THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 2, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(1), to study financial and administrative matters.
Senator Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. My name is Lucie Moncion, I am a senator from Ontario, and I have the privilege of chairing the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
[English]
Before we begin, to support the smooth operation of the 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. Always keep your earpiece away from the microphones. 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 acknowledge that the land on which we gather is on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabeg Algonquin Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples from across Turtle Island.
I would now like to go around the table and ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec
[English]
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
Senator Ross: Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Good morning. Éric Forest, Gulf division, Quebec.
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 Territory.
Senator Francis: Brian Francis, Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Henkel: Danièle Henkel, Quebec.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Sorel, Quebec.
Senator Housakos: Leo Housakos, Quebec.
Senator Osler: Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, Manitoba.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mohammad Al Zaibak, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Pierre Moreau, Laurentides division, Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: I would also like to welcome all of those who follow our deliberations across the country.
Colleagues, before we begin, I would like to officially welcome our new law clerk and parliamentary adviser, Julie Wellington. Welcome, Julie. We look forward to working with you.
Senators, the Clerk of the Senate is unable to join us this morning as she is currently travelling with the Speaker. Does any senator object to her listening in on the meeting via Zoom? Thank you, colleagues.
The first item on the agenda today is the membership of the CIBA subcommittee on agenda and procedure. As you know, senators, with the departure of Senator Carignan, there is a deputy chair vacancy. As such, can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Honourable Senator Michael MacDonald be elected as deputy chair of this committee?
Senator Smith: I move the motion.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Smith moves the motion that the honourable Senator Michael Douglas be elected as deputy chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator MacDonald: I don’t know who Michael Douglas is.
The Chair: MacDonald, sorry. I know who Michael Douglas is. He’s an actor. I don’t think you’re on the same salary. Sorry, colleagues.
All right. So Senator MacDonald-Douglas, welcome.
[Translation]
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank him and note that it has been a pleasure to work with Senator Carignan. His experience and institutional memory have been very helpful to members of the steering committee.
The next item on our public agenda is the consent agenda for approval. As a reminder, the items on the consent agenda are not controversial but do require our approval. For these items, a briefing note, form or other supporting document is submitted in advance, but no presentation is required.
The consent agenda for today’s meeting includes the following documents: the minutes of proceedings from June 19, 2025, both in public and in camera, as well as the committee’s organization meeting.
We must choose the people who will fill the Joint Interparliamentary Council positions. It has been moved that Senator Downe, Senator Saint-Germain, Senator Henkel and Senator MacDonald be appointed to the interparliamentary affairs committee, or the Joint Interparliamentary Council, and that Senator Saint-Germain be appointed as co-chair of the committee. That is part of this morning’s consent agenda; if you are comfortable with what is being presented, I would like to hear a proposal to adopt the elements included in the consent agenda.
Senator Housakos: I move the motion.
The Chair: Senator Housakos moves the motion. Are there any questions or comments? Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: The motion is carried. The second item on the agenda concerns the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration’s report on access to information requests. This document aims to clarify how to respond to notices to third parties, in accordance with the Access to Information Act.
Honourable senators, you may recall that this report was presented to the Senate in the last Parliament, but it died on the Order Paper with Parliament’s dissolution. Given that this item was passed by the previous committee, unless there are any questions, we will be able to pass it so that it can again be tabled in the Senate for approval. I would like to point out that no changes have been made to this report.
Do you have any questions or comments about this report? Is it agreed that I table this report in the House next week?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Item number 3 deals with senators’ staff, and we will discuss it in camera later this morning. If that is agreeable, we will now move on to item number 8, which deals with the Senate’s expenditures.
[English]
It’s a discussion on the Senate expenditure review. The main objective today is to discuss the evolution of expenditures in the Senate in order to provide direction to SEBS. Isabelle Ricard and Nathalie Charpentier will now join us as witnesses.
[Translation]
Good morning, Isabelle and Nathalie.
[English]
Welcome. I believe this is your first meeting with us since your arrival in the Senate. We are happy to have you with us, and we look forward to working with you.
This morning, Pascale Legault will lead us through the presentation, and that will be followed by questions and comments.
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer, Office of the Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of CIBA, Senate of Canada: Good morning, senators. At the request of your steering committee, I will present factual information about the Senate context in order to inform your discussion on a letter sent by Senator Downe on the government’s comprehensive expenditure review.
As you know, in light of the current economic context, the government has committed to identifying savings of 7.5% for 2026-27, 10% for 2027-28 and 15% for 2028-29. The parliamentary institutions are not directly mandated to prepare a specific reduction, but Senator Downe asked CIBA to look into this.
The first important consideration is to look at growth over the last 10 years. If you look on slide 6 in section 8 of the presentation for today, you will see that public services spending has grown by 105% since 2014-15, while the other parliamentary institutions have grown between 47% and 51% over that same period. The Senate spending growth during that period was 38%, and that number cannot be considered in isolation. In order to understand real growth, we must take into consideration what the inflation rate was during that same period. While inflation was at 29%, this means that the actual real growth in spending for the Senate was 9% over that 10-year period.
The next question we must ask is, what was the growth for and who approved it? Those questions are answered on slide 7. In a nutshell, the Senate budget was increased for eight key initiatives, which were partially offset by the budget transfer for the creation of the Parliamentary Protective Service. The main items are the increase in caucus and group budgets, the investment in IT infrastructure and systems, including the new public disclosure system, the reorganization of HR and Comms, broadcasting and Parlvu services, the move to the new Senate of Canada Building and the creation of the Audit and Oversight Committee.
Now, some new senators may wonder why senators decided to move to the Senate of Canada Building if it meant a higher annual cost of $900,000, but this —
The Chair: $9 million?
Ms. Legault: $900,000. This was a conscious decision, as it provided for additional savings compared to staying in the East Block.
It’s important to note that all of these investments were approved by the subcommittee on budget and CIBA, and some of these decisions also went to the entire Senate.
On slide 8, we provide you with the ratio of full-time equivalents by parliamentarian in the Senate and the other place because many services are similar and client expectations are often comparable. At 4.3 full-time equivalents per senator, the Senate Administration is 22% below its counterpart.
On slide 9, you will see that Senate spending always remains within its appropriations, but efficiency measures taken since 2022 have resulted in a clear decrease in the annual surplus. As you can see, the International and Interparliamentary Affairs and administration surplus for 2024-25 has ranged between 1% and 2%.
Before we talk about those efficiency measures, I wish to provide an overview of the estimated funding requirement for 2026-27. As you will see on slide 10, the amount is $6.1 million, or 4.4% of the $139.3 million budget. This includes approximately $4.4 million for mandatory financial obligations such as the economic increase and inflation related to travel expenses.
On slide 11, you can also see that within the $6.1 million, there is $1.2 million for initiatives already approved by CIBA. This is mainly related to the security assessment for residents and network and audio-visual equipment investment. And we finally have $.5 million of initiatives to be presented to the subcommittee on budget.
On slide 12, you will note that senators did not wait for direction from the central agencies to undertake a comprehensive review of the budget. Indeed, in December 2022, CIBA initiated an efficiency review. It implemented a cap of 449 full-time equivalents, which meant that any new requirement for a position had to be filled with a current vacant position. That cap is still in place today, and the administration remains in full compliance.
In parallel, an efficiency review of numerous initiatives was launched. Annually, the savings returned to the Treasury Board is $384,000, which will amount to approximately $4 million over 10 years. Furthermore, as of March 31, 2025, the administration achieved taxpayer savings of $400,000 in accommodation costs as a result of reduced square footage due to hotelling and smaller footprints per office for four of our directorates.
In summary, the Senate has been diligent in approving a reasonable budget over the last 10 years. This is demonstrated by the actual increase of only 9%. The increase is not related to some lack of financial rigour. The increase was carefully reviewed by senators and approved for valid business needs.
Finally, the Senate did not wait for specific requests to contain the expenses. It launched its own efficiency review in 2022 and has already capped the number of full-time equivalents and implemented several initiatives to generate savings.
Slide 13 is now providing two options for discussion: (a) maintain the current service level and continue with the current efficiency initiative, or (b), reduce specific service levels and/or specific budgets to participate further in the cost reduction exercise.
Following today’s discussion, it will be important to provide clear guidance to the subcommittee on budget to support the timely preparation of the Senate budget for 2026-27.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Legault.
Do you have any questions or comments?
[English]
Senator Quinn: Thank you very much for the presentation. We can see the history, and as you said, there is no requirement for Parliament to do an expenditure review. We’re exempt from that exercise.
Having said that, I think it would be remiss of us not to do a thorough review. I know that in speaking with some of our administration folks, budgets are being prepared now. In order to do a thorough job, I think that we need to take our time, I think we need to take a very careful look at all aspects of the Senate, and I think that we really should be looking to see what could be done for the following fiscal year, 2026-27. If we try and do something between now and the current budget, it’s going to be rushed and not thorough.
I think that using SEBS as the vehicle to examine this is questionable only because SEBS is so busy all the time. I think we need to have a separate group that has the time to look at it and take careful consideration of where we’re going in terms of potential reductions.
I think, too, that since joining CIBA, one of the common things that my colleagues have talked to me about is the increase in complexity and process of the Senate, and that drives me to say we need to have that careful examination to see where we can do things more effectively and efficiently and, at the same time, reduce overall costs.
I think we also need to be careful that, as we do this work, we not lose sight that senators are here to do their jobs. I’ve heard a number of colleagues say that they feel we don’t have all the resources to do our jobs properly. Whether that’s right or wrong, I’m not going to comment, but it’s that underlying theme.
So I would encourage us to think about this carefully and to do a very thorough review, led by a working group — I’d volunteer to be on that group — also involving the Clerk, and that we analyze things very carefully on an organization-by-organization basis and by a task basis so we have a really good feel for where it is we believe there are savings and we don’t do the typical government exercise of across-the-board cuts. Across-the-board cuts, while they would get to an objective, don’t work, and that’s been proven time and again.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I completely agree with my colleague Senator Quinn on what was presented in the letter that we received from Senator Downe this summer. The document needs to distinguish between that which has to do with pay, which cannot be reduced — for example, pay equity and the amounts that the Senate needs to pay its employees — and that which may be reduced. This brings me straight to my point on the two options, A and B, on page 13 of the document.
I think we have to ask questions about the choice between an option A, which is to maintain service levels, and an option B, which is to reduce service levels. I think we can arrive at an option B without reducing service levels and by instead looking at each of our expenditures.
I will go back to slide 10. I am a bit uncomfortable with the wording in the first bullet point, which mixes in staff members’ salary increases, what I was referring to. It then indicates that there is a projected increase in travel expenses. I would like to know what that entails and if we could not, rather than looking at lower service levels, consider a decrease in the number of full-time equivalents. My question is about the projected increase in travel expenses. What is it?
I apologize for the question. This is my first meeting at the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Speaking of which, thank you for your warm welcome. I will turn it over to you, Ms. Legault, to ease my concern on the first bullet point on page 10, specifically whether we could look at other expenditures instead of expenditures related to staff and pay.
Ms. Legault: Thank you for the question, senator. As for the travel expenses, we are not anticipating an increase in activities. The amount that you can see in the first bullet point is meant to reflect the projected cost of inflation in relation to this year’s travel expenses. It is a past practice to use the consumer price index, which is simply applied to past spending. That does not reflect an increase in activities, only the projected increase in costs.
Senator Oudar: It might be worthwhile to break down the $4.4 million and separate what would constitute wage increases from our travel expenses. I agree with creating a committee. I offer you my full cooperation in examining each of the points for greater efficiency.
Senator Forest: From a historical perspective, for our new colleagues, there were millions of dollars in savings when we decided to move here in the Senate building. The scenario we were facing was to renovate the East Block’s enclosed courtyard, and senators saw a fairly significant gap. For that reason, it was decided at that time to move here, which enabled major savings of public funds when it came to operations and capital.
I agree with Senator Quinn’s suggestion. It is about making sure that we do not create duplicates. In terms of the mandate of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets and the creation of a committee, it is clear that I would like to sit on the committee. However, we already have enough work. We have to make sure that we do not do the same work twice, or the measure would not be efficient. However, I agree with the goal.
I would like to highlight that if we remove inflation, the rate in the Senate increased by 9% over 10 years, which is less than 1%. The efficiency measures that have been put in place over the past four or five years are paying off. When we compare the Senate to the House of Commons, for example, where I believe there was a 22% increase, or the government, where there was a staggering and explosive increase of more than 70%, if we remove inflation, our numbers are positive. It is important to take that into account and make sure to have a good objective analysis of all the facts about what has been given as new services and obligations. I am particularly thinking of the security service for all senators across the country.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for the very clear presentation by our clerk, Ms. Legault. I agree with the proposed objective and with a program review in particular. However, I would like to point out that we are not there yet. A real program review involves looking at the programs one by one to try to find some efficiencies. I am not blaming anyone, but I believe that the objective would be to achieve that.
That said, I disagree with creating a special group. First of all, I believe that each group is represented at our Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets. That is a group that I consider to be very professional. That subcommittee has done a lot of work, and we should continue in that manner. I also think that the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight could play a role in these matters, at least in part. I am going to give a few examples to illustrate my point on the importance of a program review.
In terms of using what I would call the travel points program, it is possible to wonder what the criteria are for travelling business class. When it comes to a flight’s duration — and I am taking an example from the Government of Quebec — could it be indicated that senators do not travel business class if a flight is less than six hours long, unless they have exceptions for various reasons? We can decide on a different number of hours, but I think there are savings to be made there.
There is talk of a new project that deals with broadcasting and future improvements in that area. Is the timing right, and can we afford it? That is what a program review is. We can come back to language training, since that is on the agenda. Can we do it differently? Can we do it at a lower cost? Can we tighten up the criteria? There are many things that we should be able to identify, and we may be surprised at the savings we can make with just as much efficiency and at a lower cost to taxpayers.
I am therefore proposing that we do not create a special committee. The Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets already has its mandate, and the mandate of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration is to manage budgets and administration. We also have the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight, which is very competent in the matter.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Thank you for the presentation, it’s very informative. I just have a couple of questions with respect to some of the numbers that we’ve been discussing.
On slide 7, we say that the net budget impact is $9.1 million and, therefore, that translates into the 38%, but we’re knocking off $5.8 million because we don’t have parliamentary security any more. I think, to be fair, it needs to be added, not subtracted, because we’re comparing a 2015 budget with $5.8 million expenses embedded, and then over here we don’t have those expenses, and yet we’re trying to say that’s apples to apples. It’s not. I’m not an accountant, and I defer to our clerk, but I think that we’ve got it backwards with respect to that. Maybe you could take it away and have a look at it, and if it is, in fact, correct, then fine. If it is not correct and in order to have apples to apples you need to add it back in, we should look at the percentage and circulate it.
Similarly, with respect to the ratio of staff, the House of Commons versus the Senate, we know that we actually use up a significant number of FTEs in the House of Commons by way of services. To be fair and to be totally transparent, we should estimate the number of employees we are using from the House of Commons, deduct it from their ratio and add it to ours. If we’re going to go through this, it’s important that we not fool ourselves and others as to what exactly our costs are, how they have risen and so on.
Those are my comments. Thank you.
Senator Housakos: To quickly respond to the last comment from Senator Tannas, which I think is not accurate, in the past — and you are right, Scott — we have used the services from the House of Commons and staff from the House of Commons for a variety of things. It was an automatic request, and it was a service offered. In the last few years, I am realizing more and more that we are paying for it. They are charging us for it.
Senator Tannas: I’m just talking about the FTE number, the ratio of full-time employees.
Senator Housakos: Right, but I also want to point out that in the last couple of years, the House of Commons has been making money off the Senate budget when it comes to a lot of these services, so keep that in mind. I think we would be surprised what the actual ratio will be if we do that exercise.
I just want to reiterate Senator Saint-Germain’s point that there is plenty, I think, in the Senate in terms of luxuries that we have that others don’t have, including if we compare ourselves to the House and other parliamentary institutions. I do agree with Senator Saint-Germain.
For example, it is not a huge sacrifice to go from business travel — especially with domestic flights — to economy travel tickets. We would save a small fortune on that.
At some point, we will have to revisit our designated traveller policy as well in this institution. It is a privilege we all have, but, quite frankly, it’s a privilege that no other institution or organization outside the Parliament of Canada has in this country. There is an enormous cost to that as well, because we are not only looking at bringing our designated travellers from our homes to our precinct, we are travelling around the country with them.
These are some small steps and adjustments that we can make that would bring huge savings to the institution without impacting the work that we have been brought here to do.
I am one of those — to reiterate the point that Senator Quinn made — who believes that senators’ budgets — our office budgets — are just not large enough to allow us to do the work we need to do sometimes, and we lose sight of what we have been brought here to do. I think there are places we can cut a lot and make savings, and I believe there are even some places where we are inefficient right now, where we can increase our expenditures and really meet that 10% mark that seems to be flying around. We’ll see what the budget says on November 4. It seems there is a new government in place that wants to be fiscally more responsible. I think we can help them achieve those goals. Thank you.
Senator Boehm: This is a very interesting discussion, and it is giving me a little bit of post-traumatic stress disorder from my previous life.
I think where we are going seems to be a modified Option C of the two proposals that you have put forward, Ms. Legault, and I think we have to be cautious in that sense.
What we would need to do, whether there is a separate working group or, indeed, it is done in a much larger fashion, is to set priorities, and that’s difficult for any institution, because you can set priorities, have a general discussion and say, “Well, just a minute, those are my priorities, because I have a regional focus, or this is a theme that I like or whatever.” That is what happened with the program review launched by the Chrétien government in the 1990s. I was a bit involved in that. I was more involved in the Deficit Reduction Action Plan of the Harper government in 2012, I think it was. That proved difficult as well, because if you cannot set priorities, then at the end, you say, “Okay, a 10% cut across the board.” Then you lose some of the programs that are very valuable.
I agree with Senator Housakos. There are elements that we have. There are privileges. They are perceived as blandishments optically across the country. We were in the news again on something like that, and that takes away from our institutional reputation and, indeed, our effectiveness. We can have one gain on a bill or getting senators out there to address very important national issues, and then we lose when there is the perception that we are getting too much.
I don’t travel across the country very much. I live in Ottawa, but I don’t need business travel to fly to Calgary or to Halifax or wherever I’m going to go. I think that’s a good starting point as well.
Also, looking ahead, we should see what new technologies have to offer and how that can improve the work that we do. By that, I mean, certainly, artificial intelligence and other things.
If we are, in fact, sober second thinkers, then I think we need to look ahead at whether we strike another group or not or whether it’s done in the current structures that we have, but be serious about it. I agree that we cannot do this today over tomorrow, but we can identify some very obvious low-hanging fruit that we can pick and process.
Thanks.
Senator Boyer: I just want to make sure that that low-hanging fruit is not Indigenous issues, because it is my experience, going through this, that the first thing that happens is, “Oh, well, we don’t really need to pay those elders that, do we?” I think that this is something that needs to be — whoever is going to be involved in this needs to really pay attention to what you are cutting and who you are cutting and who it is going to affect. Any Indigenous people and any of the other diversity groups, it is going to be really important to make sure that they are pulled up rather than brought down. Thank you.
Senator Osler: I’m going to pick up a little bit on what my colleague Senator Boehm was saying in terms of cost effectiveness. I think we are hearing a lot about cost-cutting and efficiencies, and I don’t want to assume that built into any recommendations that may come forward that we are also looking at what is cost-effective and providing value and increased productivity. I would like to ensure we have that lens moving forward, regardless of whether we choose Option A, Option B or Option C.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Thank you for welcoming me to the committee; this is my first time here. I had the opportunity to study the presentation, and I would like to congratulate the people who prepared it, because it is not only very specific, but also very enlightening, especially on a very important point. We are currently encouraged to be politically correct and estimate that budgets have to be constantly reduced. We have to do away with that aspect of political correctness when we look at the situation from a historical perspective. We also must not underestimate the efforts that the Senate has made over the past 10 years to properly control its spending.
I would like to highlight one of Senator Quinn’s comments: We have a constitutional obligation to do our work, and the Senate must have the means to fulfill its constitutional obligations in all circumstances. That said, I agree with Senator Boehm on a number of points. First of all, it is important to avoid across-the-board cuts of 10% across all services, because what may seem like a good idea always proves to be a bad one. I have had similar experiences in other administrations, and I can tell you that across-the-board cuts have never been the right decision, firstly because they harm certain service users. For example, when it comes to services for Indigenous people or criteria reserved for vulnerable individuals, who are our primary clients here in the Senate, and whose voices are not heard, across-the-board cuts cause direct harm in that kind of situation.
With respect to Senator Saint-Germain’s proposal on reviewing programs, I completely agree, because those are low‑hanging fruit, and we could think of elements that are found in the budgets.
Certain budget items are repeated year after year, regardless of whether the amounts set out in the budget are used. That kind of review, which is not a program review, would be what you suggested doing, Senator Saint-Germain, where senators ask themselves whether they have to travel business class when they are travelling between Quebec City and Ottawa. In any event, I do not think that business class is allowed between those two cities, because it simply does not exist on the plane, or if it does, it exists by accident, and similar criteria needs to be established.
However — and I did not see anything about this in the presentation this morning — I think it is important to review whether there are any budget items that repeat year after year and for which expenditures are constantly lower than the funds set out in the budget.
Those are things that are easy to review, that are within our means and that have no impact on services. Senator Housakos was talking about the operating budgets of senators’ offices. In some respects, they could be transferred from an underused budget item to an overused budget item. At the end of the fiscal year, we would see whether that led to any savings.
As far as I am concerned, I do not think that we should cave in to what would be seen as a requested effort. Instead, we have to move toward a realistic effort based on the need to adequately fulfill our mandate.
I am not sure a specific committee needs to be created to do so, unless the subcommittee believes that it is so overwhelmed that it cannot do that work. There are senators with more years of service than me, and I trust their expertise in terms of whether the subcommittee is the ideal place. My instinct would be to say that it is. The people in the subcommittee are familiar with operations and budgets, and they carry out ad hoc exercises or exercises that are more broadly focused on achieving efficiency in budget expenditures. I would think that creating another committee would be more likely to make things harder, while we have to focus on doing the work as efficiently and quickly as possible.
Senator Henkel: Like everyone, I would like to thank the administration for the work that has been done and is being done responsibly. It is true that there could be a program review. I agree with everything that has been said by my colleagues.
I would like to raise an important point. I have asked myself these questions a few times: What does a senator do? What is our role? What is the importance of what we do in the eyes of Canadians?
With everything that exists today, do we have the means to achieve our ambitions? We should instead reverse the roles and ask ourselves the following: Do we have budgets allocated to senators’ offices for appropriate skills and for the ability to deliver the work that we do? That is one of the questions we have to ask ourselves. I understand that the value of human resources should be a priority. We have to pay our employees properly so that they can help us do our work.
Next, it is standard practice to review programs or exceptions or anything that should be reassessed or reanalyzed today. It is normal to constantly assess things. Nothing is static.
We are currently facing global cuts in this country for reasons that we know, which are economic reasons. Should we make efforts ourselves? Absolutely. However, we also have to commit. If it is the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, if we do not create another volunteer group of senators who wish to help analyze things differently, it will be important for the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets to give us steps. At each step of what has been accomplished or found, it is important for us to be able to share with the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, so senators feel included and understand the process under way.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: This has been a very interesting discussion. I would like to reiterate that if there is a review that is undertaken — I’m not convinced it is actually necessary, given what we have heard from administration — that we take an equity lens. It is easy to say we should be cutting things from senators’ budgets when you are from Ontario and Quebec. It is very different when you are coming from other parts of Canada. Travel and accommodation and being away from home and family is a huge burden and consideration we need to take. I know this job requires a lot of us, and it is a privilege, but there are also tolls to one’s health and well-being that need to be considered.
If we do create a committee, I would suggest it has to be a new committee, not with individuals with perceived biases or looking in particular areas for savings; that it is a committee composed of a range of senators from different experiences here, different regions of the country, different backgrounds and identities as well, because we are all going to be bringing different lenses to the work. As a newer senator — and the newer colleagues I have talked to — we have concerns about certain policies and budgets that inhibit our role and the job that we are here to do as well. I want to ensure that those are taken into full consideration.
I understand that there are experiences of the past that still colour the lenses of many senators around the table, but those are not the only experiences here. We are in a new, modern Senate that is moving toward independence, more nonpartisanship, and we need the appropriate tools and resources to be able to do that work effectively on behalf of Canadians. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Senator Moreau’s example is relevant. There are items where we are not spending the entire envelope that was set out. One example is living expenses. No matter where we live, living expenses are the same. That is why we have a point system. We reduced the budget for living expenses by saying that we generally never spend it. However, exceptions have been created because some people will exceed the allocated amount. It is clear that there are items that are underused overall, but the amount set aside is not enough individually. There is a balance to be struck in this exercise. We are creating special cases, which increases the administration’s workload, because they have to be authorized on a case-by-case basis.
There is another thing that I find very interesting from this morning’s discussion. Should we mandate the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets or create another committee? We are usually supposed to mandate the subcommittee. If we multiply committees, we will also have to multiply the resources accordingly. When people say they have to clean up, they say they have to clean up their own backyard first.
As senators, do we have any benefits that can be compared with other types of elected officials who are governed by public funds? That may be the first thing that should be done when our benefits are adjusted. For example, Senator Saint-Germain’s example of travelling first class is relevant. We have the opportunity to do so, while others elected officials do not, regardless of the legislative assembly in Canada. Efficiencies have been identified, for example, reducing cafeteria costs. There may be other elements we should look at as well.
Senator Saint-Germain: I would like to come back to the comment made by our colleague Senator Kristopher Wells. I am looking around the table. I see representatives from all regions of the country. I see white, Indigenous and Black women. I see men and women. Most of all, I see senators who have a good understanding of the Senate’s role, who are aware of the economic situation in Canada, and who are equally aware that they will be consulted as part of the work that the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets may do. Senator Henkel’s proposal is very relevant: that all members of the committee be informed of the steps and be able to be consulted.
I would like to close my remarks by saying that as a francophone white woman, I can assure you that when I look at a bill or at files in the Senate, I keep in mind the concerns of our colleagues, of Indigenous peoples, of 2SLGBTQI+ communities and of all vulnerable people in Canada.
I think that if we see our role as representatives of our provinces and territories, representatives of racialized groups, outrageously criminalized groups, this is not the role of a single senator who is a member of a community or a victim, but the role of all of us.
I would like to stress that the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets is able to consider all of these things and do so efficiently, that is, in a way that would take into account specific situations, such as remoteness for travel, or exceptional situations regarding health and family circumstances. I really want to emphasize this, because I personally think we have a responsibility to be very familiar with and fully understand the issues before us, to do so on a Canada-wide scale, and to have not a restrictive spirit here but a spirit of openness and inclusion.
[English]
Gérald Lafrenière, Deputy Clerk of the Senate, Legislative Services, Senate of Canada: I just want to add two quick points that I think will also help in the consideration of the Senate budget moving forward.
The two things we often talk about are senators’ offices and then the administration, as if the administration is something completely separate from senators’ offices. I think the administration is not well named. The administration should be named Services to Senators, because that’s what we do. Every directorate provides services to senators, not individually but globally to your offices. All of those services have been requested by senators in the past. So when we say we should do a program review, I 100% support the idea of Senator Quinn in looking at our services, but to think we will be able to cut and that it will not affect services to senators — I think that is something you need to realize moving forward. I just want to put that in context.
The second thing is that it is really important that we talk about the 449 cap of FTEs in the Senate. When the 449 cap was introduced, the Senate administration had 556 employees at the time. We were asked to cut seven positions in a six-month period. Since that time, new initiatives have been brought forward at the request of senators. I’ll talk about cybersecurity, which became a huge issue. We needed two new FTEs. We didn’t get two new FTEs; we cut two other positions. In this year’s budget, in the proposals that are going forward, there are discussions about cutting another two positions to invest in a new program that has been requested by senators. So that’s 11 positions in a period of three years, and it is over 2% of the Senate Administration. I just think that is important to put into context.
I look at Senator Tannas and Senate Forest, people who have been on SEBS, who were there three years ago. There was a clear request from senators that when the administration does our work, we do it efficiently and that we find efficiencies where we can. I think we’ve done a really good job in that, and the work continues.
I’m not saying we need to ignore the economic context and the deficit at the federal level. We all need to contribute to addressing that, but I think it is really important to look at the work we’ve done in the last ten years and particularly in the last four years with the efficiency reviews that we’ve already done ahead of everybody else.
The Chair: Thank you, Gerry.
I will try to conclude here because we have to move on to other things. I think we’ve discussed this quite thoroughly this morning.
If people are in agreement, we have had suggestions on having program reviews. In the program reviews, we would be looking at senators’ travel and the travel points. The way we spend or the way we look at programs would be looked at. From there, we would be looking at setting priorities. These are the two main things I heard: to find cost efficiencies and to reduce some of the items that are repetitive, where we set a budget but we don’t use the money, and it’s been like that year over year. We would be having a broader view of how we spend money, but with program reviews and with priorities set, with the goal of finding cost efficiencies. It also means looking at senators’ offices to see if there is enough money there, just to reset. We also talked about using SEBS as the committee that would be doing this work. Probably, we could add some senators to SEBS to provide input, but we would not create a new committee because that will add more pressure on the Senate’s resources.
If we are comfortable with this, we would be moving forward with this and looking at bringing something back to this committee so you can have a broader view of this.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, chair, for the summary and clarification of the discussions. What you just said is important in the sense of having additional folks join SEBS for this particular topic because I know that SEBS is a busy committee. I know that our CIBA subcommittee is a busy committee. In a two-hour span, you will not have any meaningful input, and all of it will be done by administration. I think there needs to be an interactive type of arrangement between senators themselves and administration. We simply have to take the time.
You said another thing. Senator Housakos and others talked about the low-hanging fruit on which we could make a decision today, if we wanted to, and that is, stop executive class or first‑class travel, or whatever it is. Stop support for spousal language training. Stop spousal travelling outside the National Capital Region. Others may want to talk about something even more close to that. But there are some decisions that can be taken now. I’m sure people watching this are saying that surely there are things that can be done now, based on this discussion, that there are low-hanging fruit, which are not controversial and that should be done. I just wanted to add that to your summary because, otherwise, there would a lengthy discussion around those low-hanging fruit.
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: What I wanted to say in response to the comment made by our clerk, Mr. Lafrenière, is that I realize that what is happening right now has everything to do with perceptions. There is a perception that the administration, and not the services to senators, makes the decisions, that the steering committee of the Standing Committee of Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration makes the decisions, that the administration does things separately and that senators are subject to the decisions that are made.
I think that the important thing today is what we are doing, in other words, as you summarized so well, that the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets will do its job of reviewing programs, but that it will share the results and take those steps quickly, without spending one or two years, because we are in an emergency. As my colleague Senator Quinn was saying, I think it is important to come back with decisions that could be made more simply and would look at all exceptions. I also believe that what has been harmful is that our current programs and procedures — I may talk about reviewing these procedures from time to time — have made it so that we have many exception requests. It is all of those exception requests that create disparities today. If there is an exception for one person, why not for another? In fact, the procedures may not be sufficiently up to date or clear enough.
Senator Moreau: Very quickly, I think that you have done a great job summarizing the mandate that we want to give the subcommittee, Madam Chair.
However, I would add two things: first, that interim reports be tabled, as was mentioned, so that we can quickly get results on what could be implemented more quickly.
Second, I propose that the reports include comparisons between each program review element and other government entities, be they provinces or other government entities or federal institutions. That would ensure that we have a point of comparison for each element so that we can determine whether we are going far enough.
I will conclude by adding to what Senator Henkel said: Yes, it may be a matter of perception, but the reality is that there is no duality between senators and the administration, because all decisions that have been made were made by senators in committee.
[English]
Senator Housakos: This is not a comment but more of a question to the administration, because I heard Gérald, and I know cost savings has been an ongoing exercise for a number of years. I also do agree with my colleagues that whatever we do, we cannot make a knee-jerk reaction. We have to be thoughtful and strategic about it.
Today, if I could ask a question of administration, what would be the savings if, effective tomorrow morning, we stopped business travel, for example, for senators? What would be the specific saving if, for example, we eliminate designated travellers? What would be the specific saving to the institution if we eliminated designated travellers travelling across the country but maintain designated travellers between the precincts and our home? For those two or three questions, for example, would you have the answers at the tip of your fingers, since we’ve done this exercise of cost savings the last few years?
The Chair: We don’t have those answers available.
Senator Housakos: I’m asking the question because, if we’ve done all this in an attempt to find savings, with all due respect, these are answers we should have at the tip of our fingers.
My second point is something about democracy. It’s a beautiful thing, but it is slow. I think Senator Henkel brought up the point that we cannot engage in this exercise and come back six or twelve months from now and continue to talk about it.
Whoever we designate to do this, these are specific points they have to analyze. When we do come back and do the analysis of what their analysis was, we need to have answers to all these questions so we can make adequate and intelligent decisions, because sometimes what we perceive to be an enormous cost savings isn’t, and sometimes what we think is minimal ends up being a huge cost saving.
Senator Osler: To your point about SEBS being well placed to do a review, I would support that. I would also support the addition of other senators to SEBS to provide the regional diversity and other diverse perspectives to undertake the review.
I’m going to touch on what my colleague Senator Housakos said about having that information. I think that’s needed. We can’t make a decision, or certainly I can’t make a decision, without having that information present to analyze.
I would, again, ask that a review look not just at efficiencies but cost effectiveness. What would increase value? What would increase productivity? I would even ask that consideration be given to innovations or doing things differently. We’re talking about air travel. Why not consider hybrid work? Reduce senators’ travel by air, which would not only reduce costs but reduce our carbon emissions.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I have a comment on the perception that our distinguished colleague Senator Henkel pointed out. There is a perception that it is the administration or the steering committee that makes decisions. It is important to speak out against that. It is the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration; it is all the senators here who make them. As we have seen, it is not the administration that will decide, but we as senators, as members of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. That is obviously a very important element to clarify.
The other aspect is that the greatest challenge for the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets is finding a time to meet. It is clear that given our traditional mandate, with the approval of audited records and all the work that has to be done, we will have to set aside a fixed period each week if we want to achieve what is expected of us. Otherwise, we will not be able to deliver the goods.
We are already working on coordinated travel — I will actually give you a brief oral report later — and it is quite an exercise. Unfortunately, a colleague was frustrated with me because she was unable to attend the meeting, and we held it anyway. This is a must for the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets. It takes into account the availability of members, but what about the administration, the rooms and the clerks? This is a basic requirement for the subcommittee to fulfill its mandate, which is becoming increasingly broad. Remember that the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets has to deal with the travel expenses of various committees. The mandate is extremely broad.
In order for us to accept this mandate, I am asking you for a set weekly meeting period. That would enable us to get down to work and have the time we need to fulfill our demanding mandate.
The Chair: And committed individuals who will do everything they can to be there when meetings are called.
Senator Forest: That’s right. We’re going to double the wages of the committed personnel, who are working for free!
Senator Henkel: Thank you, my dear colleague, but I was talking about the perception, whether you believe it or not, based on what I have been hearing outside the committee since I arrived. It was important for me to bring this up around the table. There are many senators around the table, but there are also a number of them outside this committee.
I also thank you because this supports what I was saying earlier about senators’ budgets, offices and staff. You have just pointed out our availability and our ability as senators to be everywhere at once and to fulfill our many responsibilities. Why not consider increasing our budget to recruit exceptional individuals to whom we, as senators, would give clear mandates, who could work with the administration and then come back to us with ready-made proposals to help the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, for instance? Why shouldn’t these people do that instead of us doing it, as always? I propose that we give these skilled individuals the mandate to help us do the work.
Senator Forest: It’s the administration that makes the decisions.
Senator Henkel: No, I did not say that. For example, I have a specific person in my office to whom I give information. I look at the feedback on that information. That person works with the administration and brings the work back to us, which is then analyzed by the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets. It’s a big job, involving analyses and proposals, which must first be accepted by me in my office before being brought to the Internal Economy Committee. This would be one less job for us senators, who have to run around to other committees and do what we already do. I am talking about skilled support in our offices. It’s a suggestion.
[English]
The Chair: I return to what I said earlier. What we would be looking at is program reviews, priorities set, cost efficiencies, repetitive or unused costs, receiving interim reports, and elements to bring changes quickly to the processes we have in place now. SEBS would be the committee looking at this, possibly on a weekly basis, with engaged senators who are going to be available and present at all committee meetings.
If we are all in agreement, we would be moving forward with this review. Are we all in agreement, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried, thank you. It was a very interesting discussion.
Next, we are going to speak about the concerns regarding language training for senators, including any associated travel costs and requests to purchase language learning applications.
There are two things.
[Translation]
Thank you, Nathalie and Isabelle. I moved on too quickly to my next topic.
[English]
The decision we can quickly take this morning is to not permit the reimbursement of language training for spouses and to put a moratorium in place for spouse’s travel. That would be the correction: a moratorium that they could put in place right now until SEBS does the review. If we decide to do this right now, we are going to be able to move to the next item, which is about language training that Toni and Annie would be presenting to us.
[Translation]
This morning, we could decide to no longer allow reimbursement for language training for spouses and to implement a moratorium on travel expenses for language training for spouses.
If you agree with this, honourable senators, that would be the proposal we would make this morning, and then we could move on to the next item, which also concerns language training and is the second item on the agenda.
Is that acceptable to you?
Senator Henkel: I so move.
The Chair: Senator Henkel has moved the motion. Carried. Thank you.
[English]
Good morning, Toni and Annie. You will be presenting the cost associated to the language learning applications. If I forgot something because of my introduction and comments, please feel free to present it too.
[Translation]
Annie Carpentier, Director, Talent Optimization and Employee Well-Being, Human Resources Directorate, Senate of Canada: With regard to learning applications, it is essential to consider the current options that enable senators to improve their proficiency in official languages. For example, the rise in popularity of language learning applications makes them both accessible and effective tools for improving second-language proficiency.
However, there are currently no provisions for this in the policy. That is why we are proposing a selection of software and applications that senators could use to improve their proficiency in both official languages. These tools have been assessed for cybersecurity.
[English]
Senator Osler: Thanks very much for the information.
My question is regarding the criteria that the Human Resources Directorate would use for external official language training. What are the criteria?
Ms. Carpentier: Do you mean for external training? We would suggest at first that official language training would be provided by the House of Commons first, for two years, for senators and their staff members. Toni, do you want to talk about the criteria for the external language training?
Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, Human Resources Directorate, Senate of Canada: We have identified the provisions in SOMP that we would like to modify, senator. Therefore, we would be requesting that individuals who want to take immersion training to do so in the National Capital Region or in their home province, and we would be looking at capping that at every three years, requesting that they use the funds associated with that within that period.
Senator Osler: Are there any other criteria?
Ms. Francis: Do you mean for the course itself, senator?
Senator Osler: Human Resources must preapprove any official language training request other than the program that the House of Commons offers. The request will be denied if it exceeds the available budget.
You mentioned the criteria, and those are the criteria?
Ms. Francis: Yes.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Immersion has to be done for a certain period of time to really be immersion. Do you have a minimum duration requirement for immersion in your criteria?
Ms. Carpentier: The maximum duration is set at two weeks.
Senator Forest: And the minimum?
Ms. Carpentier: Based on what we are seeing right now, the minimum is usually one week.
Senator Forest: If I really want to immerse myself in another language, there has to be a minimum. It would be important to indicate this in the criteria.
Ms. Carpentier: Okay.
Senator Saint-Germain: I first have a comment to make. Individuals don’t need to be bilingual to be appointed to the Senate. I think this is something we should consider when establishing our agenda. I agree that it is an asset to be able to express oneself in both languages, but I think it is important to emphasize this point.
My question concerns the consultation you conducted with experts in second or third-language training. We can see that the criteria are administrative and that there is a maximum of two weeks. First, did you consult with language teaching specialists to establish the policy? Second, once a certain level of bilingualism has been achieved, is there a limit indicating that at that point, it is no longer necessary to take courses, and more specifically, to be allowed to participate in immersion?
Ms. Carpentier: We have a partnership with the House of Commons, so yes, we consulted the House of Commons’ language training experts.
They suggest that training be provided on a regular basis. Their schedule is once or twice a week. So they suggest having a schedule that often occurs during the parliamentary session, for three months, once or twice a week.
It’s true that, to learn a second language, an individual must be diligent in their studies, and must engage in them regularly. These are discussions we have had.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: As someone who has a background in education, pedagogy and learning, I certainly question putting caps on how often or how frequently someone can access a program. Everyone learns at different levels and speeds, particularly when it comes to learning new languages.
I’d like to know first, if we’re putting caps, are there heavy users who are exceeding more than others the amounts or the funding, and why? We need to be careful about just putting caps that are generic if we really want people to learn a language like French. We need to provide all the tools and the support available to do so.
My second question is around some of the programs that we’re talking about funding, such as Duolingo and others. Technology is emerging rapidly. Apple just announced a new set of air pods that do live translation. Would that be covered? We often go to events that don’t have translation. Does that help to reduce costs of translation by engaging in AI to support some of these costs? These are all emerging issues as technology is rapidly advancing. The moment we name certain programs or devices, they’re obsolete, and we then have people asking for exceptions, which, as we’ve talked about, has created more work.
The Chair: If I may add, whenever items are proposed here, especially when we’re talking about technology, they have been vetted by our technology experts. We don’t bring anything in on exceptions without proper vetting and security measures put in place to make sure these items are secure for the Senate, so it’s not easy to bring in new technology or to remove that technology.
Senator Housakos: My understanding is that there are three available options when you want second language training. You can receive it here on the parliamentary precinct in your office through Teams, Zoom or in person. The second one is you can receive it at home. Again, you can take a course, for which you will be reimbursed, or you can continue taking the service on Parliament Hill via Teams or Zoom. The third one is a French immersion program, which, it seems, many senators are flying to faraway places to do. Are there any other categories I’m missing here?
The Chair: Those are the categories.
Senator Housakos: For the first one, if I’m not mistaken, there is no budgetary cost to the Senate — or is there a cost when you’re receiving training either in person in your office or via Teams or Zoom?
Ms. Francis: We have an agreement in place with the House of Commons, so it’s within —
Senator Housakos: So it comes out of the envelope of the Senate, not the senators’ budget?
Ms. Francis: Right. Central finance.
Senator Housakos: The same would occur if the senator were taking a course in Quebec City or Calgary? I assume he’d bill the Parliamentary budget and it wouldn’t be out of his —
Ms. Francis: Yes.
Senator Housakos: For the third, he travels on his points, and then you incur the cost of the French immersion bill?
Ms. Francis: We do, senator, yes.
Senator Housakos: My question is, from those three options, over the last year or two, do you have any data on what percentage of each options is being exercised by senators if we approximate?
Ms. Carpentier: Last year, we had about 70 employees and 16 senators and their spouses who took training with the House of Commons.
Senator Housakos: So 16 senators?
Ms. Carpentier: Yes, 16 senators.
Senator Housakos: Who did it either here in the Parliamentary precinct or via Zoom?
Ms. Carpentier: Yes.
Senator Housakos: How many would have taken it in their home base or town?
Ms. Carpentier: I don’t have that data.
Senator Housakos: It would be helpful if we could get that data, and what would also be helpful is to find out which one costs the most. I think it’s self-evident, and we put that in a pot for evaluation. The question that also has to be considered is the efficiency of the three. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: I have a clarification to make following Senator Forest’s remarks. In order for a senator to be eligible for an immersion project outside their province, they must first have completed two years of training with the House of Commons services. Is that correct?
Senator Forest asked whether there was a minimum or maximum duration for immersion. What I see here is a maximum of two weeks. Is that correct? I thought we had said it was a minimum. It is indeed a maximum.
Are there any specific criteria for authorizing this immersion to take place in a province other than the senator’s province of residence?
Whether in Quebec for English or elsewhere in Canada for French, it seems to me that it would be possible to find a place for immersion within the same province — unless I am mistaken.
Ms. Carpentier: We do have a pre-established list of recognized schools with which we can do business; in most cases, there is one school represented in each province or territory.
Senator Moreau: What current events teach us is that people have trouble telling immersion and leisure travel apart. The more we eliminate the possibility of confusion, the more this perception will be dispelled. In my opinion, if you have immersion in your province of residence, I don’t see how it could be perceived as anything other than true language immersion.
Ms. Carpentier: Thank you for your comment.
[English]
The Chair: To conclude, could I have a mover for the following motion:
That CIBA approve the proposed criteria and updates to SOMP as outlined in Appendix D; and endorse the language learning applications listed in Appendix C as eligible for reimbursement.
Could I get a mover for this motion? Senator Forest.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Item 5.
[Translation]
This item concerns the Senators’ Office Management Policy review.
Tamara Dolan, Chief of Staff, Office of the Chief Corporate Services Officer, and Karen Lynne Hébert, Advisor, Policy and Governance, Office of the Chief Corporate Services Officer, will join us as witnesses.
Honourable senators, the purpose of this briefing note is to obtain a mandate from the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration for the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets to supervise a comprehensive review of the Senators’ Office Management Policy.
As usual, Tamara and Karen Lynne will make the presentation and will then be available to answer our questions.
[English]
Tamara Dolan, Curator, Heritage and Curatorial Services, Senate of Canada: Thank you.
To summarize, the Senators’ Office Management Policy, or SOMP, was adopted by CIBA in April of 2017, and put in place in November of that same year. While the policy has been amended since its approval, it has not had a comprehensive review, and if we look at the best practices for policy reviews, we really should do a comprehensive review every few years.
As such, we’re seeking approval to undertake a comprehensive review of SOMP at this point. As outlined in the briefing note, our recommendation would be to work with SEBS, supported by the administration, to undertake a comprehensive review with the objective of returning to CIBA in June 2026 with a recommendation for the policy to support the needs of the Senate at this point in time.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Tannas: I remember the last time we did SOMP, and I think it was Senator Massicotte, Senator Plett and some others who led us. I think it was a special committee. I was wondering if someone could help with that.
We have piled just about enough onto SEBS’s plate. It’s not in their mandate. They are the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets. It occurs to me that with both this and SARS, it would make sense to task people with specific expertise on or interest in this. That may be wider than the SEBS subcommittee.
I have two questions. Number one, last time, didn’t we do it with a special working group? Number two, why wouldn’t we do that again?
Mr. Lafrenière: Senator Tannas, you’re correct in your statement. What the Senate did in the last drafting of SOMP was to create, in this case, like Senator Quinn indicated, a working group. It wasn’t a subcommittee; it was a working group. To get through its workload, that group agreed to meet over the summer period for days at a time. The working group would meet from nine o’clock in the morning to five o’clock that day, and the same thing the next day. The, the drafter would go away for a couple of weeks, and then two weeks later, they would meet again to discuss the new draft. It was extensive work done by senators who committed their summer period to that.
Ms. Legault: To add to what Mr. Lafrenière said, it was a significant exercise, but I want to remind the committee that SOMP was being written then. We were taking 15 policies and combining them, so it was a significant exercise. At this point, it’s more to review the current SOMP clause by clause to determine if an update is required. It may not be the same level of exercise as it was in the first place.
Senator Housakos: You’re absolutely right, Senator Tannas. It was way back, and I was chair of CIBA at the time. We had undertaken to review SOMP, SARS and SAMP, and you’re right. We had a committee set up of senators. It was led by Don Plett and Senator Massicotte, and there were six or seven senators on it, with extensive consultation with the caucuses at the time. If I’m not mistaken, it went for months, and they put in many hours. Mr. Lafrenière is absolutely right.
This undertaking is not something you can do at SEBS or any special committee because, if I remember correctly, these senators worked through the summer. They came here and spent weeks, they spent hours, and they went through the work. We did SOMP, and we did SARS. There was supposed to be a review of SAMP, Mr. Lafrenière, if you remember, and it’s great that the administration wants to review SOMP and SARS, and we should, but we are about 20 years overdue in reviewing SAMP.
I encourage senators around this table, because the ball was dropped in 2015. It was basically forgotten about. I will tell you SOMP was reviewed 10 years ago, SARS was reviewed 10 years ago, and SAMP was reviewed at the time when the Roman Empire existed.
My recommendation, if there is a willingness to really dive into this and do it effectively, is to create a special committee and make sure it is representative of everyone. In all three areas of this, there are distinct needs. That is why it took so long. You needed to have wide-ranging consultation. Whatever happens in these reforms, there will always be a group of senators who will come after the fact and say, “Yes, but you didn’t think of this case.” That is why this is not something that can be done on the fly. It would require a strategic plan and dedication on the part of people to do it.
The Chair: Could you tell us what SAMP is?
Senator Housakos: It’s the Senate Administrative Rules for the administration.
The Chair: Isn’t that the policies?
Ms. Legault: The administration policies.
Senator Housakos: The Senate administration policies. We have the Senate office policies. We have the administration rules that administer the rules. There are policies as well for Senate staff, and those need to be reviewed as well. They haven’t been reviewed.
The Chair: They have.
Senator Housakos: When and by who?
The Chair: There is a schedule.
Senator Housakos: If you are talking about the review by Senate Administration staff reviewing their —
The Chair: No, it comes to SEBS. I have read many policies, senator, and corrected many policies.
Senator Housakos: Who carried out that particular review? Were senators involved in that review?
The Chair: Some were done by steering, some by HR and some by SEBS.
Senator Housakos: I’m not talking about steering approving it. I’m talking about who actually conducted the review. Were senators participating in the committee work that did the review of the administrative rules?
The Chair: We review the work that is being done. It is not for discussion this morning.
Senator Housakos: What I wish to say, Madam Chair, it is one thing when the administration reviews and audits themselves, and they come back to steering and CIBA and they say, “We have done a review, everything is great,” or “We have made some changes.” That is not a thorough review or thorough audit of those particular procedures.
The Chair: I beg to differ.
Senator Housakos: I am sorry. The administration is not self‑governing; they are accountable to this body, the Senate and senators, so that review should also be conducted by senators. That is the point I’m trying to make.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. I believe that is what we have been doing. I was on the Audit Committee about eight years ago. That is when the schedule was put in place. Every policy has been reviewed and brought forward by staff to different committees. We have reviewed them. It is an ongoing process. Now the review is done on either a three- or five-year basis, so you know.
Senator Quinn: I agree that this is yet another topic. I have a note saying this needs a special group to look at it because people are so busy in SEBS. I agree they just got inundated. God bless SEBS. If there are other senators there, that will be helpful.
On this one, is this something the Audit Committee could do? I have no appreciation for how busy Audit Committee is or isn’t, but you have a committee there. You referred to it in the last discussion as a potential for expenditure review. Is there any case to be made for them to undertake this activity with the same idea, expand that group?
The Chair: It is not their mandate.
Senator Quinn: I could argue.
Senator Moodie: I’m going to weigh in on this. Listening to the conversation today, it was clear to me from the first proposal that we needed a dedicated group to take on this work in a systematic way, a group that would be spending the appropriate amount of time, that would have the right people sitting at that table and that could review, in the context of today’s environment, many of the SOMP rules that are troublesome, like spousal travel, spousal language training and so on. There are more in there. We need to be doing this work in a systematic way. There is an appetite for it. None of us want to get caught again being in the press. We all have the same goal here.
We should bite the bullet and form a special committee to do some of this systematic program review. SEBS is overwhelmed. I can’t imagine. You don’t have sitting times. You can’t get people to meetings. Why would we pretend this is going to be done effectively by you? I’m really sympathetic. I can’t imagine how you could do this. It is unreasonable to expect SEBS to take on this extra work. We should be acting responsibly and forming a committee — not a committee, because that’s extra administrative layers, but a working group that can be disbanded once the work is done.
Senator Osler: I am struck that we just finished a discussion on finding cost efficiencies but now are considering forming a new group, committee or subcommittee. I would encourage us to look within our existing subcommittees, as Senator Forest had asked for a dedicated time, versus potentially creating another group which would require more resources both in terms of human resources and funding. I’m saying this, again, to ask for ways for us to work in a cost-effective manner to deliver value for the work we do rather than creating yet another group or committee.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
I am somewhat confused. I have a motion to bring forward. I’m not sure it is the right motion. I’m not sure we necessarily want a working group on this. At the moment, the motion says:
[Translation]
That the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be mandated to supervise a comprehensive review of the Senators’ Office Management Policy by June 2026.
[English]
That is the motion I have to bring forward.
I understand the challenges that SEBS has. I would say that January is an open month. There are four weeks in January when we are not sitting. The group could meet at that time. I’m not sure we will have many volunteers.
Yes, there is a lot of work that needs to be done. For the moment, we are in agreement that SOMP and SARs need to be reviewed. June 2026 would probably be the best end date for the work. How we get there is another story. That’s the question we have, and the next item is about SARs. It is exactly the same thing.
The other thing we have to take into consideration is the fact that we need people who are on CIBA to understand the complexities associated with budgeting, where and how the money is used, and how we streamline that with the rules we put in place. We can have people from outside of CIBA on this committee, but they have to understand the money aspect and how we mesh the rules. That’s one of the challenges we have. That’s why we were looking at SEBS and probably having more members, but SEBS being the committee that will spearhead this review.
Senator Saint-Germain: I’m in agreement with this motion. I would add to the arguments you gave us, Madam Chair. The workload of the administration, if we have an additional working group or subcommittee, whatever, will be increased. They are the same people who are supporting and advising the SEBS committee, and others. Would they have to hire two additional people? We need to be conscious of the cost of this decision. This is why I support the motion. It is also consistent to empower SEBS with this additional mandate, consistent with the previous decisions we just made. I support the motion.
Senator Housakos: I don’t disagree with the motion. It is imperative that we allow senators who are not necessarily part of CIBA to participate in the process. Particularly when it comes to SOMP, it is a question of applicability of our day-to-day activities and SOMP. Any senator who is awake and active in this institution will be able to give some input if they think a rule is good, bad, agnostic or whatever opinion they might have on a particular element of SOMP. That’s why we had created that special group back then, because the truth is, to get SOMP done properly, you need a large number of senators inputting. If you come from British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Quebec or Atlantic Canada, SOMP applies to you differently, and you have different needs and requirements to do your job. I think it is not only imperative that we have outside involvement in the process, but we also have to make sure it is representative of all the possible cases, regions and what senators face. I leave to steering to make sure that we get that input. If we don’t get that input, the review will not be accurate and will not be efficient in the end.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Housakos.
With my two colleagues, they are proposing that the work can start now but could also be completed over the summer of 2026 in conjunction with the expenditure review that is being done for the purposes of the Main Estimates. The end date for the work would be the end of September — September 30, 2026 — which gives us a year to do the work and maybe spread out the weekly meetings to 52 instead of 36. Are we in agreement, colleagues?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I realize that it is Christmas Day for the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets; we are receiving a lot of gifts and we will be able to set aside January and next summer to work. It will be wonderful. Seriously, I think we need to review our current mandate, which is very important, and come up with a work plan. Since I have been chairing the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, the big challenge has been finding a time to meet. It is clear that we will need a fixed period with resources, and the first exercise will be to put our essential responsibilities on the table, which include adopting our audited financial statements and preparing the budget, then submitting a work plan and stating the context in which we are able to operate if we wish to do so in a responsible and reasonable manner. Thank you for your great generosity, which I welcome with open arms.
The Chair: You spoke like a true committee chair. If I understand correctly, Senator Saint-Germain, you are moving the motion?
Senator Saint-Germain: I move the motion.
The Chair: With the addition that I read to you concerning the issue of September 2026. Now, for the sake of efficiency, we are talking about the Senators’ Office Management Policy and SORs, so we would be killing two birds with one stone by approving this motion; is that acceptable to you?
[English]
Senator Quinn: I don’t know if this is a point of order, but could we hear the wording of the motion?
The Chair: Yes.
That SEBS be mandated to supervise the complete examination of the SOMP;
That work can start now but will be completed over the summer of 2026 in conjunction with the expenditure review that is being done for the purposes of the Main Estimates; and
That they would present their report by September 30.
That would be for SOMP and SARs. I will stop there for that motion.
Senator Quinn: And expenditure review?
The Chair: Mr. Lafrenière will simplify the motion.
Mr. Lafrenière: Part of the wording was to provide context to the committee.
[Translation]
I believe the motion could read as follows: That the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be mandated to supervise the comprehensive review of the Senators’ Office Management Policy and also for SORs by the end of September 2026.
[English]
Senator Quinn: I thought expenditure review is in there as well.
Mr. Lafrenière: The expenditure review was agreed to earlier in the meeting.
Senator Quinn: That’s process. Is it included in this motion?
Mr. Lafrenière: It is, but the committee will have both mandates.
Senator Quinn: Well, then, put it in that motion and make it simple.
Senator Osler: I have a question for clarification. In the package, there were two recommendations. The first recommendation, I believe, is what you are reading out in regards to SEBS reviewing SOMP. In the package, there was a second recommendation that OLCPC be instructed to proceed with drafting updated SARs. In what you’ve read out, are we now taking OLCPC out of this and it will fall to SEBS to review both SOMP and SARs?
Julie Wellington, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: Maybe I can speak to that. We would be the ones facilitating the redrafting, but obviously with instructions from senators. If the instructions come from the same committee, it is because they are intertwined and we do not want to duplicate. It’s to make sure they work together.
The Chair: Thank you. We would do SOMP, SARs and the expenses review for September 30, 2026. That is easy enough as a motion? Senator Saint-Germain, are you still moving the motion?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you. Are we all in agreement, colleagues?
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: Are we going to wait until September 2026 to get the preliminary results, or will senators be kept informed at different stages as we go along?
The Chair: I think the results will be reported on a quarterly basis; they will therefore include comprehensive reviews during the period, so that we don’t have to deal with everything at once.
Senator Forest: I intend — if I survive all this — to table a work plan that will determine how we will proceed.
[English]
The Chair: Are we all in agreement, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
We’re doing pretty good, colleagues. We are on item 7.
[Translation]
This item concerns documents that were sent for information purposes this week. Four documents were sent to you: information on the Senate’s public accounts for the 2024‑2025 fiscal year, the report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, the decisions reported to the Internal Economy Committee, and the public notice of meetings of the Internal Economy Committee’s subcommittees. You also received Senator Petitclerc’s request and the response provided to her by the Internal Economy Committee on office allocation. Are there any questions or comments?
[English]
Senator Tannas: I have a question on the steering committee’s decision with respect to parliamentary association executives and delegations and a new formula that was put forward and determined at a steering meeting over the summer.
I note that the decision was taken without consultation with all the affected groups and without any transparency. It is contrary, I understand, to the recommendations that were actually made by officials from the International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate and is a substantial departure from past practices.
My office conducted a review of the past 18 months of delegations. It took the new formula to try to figure out what assignments would look like, and it was interesting. If we use the past track record with the new formula, the ISG, the largest group, would get about 44% of all of the Senate delegate positions, which is in proportion to other standings in the Senate. The CPC, the Conservative Party, would get 32% of all Senate delegates on parliamentary trips, using the past and projecting to the future, which is 32% when they represent 13% proportionality in the Senate. The Canadian Senators Group, or CSG, would receive 12% of the Senate delegate assignments, and they represent 19% of senators in the Senate, so it is not proportional. The Progressive Senate Group, or PSG, would receive 12% of the delegates, and they represent 17% in the Senate, so that is not proportional.
My question to steering is this: What methodology was used to rationalize this particular decision?
The Chair: Could you bring your question in camera? It is very difficult to provide information about in camera discussions. That’s where I would say we should bring this conversation.
Senator Tannas: That is in and of itself an answer. Thank you.
The Chair: I understand that SEBS had a chance to meet last night to discuss the familiarization tour. It did not provide enough time for a report to be ready for CIBA, but I understand that the chair, Senator Forest, may be available to provide a short update on this important file.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: With a view to presenting preliminary reports, even though we do not have a written report, I just want to tell you that we managed to hold our first meeting last night on coordinated travel. I am especially pleased that we conducted a survey of all our colleagues this summer. We had a response rate of over 54%, which is very high. This is tangible proof that the issue is of concern to many of our colleagues.
My goal is to submit a report as soon as possible, given the extent to which this issue has been covered in the media. In conclusion, the survey indicates a strong consensus in favour of authorizing this type of travel, provided that we are able to clarify and tighten the rules governing this type of activity, which is the subject of a personal initiative by one or more senators. That is a brief summary. We will meet to complete the report and submit it as soon as possible. This is what I wanted to give you as a progress report to keep you informed of developments in the situation.
The Chair: Before we move in camera, are there any other matters you would like to discuss in public this morning before I adjourn the meeting?
[English]
Senator MacDonald: I would like an opportunity to go back and address a small issue on item 3. It was something I meant to bring up, and I was remiss. Can I do it now?
The Chair: Is it going to be in camera?
Senator MacDonald: It doesn’t have to be in camera. Sorry, item 2. There are two clauses in there which probably deserve to have a small change to the wording. They are items 16.2 and 16.3. Item 16.2 says:
If the notice indicates that the head of a government institution intends to disclose an unpublished record or unpublished information about a Senator or an unpublished record or unpublished information in which the Senator is identifiable, the Clerk must advise the Senator before making representations.
I suggest we should change “advise” to “consult.” I think it is important that we are consulted as opposed to advised when it comes to something of this matter.
Item 16.3 says:
If the notice indicates that the head of a government institution intends to disclose an unpublished record or unpublished information about the responsibilities of a House Officer or a committee chair, the Clerk must advise the House Officer or committee chair, as the case may be, before making representations.
Again, in that instance where it says “the clerk must advise,” I think it should be changed to “the clerk must consult.” I believe we should be consulted before anything is published.
The Chair: We will take this under review and return to the committee on this.
Are there any other matters for the public portion of our meeting? All right. Thank you.
(The committee continued in camera.)