators received the copy of the report in their pre-meeting packets, so I’ll stick to the basics.
First of all, I’d like to thank the members of the subcommittee, Senators Dalphond, Loffreda, Plett and Quinn, who have done serious work to present you with the most balanced budget possible, a budget that was in fact unanimously adopted by the committee members.
The 2025-26 Main Estimates totalled $139,258,436, an increase of $4.4 million, or 3.3%, over the previous year. Of this increase, $2.2 million corresponds to increases in non‑discretionary statutory expenses. This includes adjustments related to senators’ allowances and travel expenses, as well as contributions to employee benefits.
I would like to point out that over the past five years, the Senate has spent approximately 86% of its annual budget. The number of positions in the Senate Administration remains below 449 full-time employees, as approved by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. The administration continues to seek gains in operational efficiency, without compromising the quality of service provided to senators and Canadian citizens. An overall reduction in the budget for senators’ living expenses of $595,000 compared to the previous fiscal year is also part of this approach to prudent management of public funds.
I recommend adoption of the report. I am available to answer questions. I am accompanied by Pierre Lanctôt and Nathalie Charpentier, who will be able to answer your more technical questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Forest. Are there any questions or comments for our witnesses on the budget?
Senator Plett: I don’t have any questions, but I am going to ask for the indulgence of the committee to make a few comments about this. I certainly was part of it, as Senator Forest said, and I supported the report. I supported what we did.
I did raise issues at the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets about the way we prepare our budgets and some of the processes we use, so this is more in relation to that.
As most of you probably know, I am leaving this place in May of next year, so this is in all likelihood the last Senate budget that I will be voting on, so I would like to make a few comments in that regard. After being here for 15 years, I have noticed some significant trends in how our budget is prepared and presented, and I would like to put some comments on the record in that regard.
Let me say first that I have the utmost respect for our finance department. We have professional people working there, and I have really appreciated — in the last year, for sure — working with them. These are the people who are preparing our budgets. I am certain that they are dedicated, hard-working and give their best. I want to particularly commend Pascale Legault, Pierre Lanctôt and Nathalie Charpentier. They are a pleasure to work with, diligent and doing a good job for the Senate of Canada. I appreciate that. I also want to make clear that I have no doubt that all of the Senate managers are fully engaged in the budget preparation. However, I do believe that our budget process has some flaws, and we will need to address these sooner, in my opinion, rather than later.
First, it seems to me that our system creates a bit of a distortion: the big gap between what is budgeted and what is spent. For as long as I remember, our expenses have been lower than budgeted, and I think that’s a compliment to the people who are doing the spending that it has been lower than budget. The members of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets had a lengthy discussion on this issue at our last meeting.
One of the reasons we have this gap is not the fault of our finance people here but, rather, that Treasury Board wants us to budget or force us to include the maximum total of expenses possible instead of gauging what the real number will actually be. We all know that the media story is our budget but not our actual expenses. I think we should have to try to have a budget that reflects, as much as possible, what the expenses will be and not what the worst-case scenario is, because that’s what the media focuses on.
Also, I know our finance people do not always agree with me on this, but I think a serious exercise of reducing the budget padding should be part of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets’ job when studying the budget. I think there may be some bias for budget padding in our system, like in all bureaucracies. It might be because of Treasury Board rules, as I said, and it could be a reluctance to ask for additional amounts of money through the process for supplementary funding. It could be that this allows the creation of budget spaces that can be used to fund other initiatives throughout the year without having to ask for additional funding. It could be that the performance of managers and their performance pay is evaluated upon reaching budget targets.
I certainly do not profess to know all the answers to these questions, but our subcommittee clearly needs to reflect upon them.
My second point on the budget process will also be disputed by some of my friends in finance, but I think I need to raise it. I believe the budget process does not force a thorough review of all of our expenses. We seem to know, more or less, last year’s budget moves as the base; it is a given. It can barely be reduced, if at all, and we noticed that at our meeting last week.
We could start from zero — and I think we should start from zero — and have each department justify each dollar they want. I understand that would be very burdensome and perhaps not realistic, but why not have a process whereby the department would at least go through this exercise every three or four years?
We could also start from the actual expenses, and then each department must justify the increase for next year compared to the current year. Is it inflation? Is it new programs? What is it? Why are they asking for increases?
With our system, questioning any expense is seen as attacking someone or threatening the quality of the work in the Senate — or it seems like it is. Let me be clear, colleagues: Questioning the necessity for a position is not questioning the hard work of the person filling that position. It is not questioning that the person brings value. It is questioning the necessity of that expense to the Senate.
There is no limit to the need to have expenses. I am not saying there are huge amounts that have to be cut, but let me give you these thoughts before leaving. We have to foster a culture of questioning the need for expenses. We need to approach each expense with the question of whether it is necessary for the Senate to achieve this role. I think senators themselves should do more regarding this.
My second line of the comments we had is on the preparation made to Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, or SEBS, by management. I would have liked for the CEO or the clerk to present her overall objectives for the next year in more length. I would have expected each department to do the same thing. We only had those who were asking for more money presenting at SEBS, so the discussion we had was focused on spending increases, not on overall objectives. That does not allow us to have a discussion on the work of each department. It does not allow us to see if there are reductions of expenses possible.
The budget is, in essence, a corollary of the yearly plan. Having the discussion focused almost exclusively on the budget and increases in expenses evades the higher-level discussion on what the plan is for the Senate Administration as a whole and each department. I would invite SEBS to revisit the way the budget is presented.
Finally, chair, I have to say that I am mildly disappointed in the content of the thirty-seventh report and the way we have to review it. The draft report was sent on Monday around 2 p.m. Monday is a travel day for most of us. I was on an airplane until nine o’clock on Monday night. We were then asked to provide comments by 9 a.m. the morning after. That’s not acceptable. We cannot be expected to do that. That did not give us the time to consult with our staff or even to open the email after having travelled. I don’t think that was fair for committee members.
I am also uncomfortable with the self-serving tone of the report. While I thank the staff who worked on the budget and the preparations, I don’t think it is necessary to say that their presentations were comprehensive and focused — those are opinions. I don’t think we can say that our budget continues to demonstrate prudent management of public funds. I don’t think we can say it does not.
This sounds to me, colleagues, like a speech from the Minister of Finance. The Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets is not the CFO of the Senate. We are not the ones who prepare and present the budget. We are the subcommittee that reviews the budget.
I do not agree with giving praise or criticism on the intent with which a budget was prepared or if it reaches lofty and subjective goals, such as being prudent or rigorous, maintaining excellence, investing in essential services or others. I found the attempt by the administration to force language upon the subcommittee — praising the same administration is inelegant, at best. I think senators, as members of SEBS and CIBA, are intelligent enough to make up their own minds on the budget without being forced to agree to give accolades all around.
It may be too late, chair, to change the report. If it is, let me say that I would like to put on the record that it should have been adopted at the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets on division.
To conclude what I guess is probably my list as a soon-to-be-retired SEBS and CIBA member on how to improve our budget process, I would add that I caution the administration staff against the temptation to give themselves pats on the back in these reports. I think they should let us give them the pats on the back. They are all better than that.
Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett.
Are there any comments or questions?
Senator Saint-Germain: Very briefly, I obviously share Senator Plett’s concerns and ambitions for the Senate to continue to be efficient — and even to be more efficient — in the management of our budget. I also commend our administrative team — Pierre, Nathalie — and all the members of your teams.
At the same time, I have a comment. We have, around this table — and around the Rules Committee and potentially others — brought issues with proposals that would have saved money for taxpayers. I have in mind a way to allocate senators’ offices. There is a great opportunity to make huge economies if this would be managed centrally and if senators do not have the choice to pick a beautiful office and then, two years after that, an even more beautiful office. I don’t believe this is sound management of taxpayers’ money.
We also wanted to revisit the schedule of committees so that we make economies that are the most efficient without losing opportunities to duly and efficiently study bills.
Those are examples that the administration, unfortunately, was not able to follow up on, because around this or another table, we did not agree to do this.
Sharing Senator Plett’s concerns, also having in mind that the media, as he so rightly said, will not put the highlight on the fact that we did not spend all the money we were allowed to, I think we need to be more supportive of the administration when they make proposals, do our homework and give the example of what we, as senators, could do to better save money for taxpayers.
Thank you, and I am supporting the report.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: As chair of the subcommittee, I would like to thank Senator Plett for his comments. It’s true that, year in and year out, we spend 86% of the budget. Those are the actual expenses, and we’ll take good note of that, Senator Plett. It is my responsibility to tell you, and these are my deepest values, that the work was done seriously by all the members of the committee, with the support of our Finance Directorate staff, and without any pressure. No one felt obliged or pressured to vote. The budget passed unanimously, as Senator Plett pointed out. Perhaps it should have been passed on division, but it was passed unanimously when the vote was taken. As chair, I commit to take careful note of your comments, Senator Plett. However, I am certain, along with all the members of the committee, that the work has been done seriously, with the objective of achieving the best possible management of public funds. These are values that are fundamental to me.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you. I don’t want to belabour this. This was brought up more for my comments and opinions. I am not going to be voting against this report. Let’s be absolutely clear, I was part of this; I agreed to it that evening, Senator Forest, and I will agree to it today.
I want to use one specific example, because this is an example that my dear friend and my whip have some serious concerns over, and that is how we dealt and are dealing with, for example, our living allowance. This was a discussion that those of us that were at the SEBS meeting know that we couldn’t finish the first night because we spent an hour or more on this. We put our director of finance in a very awkward position as a result of this because he needed to budget based on a maximum that we have never reached in all the years that I’ve been here.
Colleagues, we asked our member — I don’t think I’m breaking rules here by discussing this. I hope I’m not, chair.
We asked Pierre —
The Chair: You might, senator, because those discussions were in camera at the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets.
Senator Plett: Let me do this in hypothetical terms. We could have asked Pierre to use last year’s budget of the hypothetical number of $40,000 per senator for living allowance. Some senators were using $40,000 and some were maybe even using $42,000, but the majority were using $25,000. We may or may not have asked Pierre to tell us how many people are using $25,000 and how many people are using $40,000, and how much is the total? Pierre may or may not have come up with an answer that said something along the lines of, “Our total budget is $500,000, and we only spent $400,000.” We may or may not have divided that by 100 and said this is the amount of money it should be.
We now see in here that we have made a change from what we had previously decided we would do where members, Senate house officers, automatically got a bump, but because Finance requires Pierre to use the top number, Pierre could not say we’re only using this amount of money, so we’re going to budget that amount of money.
What we may or may not have had to do — and it says it here that we did — was change the decision, reversing CIBA’s decision to grant an additional $5,000 to Senate house officers. Really, we didn’t do that. We did it here because of the accounting methods that we have to use.
That’s not the fault of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets. That’s not the fault of Pierre Lanctôt. It’s the fault of somebody out there — Treasury — that says this is what we have to do.
I can’t understand that, because we have a government — and this isn’t partisan, we have Conservative governments that run deficits, I understand that — that is allowed to run whatever deficits they want, and we are not allowed to budget any type of a deficit, so we don’t spend. We have to put in the budgeted amount, and then we don’t use that. That doesn’t get reported. Then Blacklock’s comes along and says, “You guys spending $40,000 a piece and some of you live 100 miles away from Ottawa.” Well, no, they are not spending that amount of money.
That is one of the issues that I’m talking about when I say this is the way it is, because we have not. My whip came to me and said, “Why have you reduced this amount of money?” We haven’t. They said, “Well, yes, you have, because read this.” Yes, it says that. But in essence, we haven’t.
That is one of the things that took a long time for us to wrap our heads around, and this is the decision that we finally came up with. I want to assure those people that our house officers know we did not reduce your budget. You will still be entitled to claim exactly what you need to claim.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett. Are there any other questions or comments?
[Translation]
Senator Forest moves:
That the Thirty-eighth Report of the Senate Estimates Subcommittee on the Main Estimates for Fiscal Year 2025-26 be adopted and presented to the Senate.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion carries.
Thank you, Pierre and Nathalie.
The next item on the agenda is a budget request from the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs.
Senator Forest, the chair of the subcommittee, will present the report.
Senator Forest: Honourable Senators, I have the honour to present the Thirty-eighth Report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, which recommends the release of funds to enable a committee to undertake a study mission to Mirabel, Quebec.
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs is requesting $6,730 for a one-day study mission to Mirabel, Quebec, for 12 senators and 4 parliamentary staff. This activity is related to their study on defence procurement and procurement for the defence industry.
Your subcommittee recommends that the Committee on Internal Economy approve the request and release the requested funds.
Unless there are any questions on the report and request, we ask for your support.
The Chair: Do you have any questions or comments on this request?
Seeing none...
Senator Forest: I move the adoption of the report.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Forest.
Senator Forest moves:
That the Thirty-eighth Report of the Senate Subcommittee on Estimates concerning the budget request of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs be concurred in.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: The motion carries.
[English]
Item 3 is the report from the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan, which will be spoken about during the in camera session. If you agree, we will postpone that until after we are done with the open session. Thank you.
Item 4, office allocation, result of consultation with whips and leaders. For this next item, Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate will join us as a witness. It’s on the potential office allocation efficiency.
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Ms. Labelle. Welcome; the floor is yours.
Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal and further details on this important file, which is an office allocation efficiency proposal for your consideration.
To give you some context, in April 2024, we were mandated to consult with the leaders and whips of all groups and caucuses to identify efficiencies for senators’ office moves.
We can confirm that we consulted all caucus and group whips and leaders, as well as government leaders and the Speaker’s office. To give an order of magnitude, last year the Steering Committee of the Selection Committee allocated 19 parliamentary office units to senators during the year. These office allocations from the general pool are over and above the moves linked to internal allocations within each caucus or group, which are managed by the representatives of those caucuses and groups. Either way, all moves, no matter which ones, involve the same tenant services team.
We are well aware that some senators consider the waiting time for a move to be long. On average, we estimate it to be around two to three months. In addition to all the moves, this same six-person tenant services team manages all the projects that take place on a daily basis in our nine-building portfolio. For reference, last year the team handled over 12,000 e-mails, 850 memos, 1,600 building access requests, 1,150 calls and over 400 requests for 1,000 items. We carry out an average of 64 refurbishments per year, and 11 closures and refurbishments of offices to bring them back up to standard.
We also carry out around 80 projects a year, varying between repairs, health and safety issues, base building-related installations and signage projects. We have put in place a number of measures to try and reduce waiting times, including light moves, an on-site carpet reserve to avoid delays and stock-outs, and a pre-assessment of retiring senators’ offices. The good news? Our consultations lead us to believe that there is a consensus among leaders to impose a moratorium, for example to allow no moves for senators within two years of their retirement date.
However, the leaders we met seemed open to avoiding a double layout over a short period and imposing moving restrictions in place at the beginning of senators’ terms. We therefore recommend that new senators be offered a generic office, giving them six months to choose their affiliation and select an office. In addition, we recommend that new senators wait a minimum of two years after their chosen office has been set up before moving again. The two-year period is recommended following consultations with the steering committee.
These two measures will reduce volume and provide better service to senators who need to move. Of course, these measures would not apply to moves by senators in leadership positions, senators changing groups or senators requiring special accommodation.
We recommend that these measures be approved and communicated. With that, I thank you for your consideration of this proposal.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for the consultation and the report. Here’s something I had in mind. Senators who leave the Senate — I’m thinking of those who retire or resign — are given two months, but in the case of a death in office, it would be different. If I understand correctly, it takes another month at least before the office of the departing senator is available.
So this means three months after the date of a senator’s retirement or resignation. Couldn’t these deadlines be shortened?
Ms. Labelle: Thank you for the question. You’re quite right; for the retirement date, we allow exactly two months before going into the office and doing any work. The idea behind the efficiency we’re putting in place is that the management team in tenant services is in contact with the senator or senator who will be retiring soon to see if there are any inspections or visual assessments to be done during the two-month period, or even before they retire.
We’re able to better anticipate what work needs to be done. It doesn’t eliminate all surprises, but it does help us see if there’s any work to be done, such as changing carpets or ceiling tiles, or making repairs to walls. We also ask the senator who doesn’t anticipate taking the full two months if we can get formal notification to allow us to go ahead and have access to the office after one month. We then update our list of vacant offices and redistribute it to all groups and caucuses to inform them. So we’re trying to be more proactive in this regard to get the work done and planned accordingly as soon as the senator leaves his or her office.
As for the two- to three-month period, this varies according to the work to be done in the office. For example, if we lift the carpet and find water infiltration, it’s a surprise we couldn’t have anticipated visually. We try to be proactive and announce it to the future occupants. That’s the kind of surprise that’s hard to anticipate in this respect.
Senator Saint-Germain: I have a supplementary question. The idea of all the offices going back to a central reserve and being assigned to the next senators according to certain criteria was not retained or accepted?
Ms. Labelle: The consultation concept was always that each caucus had its own pool of offices, but the efficiencies were within the moves. Here’s the reasoning: often, a senator newly appointed to the Senate arrives, is shown around, chooses an office that becomes his or her permanent office. However, there’s often a move two to four months later. Each move has a domino effect. When an office becomes available, we bring it up to standard, then someone else moves, we do the same and so on. We rarely see a single move; we see two or three.
Senator Saint-Germain: I understand, thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments? I do not see any.
[English]
I will need a mover for the following motion:
That the Guiding Principles on Allocation of Office Space for Senators be amended to include the following:
a) Newly appointed senators are assigned a Generic Office Suite on arrival (generic office that is not meant to be personalized, for up to a maximum of six months);
b) Within the first six months, the senator chooses an assigned POU with the understanding that only one (1) office move will be permitted within the first 2 years;
c) Any senators who are within two (2) years of their retirement date remain in their current office until retirement;
(d) The restrictions listed above are not applicable to senators who have a new accommodation requirement due to health and safety, change affiliation or who are appointed or cease to occupy a leadership position; and
That the final Guiding Principles on Allocation of Office Space for Senators be posted on the Office Portal on IntraSen.
Could I have a mover, please? Do you have a question?
Senator Plett: Yes.
The Chair: Before that, senator, can I have a mover for the motion?
Senator Carignan: I so move.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Carignan. Please go ahead, Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Just as you were reading it, something came to mind at the end: change of affiliation. If these are our parliamentary offices, not leadership offices, what difference does it make what our affiliation is? We don’t obtain offices based upon what caucus we’re affiliated with. If I’m in East Block and I change my affiliation, why would I get a new office because of a change of affiliation? I don’t understand that. Maybe I misunderstood the way you read it.
Ms. Labelle: Thank you for the question, senator. You would not necessarily have to change offices. It’s if the new caucus or group that you would be joining offers a different office or one closer to someone in particular in that building, for example. Otherwise, if you change affiliation, the office would then become the office of that particular pool.
Senator Plett: Okay, so there are still distinctive pools. If it’s a Conservative office, it stays a Conservative office; is that what you’re saying, Josée?
Ms. Labelle: If you’re a Conservative senator and you decide to change affiliation but you don’t choose an office, then the office that you currently occupy would shift into the pool of your new affiliation.
Senator Plett: I apologize, but I’m lost here. This isn’t the first time I have heard the report, but I’m really lost here.
Very clearly, it used to be that every caucus was in charge of its offices. We used to have a system here that if a senator resigned, retired or whatever, and their office became vacant, there was a caucus that was in charge of that office and they could put it on loan to a different person. When that person left, the unwritten agreement was that it came back into that caucus’s pool.
I’m of the opinion we have stopped that, but with this report, it sounds to me that we’re back on with that. I do not see the need for that part in that report — that if you change affiliation, then you are entitled to moving an office but not if you don’t change affiliation. That makes no sense. You can’t be any more efficient or less efficient as an ISG senator who came from the PSG than you can if you stay. In the chamber, we have seating arrangements, but we don’t with offices.
So why is this even relevant here?
The Chair: Could I ask that Pascale provide that answer?
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration: Basically, if a senator was with the Conservatives, for instance, and moved to join the CSG, it means the Conservatives have lost a member and an office from within their pool. However, they can decide that the office that the senator is in — the senator who has decided to join the CSG — is the office they are letting go. In some instances, this is an office the Conservatives may want to keep as it’s within their pool, and we will give you another office.
There is no rule, currently, as to how that is done. Therefore, it’s a negotiation.
So if we want to remove that and say that as soon as a senator leaves a group or a caucus to join another, then that office the senator is in becomes an office of the new group, that can be done. We have put that as an exception because this is the way it’s being managed currently. But, again, this is in your hands, senators, if you’re comfortable with changing the current practice.
Senator Plett: I’m not comfortable. I’m not saying I’m going to vote against anything. It probably won’t affect me. Nevertheless, from what I’m reading, as the leader of the Conservative caucus, together with my whip, if we would have another person who decided they wanted to go sit with the CSG instead of us, then we should be able to kick them out of that office too. I don’t think we can — or can we?
Ms. Legault: Yes.
Senator Plett: So if Senator Carignan decides to do the unthinkable, I can take his office away from him.
Senator Carignan: Don’t worry about that.
Ms. Legault: Yes, that is what this exception provides for.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Plett, for raising this, because it’s an important point.
I now have a question. Regarding the rule of not further moving after a minimum of two years, would this rule be given priority over the change in a caucus? For instance, if a CSG member joins the CPC after having moved three months before into a CSG office, would they be given priority to move into a CPC office? The two-year rule —
Ms. Legault: No.
Senator Saint-Germain: The answer is “no.” He will have to stay for two years minimum in his office? Okay, thank you.
The Chair: The other thing you have to take into consideration is that if we go back to Senator Plett’s decision that this office belongs to the Conservative caucus and they kick out the senator, in two months, if there is not someone filling that office, that office goes back to the general pool.
Senator Saint-Germain: So the newcomer to the CPC who left the CSG will have to stay at least a minimum of two years in their current CSG office. This is what I want to clarify, because the administration may have issues in interpreting this if we are not clear. For me, there is a need for clarity, even in the policy.
The Chair: I want to go back to what I was saying. If the Conservatives want that office to give it to one of their members, that senator who left their caucus doesn’t have the two years. That’s the situation where this could occur.
Senator Saint-Germain: I’m sorry, but back to what Senator Plett rightly said at the beginning, we need to be more efficient and find ways for saving money. This is what would be one. The two-year minimum in your office — whether you move to another group or not — should have priority.
I make that proposal to be clarified.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I’ll add a little history, if I may.
It used to be truer, but today, we understand that there are caucuses or other ways to group together, either based on your affinities or whatever. The idea was to bring together people who were grouped together. So, in the past, of course, there were Liberals, Conservatives and Independents, and we made sure that we didn’t have, for example, a Liberal in the middle of the Conservative pool because of secrets, confidentiality issues of exchanges and types of meetings. So that’s why this rule was put in place; we were trying to group the different offices by caucus or by party to avoid this situation.
It’s true that there are several groups and that this complicates the situation a little, but the history of this is this situation.
Senator Saint-Germain: I understand very well, but it’s clear that the rule aimed at prohibiting a move after a minimum of two years in the same office is thus totally weakened. That’s quite clear.
The Chair: Indeed. The idea is to preserve the privileges of the different groups because of what has been laid down in the rule. It would be much easier for the administration, when an office becomes vacant, if it fell into the general pool and could be handed over to anyone. However, taking into consideration Senator Carignan’s comment, it does explain the situation.
Senator Saint-Germain: I’m thinking of a senator who left the ISG for the CSG; we let him keep his office because we were concerned about saving public funds. I don’t think it’s a fundamental existential problem for this senator, whose neighbouring offices are colleagues from the ISG and a few Conservatives who aren’t very far away either.
Let’s not kid the public into thinking we’ve just tightened the rules if we make this major dent as soon as we wish to implement this policy. Personally, I’d like to see some clarification.
[English]
Senator Moodie: I’m puzzled by this discussion because I’m hearing many things here. One is that after two months, if this office is no longer occupied, it leaves a pool of caucus ownership and goes into the general pool. That, for me, means there are no longer any caucus pools and that, in fact, offices rotate back into the general pool if they are not used by a caucus within two months. There is a mechanism to bring them back in. So we changed the idea that there is real estate within the Senate that belongs to a caucus. We have effectively changed it.
The second point is that the historical argument that somehow there is a geographic risk to having mixed offices of Liberals beside offices of the Canadian Senators Group no longer applies. There are four groups, I would propose. We’re quite distributed across four groups. We sit together within the chamber. That makes sense, but what possibly could be the privacy issues or the security issues of having another senator beside you from a different group? I think that is possibly an archaic idea from the past that needs to change. I’m sorry. I’m just looking at it with fresh eyes.
I think the final thing is that we really need to think about things in a much more organized fashion. If we are putting overarching rules here and they’re what we’re considering now, we need to stick to them. Other things shouldn’t step in and undermine those rules.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: I’d like to continue to clarify a bit, especially given our experience over the last few months. We’re talking about a particular situation when we’re talking about change of affiliation, but I would like to clarify the general rule under which we function. I think it corresponds in some degree to what Senator Moodie was just saying. It is that the current role, as it’s applied, given lots of experience, is that a senator who retires, for example, has two months to leave their office, and then, if no one in the caucus or group from which that senator just moved or and retired wants that office, it is returned to the central pool. There is a very short time window. I think it’s two weeks. That’s my understanding of the current rule.
Ms. Labelle, could you clarify that for us, please?
Ms. Labelle: The distinction here is that we have a vacant office report, and we anticipate months and months ahead of the upcoming senators’ retirement, so everybody is aware that that office will become vacant on that date. Then we also have two months for the senator to vacate. I would say at least four or five months in advance, people will get the report and will be able to anticipate its vacancy. So that gives the representatives from each caucus and group the chance to liaise with the members of that group and to see if there is any interest in that particular office.
Once the two-month period has gone, then we go in and start doing the work. Once the work is done, then the office is deemed vacant and ready to visit if people have not manifested interest. There are two weeks afterwards, and then it returns to the pool.
I would say for a retiring senator, there are many months to be able to anticipate whether or not there is interest in that office within that caucus. There is a lot of time to look at that.
To Senator Moodie’s comment earlier, each building has membership from each caucus on each floor, and that has always been the case.
Senator Seidman: Thank you for that. I think that’s really helpful. The point here is that I was not trying necessarily to talk about the timeline of whether it’s two months or four months. The issue is that the office returns to the central pool. I think that’s the issue we’re trying to discuss here. There is a central pool.
It’s not that an office is the property of any given group or caucus for eternity. That isn’t the way it works. I think we need to be very clear about that. There is a timeline — whatever timeline that is — for the caucus or group to continue to claim that office because someone from their group wants to use that office. After that, if that caucus or group says there is nobody using that office, sorry, that office returns to a central pool. That’s the rule as it currently stands. We need to be clear if indeed that is the rule we are maintaining here.
The Chair: That is the rule we are maintaining, and the comment from Senator Saint-Germain is that it should not be the case and that the office should be going back to a general pool and we shouldn’t have these kinds of negotiations. It goes back to the comment that was also made about whether a senator who leaves a group or caucus leaves with the office or whether that office belongs to the caucus that it was assigned to. That’s where there is a problem right now.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: From my understanding, it is a new additional cost that hardly ever or never came up in the past because there were no changes in affiliation at the time. We did not see a Liberal join the Conservative caucus or vice versa. It was very rare, so that kind of thing hardly ever happened. With the new Senate, however, people change affiliation on a dime, so it happens much more often and results in additional costs. That is my understanding.
Senator Saint-Germain: The new Senate has also led to a large enough number of departures from the Conservative caucus to give rise to costs.
To prevent certain costs, let me reiterate that a senator should not be able to move from one office to another before a minimum of two years, including if the senator changes affiliation.
Senator Carignan: I think you need to discipline yourselves.
Senator Saint-Germain: And so do you.
Senator Carignan: We do not have any changes.
The Chair: Before things degenerate, you heard Senator Saint-Germain’s proposal.
Senator Dalphond: I have a question.
I am trying to understand what belongs to a group. In general, the people who have been here longer than others have best offices, based on seniority. That is the rationale. Things change, they move up the ranks and get the nicer and bigger offices in the East Block, with huge suites and so on. I do not want to take away Senator Carignan’s wonderful suite; that is not the issue.
Senator Carignan: I am in an outdated building.
Senator Dalphond: Senator Oh was in the East Block on the second floor. He had a lovely office. Does that office still belong to the Conservative caucus or does it go back into the general pool so that any senator can have it?
If it still belongs to the Conservative caucus, there might be some moves within the Conservative caucus if a senator who is in the Victoria Building wants to move to the East Block. I am not necessarily opposed to that. Let me be clear on that. There are not that many changes in affiliation within a year. One or two would be a lot. As to retirements, there are 10 or 12 per year. That is why we often have vacant offices. Those who retire at the age of 75 and were appointed 10, 15 or 20 years earlier have the best offices. What I am trying to understand is whether the nicer office that is vacated after a senator retires still belongs to the group the senator was a member of or whether it is automatically returned to the general pool? That is why there are more people moving; it is not because of senators changing affiliation. That does not happen that often.
The Chair: From what I am hearing, you seem to agree on proposing that, after two months and two weeks have elapsed, offices return to the general pool, simplifying the process.
Senator Carignan: Do we know how many changes in affiliation there are? I saw three last month. There is one per week.
Senator Dalphond: Those are not changes in affiliation. They are announcements by non-affiliated senators that they are joining a group of senators.
Senator Carignan: So they become affiliated until they decide not to be affiliated.
Senator Forest: There are much fewer of those.
As I understand it, if we want to maintain and strengthen enforcement of the rule to prevent moves, a member of a given group will have two months after a senator leaves to indicate their intention to occupy the vacant office. If however that senator has moved within the past two years, he may not change offices?
The Chair: That is correct, even if they change affiliation.
Senator Forest: So for the first two years, if I have to choose an office, I cannot change offices, regardless of what happens, even if I change affiliation?
The Chair: That is correct.
Senator Forest: Even if my group offers me a new office that has just been vacated, I have to stay in my current office for at least two years?
The Chair: That is correct. That is the new rule that is being proposed.
Ms. Legault: That is not what the rules say.
The Chair: There is another problem. I am almost afraid to mention it. Senators who were appointed a number of years ago who see a nice office that has become vacant will want to take that new office. That sets off a domino effect: since the nice office has been vacated, a senator changes office after having been in their office for two years, then another senator sees the newly vacated office and then also moves. It sets off a domino effect.
[English]
We are not in our offices that much, and because of the way we are structured right now with the Senate of Canada Building being here and our offices being outside, I find it a little bit hard to believe that we are going to change offices like this. Then again, it depends on how the senators like their accommodations. I find it a bit unusual that we have so many moves, because one likes this office better or the view in this one is better. I don’t think I’m in my office two hours a day. Some days, I can’t even go to my office. I find it a little bit difficult to have so many rules around something that should be simplified.
On this note, can we simplify the process and look at what we’re doing right now? We keep the two months and two weeks for groups to decide whether they keep an office or not, and then it goes into the general pool, and we are fine with that. That’s already in the rule. Are we comfortable with this?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay. This was a motion that we had on the table. All right. After all this, all in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. The motion is carried.
[Translation]
Thank you, Ms. Labelle and Ms. Cowley.
The next item is the 2025-2029 Roadmap for the Information Services Directorate. This item is for information only. I will ask David Vatcher, the Chief Information Officer, Information Services Directorate, and Marie-Jules Morris Bourgouin, Senior Advisor, ISD Business Planning, to join us as witnesses. As usual, their presentation will be followed by a question period.
Mr. Vatcher, you may begin your presentation.
David Vatcher, Chief Information Officer, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair. Hello. Kwe. Thank you for inviting us to present our roadmap for Information Management (IM) and information technology (IT) for the Senate for the next four years. Our roadmap represents the best governance practices. We are pleased to share it with you for information purposes. No decision will have to be made and no funds are being requested this morning.
By its very nature, IT is constantly evolving. The roadmap provides an overview of our plans as we prepare our work for the coming years. It also shows that we are not improvising. This cornerstone is based on past and current IM and IT at the Senate. It does nonetheless allow us to adapt to real-world events. This strategy document allows us to save resources by avoiding technology pitfalls and problems. The Information Services Directorate remains focused on the services it offers to senators and the Senate by using efficient, modern and secure technological solutions. The roadmap is aligned with the Senate’s strategic plan and is designed to strengthen IM and IT services.
Our mandate is unchanged. That stability ensures continuity of services and support for senators and the Senate. We are committed to doing our part to help the Senate attain its objectives, and we rely on industry best practices to do so.
The ISD budget has increased significantly in recent years. Even if inflation accounts for a lot of that, we continue to make informed choices in order to reduce costs when possible and avoid costs in other cases.
The roadmap sets out five strategic priorities that reflect the focal points of our efforts.
Looking at the results from recent years, progress in adopting secure cloud technology and lifecycle management are important successes and provide operational reliability for the Senate. Decisions made in the previous iteration have enabled the Senate to increase its flexibility for telework. This adaptation, which has been decisive for our ongoing activities, will greatly facilitate our future initiatives, such as office hotelling for our employees.
We have five strategic priorities, which you see on the screen. We will go over them very quickly.
First of all, ISD remains focused on prudent resource management and impactful investments. To define the modern, efficient Senate workplace, we plan to improve workplace technology at the Senate through various initiatives, including office and parking hotelling to leverage available assets. We will redefine printing strategies for the Senate Administration and explore potential opportunities to use artificial intelligence to support operations.
We will focus on enhancing accessibility on all Senate platforms and will offer more self-service options. We will optimize services and the evolution of our tools. We are therefore planning to update certain in-house software, such as Iris, as well as commercial software. We are starting with Windows 11, which is the foundation for our tools and is currently being rolled out.
We will ensure business continuity through responsible infrastructure management. The lifecycle management of multimedia, network and telecommunications assets is central to the continuity of Senate operations. The establishment of a remote data centre and the strategic use of cloud resources will serve to increase the redundancy and availability of our system.
Enhancing IM and IT remains our chief focus. We will review and update the cybersecurity plan and establish partnerships with outside cybersecurity experts. We will maintain our IT security and IM policies and update our disaster recovery plans.
We also intend to focus on workforce development. ISD’s dedicated workforce makes a huge contribution. An important part of our plans is to continue to rely on trained staff for horizontal scanning. The ISD is committed to developing workforce expertise in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing and automation practices.
This slide shows the timelines for our main projects over the next five years.
We have visually indicated projects according to their approval status and the magnitude of expected costs. Once again, these are estimates and we are not seeking approval or funding today. All projects and initiatives that require funding will be presented in briefing notes or capsules in the Main Estimates.
I hope this presentation has shed some light on our upcoming projects. Although some parts of our roadmap may seem very technical to some of you, I want to assure you that we are proceeding in a fiscally responsible manner such that, barring unforeseen events, we will continue to keep our promises.
On that note, Marie-Jules and I will be pleased to answer your questions. Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you, David.
[English]
I think the presentation that you just made corresponds to the request from Senator Plett at SEBS to receive an update about what is coming forward in the next few years. I think the example that you’re providing is very good for moving forward.
Are there any questions or comments?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for the presentation. You provide a very interesting overview. I think there is a focus on having equipment, software and staff that are really up to date. I would also like to have seen a focus on updating senators — us — who use the whole system. We want the Senate to be more efficient as a whole. I am speaking for myself and not for my colleagues, who no doubt are all up on the latest technology, but I think in many cases we do not use resources to their full potential. It would have been nice if your strategic plan had included that, since it is part of your overall mission. I am sure it is a concern for you, but it is not spelled out in the strategy.
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for your comment, senator.
Senator Forest: By the way, the references to “EF 2024-25” do not refer to Éric Forest, do they?
Mr. Vatcher: No. I should have said yes.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Vatcher. I think it’s a really good idea to give us an update from time to time, so I certainly support that.
Speaking for myself, I’m sometimes a bit frustrated because we have the two worlds. The system is Microsoft. Many of us use Apple products because they’re smaller, lighter, quicker or whatever, and the marriage between the two is not very easy. For example, I can’t use Unit4 on my iPad if I want to do some administrative work. That means going to my office and using my much heavier laptop, which is plugged into my screens there. I’m just wondering if there is some movement on that.
My second question is on the use of SharePoint. I’ve discovered that when we sometimes do things together with the other place — in other words, if MPs and senators are travelling — the SharePoint documents that are provided by IIA and are fine for MPs to read don’t seem to work on our system. I don’t know if that was just a glitch pertaining to me or whether this is a generalized problem. I’m wondering if, in your modernization approach, you are looking at somehow trying to marry these up.
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you very much for your question, senator. First, for Unit4, I will have to look into that for iPad use. I know that all of our systems are Microsoft Windows-based and that allows the Senate to hire professionals for your offices and the administration, as that is the most common and widespread IT base. I will look into the Unit4 issue.
We do use SharePoint for senators’ office collaboration sites and our own administration Jade sites. I will have to get back to you, senator, on the issues you may have had. I know that IIA is handled by the House of Commons, and so if there is a version issue, I’d have to look into it. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
[Translation]
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for your presentation, David.
[English]
IT security is becoming more of a challenge for all of us, and the bad actors and hackers are getting more sophisticated. If I look back on your results of 2020 to 2024, you do mention IT security training.
Going forward, how will you conduct or process that IT security training, and what percentage of the courses that were available were attended by staff or senators? Was that a success, or do we need an alternative method for that? I know everybody’s schedule is extremely busy. I’m wondering whether that was sufficient. Are the phishing simulations sufficient, or do we need to add some process there? I think it is a challenge. We’ve all heard of the will of the bad actors to do much more on that front.
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for your question, senator. Cybersecurity is really at the heart of our concerns. We know that, centrally, we’re very well protected. However, each Senate user represents a target and a threat vector. That’s why we are really transparent with Senate users and senators in that respect in trying to give them training. The phishing simulations you mentioned are very important to us. We just had one a month or so ago, and had a much more positive result this time, which I’m very happy to see. I would be happy to share statistics on that in the coming days.
I can share the statistics on the completion of the mandatory IT security training sessions, the awareness sections. I think we have a high-90% rating for Senate Administration, and I believe that most of the senators have completed the training. There are a few who, unfortunately, have not. I think most of the senators who have not completed that training are recent additions to the Senate.
Senator Loffreda: The number is important, but it’s what we do with it that counts the most. I’m glad to hear the percentage is high and we’re becoming more successful in identifying phishing. I see it myself. It’s becoming very difficult; they’re very sophisticated. Thank you.
Senator Boehm: I have one more item, which is that it would be really great if we could use our iPads to send commands for printing. I don’t know if that’s at all possible.
The Chair: Duly noted. Are there any other questions or comments?
[Translation]
Thank you very much, David and Marie-Jules.
Next are the items sent for information purposes.
This week, you received two documents for information purposes. I am referring to the report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. It is a semi-annual report on the Senators’ Office Management Policy.
You also received the report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure regarding a decision that was referred to the Committee on Internal Economy regarding the Boyden matter.
Are there any questions or comments on those reports?
Let us move on to the next item.
[English]
We have received a request from Senator Duncan on international travel, and the last time we spoke of international travel, CIBA members wanted to discuss the situation in public.
You have received the information. Senator Duncan is requesting permission to use her travel points to assist at what is called the Arctic Frontiers 2025: Beyond Borders conference in Tromsø, Norway from January 27 to January 30. You have received the information, and you also received the amounts of money that have been requested and the air travel fare. The senator presented the amount, but she also mentioned to me that this could be reduced. It is open for discussion. You have the information and the role that she is going to be playing while she is at that conference.
Are there any questions or comments on this request?
Senator Smith: Yes. Actually, Senator Duncan visited me recently to discuss this issue. After having gone up North with our group within the last 24 months, I wasn’t shocked but I became very grateful and conscious of what needs to take place in the North and how important the development of our North is from infrastructure and systems perspectives. Knowing that the senator has had a pretty influential role over her career in the North, I thought this opportunity would be something that we would take seriously. Hopefully, we could use it as a stepping stone with other issues or developments with our knowledge of and execution in the North.
I was astounded by the simplicity of the infrastructure that existed at the time and heartened by some of the plans that were outlined. But this is an issue that we should all be very keen to support, because this is not a case of how much you’re going to spend on the trip; this is a case of what you’re going to get out of the trip and what types of connections you’re going to make with other people in the world. I think it’s something we really should take a serious look at.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Smith. Are there any other comments?
Senator Plett: At first blush, I wouldn’t entirely agree with my friend Senator Smith on this.
She is asking to use her 64-point travel budget, and yet she’s clearly asking for a lot of additional money. I’m not sure how that’s using her travel points, first of all; I can’t quite understand how that is using her travel points. That’s my first question.
My comment would be that I do not disagree with Senator Smith that this is probably an important thing; I’m sure it is. If it’s really important to the territory that Senator Duncan represents, the Yukon, then the Yukon should be thrilled to have her go and should maybe assist in her going there. If she is being asked to participate by the people in Norway, they should maybe be helping her. That is typically the way sponsored travel works. If we are being asked to travel somewhere to do presentations, the people who are asking us are chipping in.
I’m planning on travel internationally in February, and the people who have asked me to do that are clearly very happy to pay for me to do that. I certainly don’t plan on coming and asking the Senate to pay for that. I believe what I’m going there for will, in fact, be very beneficial to the entire country, but I made it clear to the people who asked that it is not something I can go to the Senate to support. If they want me to come, they will have to foot the bill because I don’t think the Senate will.
I would look at this literally the same as what I’m planning on doing in February.
So, first, I don’t know how this is using her 64-point travel budget when she’s asking the Senate to pay $16,000. That’s not using her travel budget. There needs to be a better argument made than what I see here today. I will not be supporting this.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett. Can you answer the question?
Ms. Legault: About the 64 points? Yes, I am happy to explain.
Currently, the senator is allocated 64 points. It is not a travel budget per se in dollars; it’s really about points. These points cannot be used in order to travel outside of Canada besides New York and Washington.
Senator Plett: I understand that.
Ms. Legault: The senator is going to use one of the points in order to travel to Norway. That’s the way it’s being framed.
Senator Plett: I understand that, Pascale, but if I’m using my points to fly from here to Winnipeg every week, that’s paid for by the Senate. If I go to Washington or New York and use my points, that’s paid for by the Senate. Obviously, that is a decision the Senate has made. These are important places to travel.
Is Senator Duncan saying, “I’m going to use one of my points, and I will come one less time to Ottawa because I’m using this point”? This is really kind of shading what we’re doing here and saying, “Well, you have only come to Ottawa 30 times, so you’ve only used 60 points. That means you have extra points.” How about if she had used all 64 points?
I really think that’s trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Let’s at least be straight up and throw that part of it out, and just say that Senator Duncan is asking for $20,000 to fly to Norway.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett.
I have a couple of comments. First, before the 64 points were changed to the structure that it is now, senators were allowed to use some of their points to travel abroad. So that was —
Senator Plett: To New York or —
The Chair: From before. That’s what I was asking.
Ms. Legault: Before — over 10 years ago — yes, at some point senators were allowed to travel externally, but I believe the twenty-fifth report ended that. Now, it is only to New York and Washington.
Senator Plett: When I got here 15 years ago, I was told 64 points to fly back and forth in our country or to Washington. And those had to be specific trips, too; they could not just be wanting to fly to Washington to meet with some business people there. They actually had to be related to the UN or be specifically designated.
The Chair: Some of the points could be used before for travel abroad?
Ms. Legault: A long time ago. I would have to look at the rules. That was before SOMP.
The Chair: Okay. I’ll come back to my second point; it just slipped my mind.
Senator Boehm: I support what Senator Smith said. I think we have to look a little bit more into the longer term. As a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, I went to the Arctic and participated in the study. There is a lot going on. Any government — this government, any future government — is going to be preoccupied with the Arctic, the peoples of the Arctic and certainly all of the strategic elements.
As far as I know, the organization at the other end is not equipped to fund parliamentarians coming from other countries. It’s obviously from here. Senator Duncan is the only senator from the Yukon. She has a special responsibility, and if she wants to attend this, we should look at all ways and means possible to consider her request. I don’t want to get into the points argument, because I don’t understand it, but I think we should look positively at this request.
The Chair: Thank you. I remembered my second point, Senator Plett, and it was that, before, exceptions could be approved by steering. Now it comes to CIBA. That was my second point.
Senator Saint-Germain: I also support this request for the same reasons that Senator Boehm and Senator Smith stated.
Senator Plett is right. I remember even eight years ago, I was told I had 64 points for trips and a maximum of 4 points each year could be used to go to Washington and New York on specific occasions, notably for multilateral events at the United Nations.
That said, the exception, as you stated in your second point, is that the Standing Senate Committee on the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, or CIBA, is empowered to authorize or not these trips. I would submit that if today we deny this trip for fairness to all senators, this becomes a new rule because the steering committee has approved trips that were way less — from my standpoint and very respectfully — related to Canada’s interests and to a senator’s work over the last months and years.
So I support this request from Senator Duncan.
Senator Smith: As we look at this type of situation, one of the points that I feel strongly about is that, in fact, Senator Duncan represents the Yukon, but let’s be honest, in the Yukon, Iqaluit and the Northern areas, everybody talks together and works together. I’m not sure how well they work together, but it would be, in my mind, that she represents the North. The North is more than just the Yukon. The North includes Iqaluit and the other areas, whether they are big or small. I’m not trying to overreact. I’m not trying to fight with anybody. I’m just trying to suggest that we have to get our act together in terms of executing and delivering results in the North based on some form of strategic plan, which I haven’t necessarily seen other than the government saying how much money they are going to spend.
I think that if we look at it, we have to look at it in such a way that we’re seeing the picture and asking what it is. Is the picture just a marginal picture or is it the totality of the North?
Don’t forget that Finland and Sweden, countries that have now joined NATO, are northern countries. This is not just the North in Canada. This overflows into that whole northern part of the world. I think it’s really important to understand the context, that’s all.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Smith.
Senator Plett: I won’t belabour this. I won’t vote against it. If it goes to a vote, it might be on division. There is no question that CIBA has the authority to do this. Nobody is questioning that CIBA doesn’t have the authority to do this. I’m the first one to say that they do. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with them doing it.
By making special requests, we are in fact saying this is not the rule, so what Senator Saint-Germain is saying could be used the exact opposite way, too — that by us approving this, we’re also making this a general thing. As much as the other way.
For Senator Saint-Germain who, in fact, has a motion in the Senate against sponsored travel to now say, “Well, unless it’s sponsored travel that I agree with,” I find this a little difficult.
Senator Boehm, travelling with the Defence Committee, I support it 100%. You go and do that, but that was not the same type of scenario.
I have spent half my life living in the North. I know the challenges they have in the North. Stephen Harper, when we were in government, made it clear that he had a passion for the North. This government has not. I think the next government will again. I’m hoping they will because I support that.
Senator Smith is quite correct. The North is far more than just the Yukon. If the North is the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and Iqaluit, surely to goodness, between three territories, they can find $20,000 to send a senator to Norway to represent them. I fully would support that. That’s not what is being asked here.
Here it’s being asked that senators approve something that I am not even entirely sure is in our bailiwick to start. I think it would be more that the government that should be doing something like this, and maybe Senator Duncan should go over to West Block and see if there is $20,000 there for her. I’m not challenging or questioning the importance of the trip, but there is a reason why it was specifically decided.
In the past, these types of trips have also been denied. It isn’t that they have just been approved. They have also been denied. I don’t know that we need to belabour this. I have made my argument. Whatever happens happens.
The Chair: Colleagues, we still have some work to do, so I’ll just give you a few minutes and then I will close this discussion and we’ll vote on it.
Senator Saint-Germain: I just want to correct something that not my opponent but my colleague Senator Plett said. Arctic Frontiers is inviting the senator, but they are not paying for the trip. This is not a sponsored trip. It would be sponsored trip if she agreed to have all expenses paid by Arctic Frontiers, so it’s not.
On a case-by-case basis, we can allow or deny exceptions to the general prohibition, but what I do believe is that we need to make our decision on the merits of each case. I support this one, but I wanted to state that it’s not a sponsored trip.
Senator Boyer: That helped explain it a little bit more. I have a few questions on the process here.
I support this trip, definitely. Senator Duncan is asking to use her 64-point travel budget, but she is also asking for money. Is that correct?
The Chair: No.
Senator Boyer: She is only asking for the one point and that will cover this cost?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Plett: She’s asking for $20,000.
The Chair: She is asking for a point. She is asking to use her points.
Senator Boyer: Not the money?
The Chair: Well, at the end of the day, it’s not $20,000; it’s about $16,000. One of the things that she has mentioned was that she was going to look at finding other airfares that are not as expensive. But this is how it was presented to us. This is what we are approving.
Senator Boyer: So it’s one travel point, plus the amount — or not the money?
The Chair: The travel point encompasses the whole amount.
Senator Boyer: Okay. So Senator Pate’s travel was the same and approved by the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets or the steering committee?
The Chair: Steering.
Senator Boyer: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I have a quick question. Regarding the 64 points, do they cover airfare, hotel and per diems?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: So the amount indicated here is a maximum of $15,000, but it would be closer to $7,000. That would be completed covered by the points system.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: I would like to add that we are trying to come up with an overall policy. There are committees that travel and that is referred to us. I am referring to official functions of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, which will be travelling to Canada’s Far North and to NORAD offices in the United States. There are parliamentary associations that travel; there is nothing to add since that all happens at the same time. Then there is travel in addition to those official trips, as well as travel by ministers who take people with them. For example, when ministers go the United Nations on women’s rights issues, I believe there is often a delegation of seven or eight people. We do not pay for that; the department does.
There are also groups, sponsored travel, when the host country or organization pays for senators’ travel, such as for travel to Baku, Azerbaijan, for COP29. There are many different types. We are putting together a new policy and that is all I want to say. I will vote in favour of this motion. This is the second trip to Norway that we are authorizing. Another senator went for a conference on health and providing free medications. I do not want to mention her because I think that was done in camera. This is the second request. We are accumulating precedents, so we are opening a door.
I am not opposed to opening that door, but we have to be aware that we are opening a door. We are creating precedents.
The Chair: We agree, senator; you may recall that we discussed the possibility of creating a rule for that kind of travel. Such exceptions are currently presented to the Committee on Internal Economy.
Senator Dalphond: It is the exception that creates the rule.
[English]
Senator Plett: In light of the comments that you made, chair, I am at least now for the record saying I’m against this. I’m not going to ask for a recorded vote. I’ll let it go on division unless somebody else wants a recorded vote.
In light of what you said now, that this is just simply using her points and this is a standard thing, it is not. The fact of the matter is that if Senator Duncan had used 64 points already, this request would still be there and we would still approve it. Let’s be clear. We are approving a special trip here and paying her whatever it is, $15,000, $16,000 or $20,000. Let’s not muddy the waters saying that we are already doing this. We have the authority to do this, yes, but none of us ever use 64 points. It’s just simply wrong to say that she is using her points and she is just using them for something other than what she would normally use them for. That is incorrect.
In light of those comments, that we are saying she is using her 64 points and in some way trying to sugar-coat this or hide this as being a normal process, I’m at least registering my vote against it. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Colleagues, on the merit of this trip, do we agree to give permission to Senator Duncan to use one travel point for this trip? All in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: On division?
Senator Carignan: No.
The Chair: You want a recorded vote.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I did not know there were so many opportunities to travel at the government’s expense to serve as a representative.
[English]
The Chair: Could I have a mover for the motion, please? It is moved by Senator Smith.
[Translation]
Ms. Legault: Honourable senators, I will call the name of each senator, starting with the chair and then alphabetically. I would ask you to state loudly whether you vote in favour of or against the motion or wish to abstain.
The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Audette?
Senator Audette: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Boehm?
Senator Boehm: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Boyer?
Senator Boyer: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Carignan, PC?
Senator Carignan: No.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: Abstain.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Loffreda?
Senator Loffreda: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator MacAdam?
Senator MacAdam: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Moodie?
Senator Moodie: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: No.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Smith?
Senator Smith: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Yeas: 10; nays: 3; abstain: 1.
The Chair: Motion agreed to. Thank you.
[English]
We are now going to other matters.
Colleagues, as we near the end of the public meeting, I do have an announcement to make. Since this could be the last meeting of CIBA, I thought I should make this announcement now.
After six years at the Senate, our Law Clerk Philippe Hallée, has advised the Clerk that he will be retiring effective April 2025. However, his last day in the Senate will be in December, as he will be on vacation after that date.
On behalf of the committee and our colleagues throughout the Senate, I want to publicly thank you, Philippe, for your services and leadership in the Senate. I want to wish you and your family the very best in your retirement.
[Translation]
Philippe Hallée, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: Thank you very much.
Some Hon. Senators: Bravo!
The Chair: Before we go in camera, are there any other matters to be discussed?
Senator Forest: Regarding the decision we just made, the key will be to see how we establish rules to guide our decisions on specific requests. We have the same problem at the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets when delegations make requests: there are no rules. People go by their gut feeling at that moment; I think it is important to think about this and establish some rules.
Senator Loffreda: We have to be fair. We have all seen requests in the past and we have to be fair with everyone. We have to develop a procedure or policy in order to be fair.
[English]
Nobody needs to feel like why him and not me? What we have approved, I’m for it, but there were many in the past that we hadn’t approved, and I question what their reaction will be. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, senator, because you have just made the point. That is the very issue: equality. You can’t refuse some when they ask for the same thing, and then accept others.
What Senator Dalphond said was absolutely correct. We need to look at our policies. We can’t just keep saying we’re making exceptions. Even though I think Senator Saint-Germain was also correct when she said we have to evaluate it on the merits, you can’t keep evaluating on the merits without suddenly realizing that you’re changing your policies. We need to evaluate our policy, specifically as Senator Dalphond asked and as Senator Plett asked. We need to do that.
Senator Loffreda: If I can add something to that quickly, the merits are all there. We’re all senators. I respect each and every one. Why is one merit more than another and we refuse some? It’s just a matter of being fair. Leadership is not always about being nice, but being strong and fair.
[Translation]
The Chair: We will now suspend briefly so the clerk can make sure we are in camera. Before that, I would like to remind everyone that the meetings of this committee are for the most part public. The committee only goes in camera to discuss sensitive matters such as salaries, contracts and contract negotiations, labour relations and personnel and security matters. The Committee on Internal Economy wishes to be as transparent as possible in the important work it does. I would ask the clerk to inform the committee members once we are in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)