THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 19, 2025
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met with videoconference this day at 9:02 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for consideration of financial and administrative matters; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Hello. 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, to support the smooth operation of committee proceedings, the following guidelines must be observed by all participants to help prevent audio feedback. Consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Keep your earpiece away from microphones at all times. Microphones must not be touched. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator. Avoid handling your earpiece while the microphone is active. Earpieces should either remain on the ear or be placed on the designated sticker at each seat. Thank you all for your cooperation.
I would like to go around the table and ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre J. Dalphond from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Gold: Marc Gold, Quebec.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Hello. Éric Forest from the Gulf senatorial division in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Good morning. I’m Senator Tony Loffreda from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Osler: Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, Manitoba.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, Saint John, shores of the Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Kuei. Hello. Michèle Audette [Innu-aimun spoken] from Quebec.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Housakos: Leo Housakos from Quebec.
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
The Chair: I would also like to welcome all those who follow our deliberations across the country.
[Translation]
Before going to the first item on the agenda, the election of a deputy chair, I would like to note that during last night’s sitting of the Senate, the Selection Committee tabled a first report to designate the senators who will serve on the various committees. As you know, when the report is adopted, our intersessional authority will come to an end. As a result, we will no longer serve on this committee.
To avoid a situation where the committee has not been properly constituted and therefore will be unable to meet, it has been proposed that we hold an organizational meeting tonight before leaving. If the report is adopted by the Senate today, we could consult with the whips and ask to meet before today’s sitting. As a rule, the purpose of organizational meetings is to elect the chair and the deputy chair, as well as adopt routine motions, including ones to create the steering committee and delegate certain authorities. With your permission, I would also like to include creating the subcommittees of the Committee on Internal Economy. I should point out that the whips will be able to add the members at a later date.
Honourable senators, do you have any questions or comments about this process?
Perhaps a senator would like to move the following motion:
That if the first report of the Selection Committee is adopted today by the Senate, the Committee on Internal Economy will meet to hold an organizational meeting at around 6:00 this evening.
The motion is moved by Senator Moodie. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is adopted.
The first item on the agenda for the public meeting is to appoint a deputy chair of the steering committee. Now that our colleague Senator Smith has left, we need to elect a new deputy chair.
Senator Osler, do you have a motion to move?
[English]
Senator Osler: I move that Jim Quinn be elected as deputy chair of this committee.
[Translation]
The Chair: Are there any other nominations?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is adopted.
[English]
Welcome, Senator Quinn, to the steering committee.
[Translation]
Senator Quinn: Thank you, everyone.
The Chair: Item 2 on our public agenda is the consent agenda for approval. As a reminder, the items contained in the consent agenda are not controversial but still require our approval. For these items, a briefing note, form or other supporting document is submitted in advance, but no presentation is required.
For today’s meeting, we have the following item on the consent agenda: Minutes of Proceedings from December 5, 2024 (in Public and In Camera). Does a senator wish to move the motion?
Senator Boyer: I move it.
The Chair: Senator Boyer moves the motion.
Are there any questions or comments?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is adopted.
[English]
Item 3 is an appeal of the decision from the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, and it’s regarding staff-related travel.
The request was presented by the senator, and it’s about the senator’s office management policy regarding the reimbursement of travel expenses for a staff member. This item is being brought to your attention because the steering committee reviewed the request and decided not to approve it. In accordance with established policies, senators have the right to appeal steering’s decision and may present their case to the full committee for further consideration.
Senator Tannas: I’ve read the material. I’m a bit uncomfortable. We have a tradition that if something involves a staff member, we don’t discuss it in public but deal with the situation in camera as part of our duties around human resources and administration, and I would propose that we move this item to the in camera portion of the meeting.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Are we in agreement to move this item to the in camera portion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. We will get back to the senator when we get to that portion of our meeting.
We will go to Item 4, which is the annual presentation from the Translation Bureau services. Maxime Fortin, Principal Clerk, Chamber Operations, is here with Jean-François Lymburner, Chief Executive Officer; Annie Plouffe, Vice President of Services to Parliament and Interpretation; and Lucie Levesque, Vice President, Policy and Integrated Services from the Translation Bureau, who will now join us as witnesses.
We were having a technical difficulty at the beginning of the meeting. Ms. Plouffe was supposed to appear via Zoom, but she had the wrong headset, so we had to refuse her testimony.
As usual, the presentation by Mr. Lymburner will be followed by questions.
Mr. Lymburner and Maxime, I think you have comments. Either one of you, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Maxime Fortin, Principal Clerk, Senate of Canada: I am here as the representative of the Senate Administration responsible for the partnership agreement between the Senate and the Translation Bureau. My remarks will be very brief. As you know, this year has been a little unusual, with Parliament prorogued in January and then later dissolved. That necessarily had an impact on the volume of activity, and hence on the demand for interpretation and translation services. I can still confirm that the Translation Bureau was able to meet its requirements under the agreement.
[English]
This year, we continued to work with our partners in the House of Commons and the Translation Bureau to maintain and improve interpretation services. Technical updates were made to all Senate committee rooms to reduce the risk of feedback. New technological solutions are also being explored and tested, and we will continue to provide periodic reminders and updates of best practices as they evolve.
Monday’s acoustic incident in the chamber is a good reminder that we always have to be mindful and keep working with our partners to reduce risks.
[Translation]
I will stop here to let the Translation Bureau do its presentation. I will be available to answer any questions you may have.
Jean-François Lymburner, Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau, Public Service and Procurement Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair. I acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Anishinaabe people.
With me today are my colleagues. I obviously just heard the news about Ms. Plouffe. I should point out that Ms. Plouffe had the proper headset, but people were unable to see her. That gives you a glimpse of the important work done by the interpreters, who not only listen to you and translate your words into both languages, they also watch you to convey your emotions. Ms. Plouffe is at the G7 in Alberta today, so she is forgiven. Also with me is Lucie Levesque, Vice President of Policy and Integrated Services. In passing, I would like to pay tribute to my Senate colleagues and the interpreters in the booth today, Sara, Angela and Eniko.
I will also take this opportunity to pay tribute to all public servants on the occasion of National Public Service Week.
Madam Chair, since we last met, the Translation Bureau has continued to work tirelessly. In 2024-25, we translated close to 350 million words and provided approximately 37,000 hours of interpretation.
For Senate proceedings in particular, we’re talking 10 million words, which amounts to 33,000 pages of documents, as well as 4,000 hours of interpretation, which proves that you have also been working tirelessly.
[English]
We are faithfully meeting the needs of Parliament, and we will do so in the future.
Among other things, our effort to address the shortage of interpreters in Canada and around the world progresses in 2024-25. In partnership with the bureau, two universities have launched interpretation programs, Laval University in Quebec City, and Université du Québec in Trois-Rivières. These programs are in addition to those at the University of Ottawa and York University. In the past one year, we’ve doubled the number of opportunities for students to become conference interpreters. In addition, with the help of Canadian Heritage, we launched the interpretation scholarship program provided for in the Budget 2024. We have already distributed close to $100,000 in scholarships.
[Translation]
I will now talk about the safety of interpreters.
[English]
The number of incidents continues to decline. As of December 31, 2024, there was a total reduction of just over 60% of incidents compared to 2020. Furthermore, in February 2025, Employment and Social Development Canada’s labour program declared that our protective measures sufficiently minimized the risk of Larsen effect, and by that I mean feedback occurrence.
Of course, Madam Chair, not everything has been settled. There’s no such thing as zero risk. However, based on our discussions with our international partners — United Nations, OECD, European Parliament and other countries — I’m proud to say that we’re extremely well organized and that our process is one of the best in the world. We will continue to fine-tune our measures to provide interpreters the working conditions they need to do their critical work safely for the country.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, there has been a lot of talk in the media lately about attrition at the Translation Bureau. We have, in fact, seen lower demand for translation from the departments because, as you may know, 60% of our business model is based on cost recovery with the departments and agencies. In the spirit of sound management, we need to reorganize our resources based on this drop in revenue. However, I would like to reassure you that it doesn’t apply to the services we provide to parliamentarians, which are funded through the A-base budget.
Now I would like to talk about artificial intelligence. In its 2024 Fall Economic Statement, the government highlighted our ability to implement the most effective language technologies. That show of confidence was reiterated in March 2025, when we were entrusted with the flagship project of the Treasury Board’s new Artificial Intelligence Strategy, which involves setting up a self-service language hub for the whole of government. We are proud to have just recently laid the groundwork for this major project. On June 10, we launched a secure artificial intelligence prototype for official languages translation in our department, Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC. This bilingual tool is based on our data corpuses, which are unique in the world, and is hosted on Canadian servers. That way, we help ensure that Canada’s data stays in the country and is used by and for Canada. In doing so, we are encouraging new clients to turn to us for their translation needs.
[English]
Meanwhile, the bureau worked with the National Research Council Canada to develop machine translation tools that are available directly on the parliamentary network here. This is all part of constantly improving our tools and services to provide you with the efficiencies of top-tier technology and the quality that human expertise can guarantee.
Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you again for this invitation. I will be happy to take your questions.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: First of all, I’d like to thank and commend the entire translation team, which is essential in helping us do our jobs well.
I have two questions. At the Finance Committee, my understanding was that the Translation Bureau’s budget had been increased. At the same time, we hear that 339 positions will be cut through attrition. How can you explain that?
Mr. Lymburner: As I said in my opening remarks, the Translation Bureau’s budget is in two parts. We have one part that is funded by money we get from the departments and agencies, while the other funding source is for parliamentary services.
In the 2024 budget, our parliamentary funding was increased to compensate for the salary increase in the recent collective agreements. Yes, the sums of money for our parliamentary services continue to progress, while the budgets that were announced mention attrition.
Actually, to clarify, that article appeared in the media. Since we’re a special purpose organization, we are obligated to submit a five-year business plan to show that we’re viable. In plain language for Canadians, it’s as though we had a line of credit and had to prove that, in five years, we would still be living within our means. The plan is based on what I said about artificial intelligence and the drop in so-called traditional translation over the past few years. In simple terms, we are noticing a drop in the less official things people send us to translate, for example, an email. We project that decreased demand over five years, which explains the model that includes attrition measures to stay within our means.
That said, you never know. Departments may well go back to sending us a large number of requests. At that point, the Translation Bureau may even start expanding.
Senator Forest: It seems to me that the volume must be higher for English to French translation. In this streamlining exercise, will the proportion stay the same?
Mr. Lymburner: That’s a very good question. Obviously, in Canada, most of our work involves translation from English to French. Also, to clarify the attrition figures published in the media, we’re not just talking about translators. The Translation Bureau, like all organizations, reviews its business practices. I imagine you do, too. There are people who handle different areas within the Translation Bureau. We also do telework, and we are in a position to review some office jobs.
That doesn’t affect our services in the official languages, because other services for foreign languages and Indigenous languages within the Translation Bureau are expanding. We do not plan to reduce our human capital for translation. With everything we read in the media, a young person wanting to enrol in a translation program at university today might have second thoughts. That’s why we want to emphasize that translation is a profession with a future and one that is important in Canada.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Thank you for being with us again, Mr. Lymburner.
I want to ask about artificial intelligence and its application. It’s hitting parliaments everywhere, governments everywhere, and there’s a big push on the regulatory side and its applications. I’m wondering whether, as you look ahead, you are looking at what other organizations might be doing in terms of best practices or looking at others as a potential marker, particularly international organizations where multiple languages are translated and interpreted.
Mr. Lymburner: That is a very good question, Madam Chair. Yes, we’ve been extremely busy working with our partners around the world. We’re practically all going through the same experience with artificial intelligence.
For me, as the CEO of the Translation Bureau, there’s not a day that somebody doesn’t stop me on Sparks Street or anywhere, to say, “Hey, Mr. Lymburner, are you considering artificial intelligence at the bureau? You’re all travelling; you’re all using your phones; it’s pretty much accessible everywhere.” Of course, we are. As I mentioned at my last appearance, the bureau was one of the first organizations in the world to use AI in 1977 to translate weather reports. We’ve also been one of the first to use word processors and, since 2017, we are using a form of AI. Now, of course, with ChatGPT and the latest version of AI that we all use now on our phones, it is a game changer.
I would say the most critical part is that those tools will be as good as the data on which they’re trained. For us, as Canadians, we have the best databases for English and French around the world by a mile. We do have databases at the bureau. Of course, our website has been used by all kinds of service providers around the world to train their own tools, such as Google Translate and other tools you may have used in your personal lives, but the bureau has way more. We have all the reports, the studies and the documents that were produced by departments and agencies. That positions us as a very efficient group to provide the best tools for Canadians.
In that sense, of course, it’s not free. Everywhere we go, conferences and other places, especially in Europe, there’s a tendency to feel that, for some use cases, translation might be perceived as free. Nothing is really free. Even for us, we need to ensure it’s done in a secure way, so we need to protect our data. We’re working with the central agency for that.
At the same time, we need good people who are professional. I have an analogy that I can offer here. It’s like when you travel: airplanes have been able to fly by themselves for over 10 years, but we’re all happy to see there’s a pilot in the cockpit so that, if something goes wrong, they can take over. I may offer that language professionals, people who have studied French, English and international languages and Indigenous languages, are the best people to ensure there’s no problem. With AI, would you agree to signing a document in Japanese right now? Probably not. You would want to ensure someone is reviewing it.
There are certain glitches still, but — let’s be honest — the AI is doing a lot of the pre-work and formatting. Even the format is a lot better, sir. Previously, we had to do a lot of work to maintain tables and pictures and everything. AI is a very good assistant to keep documents pretty much alike, whether they are in English or French.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: [Innu-aimun spoken]
Innu-aimun will still be protected. That’s my own translation. Thank you for reassuring us. That was my question, about the volume of English to French. Thank you, Senator Forest. Do I understand correctly that Indigenous languages, meaning Innu‑aimun and First Nations, Inuit and Métis languages, won’t be affected by this and that these languages will continue to be supported?
Mr. Lymburner: Yes, that’s a good question. In my earlier answer, I said that the tools that could help us basically depend on the amount of quality data available to train them. The amount of data for some First Nations languages in Canada is fairly limited, but we are working tirelessly to see how we can help preserve and revitalize certain languages. For that, we usually work with our colleagues in other departments and with the communities, so that they understand that the data is used to help their community during ceremonies and to preserve their languages.
There’s something else I’d like to mention to the committee. I’m sure you noticed that at the leaders’ debate and during the election, we provided interpretation in at least five Indigenous languages. I think we are good partners. There are some challenges, and everything needs to be done with respect.
Senator Audette: Thank you [Innu-aimun spoken].
[English]
Senator Moodie: My question is around AI, following up on the initial question. You have taken part in translating a lot of information and materials and proceedings. I want to find out from you who owns the legal rights to those materials. I’m mostly thinking about the fact, as you said in your introduction, that your database is going to inform the training of AI models, potentially in the area of translation. Would you be using Senate-related documents that you have translated to train up your translation?
Mr. Lymburner: That is a very good question, Madam Chair. I will try to reach out to Ms. Levesque after I attempt to respond to the question.
Here at the Senate, a lot of documents are already public. If those documents are public, of course, they will be considered, and we have other documents that we’re using. Of course, there’s a protocol for security that we’re following. In terms of words, there may be a new acronym or a term that is popping up in some debates and we need to adjust our machine learning, and that’s what we will do, but it’s done in a way that our data is protected.
Here at the Senate, but also at the House of Commons and in the Parliament in general, we’re working closely with our colleagues. You have your own network here. There’s another set of rules that we’re also following very carefully here when we’re supporting you as a client in the Parliament.
For other departments, I want to be clear that we make sure we do the same. At the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, for example, they have all kinds of documents, and they are following Secret or Protected B or other types of security clearances. First of all, the people who will work on those documents are security-cleared. We handle those documents by following the set of rules we have in our security processes.
[Translation]
If Ms. Levesque is here, she could add some information, since she has the expertise.
The Chair: Let’s see if Ms. Levesque is available.
[English]
Lucie Levesque, Vice President, Policy and Integrated Services, Public Services and Procurement Canada: I have just one thing to add because Mr. Lymburner covered most of the aspects. In terms of the tools we’re putting forward in AI, or even in the prototype, we’re talking about information at the Protected B level. There’s no classified information in that system. The data remains stored in Canada. The tools are trained with the information, but the information is really secured within our data environment. Ultimately, the documents that are translated by the bureau are owned by the individual departments.
The Chair: Thank you. If there are no other questions, I have a comment for you.
[Translation]
This week, we had an acoustic incident, or if it wasn’t an acoustic incident, there was a problem with the interpretation. I’d like to make a suggestion to you.
Your staff can’t resume work until they get authorization from a manager in your organization. It might be a good idea for them to have an emergency number for someone who could give that authorization quickly so that Senate proceedings aren’t interrupted for any longer than necessary.
We’ve had a good year, and we’d like to continue working efficiently. Thank you for taking this suggestion into consideration.
Mr. Lymburner: We will do that. We have all been affected by what happened. You saw how quickly procedures were put into place. Sound is a team sport, so there are people everywhere working on various aspects.
To reassure you, I have already requested an office space in the building with a team on site because, when there is an incident, the team of interpreters has to be pulled out if the incident is serious enough. There is also the possibility of working remotely. Our equipment is getting better all the time and, together with our colleagues at the House of Commons, we offer services remotely.
I understand that you want proceedings to continue and democracy to be exercised. I will take all of that into consideration and will make sure that the best decisions are made according to the circumstances.
Thank you very much and enjoy the rest of the day.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lymburner, Ms. Levesque and Ms. Fortin. The next item on the agenda pertains to amendments to the Senators’ Office Management Policy, specifically the provisions related to the workplace accommodation process for senators and senators’ staff members.
Given that this pertains to our staff, we will discuss it in camera later on in our meeting. We will now move on to item 6.
[English]
It’s a memorandum of understanding with the House of Commons on language training for senators and Senate employees, and we have Annie Carpentier and Toni Francis. As usual, your presentation will be followed by questions.
Annie Carpentier, Director, Talent Optimization and Employee Well-Being, Human Resources Directorate, Senate of Canada: Since 1995, the Senate has had an agreement with the House of Commons for second-language training for senators, their spouses and Senate employees as well as for the second-language evaluation for Senate administration employees.
[Translation]
The agreement expires on September 30, 2025, and we are seeking your approval to renew the agreement from October 1 to September 30, 2030. The total cost of this agreement is $420,000 and it will be funding from the central language training budget.
The partnership with the House of Commons has proven effective over the years and, according to a House survey sent to the users of its services, the satisfaction level is very high. Language training services are tailored to the parliamentary context and are essential to supporting the Senate’s commitment to offering a bilingual work environment and services. I am now available to answer your questions.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?
Senator Audette: Thank you very much. The people who come through my office really appreciate your work regarding the English classes. I know that people speak French and English and that I will probably not get an answer to my question today. I would still like to put it out there for my colleagues to hear.
In the context of the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, we submitted a request for my Innu-Aimun course to be paid for by the Senate. It was refused and I understand that, but that is not the point. What can be done so that an ancestral language can…. There is the Indigenous Languages Act. Can we find a way for the teaching of an Indigenous language to become a common practice at the Senate?
Senator Quinn: My question is about training for spouses. Why is training available to spouses? For senators themselves, it stands to reason, but why for their spouses?
Ms. Carpentier: Are you referring to language assessment for training purposes?
Senator Quinn: No, I mean language training for spouses.
Ms. Carpentier: That’s an excellent question. I think that has been the practice for years. It is probably for spouses who accompany senators to official parliamentary functions. That is something we have always offered senators and their spouses.
Senator Quinn: I think some thought should be given to providing language training for spouses. We can talk about it another time.
Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, Human Resources Directorate, Senate of Canada: Senator Quinn, I know that, in a few weeks, we will be providing a briefing note and our agreements for the future. We can ask about that.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments on this? If not, could I have a mover for the following motion:
That CIBA approve the renewal of a memorandum of understanding valued at $420,000 with the House of Commons for delivery of language services for a five-year period.
Senator Dalphond. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[Translation]
We will now move on to item 7. Thank you, Annie and Toni. I know you will be back in a few minutes.
The next item pertains to documents sent for information purposes. This week, a document was sent for information purposes; it is the report of the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group. Are there any questions or comments on the report? Senator Cardozo is here to answer your questions.
[English]
Senator Housakos: I just saw that in the report. Is there an annual budget for this particular program? I would like to know how much that is.
Senator Cardozo: We have a small budget for the purchase of a few pieces of art, but I’ll ask the administration to provide you with the precise details.
Senator Housakos: Is this on an annual basis that we’re buying this art? Are we buying the art from a speculative point of view? What is the purpose of the Senate being in the art‑buying business?
Mike Steinhauer, Chief Curator, Senate of Canada: Thank you for the question.
We have an annual budget of $30,000 for art acquisitions. This is to furnish the main rooms, the formal rooms and the committee rooms with artwork.
Currently, as we have in this example in C-128, most of these artworks are loaned from the NCC. We are often at the mercy of other collections to borrow artworks. Loan fees, insurance and installation fees often outweigh the actual acquisition. In this room, only two out of the seven pieces belong to the Senate. If the NCC was to request them back, we would have to bear all the costs associated with that. We had such an example a few months ago when we lost a Queen Elizabeth portrait in the foyer of the Senate.
Senator Housakos: The NCC are the owners of a lot of this art. It’s my understanding they have been doing this for decades. They rent the art to the Senate of Canada?
Mr. Steinhauer: The NCC owns the artwork. We loan from the NCC, but we have several lenders from which we loan from. The House of Commons is one of them, and there is the NCC and other collections as well. We try to stay local to reduce the cost of loans, but the installation of the Queen Elizabeth portrait, for example, was close to $7,000 or $8,000, if I remember correctly.
Senator Housakos: Who funds the NCC when it comes to their art collection?
Mr. Steinhauer: That comes from the NCC’s budget.
Senator Housakos: The federal government, correct?
Mr. Steinhauer: Correct.
Senator Housakos: So the federal government allocates a budget to the NCC. They acquire artwork, and then they lease it out to the Parliament of Canada, depending on our needs, House of Commons and the Senate?
Mr. Steinhauer: Just to clarify, there is no lease involved. We just absorb all of the costs associated with loaning the works.
Senator Housakos: How much is the annual cost we pay to the NCC to absorb that? How much is the total amount? We write a cheque from the Senate of Canada to the NCC.
Mr. Steinhauer: We don’t necessarily write a cheque to the NCC directly. If there is an installation cost, it would be my office that would pay for —
Senator Housakos: So a one-time fee, basically?
Mr. Steinhauer: Exactly.
Senator Housakos: So there is no leasing?
Mr. Steinhauer: It is unlike the Art Bank. Many of the senators at this table borrow artworks from the Art Bank, and those are annual fees. This is a different type of an agreement.
Senator Housakos: When we are buying the art now under the Senate auspices, the fee that we are getting rid of essentially is a one-time fee of installation and delivery?
Mr. Steinhauer: Exactly. We are managing a collection of some 4,000 artworks and furniture, much of the furniture being used in the Senate Chamber, for example. As part of that, we have a small acquisition budget just to get us ready for when we move back to Centre Block, because we have several committee rooms to furnish, and to enable us to fill some of the gaps within our collection, because our collection is quite narrow in terms of what it represents. Part of the focus that the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group has approved is to be more representative of Canadians and for Canadians to feel themselves represented within the walls of the Senate buildings.
The Chair: I failed to mention your names, but Mike Steinhauer is the Senate Curator; and Josée Labelle is the Director General, Property and Services Directorate.
Senator Cardozo: I would just add that part of what this budget does is also to restore artworks we currently hold. Perhaps a large part of it, if not most of it — if you will allow me to speak — is paintings of former Speakers. What we do with those — because several of them are several decades old — is restore a couple of them each year. Sometimes you will see a blank wall where a painting has been removed — there’s one around the chamber right now — because we restore those. We only restore one or two each year to make sure the paintings themselves and frames, et cetera, are in good shape.
Senator Quinn: I wanted to follow up a bit on what Senator Housakos was asking. You said something about senators have access to art. How does that work? Who pays for that? Do we have to pay for it?
Mr. Steinhauer: It comes out of the senator’s budget, correct. It is not part of my budget —
Senator Quinn: Do you know how much in total that expenditure is?
Mr. Steinhauer: I don’t manage the loans from the Art Bank. It’s the Senate’s resource.
Senator Quinn: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other comments or questions? Colleagues, are there any other questions we need to address in public? Okay.
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 Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration 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.)