THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 27, 2025
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(1), to consider financial and administrative matters; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), to consider financial and administrative matters.
Senator Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Lucie Moncion. I’m an Ontario senator. It’s my privilege to chair the Standing 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 incidents. Consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Always keep your earpiece away from all microphones. Microphones must not be touched. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator. Avoid handling your earpieces while the microphone is active. Earpieces should either remain on the ear or 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 Anishinaabe 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 colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Senator Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boyer: Senator Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest from the Gulf region of Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Francis: Brian Francis, Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: Danièle Henkel from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Osler: Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, Manitoba.
Senator Housakos: Leo Housakos, Quebec.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: I would also like to welcome all those who follow our deliberations across the country.
[Translation]
We’ll proceed directly to the consent agenda. Colleagues, our first item for the public portion of the meeting —
[English]
Senator Housakos: I have a request. With leave of the committee, I would like to deposit a motion as the first item and put first on the agenda with leave of the committee.
The Chair: Is leave granted, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Housakos: I will allow for the motion that I am putting forward to be distributed first. It is a motion that is dealing with many discussions we had about reviewing the Senate Office Management Policy, or SOMP, and the Senate Administrative Rules, or SARs, and setting up a special committee. It’s a short motion but worth the time to read.
I know that we adopted a motion at this committee on October 2 in order to send the process of reviewing SOMP and SARs, which all groups recognized as being fundamental to the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, or SEBS. After extensive consultation with the chair of SEBS, Senator Forest, and the deputy chair, Senator Carignan, we have come to the conclusion that this project is just too vast and too wide at a time when SEBS is already overloaded with doing a very deep dive on the expenses of the Senate.
Furthermore, after consultation with the leaders, in order to carry on with the really intense review and a comprehensive review of SOMP and SARS, we all recognized this has become an issue and needs to be addressed — the last time we reviewed this as an institution was more than 10 or 11 years ago — and a special working group would be required, making sure there is representation from all Senate groups and also making sure that the composition of that committee is representative far and wide, of course, to reflect the realities of every region of the country that senators face.
I can go quickly through the motion. It is very prescriptive, colleagues. It gives specific dates, specific objectives and specific roles.
It is:
That the working group of senators be established and authorized to supervise and oversee comprehensive reviews of Senate Office Management Policy, known as SOMP, and the Senate Administrative Rules, known as SARs;
That the composition of the working group be determined by agreement by the leaders, ensuring representation from all recognized groups in all regions with priority for membership being given to senators from served at least three years since their appointment to the Senate with the chair to be a senator who has served at least five years since their appointment;
That the working group also be authorized to supervise and oversee and review in consolidation of all Senate and administrative and expense-related policies into a simple and single and comprehensive policy to be called the Senate Administrative Management Policy, SAMP, thereby completing the second phase of the expense rules review process initiated back in 2015 of which the first phase produced SOMP;
— but we never got to the other phase —
That the working group be mandated to conduct its work in consultation with the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and the office of the Chief Corporate Services Officer, and ensure coordination between review processes so that consulting documents are coherent and complementary;
That the Senate Administration provide the administrative and technical support needed for the working group to carry out its mandate;
That the Senate Administration submit draft revised versions of SOMP and SARs to the working group no later than April 15, 2026, and that the working group submit its report, including any recommendations and proposed changes to the aftermath rules and policy instruments, to the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration no later than September 24, 2026, and may submit interim reports from time to time as required;
That the Senate Administration submit a draft version of SAMP to the working group no later than September 2026, and that the working group submit a draft policy to the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration no later than December 1, 2026, and may submit interim reports from time to time as required;
That the motion adopted on October 2, 2025, assigning oversight of these reviews to the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be set aside in favour of signing this mandate to the working group.
Any questions, colleagues?
The Chair: Questions or comments?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: One major point regarding the situation of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets is the following. Given our mandate to review each directorate and conduct an in-depth analysis of contingencies and resources, this takes us to the end of June, according to the work plan that will be tabled.
It was completely impossible to do both at the same time. Given that one of the subcommittee’s challenges is finding a space to meet, after our discussions, we concluded that we couldn’t deliver on the mandate as it stood.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Boyer: I understand that this was created because SEBS is overloaded. Is that correct?
Senator Housakos: In large part. The other part, of course, is SEBS is very narrow in terms of representation of senators. When you are dealing with SOMP and SARs, you want to ensure the committee is a bit larger because my reality as a senator from Quebec and your reality coming from the Prairies and somebody else coming from further out is different. That committee has to reflect all the realities and challenges regionally in this country.
Senator Boyer: I agree with that as an Indigenous woman. I am also wondering about the authority. This working group would have the same authority as SEBS? Okay. All right. Thank you for clearing that up.
Senator Moodie: I would go on the record to say that I proposed this in the beginning, and I’m glad to see that we are here now.
The Chair: Are you proposing the motion or —
Senator Moodie: I would like to.
The Chair: — or is Senator Housakos proposing the motion?
Are we in agreement, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you, Senator Housakos. We will go back to our agenda.
[Translation]
The first item for the public portion of the meeting is the consent agenda for approval. As a reminder, the items on the consent agenda aren’t controversial, but they do require our approval. For these items, a briefing note, a form or another supporting document is submitted in advance, but no presentation is required.
For today’s meeting, we have two items on the consent agenda. The first item is the minutes of the public portion of the meeting held on November 6, 2025. The second item is the Senate’s rapid antigen detection testing program, the Senate policy on COVID-19 vaccination and other preventive measures in the workplace.
Are there any questions or comments regarding the items on the consent agenda? I don’t see any. Can a senator move the following motion:
That the consent agenda be adopted.
Senator Henkel: I move the motion.
The Chair: Senator Henkel, thank you. Are the senators ready to vote? Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
[English]
The next item is the report from the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan. Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, and Julie Lacroix, Director, Corporate Security Directorate, will now join us as witnesses. It is my understanding that Senator Tannas will make a few opening remarks and Josée and Julie will assist in answering questions.
Senator Tannas, the floor is yours.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, chair and colleagues. I have the honour to present the Long Term Vision and Plan Subcommittee’s first report. This report provides several updates and related recommendations on projects tied to the Centre Block Rehabilitation and other Long Term Vision and Plan, or LTVP, projects.
You have all received a copy of the report, and I’m not going to go into a detailed description and read the report, but I will summarize some key points, particularly with respect to the first recommendation.
In brief, the subcommittee met in October and November with Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, and Senate Administration to discuss the following items: The Confederation Building rehabilitation, the Centre Block Rehabilitation cost containment options, design strategy for heritage rooms, Centre Block Rehabilitation and Parliament Welcome Centre design, the Parliamentary Campus Tunnels project and the Block 2 Redevelopment Project.
Starting with the Confederation Building rehabilitation, you may be wondering why we are worried about the Confederation Building as it is 100% occupied by members of Parliament. The fact is that some years ago, it was determined that the Confederation Building, which was in a schedule to be rehabilitated in the future, is in need of more urgent rehabilitation. It is one of the worst buildings, in terms of the shape that it is in, in the Parliamentary Precinct inventory.
As I mentioned, it is occupied exclusively by members of Parliament. There are some ministerial offices as well. Once it was determined that this building needed more urgent attention, the Senate was asked — and we agreed — to leave Victoria Building, one of our office complexes, earlier than planned, and that it would be fitted up for members of Parliament as a temporary space coming out of Confederation Building. We agreed to that.
The initial plan was that Confederation Building would be rehabilitated in two phases. In situ, there would be half the building occupied and unoccupied. It was later determined that the best approach was to totally empty Confederation Building all at once. This will happen somewhere in the early 2030s, so this isn’t happening next week.
In the planning for this, it then meant that they needed to find offices for 34 MPs, and they had the shortfall in their inventory.
The Senate, through this committee, expressed its willingness to accommodate 34 MPs’ offices within our entire inventory of swing space, which is the Chambers building, as well as East Block, the new Senate Office Complex, which is currently under construction on Wellington Street, as well as Centre Block. We invited the House of Commons to engage with us through our respective committees and discuss how we might do that. We just said, “We have a combination of buildings here; we’re open to accommodating 34 offices within that inventory.” We made an invitation to meet to discuss and, hopefully, come to some kind of an agreement that would be mutually acceptable to both parties.
We received a note declining to meet, and recently the House of Commons expressed a very specific desire, which is to occupy all other offices in the new Senate Office Complex that is under construction. Having made a more general offer that doesn’t appear to be acceptable to the House of Commons, I think it is time for us to make a specific proposal back to them for their consideration, and maybe then we can have a visit with them about what is acceptable to both groups.
One of the things that our subcommittee feels strongly about is that the Senate is the primary occupant of the Senate Office Complex, and the allocation of parliamentary offices has to ensure, in that building in particular, that senators retain a predominant presence in the building at all times. Not only is that Senate Office Complex intended, in the end state, to occupy the majority of senators, it also has an important number of committee rooms and other infrastructure vital to our operation.
Accordingly, the subcommittee recommends that the Senate offer to accommodate up to 24 parliamentary offices for temporarily displaced MPs and work with the House of Commons to identify temporary accommodations for a further 10 parliamentary offices within other Senate-occupied buildings, such as the Chambers building, the Centre Block and the East Block.
That’s our first recommendation — that we go back and say, “We will give you 24 in the new Senate Office Complex and 10 — and we’ll have a discussion about where — in those other areas that we have in our office allocation on Parliament Hill.”
The Chair: Questions on this one before you move on?
Senator Tannas: I’m happy to, if you want to discuss this. I think we can move fairly quickly through the other ones, but this is the main recommendation.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments on this first item?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I can wait until the senator has finished, but I have a question regarding this —
The Chair: That’s why I want to hear the question now. We’re talking about this topic, and it’s likely the most contentious issue in the report.
Senator Forest: I actually have a comment and a remark to make. Having served on your committee for a number of years, and since I’m familiar with the dynamics between the two, I think that it was already quite generous of us to agree to leave the Victoria Building early. The building scheduled for construction on Block 2 is normally earmarked for the Senate, and so for senators’ offices. I feel that they have a lot of nerve to ask for over half the offices in order to temporarily relocate members of Parliament.
We’ll then free up some offices. For example, at the Chambers Building, when the Block 2 building is ready to accommodate these offices, why don’t we use the 54 offices and relocate the members within our entire building inventory? They may say that it’s a bit far, but let them choose the youngest members. They could get some exercise and walk to the House of Commons.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Thank you. All the way through the Long Term Vision and Plan project — and, in fact, this very place that we are meeting in now, was the result of a Senate-initiated compromise that saved hundreds of millions of dollars — we have always tried to be respectful and responsible with taxpayers’ money, and respectful of the House of Commons and the important role they play as the popular chamber.
My hope, senator, is that there appears to be a desire for specificity in the House of Commons, so let’s give them something specific. Hopefully, we can then open a dialogue, get an agreement and then we can all move on with our planning and work.
The Chair: Any other questions or comments?
Senator MacDonald: How many rooms are they looking for in total?
Senator Tannas: For 34 empty offices.
Senator MacDonald: And how many extra rooms do we have in total in all of our buildings?
Senator Tannas: With the swing space that we have right now in the Chambers Building, we have enough to accommodate all of that, and we have a reservation, which we always have, for the potential of eight constitutional additional senators who could be named at any time. We can accommodate the 34 MP office units within our inventory, which includes that swing space that eventually goes away once all the construction is done.
Senator MacDonald: Will they be able to accommodate them if they never had any offices in the new Senate office?
Senator Tannas: Yes. Josée, do you want to answer that?
Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Without the new one, it would be a bit tight. It would be dependent on the timing for the East Block rehabilitation, as well.
So there are different scenarios depending on the different timing of the rehabilitations of the various buildings. Currently, as it stands with the current approved plan, we definitely have, in our portfolio at the Senate, the opportunity to provide 34 POUs within those four buildings mentioned by Senator Tannas, yes.
Senator MacDonald: Something to consider. Thanks.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Does emptying the Victoria Building earlier affect the schedule, given that the East Block must also undergo renovations?
[English]
Senator Tannas: I think it’s fair to say that one of the reasons we have excess space is because, in agreeing to empty early, we had to go find that space somewhere else. We found it. The other thing was that PSPC committed to an accelerated construction schedule on the Senate Office Complex. Those two things, plus the extra space we were able to secure in the Chambers Building, are what allowed us to have a surplus at the same time that the MPs have a shortage.
Senator Housakos: Senator Tannas, if I understand correctly, this decision was taken unilaterally by the House, was it not?
Senator Tannas: Yes, it was a decision where they declared their intention to occupy 34 units in the Senate Office Complex.
Senator Housakos: I hear your concern, and it is very legitimate. You and I have been around this place long enough to know that there have been various moments when the Senate has had to assert its authority and push back. We have not done it frivolously or on a regular basis, but it sounds like this is one of those times where we need to coordinate the voices of all groups, the Speaker and the authority of CIBA, and let them understand that we cannot allow them to continue to encroach, which has naturally happened, because they grow but we’re status quo. They always encroach on our ability and our space to do our work rather than accepting the fact that, as they grow, they just need more infrastructure.
What is the game plan? Who is going to lead that parade into battle?
Senator Tannas: One of the differences between the Senate and the House of Commons is that our dynamic is pretty clear. This body makes decisions and provides recommendations to the Senate, point final. The House of Commons has an administrative committee and they also house the government and cabinet, which have control over the civil service elements, which is, in this case, Public Works.
To your point, Senator Housakos, we have a clear signal that they want something specific. I think we should take them at that, provide a specific proposal to them and invite them to respond.
You are right; a unilateral declaration that they intend to occupy a Senate building probably doesn’t stand the test, and we need to assert and remind them that there are two houses of Parliament and that we need to respect each other. I fully believe that if we go with a proposal and begin a negotiation, we will deal with this to everybody’s satisfaction quickly. It is my intention — and I will keep every up to date, and we’ll work with the Speaker and leaders — to ensure we get this settled quickly, and without fireworks and drama.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Excuse me. I’ve been a committee member for a long time. My question is the following. Would it help you in your efforts to assist us if we said that the internal economy committee refuses to negotiate, that it refuses to let members of Parliament occupy offices in the new building, but that it’s inviting them to look at our building inventory instead? Would that help you with the negotiations, which certainly aren’t easy under the current circumstances?
[English]
Senator Tannas: As a start, if we can get this — and if CIBA wants to give my little subcommittee some specific instructions about how to conduct a negotiation with them — we’ll take those and act accordingly.
The Chair: On that, do we want to give specific instructions to the subcommittee on this item? I hear that some of us are not in agreement with providing or letting the members of Parliament having access — and maybe I didn’t hear correctly — to some offices. So I need to understand if that is what you want.
Senator Tannas: I think an instruction around this issue of the sensitivity around the Senate operations that are in the Senate Office Complex. It will be integral to our operations once it is up and going. For example, in the old Centre Block, we had a separate entrance; people came in to go specifically to the Senate, committee meetings, et cetera. That was in Centre Block. In the end state, the Senate Office Complex is where people will enter if they have business with the Senate, even if it is in the Centre Block or the Parliamentary Welcome Centre. That’s just an example. All of our security and screenings, et cetera, are all in the Senate Office Complex. As I mentioned, we also have a number of committee rooms in the Senate Office Complex in the end state.
This one observation that we have made that, if it were an instruction, is that we need to negotiate something where the Senate Office Complex is controlled and majority occupied by the Senate while we accommodate whatever number of MPs we need to within the office complex and the other assets that we have — is that clear enough?
If there were an instruction that any negotiation must recognize the Senate control of that building and that the majority of building offices are occupied by senators.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you, Senator Tannas and the subcommittee, for doing the work.
I’m seeking more information. Given the importance and the functions of the new Senate Office Complex to the work that senators do, did the subcommittee have a discussion about leaving the Senate Office Complex 100% senator-occupied and offering the House of Commons space in the Chambers Building?
Senator Tannas: Yes, that was discussed, and we felt, in good faith, that was probably not a fair proposal to make.
The Chambers Building is 100% temporary end-state space in terms of senators’ offices. It won’t be connected to the tunnel system, and we’ll have some other logistically undesirable features once Centre Block is open, the Senate Office Complex is on the go and Block 2 West is done.
We felt the right thing to do was offer something where we would do it in a mixture, but that was not acceptable to the House of Commons. To be fair to the members of Parliament, they were presented with a number of prearranged scenarios by PSPC, and that was not one of them. A dozen scenarios were put forward, some of which were quite costly to solve this problem. We liked the fact that what we were proposing was the least costly — the most cost-effective and fair. So I think we stick to our guns, and I’m confident we’ll get there.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: This would have been the most logical solution, in my opinion. Perhaps we should reiterate in our negotiations that the Senate made many compromises in this process of renovating the entire Parliamentary Precinct. Just coming here saved tens of millions of dollars, given the option that could have been presented. Throughout this process, we’ve been extremely conciliatory partners. It would be good to remind them of this. Their acquisitions are a thing of the past, but we’ve nevertheless been extremely conciliatory throughout the process.
Senator Oudar: I see that we may not be ready to approve the report. I suggest that we look at this in terms of the cost of each option. I would be inclined to choose the least expensive option, but we may need to assess the options that incur costs. I agree that we have been good corporate citizens for many years. That said, we must also choose the least expensive option and avoid starting a battle with our colleagues on Parliament Hill.
I propose that we ask the subcommittee to reconsider this option and to come back with a recommendation that takes the comments into account. I would particularly like to emphasize the cost aspect. We have all this in mind. However, I would like to see in writing that we’re concerned about the cost issue and that we must choose the most cost-effective option.
[English]
Senator Tannas: I think we can provide that testimony right now. We’ve been focused on cost. There is no cost, but Josée go ahead, please.
Ms. Labelle: Multiple options have been studied over a period of a year and a half to two years regarding swing space. All of the options requiring building new parliamentary office units were discarded. The whole point is to accommodate those 34 POUs within an existing portfolio, and, therefore, at no additional cost to Public Services and Procurement Canada and the parliamentary partner.
The idea is to utilize interim and permanent space to accommodate all of the rehabilitation of the space and beyond.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Exactly. If you believe that the proposals being made today will result in additional costs, it’s up to you to let us know.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, I have a question. You were saying that having the members of Parliament in the Chambers Building will engender more costs?
Senator Tannas: No.
The Chair: So it would be the same cost if all senators were in the Senate building and the members of Parliament were to be in the Chambers Building?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
The Chair: So we’re doing this to accommodate them so they can be closer to the tunnels and all that? How about senators? Are we not accommodating our colleagues so they can be closer to the tunnel system?
Why one over the other?
Senator Tannas: This is the point. In the scenario that we’re recommending, MPs and senators will potentially share the Senate inventory, and whatever we agree to and come up with, there will be people — senators and/or MPs — in temporary space for seven years beyond when Centre Block and the others open. That temporary space is the Chambers Building; that’s what it means.
Now, the question is: How many, from where and accommodate what? The reality is there will be an inventory of parliamentarians who will be outside of the Parliamentary Precinct for as long as the Confederation Building is under construction and being rehabilitated.
The Chair: Thank you.
If I go back to what Senator Housakos was saying — that it is encroachment on Senate space and that the Senate is an independent body — any negotiations would be under Senate control. I think these are important things to bring back to the members of Parliament and the Long-Term Vision Planning group. These are comments that are necessary to just let them know that we are not happy about this and that we are collaborating but not really agreeing to all of this.
I’ve heard my colleagues on this. If we agree with this, we can move on. Thank you, senator.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, chair and colleagues.
On the Centre Block rehabilitation cost containment options, your subcommittee recommends:
That CIBA approve the cost containment options for Centre Block rehabilitation, with the exception of the removal of the Hall of Honour infill. This recommendation aligns with the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy recommendations that were made on October 30.
On the heritage design strategy for heritage rooms — recommendation 3 — your subcommittee recommends that CIBA approve of the integrated heritage design strategy for heritage rooms.
On the parliamentary tunnels project, which is recommendation 4, your subcommittee recommends:
That CIBA approve the parliamentary campus tunnel strategy, with a corresponding reduction in costs of approximately $100 million, which will be achieved by removing material handling requirements from the tunnel project scope, reinstating the East Block tunnel connection and refocusing the tunnel loop for pedestrian use; and
That the tunnel connection between Block 2 East, the Senate Office Complex, and the West, which is the reconstructed Victoria Building occupied by the House towers, be achieved with an inbound approach, utilizing the connecting corridor space within the project scope for an estimated additional cost avoidance of $20 million.
On the Block 2 redevelopment project update, recommendation 5, your subcommittee recommends:
That CIBA approve the Senate Office Complex program, except for the requirements relating to the exterior design concept, which must be reviewed by Public Services and Procurement Canada, and any additional requirements beyond what was endorsed in the functional program.
Our final recommendation, recommendation 6, is:
That we recommend that the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan be authorized to communicate all the recommendations contained in this report to Public Services and Procurement Canada on behalf of CIBA.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Tannas, you’re proposing the adoption of the report with the instruction regarding the encroachment on Senate space, the Senate as an independent body and that Senate control that is kept within the Senate’s hands, correct?
Senator Tannas: Correct.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Adopted. Thank you, Senator Tannas.
[Translation]
Thank you, Julie, Ms. Cowley and Josée.
The next item on the agenda concerns the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure’s report regarding the frequency of meetings of the internal economy committee, the timing of document distribution to members and non-members and the consideration of exceptions.
The steering committee carefully considered the concerns raised by committee members. As you can see, we looked at all the issues raised. We recommend that documents exceeding five pages be submitted at the meeting preceding the discussion, in order to give senators sufficient time to review the material.
Your steering committee also believes that non-members should continue to receive the bundle when they attend the meeting. We also recommend that all requests for policy exceptions be made directly to the steering committee of the internal economy committee, in public.
Lastly, we agree that additional committee meetings may be held occasionally when necessary. However, we recommend that the current schedule of meetings every two weeks be maintained for the time being.
Are there any questions or comments?
Senator Saint-Germain: I agree with the proposal as a whole. However, I would like to see a provision regarding requests for exceptions that must be considered in public and that, aside from human resources policies, concern matters relating to Senate staff — in other words, confidential human resources matters relating to the privacy of staff and Senate members.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. Are there any other questions or comments regarding these points?
Senator Saint-Germain: I propose an amendment to this report concerning aspects related to the confidentiality of human resources records, but aside from policies.
The Chair: You mentioned the staff and the senators?
Senator Saint-Germain: And the members.
The Chair: And the members?
Senator Saint-Germain: The designated members.
The Chair: I’m not sure whether the internal economy committee handles exceptions for staff.
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes. This can happen in certain situations.
The Chair: Okay. That’s what I was asking. The motion would then be amended to include the section “confidentiality of human resources records for staff members,” which is related to this.
The motion is as follows:
That the second report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, relating to the operation and governance of the committee, be adopted with the exception consisting of referring matters concerning the confidentiality of staff and senators to the subcommittee.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
[English]
Item 4 is the report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets. It’s a request from the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. As usual, this presentation will be followed by time for questions.
It is my understanding that Senator Forest will make opening remarks and Marie-Eve Belzile, Clerk Assistant, Committees Directorate, will be available to answer questions relating to the committee’s financial policy.
[Translation]
The Honourable Éric Forest: Honourable senators, I’m pleased to present the third report of the subcommittee, which concerns the budget request of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment, and Natural Resources.
The committee requested $47,160 for a fact-finding mission to Newfoundland and Labrador for seven senators and five parliamentary staff members.
Following the meeting, the subcommittee recommends that the internal economy committee approve this budget request subject to an amendment to reduce the number of staff members. A reduction of just one staff member would result in savings of 8% in the budget. This would reduce the original budget request to $43,430.
With regard to the second recommendation, the energy committee was encouraged to review the proposed dates, which it did. The committee informed us that the trip would take place in 2026, but before the end of the 2025-26 fiscal year.
Your subcommittee would also like to emphasize the need to respect official languages and to provide services in the official language chosen by the senators. The request doesn’t include interpretation services. However, we’ve been given confirmation that all the senators taking part in the trip are bilingual. Your subcommittee respectfully submits these recommendations.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?
[English]
Senator Osler: Thank you, Senator Forest, for the presentation. Were you able to ask questions about the ground transportation costs? I noted that the submitted budget has separate costs for taxis for senators and staff, so a separate taxi cost, and then there is a charter bus cost of $3,000 for one day. I’m just wondering if you were able to get some information about the ground transportation costs?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Good question. Madam Clerk, can you respond?
[English]
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments: Typically, taxis are for trips to and from the airport at the start of the trip for everybody. The charter bus is usually for when they are on the ground to take the delegation from whenever it is that they’re going from the hotel, so it’s two separate ground transportation costs.
Senator Osler: Thank you. Was there a discussion with the committee representative about trying to share taxis to minimize some of the costs? Was there a consideration in looking at ways to minimize the ground transportation costs?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: They were asked what measures were being taken to minimize costs. There is one rather unusual aspect to this request: one of the senators in the group will be staying at his own place rather than in a hotel. We were told that he tried to keep costs as low as possible, which was another thing that got mentioned. To keep costs down, there are no interpretation services, but we weren’t asked about taxis specifically.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments? I have a question, senator. Among the dates they gave you for 2026, did they specify whether it is a break week or a week when the Senate will be in session?
Senator Forest: That wasn’t identified because the dates have not been finalized. I was told that it will be in 2026, before the end of our fiscal year, which is also important for us, but I have not received any information about the final date of the trip.
The Chair: Do you have any other questions or comments before I move the motion?
[English]
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Forest:
That the third report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets be adopted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: The motion is agreed to.
Colleagues, the next item on the agenda is the fourth report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, concerning coordinated travel by senators. Senator Forest, Chair of the Subcommittee, will present the report. Gérald Lafrenière, Deputy Clerk of Legislative Services, will be available to help answer questions, if necessary. Senator Forest, you may begin with your introductory remarks.
[English]
Senator Forest: I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, which deals with the coordinated travel by senators.
[Translation]
In accordance with the mandate received from the Internal Economy Committee, your subcommittee met on numerous occasions to discuss this issue, guided by the results of an online consultation in which more than 54% of senators participated. We were very pleased with the participation rate. The consultation was conducted over the summer, and we met with the four leaders of the four Senate groups. The report includes several recommendations to the committee. We are available to answer any questions you may have about this.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments about coordinated travel?
[English]
Senator Osler: Thank you, Senator Forest, for this work. I have a question about recommendation 6 on the detailed report:
. . . the initiating senator be required to submit a detailed report to CIBA and that such a report then be posted on the CIBA website.
So it would be public.
The report must include the objectives of the coordinated travel, the meetings held and with whom . . . .
Did the subcommittee consider that meetings may be held with people who may be in vulnerable situations who may not want their names made public?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: It was the whole accountability aspect that helped determine the added value of the trip. In my opinion, if the report indicates that people are in a vulnerable situation or wish to remain anonymous, that makes the report even more relevant.
[English]
Senator Osler: Thank you, Senator Forest. I agree with accountability. I’m just wondering about how much detail is going to be expected in the report in terms of the names of people who the senators had meetings with.
I agree that much transparency is needed, but keep in mind, senators may be meeting with people who are in vulnerable situations.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: We rely on senators’ judgment, but we have to strike a balance between defining who is accountable and whom we meet with. We must also respect the fact that some people prefer to remain anonymous. The committee didn’t discuss this specifically, but, in my humble opinion, it is a matter of common sense, logic, and respect for the people we meet, while remaining responsible and accountable.
Senator Henkel: Thank you, colleagues, for the work the committee did. I have a question about coordinated travel. I was surprised to see that there is no cut-off, such as when a senator has to retire within six or 12 months. Have you considered restricting requests for coordinated travel for senators who are at the end of their term?
Senator Forest: Yes, we discussed that. The document stipulates that we must comply with the policies governing interparliamentary association and committee travel. If memory serves — and the Deputy Clerk can correct me if I am wrong — there is a one-month deadline for parliamentary associations. For example, if I’m retiring in a month, I’m not eligible to participate. Since we have to comply with the rules governing interparliamentary associations and committees, this is the cut-off for senators who would be retiring in the relatively near future.
Senator Henkel: Can you be more specific in the report?
Senator Forest: Yes, but since we’re referring to policies that already exist, we can include them in an appendix to the report.
Gérald Lafrenière, Deputy Clerk, Legislative Services, Senate of Canada: Just to clarify, this is certainly something that the subcommittee members discussed, and they would prefer to address this issue once the submission is presented to the subcommittee for interpretation. They considered the possibility of setting a cut-off point, but they chose to operate on a case-by-case basis. For example, a senator may be retiring in two months, but plans to make a speech in the House on the issue raised by the trip a month before retiring.
The members wanted to remain open to making decisions based on facts and circumstances, rather than making rules and allowing exceptions. The issue has been addressed. The committee members will consider such matters case by case.
Senator Forest: In fact, the committee will deal with exceptions, but the reference applies to the rules that exist with regard to the committee’s interparliamentary travel.
[English]
Senator Tannas: I’ll be very brief. I want to express my appreciation to the subcommittee and to CIBA for doing this study. It was thorough. I was invited to participate, which I did, and I provided my own comments based on having the experience of initiating this travel.
I think it’s an excellent framework that will serve the Senate well and serve the public well.
Senator Saint-Germain: Personally, I am a dissident, and I sent a report or a note to the subcommittee that said I respect the views of the majority, obviously, but I have comments.
I see that the framework is mainly an administrative framework, and I don’t see criteria that would allow for the subcommittee to make a decision regarding a request for such kind of travel. Coordinated travel, I find this title very creative. I congratulate you on your creativity.
I wonder why such travel would be allowed for three senators only. There’s no restriction. I see each senator could travel one a year under such travels, if I understand well.
I would like to see a kind of requirement that the travel points will not be increased to 65. I think we need clarity on that.
And I would like to understand, in recommendation 7.2, “set an annual maximum of $200,000 for expenses related to coordinated travel.” I don’t understand what this requirement is.
I think that we should also — it’s on the substance, not on the money — state that committees’ travels on the same topics should be given priority.
On Senator Henkel’s points, with all due respect, I do believe that such a restriction for senators who will be retiring within a year may infringe their parliamentary privilege because they may have to vote on the bill or to participate in an inquiry in a committee on a subject for which coordinated travel might be helpful. So this is why I concur with Mr. Lafrenière’s explanation.
Today, those are my main comments and questions. I want to congratulate the members on the subcommittee for their work because I know it is hard work, but I still maintain my dissidence on those types of travel.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain. Would you like answers?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes, about recommendation 7.2, the annual maximum of $200,000 for expenses.
Senator Forest: Thank you for that excellent comment.
Recommendation 7 is important because we are proposing — and this is a work in progress — a new type of activity. We conducted a survey, which 54% of our colleagues kindly responded to, and we wanted to reflect what was expressed in that survey. We also met with the four leaders.
Your position is certainly very clear, Senator Saint-Germain. For us, recommendation 7 is the key element. We want a moratorium so we can develop a pilot project that will optimize all of the issues. Why $200,000? We could have put in $300,000. We put $200,000 because it is a relatively modest sum that reflects the type of activity, which is new, but there are already trips for interparliamentary association and committee meetings. We saw that this morning with the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment, and Natural Resources.
So, we said that this activity is permitted and that it is governed by certain administrative rules that must be followed and that require accountability. The main point of our report is that we are imposing a moratorium and developing a two-year pilot project during the course of which we will adjust our rules. That is the first step with respect to this new activity.
It’s clear that the report reflects the wishes expressed by the vast majority of our colleagues in the survey. We wanted to respect that and introduce rules. The key point is that we want a moratorium so we can develop a pilot project that will optimize certain rules and move more specifically in the direction of administrative measures. At that point, we’ll be able to make a decision as an organization, in accordance with our responsibility to manage public funds properly and in accordance with senators’ desire to have the means to familiarize themselves with different realities across the country.
The report should be considered with that in mind. It is not an end in itself, but a step toward a pilot project that, in my opinion, should do more to optimize the rules.
Senator Saint-Germain: Will the $200,000 be taken from the committees’ travel budget, or will the Senate’s budget be increased by $200,000 for the purposes of the pilot project? In the future, will the budget for costs related to this type of travel be increased?
Senator Forest: That’s a good question.
Costs associated with coordinated trips come out of the senators’ budgets, using their travel points. They don’t come from somewhere else. The $200,000 amount is intended to convey a sense of the total number of senators who would participate. It’s not a specific budget where $200,000 would be taken from the committee’s budget.
Senator Saint-Germain: Perfect. That’s clear. Thank you.
Senator Forest: The idea is to convey a sense of magnitude, because the funds come from our points and from the senators’ budgets.
Senator Saint-Germain: Perfect. Thank you very much.
Senator Henkel: I just want to clarify my point.
For context, I was talking about knowledge; I was talking about activities that involve coordinated trips to learn more about a region. When a senator decides to showcase their region, I believe there should be a cut-off for these trips. For example, if I’m leaving my position in a few months, I don’t think I should be allowed to coordinate a trip with other senators. I would have to do it before I leave. That’s kind of what I meant when I talked about restricting trips or considering why they would take place.
Senator Forest: You’re right. However, the purpose of the trip is twofold. There’s a senator who wants to showcase their region. If I’m leaving the job in a few months, people might wonder about that. The main motivation for the vast majority was to learn about a region. It is not at the beginning and the end that we talk about discovering regions. Obviously, if I invite you all to the Gaspé Peninsula next summer and I’m leaving the Senate in September, when I seek approval for the trip, I’ll be told that there is a problem, that something’s amiss. My goal, and many survey said the same thing, is to discover the unique characteristics of a part of Canada. Both of those reasons to learn about parts of Canada come into play.
Senator Henkel: That’s why I was talking about clarifying the differences between those kinds of trips, whether we participate in them, coordinate them, or initiate them ourselves.
Senator Forest: Exactly. It will be clearly defined, because the travel proposal will have to be submitted and approved. It will have to be defined at that point.
[English]
Senator Moodie: I would really like to thank the committee for their work. I think it is excellent work and it brings forward a proposal that we should be considering in depth and more broadly.
I appreciated your comments about the online survey undertaken during the summer. Did I hear you say, Senator Forest, 4% response? Or 54?
Senator Forest: The total responses?
Senator Moodie: Yes.
Senator Forest: More to 50%.
Senator Moodie: So half senators weighed in and we have 15 people in the room today, and I am hearing a discussion that reflects differing opinions around the particulars and general support of the idea of this, but certainly, people looking at elements of this report and these recommendations. I am wondering if we wouldn’t be wise to ensure that we have a full discussion about this and open up this discussion to more senators. We are making a pivotal decision around a change and a future administration of travel points and travel with new terms, with new ideas becoming now embedded in our practice, and I am thinking that perhaps there is an opportunity — and we should be respectful to the broader community of senators. The 46% who didn’t respond and to those not in this room today.
I will recommend that we consider having an additional meeting in which we discuss this recommendation and come up with a final agreement that is more broadly consensus driven.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: There isn’t really an answer. All I can do is share my perspective.
So, 54% of our colleagues responded to the survey and the four leaders were interviewed. I think that’s a considerable percentage. Here’s my comment. We held two such activities. They’re new activities that were initiated. They’re very relevant and were greatly appreciated, according to the feedback we received, but we’ve never tried this type of activity with rules. This report therefore seeks to impose certain guidelines and rules that would allow these activities to take place as part of a pilot project. My suggestion is to carry out the pilot project, and then we can revisit the issue.
We haven’t yet done this type of activity with guidelines in place, but we have done it with certain initiatives.
I therefore humbly suggest that the committee prepare a moratorium with certain rules and set up a pilot project. We can then reassess the situation and have a very relevant discussion about what to do next. This suggestion isn’t in the report and wasn’t discussed in committee either.
Senator Housakos: I have two questions. I gather that the committee has reached a consensus that there will be no translation service for this trip.
My second question is about expenses for committee staff. Who will cover those expenses? I see that staff travel expenses are included in the budget, so why wouldn’t the senator in question use their own points? If I understand the Rules of the Senate correctly, the committee chair can take their staff with them, but that expense is included in the travel expenses.
Senator Forest: Right. Let’s go back to the Energy Committee’s travel. This is a sensitive issue, so we asked about official languages not once, but twice, and we were assured that all of the senators were bilingual.
It is a little unfortunate that the clerk is not with us to verify my statements, but staff expenses are covered by the Office of the President. Don’t hold me to that. I wouldn’t stake my reputation on it. I’m telling you this from memory.
Senator Housakos: I would like that to be included in the budget. It’s just a small change, in my opinion. It may just be a mistake made by the clerk.
The Chair: The clerk tells me that we can come back to the question of costs.
Since these trips use up senators’ points, if the senator wishes to invite a staff member, they will use those points. I’m not sure if I understood the question or comment correctly. The number of participants was limited. This means that the employee’s participation is part of the total. So the $200,000 is not an amount that is taken from elsewhere.
Senator Housakos: It’s from the senator’s office, but it’s included in the budget.
The Chair: That’s right. Actually, excuse me, we’re confusing two separate things. In coordinated trips, it is part of the $200,000, but the total that comes from the budget of the Energy Committee senators is part of the expenses allocated to committee support.
Senator Forest: I’ve just received the correct answer. This shows the importance of having good staff supporting us. I’m told that this is included in the budget, and it complies with committee travel rules. So, it complies with committee travel rules and only applies to staff of the committee chair. That’s included in the budget.
For the Energy Committee, whose travel is not coordinated, we return to point 3.
The Chair: The two separate sources of funding.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: I have a number of questions. I will ask them, and then you can decide what you want to comment on at the end.
As an overarching comment, I think this type of travel should not, in any way, take away or reduce committee travel, which I think is really important to the Senate. Some of the best work comes out of committees. I don’t think it should increase the Senate budget.
I have some general questions now. Three or more senators travelling — how did we arrive at three senators, and what does that mean, potentially, going forward in terms of the type of travel that might be entertained?
In recommendation 3 — and this is mentioned throughout the document — it talks about “for the purpose of broadening the knowledge of a region of Canada.” I would have expected the purpose to be more issues-related rather than exploring a geographic area of Canada. I think it should be an issue-related purpose and be connected to current and expected parliamentary and national priorities. I’m not saying that a region of Canada might not be applicable, but I think the primary purpose should not be broadening knowledge of a region of Canada.
On recommendation 3, the budget would exceed $30,000, so how is that determined? I would like to get some information on that. Again, I think this was raised before, but set an annual maximum of $200,000 for expenses. How is that determined?
On recommendation 7, with the pilot, I think a pilot is always a good idea when you are not certain whether you should go ahead with something, but who will evaluate this pilot? We will need answers in terms of the value of this type of travel. It would give us some time to pause and make a final decision. One thing we should bear in mind — or that I have been thinking of — is what has prompted the need for us to even embark on this kind of travel. Is there a root cause here? Are we not doing enough committee travel? Is there not enough regional representation on our committees? It has been brought up before about regional representation in the Senate as a whole, and I know we can’t solve that with CIBA. But why is there a need to do this type of travel? I think we should pause and reflect on that. Is there something that we are not doing — are we not doing enough committee travel? Are we not doing enough committee studies? Are we not putting enough money into that? I’m not sure.
Again, at the end of the day, there has to be very good communication. Whatever decision is made, I think it involves all senators. It is a very important decision whether to go down this road or not. Those are just some general comments.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator MacAdam. Do you want Senator Forest to start answering your questions one at a time?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I have a few questions.
The Chair: I’ve made a note of them all.
Senator Forest: As have I.
First, why are we studying this? There are new initiatives that the senators who took part in them have experienced and welcomed. However, we realized that the initiatives were not governed by guidelines or rules within the Senate, because they were new activities. There have been media reports on this. That’s why we looked into the matter. We had a duty, by virtue of our responsibilities and the fact that these are public funds, to study these kinds of initiatives and provide a framework if we end up authorizing them. I would invite Mr. Lafrenière to add to my answer, if he wishes.
My second question concerns recommendation 3, which should indicate national priorities. This is in the report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets. If the Committee on Internal Economy decides on an evaluation criterion by which the trip must be connected to a national priority, I’m very open to the idea. After all, the Committee on Internal Economy has the mandate to endorse, amend or accept the report. I think we wanted to frame all of this in the spirit in which the two trips were made. In both cases, it was about exploring regional differences. That’s what the report reflects. We have the option of completing the report or amending it.
The other aspect is about who will adopt the pilot project. I think we need to study this, and if we decide to go ahead with a pilot project, the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets could review and clarify some of the rules and retable them to the Committee on Internal Economy. It has the authority to decide whether the pilot project is relevant and authorize it. I think it’s up to the committee.
I hope I’ve answered some of your questions.
The Chair: There was the question about the three people. How did we arrive at three?
Senator Forest: Three people and $200,000. It’s quite arbitrary and not science-based. We figured that fewer than three is not coordinated travel. Two is a couple’s getaway. Three people is an actual travel group.
The $200,000 figure is arbitrary, with a view to sending a message that it’s limited to a smallish amount. It indicates the scale of coordinated travel within a pilot project.
The Chair: There’s also the amount of $30,000.
[English]
The primary purpose, the $30,000 was one of your questions, Senator MacAdam.
How did you get to the $30,000?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I’m going to make Mr. Lafrenière work. The $30,000 . . .
[English]
Mr. Lafrenière: On recommendation 3, again, if you are asking me about the specific numbers, the idea was to provide a definition that doesn’t cover every activity where two senators travel together, so there had to be some type of criteria where the framework would apply. These are the numbers and the definitions that the subcommittee came up with with respect to that.
We were told, through the survey, through hearing from the leaders at SEBS, there are a variety of trips where senators travel together that don’t necessarily fit in what we’re trying to cover in the framework. The idea of recommendation 3 is to really try to separate what we’re trying to cover here.
This is not meant to cover every trip that senators take or even when two or three go together. It is to cover specific types of travel that have come up and have been raised at CIBA with respect to this.
The Chair: Do you have any supplementary questions, Senator MacAdam?
Senator MacAdam: No, thank you.
Mr. Lafrenière: I have one last point because I think it is important. If you go into the evaluation criteria that the committee will use in approving these trips or not approving them, it is whether the objectives and extent to which the travel is related to current legislation, studies or other parliamentary functions and how this benefits the work that senators do on behalf of Canadians. That’s when you are going to get into what the value of the trip is, whether it is worthwhile or not. There have to be specifics on what senators are trying to achieve on this trip.
Senator Boehm: Many of my questions have been answered, but I wanted to follow up on Senator MacAdam’s important intervention and also Senator Saint-Germain’s earlier.
I think any trips like this do have to be issue-related. I don’t think they should duplicate what committees do. As someone who chairs a committee that has gone to SEBS a number of times and seen proposals related to studies rejected because of cost, I’m very conscious of that reality.
My question is very specific on recommendation 7.2 about an annual maximum of $200,000. I want to know if that is fenced or whether it is fungible.
If a committee comes forward and says, “We are making a proposal to do some travel related to a study or an important issue,” as everyone knows, I chair a committee called Foreign Affairs and International Trade, but it doesn’t travel very much because costs are expensive. I would like to know whether that money could be tapped, and not held in reserve, for legitimate committee work.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Actually, the $200,000 is for coordinated travel, which does not affect committee travel at all. Coordinated travel is not part of the committee’s budget. It is an added cost for each of the participants, who will pay their expenses out of their own budget.
The $200,000 figure gives a sense of scale for coordinated travel, but it has no impact on the committees’ budgets.
[English]
Mr. Lafrenière: Just to be clear, Senator Boehm, this has no impact on the budget that is set aside for committee travel, so that budget will remain. We’re talking about the 64-point system which, as you know, is a statutory budget, so it doesn’t necessarily have a maximum. This is just to ensure that only $200,000 of that money can be used for these types of trips.
Senator Boehm: I appreciate the clarification, but I think we also need to be very conscious of optics as well. Thank you.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Tannas: I have a couple of very quick comments. For clarity, there is no change to the rules. These trips have been going on for years. People have been touring penitentiaries with one of our senators who is an expert with people in jail. This system was used, actually, to found a conference that goes on every year now in Victoria called Victoria Forum. It was organized and founded by a senator and still has the Senate’s name on it. Senators go there in large numbers in the summer to consider things.
With the 64 travel points that we are talking about here, the allocation and use by senators of that can be used and is used to attend political conventions. This is another activity that is and, up until now, has been in that aegis of an individual senator choosing to do something with their 64 points. What has been said — and I agree with it — is that this could become an activity that becomes very large, and we need to put some controls on it. But the last thing that we should be doing is getting too far down into the virtue of one trip over another trip, of one senator’s interest in a specific region, area or issue versus another senator’s interest in a region, area or issue.
I will speak to this issue of regional. In the trip that I organized and initiated to Alberta, I had two specific issues in mind. One was that I have seen a significant ignorance amongst Canadians — and it is reflected in senators — around agricultural practices in sophisticated farming operations, which all farms in Western Canada are now. I wanted senators, who wouldn’t see it, haven’t seen it, to see it and understand it and have a farmer explain it to them.
Second, we deal with the oil sands and the opinions around the oil sands. Again, we facilitated a tour where senators actually saw the oil sands and what goes on there and how we get energy. That was the purpose of that trip.
Senator Osler organized a trip to Churchill, Manitoba. We are all hearing about Churchill, Manitoba. Because you have to start in Winnipeg with that, we had a trip to the NORAD base as well.
Those were important learnings for senators. It is all being done within the existing budgets. What we have come up with here — again, I go back to the fact that SEBS has issued a thoughtful report. We delegated it to them, and we should resist the temptation to relitigate and re-explore everything as a larger committee that we asked a subcommittee to do.
Chair, those are my comments. Thank you again, Senator Forest. With all respect to all the comments that have been made, this has been a terrific discussion.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions?
I just want to go back to something Senator Moodie said about consulting our groups before we agree to this. Senator, do you still want to bring this to the table, or was it just a general comment?
Senator Moodie: I firmly believe that we have a role and a duty — when we’re making significant decisions at this table — to consult, in a very definitive, direct and purposeful way, especially when it affects the broader community.
What we heard today was a very good discussion, but it was among 15 people. We want to enable the rest of senators to participate in a similar understanding of why we got here with this particular proposal. We should take the time.
Senator MacAdam, in a conversation we had earlier, said that we need to get this right, and I agree with her. We have an opportunity to do some good work here, and we need to use the principle that we consult appropriately when we need to. I think this is one of those situations.
So, yes, I would like to see it go further.
The Chair: Are there any comments on that, colleagues?
Senator Boyer: If we have a duty to consult with the rest of our groups, do we have a duty to accommodate as well? If they want to make more changes, how long does it go, or do we take responsibility for what we do here?
Senator Housakos: I don’t want to harp on this, because we are relitigating this issue, but SEBS did a lot of work on this. They brought in a lot of people to speak to the issue. I think the chair was also there at a meeting I was involved in. Leaders came and presented briefs.
The structure we have in place is designed, as much as possible, to garner as much consensus as possible. A lot of what Senator Tannas put on the table today is a repeat of what he had an opportunity to bring before SEBS. It is a repeat of what he had an opportunity to discuss when we discussed this at leaders’ meetings. I assume that all leadership groups did the diligent thing, Senators Boyer and Moodie, which is to go to their respective caucuses and have a broad consultation.
What SEBS came back with today is perfectly imperfect, which is what the world is all about and what this institution is about too. You can never garner 100% consensus on everything, but I think we’ve gone through all the processes to get to this point. Unless there is a red flag that really concerns somebody, we take every decision here knowing that consensus can only be as reasonable as reasonably possible.
Senator Moodie: I’m not looking for a 100% consensus; I’m looking for people to be exposed to this proposal. If it’s through leaders carrying it back to their groups, that is the way to do it. I will be frank; we have not had that discussion in our groups. This information is not shared among the largest group right now in the Senate, so I think we have a duty here.
I hope we are not the business of creating private conversations and decisions behind closed doors. I hope that when it affects the broader group of senators, we are appropriately sharing the information.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I respect my distinguished colleague’s position, except that there are few decisions where there has been so much consultation. We conducted a survey, and 54 senators out of a total of 88 responded. That’s a very significant participation rate. The report suggests a moratorium and a pilot project. The definition of the pilot project could then be subject to even broader consultation, but we are taking steps to evaluate all that by experimenting with the initiatives within a defined framework. I absolutely agree with you.
Here’s my suggestion: Let’s do the pilot project, but before that, we can subject the more specific rules guiding the pilot project to a much broader consultation. If we were to re-start consultations now.... Name me a decision that was made here that was the subject of a survey to which 54% of senators responded. I’ve never seen that in nine years. We also met with all the leaders of the groups. It is time to move on to the next stage. If we accept the report, it means that we are issuing a moratorium, and by April 1, we should have defined the framework for a pilot project that will be submitted for consultation. That’s my humble viewpoint, but I respect the committee’s decision.
[English]
Senator Moodie: I will conclude with a comment. What you consulted on was a series of questions. What we have here now is a document and a proposal. Those are what we need to consult about. They are different things that we are looking at now.
Senator Forest: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Briefly, I agree with Senator Boyer and Senator Forest that if we consult senators again on this proposal, we are rewarding 34 senators who were consulted, who did not participate in the survey or who did not send a brief to the subcommittee when they had a chance. I believe our role is to make decisions and stick to them. That is why we are members of this committee. Within the group, we had conversations at the time when certain trips were in the media, and opinions are very divided. Many members had an opportunity to respond to the survey. I think it’s time for us to take responsibility, make decisions and explain the context to our respective groups. I don’t think there’s a need for more consultation.
The Chair: Thank you. I don’t see any more questions. Here is the motion moved by Senator Forest:
That the fourth report of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets concerning coordinated travel by senators be adopted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Carried. We now move on to other business. Colleagues, are there other points to discuss in public?
Senator Saint-Germain: I would like to introduce a motion that reads as follows:
[English]
That the current meditation room located at A428 in the Senate of Canada Building be reassigned to the Independent Senators Group immediately; and
That the administration be asked to find a new space for meditation purposes as soon as possible.
[Translation]
The Chair: Could you explain the context?
Senator Saint-Germain: A few years ago, at the Internal Economy Committee, we made a decision to reserve a room for meditation on the fourth floor, in what was then the only available room. In reality, the room has never been occupied or used by anyone, as far as we can tell, because it is too far away, is inaccessible or hard to access for people with reduced mobility and is located within the offices of one of the Senate groups.
This is not conducive to the privacy or discretion that meditation requires. That’s why we’re proposing this. In addition, the offices of the Independent Senators Group are small. Two employees have offices in our kitchen and four other employees share two of the office spaces. I don’t personally have an executive assistant, so an employee occupies the executive assistant’s office. However, we will have a new leader as of January 1, and it is very likely that my successor will have an executive assistant, when we are already short of space.
Those are the two reasons: The meditation room is far away and unused, and the Independent Senators Group is short of space.
[English]
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: This is a comment neither for or against the motion but just to give context. I asked for the meditation room a few years ago and the reason was that I was asking for a smudging room because it is difficult to light a smudge in this or any other building that is not equipped with a ventilated system. You need to give 24 hours’ notice, so we asked for a meditation room but it’s not vented. It is not used because it is not really a smudge room and it is an inconvenient place, just a bit of context for you today, colleagues.
Senator Saint-Germain: You’re right, and I remember the conversation, but the first one who asked was Senator Jaffer.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Yes, exactly.
Senator Housakos: We are facing a space crunch in this building. When it was designed originally, way before the move, the context of the Senate was different. Obviously, the context of the Senate is changing. We all need more space. The ISG is growing. Their demands are growing.
I had a conversation yesterday with the government leader, and he agrees as well. He sees the problem, and I know he has undertaken to do a thorough review of all the available space we have right now and come to a conclusion. I have no problem supporting this motion and letting everybody know as well that Senator Moreau recognizes we have a problem, and so do I. We’re going to collectively go through the available space and try to maximize what we have to accommodate everybody’s needs.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Housakos.
No more questions or comments?
The motion is:
That the current meditation room located at A428 in the Senate of Canada building be reassigned to the Independent Senators Group immediately; and
That the administration be asked to find new space for meditation purposes as soon as possible.
The motion is proposed by Senator Saint-Germain. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Colleagues, we do not have anything else that is still that is for the good of the public meeting.
[Translation]
We will now suspend briefly so the clerk can make sure we are in camera. However, before I do that, I would like to remind everyone that the meetings of the Committee on Internal Economy are held in public most of the time.
Only when items touch on sensitive matters such as salaries, contracts and contract negotiations, labour relations and staffing matters — or security — are they discussed in camera. The committee wants to be as transparent as possible about the important work it does.
I would ask the clerk to notify the committee members when we are in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)