THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 12, 2026
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:02 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for consideration of financial and administrative matters; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Tony Loffreda (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Tony Loffreda. I am a senator from Quebec, and I have the privilege of chairing this committee.
Before we begin, to support the smooth operation of committee proceedings, the following guidelines must be observed by all participants to help prevent audio feedback. Consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. 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 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 the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples from across Turtle Island.
I will now like to go around the table and ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Good morning. I am Éric Forest from the Gulf region, in Quebec.
Senator Oudar: Good morning. I am Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Hay: Katherine Hay, Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator Osler: Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, Manitoba.
Senator Francis: Brian Francis, Epekwitk or Prince Edward Island.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Henkel: Senator Danièle Henkel, Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you. I would also like to welcome all those who follow our deliberations across the country.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, the first item for approval is the consent agenda. As a reminder, consent agenda items are not controversial but do require our approval. For such items, a briefing note, form or other supporting document is provided ahead of time, but no presentation is required.
For today’s meeting, we have the following two items on the consent agenda, the Minutes of Proceedings from February 12, 2026, in public and in camera. Can I have a mover for the motion?
The Honourable Senator Forest has moved:
That the consent agenda be approved.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried. Thank you.
[English]
The next item concerns a request from the Honourable Senator Anderson for an exception to the Senator’s Office Management Policy regarding a request to increase her living expenses budget for the remainder of the 2025-26 fiscal year. Colleagues, you will recall that, at our last meeting, we approved the consolidated request for an increase in the living expenses budget for certain senators. My understanding is that this is a similar request; however, it was not submitted in time to be considered with the requests we received in February.
I believe the letter is self-explanatory. Do you have any questions or comments? Seeing none, can I have a mover for the following motion:
That CIBA approve the request by the Honourable Senator Anderson for additional living expenses funding of $7,000 for the 2025–26 fiscal year.
It is moved by Senator Moodie that this motion be adopted. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried. Thank you.
The next item concerns a request from the Honourable Senator Dean for an exception to the Senator’s Office Management Policy and Senate Administration Rules regarding international travel. We have Senator Dean joining us. Good morning. We have read your request. Is there any new or additional information you would like to briefly share with us?
Hon. Tony Dean: Yes, thank you, chair. What a delight to be back in this room at this committee after so many years having served on it. It was a great honour.
The only update is that I have continued to talk to the organizers of the conference about expenses at their end. At this point, I’m looking for somewhere between $3,500 and $4,000, both for a flight upgrade and potentially for some hotel costs. However, I’m continuing to talk to the organizers about the hotel costs. I’ll keep the budget down as far as I can.
You know I think that this is a conference related to cannabis and its regulation; it is a conference of global regulators. To my surprise, people look to Canada as a model of how the government of the day prepared for and introduced legislation that was complex and multi-faceted — another omnibus bill, if I can put it that way. That was deemed to be successful. Lots of people around the world seem to be interested in Canada’s model, how we did it, why we did it and how it’s going right now.
That is it, chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dean. We do have a question.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, Senator Dean. I couldn’t think of anybody more appropriate than you to be doing this outreach or providing your expertise to other countries. The rules don’t allow for international travel, which is why you’re here. Each senator has travel points to travel to the United States: two trips to Washington a year and two trips to New York in relation to either United Nations or U.S. government business. It is my understanding sometimes we have asked that a senator trade one of those points in as part of the cost mitigation for this. Is that something you would be able to do?
Senator Dean: I believe so, because in my nine years in the Senate, I have never applied any of those points to a Washington or a New York trip. I have actually travelled internationally rarely. So, absolutely, if that helps and that can be done, I would obviously be happy to do it.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: Thank you very much. Senator Dean, like Senator Tannas, I am not surprised at all. You stand in great regard, and so does Canada in terms of its national standards.
My question is for the individuals at the table who have been here for a while. It has been my recollection that we have not approved or we have had great lengthy discussions about supporting international travel for various conferences in the past. I’m wondering if there is anyone who can give us a sense, more to the detail of what Senator Tannas has said, about when we have done this before, allowed somebody to trade in their travel points and make a switch.
We have also had a lot of discussion about the use of travel points to the U.S. and the limitations that exist around them. This is a well-discussed topic. I would like to hear what the history is, please.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you, Senator Moodie.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much. This is actually a bigger issue than we think it is in terms of the discussion that we should eventually have about how points are used and how to manage the many international requests that we receive.
To try to be helpful, last year, I was invited to speak at a conference in Mexico. The request came to this committee and steering took the decision, and the decision was that I would use one of my points that would have been used for New York or for Washington. That worked well for me.
The Chair: Any other comments or questions? Can I have a mover for the following motion —
Senator Moodie: I have one example. Is there any other information —
The Chair: Any other information, comments?
Senator Moodie: From the administrators at the table.
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Committee, Senate of Canada: Thank you for the question, senator. Senator Boehm did provide one example. I don’t have the detailed list here, but we did receive a number of requests for international travel to steering in the past, because this is where those were considered. A number of them were approved. Every time it was approved, steering would ask the senator to take one of their travel points in order to travel, and when it was declined, obviously, the points were not involved.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
The Chair: Any other questions, suggestions? Senator Moodie, does that answer your question?
Senator Moodie: Yes. Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you, Senator Dean, and I echo all the comments in terms of your expertise.
My question is along the same line as Senator Moodie’s and if there is precedent in terms of what was covered or not covered in terms of hotel rooms, because we’re talking about a travel point, which is airfare, but Senator Dean has indicated that there are some hotel costs involved. I’m curious about what this committee has decided in the past regarding hotels in this type of request.
Ms. Legault: Each request is unique. It’s really about the request from the senators. Sometimes, if it’s a keynote speaker, the invitation would cover a certain number of costs, and the senator would only come for the difference. At other times, really, the request was about the flight, the hotel and the per diem, and there is no standard practice in terms of what is covered. It’s really about assessing the request, the overall cost, the benefit. Steering took all of that into consideration in assessing each and every individual request.
Senator Dean: I had not imagined a claim for per diem, just to be clear. That was not within the ambit of my thoughts at any point. I’m glad that was raised.
The Chair: Thank you. I have a question, if you will allow me. You mentioned in your comments $4,000. Is $4,000 the exact amount you’re looking for?
Senator Dean: That would be the maximum. It would be between $3,500 and $4,000. If I can get it below $3,500, I will. I will be as constrained as I can possibly be. I’m happy to report back on what the costs are if you would like me to do that.
The Chair: So there is the upgrade and the hotel, right?
Senator Dean: Yes. And I am in discussion about the hotel portion of this, so I’ll keep working on it.
The Chair: So you will use the one travel point to draw from your office budget to fund the flight upgrade and the travel points for everything else? Okay. Are there other questions or comments? Are all questions answered on this?
Can I have a mover for the following motion:
Senators, it is agreed that the committee approve the Honourable Senator Dean’s request for an exception to the Senators’ Office Management Policy to allow him to travel to London, England, in April to attend a global conference as a guest speaker at a cost of $4,000 to the Senate with the usage of one travel point and to draw from his office budget to fund a flight upgrade?
It is moved by Senator Boyer that this motion be adopted. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried. Thank you, Senator Dean.
Senator Dean: Thank you very much for your support.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, the next item concerns the House Officer budget allocations for the 2026-27 fiscal year, specifically for the Canadian Senators Group and the Progressive Senate Group. Each group is seeking an adjustment of its annual House Officer allocation in the amount of $74,638, to address operational requirements for the upcoming fiscal year.
Honourable senators, do you have any questions or comments? Can I have a senator to move the following motion:
That the following House Officer budget allocations for the Canadian Senators Group, CSG, and the Progressive Senate Group, PSG, for the 2026-27 fiscal year be adopted: Canadian Senators Group, $760,000; and Progressive Senate Group, $760,000.
Do you have a comment, Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: No. Senator Henkel was about to move the motion with gusto, but since she is part of the Canadian Senators Group, I think it would be better if I did it.
The Chair: I have to check both sides. I will continue. The Honourable Senator Forest has moved:
That the Chief Financial Officer be authorized to transfer the required amounts on April 1, 2026 in accordance with the expected carry-forward funds from 2025-26 and that $149,276 be requested in the 2027-28 budget.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried.
[English]
Colleagues, the next item is a report from the Advisory Working Group on Artwork and Heritage Assets. It is my understanding that Senator Cardozo will make opening remarks, and that Josée Labelle, Director General of Property and Services, and Mike Steinhauer, Curator, Heritage and Curatorial Services, will assist in answering questions. Senator Cardozo, you may begin your presentation.
Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you members of CIBA for allowing me to come and present this budget. We’re a small working group. The other colleagues on the working group are Senators Cormier, Karetak-Lindell, Black and Ataullahjan.
I will focus my remarks on the budget that you have and the reports. I’m going to focus on the table that you have on the first page. Apart from going through the figures, I cherish this opportunity to talk about some of the things that are happening. This is your Senate building. You see a lot of the things that appear from time to time in the building. This is a chance for you to know a little more about how these things happen.
The plans for the year ahead are as follows. The first is the restoration of two paintings: the paintings of Queen Alexandra and Speaker William Powell. You will know that there are a lot of paintings of speakers around the building. In the Senate block, there were a number of large paintings of kings and queens, and the plan has been and continues to be that we restore a couple of those every year. Some of them date back over 100 years and require a certain amount of restoration. It’s expensive to do them all at once, so we do a couple of every year.
The next item is the Monarch’s throne. You’ll know that when we moved from Centre Block to this building, we didn’t bring the throne. We brought everything else. We brought our desks and chairs, but the thrones needed too much work to transfer over. New thrones were built for this building, and the plan is for those thrones to be restored this year in the planning for when we resume the use of Centre Block. As for chamber desk maintenance — the desks we use every day — this is our chance to remind us that these are heritage items. They are antiques and they require care on our part. If anybody ever spills water, make sure you let a page know as soon as possible or if anything is wrong with your desk, make sure you let somebody know. They all get a close look and we restore a few of them each year.
As for the planned restoration of other furniture through the building, we have a small contingency amount of $15,000.
The other planned activities involve artwork. A year ago, you approved $30,000 for the purchase of artwork. The purpose of developing a small collection of artwork of the Senate is as follows: The original artwork we’ve had through history has been essentially the kings and queens of England and the Speakers. Some years back, you know that Senator Joyal helped in creating the collection of the French kings that we have in the lower lobby. What we have tried to do with the purchase of art is to make our art collection more representative of Canada, so certainly more Indigenous art, art by women, art from different parts of the country.
Three of the pieces of art in this room were purchased over the last year — the one over there of the deer, the round one behind me and the blue one over there with the lake scene.
An interesting piece I want to tell you about are the Senate plaques. Back in the Centre Block, we had plaques bearing the names of senators by Parliament. When we went to the renovation phase, those plaques were taken down and stored. They, strangely, don’t belong to anybody so we have acquired them at no cost. We have taken possession of them.
Senator Varone was one of the senators who suggested we display these because he was looking for past senators and couldn’t find a record. Some of those plaques will be restored. There isn’t room enough for all of them. We don’t have plaques for the Forty-second, Forty-third and Forty-fourth Parliaments. These are bronze plaques and they cost a bit of money. Those three plaques will be prepared. The plan is to put about the last 10 or 12 Parliaments — the plaques from those will be put in the room downstairs across from the French kings; and I say 10 or 12 because that’s how much space we have. When we go back to the Centre Block, they will all be displayed there.
The other thing about the 10 or 12 plaques is we want to ensure that every living senator can come and find their name there. If we go back to that period, we’re going to be purchasing three more. The last item is a contingency plan for disposal. I was surprised to hear that sometimes we need to spend money to dispose of stuff. It’s not just taken out and thrown in the back. There may be lead in the stuff. Sometimes, rather than dispose of items we may not need, we give them to another museum or a college or university who will find them useful. There are costs in transferring those.
A couple of other quick things to tell you about, if I may, Mr. Chair. At the bottom of page 2 and on to page 3, we had commissioned sketch work of the King’s visit and the Throne Speech. This is in keeping with the plan to record — a record of a historic event, and part of the mandate of the arts and heritage plan to record our history. We had four artists, whom you might not have seen, ensconced in corners and different parts of the route as the King and Queen passed through. They put some sketches together, which are really quite exceptional. I have got to say, it was quite exciting when the working group had a look at them.
The wall across from the French kings — starting next week until the middle of September — will have these sketches. And then, starting mid-September, we will then have the plaques of past senators. For the next few months, we will have those sketches, which will be displayed by four different artists who were in different points, and restored the history, but also the energy of the event.
The other piece that is really quite wonderful is the maquette of Queen Elizabeth. You will see this at the top of the stairs in the outside lobby of the chamber. This is a maquette of Queen Elizabeth sitting on the throne when she was here some 50 years ago for the Speech from the Throne. The actual big statue, which is about 15 feet tall, unfortunately, sits outside Queen’s Park. Even though I’m an Ontario senator, I would rather have that statue here in Ottawa, but they own that. What we have is a maquette of it. I am pleased to tell you that our colleague Senator Harder purchased that for us and has donated it to the Senate in memory of his late wife. This is another wonderful piece. I have got to tell you, at the last meeting, we were looking at this maquette and these sketches and it was a very exciting meeting. Senator Moodie, you have been a member of the working group for a long time. This was more exciting than some of the meetings you have been at. I wish you were there.
Just a couple of other pieces. With the Visual Voices program, which is essentially borrowing or purchasing artwork that we have. In Rooms B45 and B30, you will notice there is new art. What we do is depict the themes and we ask the expert curatorial staff to pick the paintings. We don’t get into picking the paintings. But in Rooms B30 and B45, the themes are the North in Room B30 and transportation in Room B45.
The other piece we asked our curator to do was, apart from the themes, to ensure that the art is regionally representative. For example, in the case of the North, we ensure that there is art from all three territories and northern Quebec so that it’s really quite representative.
Here is the last piece I’ll just mention in terms of artwork. In the past, we would purchase or borrow art, and then have it transported across the country. Since COVID, the cost of transporting art has gone through the roof and now it would be literally more expensive to transport it than to buy it. We now purchase or we borrow art locally, but make sure that, from other sources, such as Crown and Indigenous relations, they have bought art from different parts of the country. We most want to make sure the art is representative of the country, and those are the two themes that we picked.
That’s a quick rundown. I’m happy to answer any other questions, and our colleagues Josée Labelle and Mike Steinhauer are here to provide more details.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Cardozo.
It is nice of you to mention Senator Harder’s donation of the Queen Elizabeth maquette. I also want to note that the acquisition of the commemorative parchment signed by Their Majesties — that’s at no cost — my executive assistant, Julie, is involved with that.
Senator Tannas: Can you tell us more about that? Tell us her name for the record.
The Chair: Julie Richer did a lot of the calligraphy when His Majesty came in. She does a lot of the calligraphy for the president’s office and the Speaker of the Senate’s office. When you get the birthday cards, I tend to sign them, but they are all from her. A lot of people tell me, “Geez. I didn’t know you were so talented — all this calligraphy.” I say it’s only the tip of the iceberg. It’s not mine; it’s her calligraphy. I’m proud of her, and she has made history here.
I’m very proud of Julie Richer, for the record.
Senator Cardozo: We will recognize her when we show that piece of art.
The Chair: Yes, thank you for that.
I wanted to mention that.
Senator Tannas: I have two questions.
With respect to the plaques, I think that’s great. As somebody who remembers going into the Centre Block, just off the Hall of Honour, I think it was, there were plaques of all of the names of parliamentarians who had ever served in Parliament, going back to the beginning. I’m glad we’re going to continue that.
Is the House of Commons doing the same thing? Are they keeping up with their plaques?
Senator Cardozo: They have their plaques in the underground tunnel between the Visitor’s Centre and the West Block. We didn’t do that when we moved here.
Senator Tannas: Good. I’m glad we’re going to display them. That’s great.
Another question — and this is one of the old favourites — is about the dishes and cutlery that we used to inventory and keep careful care of. At the urging of this committee, we suggested a garage sale. Have we managed to offload most of the dishes, cutlery and so on that piled up that was part of a long-term storage issue for us?
Mike Steinhauer, Chief Curator, Senate of Canada: Thank you for the question. I would be happy to answer that.
That was one of the disposal projects that was completed when I started this position. Now, we have the policy in place to only keep two examples — two plates, two forks — versus the entire set. So, all of those dishes have been disposed of.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: I will add that, for the most part, they didn’t go in a garage sale; they went to other museums across the country.
Senator Cardozo: I would have been out there looking to buy them, but they were not available.
Senator Osler: Thank you, senator, for that presentation. I really appreciate the history and the explanation to help prepare us for what to look for when we come into the Senate Building and see the new Senate plaques, for example.
My question is a little tangential, but I’ll bring it home.
For this committee, and for anybody watching, I’m not sure if folks know there is our Parliamentary Poet Laureate, and poetry is a form of art; it’s a literary art. The poet laureate is chosen by the Speakers of each house. I know this because the current Parliamentary Poet Laureate is from my home province of Manitoba.
I believe they come to Ottawa to do some events, but I really haven’t been aware of when they are here to help support and promote the work the poet laureate does. I believe they fall under the auspices of the two Speakers, but has there ever been any consideration or discussion for the Parliamentary Poet Laureate to interact with or fall under the auspices of the Artwork and Heritage Advisory Working Group?
Senator Cardozo: That’s a good question.
There hasn’t, but I think that’s a really good point. We now also have an artist laureate, for which we passed the act. Your predecessor, Senator Bovey, had begun that bill, and I had the honour of finishing being the sponsor of it after she left.
Yes, that is a really good suggestion. We haven’t really turned our minds to it, but somebody has to do it, and I would be happy to.
Senator Osler: I have a supplementary, Mr. Chair. Perhaps not “fall under the auspices” but at least to think quite broadly about art in that it’s not just visual art but literary art, as well.
The Chair: Excellent.
Senator Moodie: I just wanted to thank you for this presentation today, Senator Cardozo.
I have two questions. The first is about authenticity.
One of the things that we have struggled with in this committee and in the Senate as a whole is around ensuring that what pieces we have in our buildings are authentic. There have been a few concerns over the past few years, not just our own concerns but in the broader art world.
As you acquire pieces, either for rental or through whatever arrangements, what work are you doing to ensure authenticity so we don’t get caught up in future concerns that may arise for that? That’s the first question.
Second, at some point, I would like to ask our chair to invite you back to talk a little bit about what the plans are for Centre Block as we move forward into a new space for the artwork there. I know that was very much a part of the discussions in the committee that I was on, so I’m wondering where things are at and how we can bring all the senators into being informed about that work, where things are heading and what the goals are there.
Senator Cardozo: On the first, I’ll ask Mike to comment a little further in terms of the authenticity, because, as a committee, as I mentioned, we don’t get into the actual purchase of the art or the renting of it, but it is an important issue.
In terms of the Centre Block, we have taken our gaze off that a little bit over the past few months. With prorogation, there were a number of things we were catching up with, as well as the items that I mentioned before. However, certainly, senator, you were championing that issue when you were on that committee, and we will be focusing on that again soon, because this is an incredible opportunity for a group of senators to influence the artwork that will be in the Centre Block for decades, if not centuries, to come. Thank you for raising that, and I’ll be happy to come back and talk about it.
Mr. Steinhauer: Thank you for the question. I think it’s a very important one.
In the specific cases of the most recent acquisitions, they were all contemporary artworks, so the question of provenance and history was less of a concern. Some of them — half of them — were directly done by the artist and purchased directly from the artist, so in those instances, we know who made them and how they were produced.
Otherwise, we work directly with reputable galleries. However, provenance — the history of where something is made and sold — is an issue, specifically as it pertains to historical objects. There, I would work with other colleagues within the field. We have immense resources here in the city with national institutions to ensure that those questions are properly answered before we would acquire something.
The Chair: Thank you, Mike. Authenticity is an important question.
Senator Moodie, does that answer your question?
Senator Moodie: Yes.
Senator MacDonald: I have three questions.
In terms of the repair costs, is this stuff sole-sourced, or is it put out to bid to people who are competent?
Mr. Steinhauer: This is a two-part answer, if I may.
Much of our furniture is restored by House of Commons trades, and so they are at cost. The Senate of Canada no longer has a trades shop, so we have an MOU with the House of Commons. Some of the more particular objects, such as the throne, weren’t sole-sourced. It was opened up for bidding. One of the conservators who got the bid is a local conservator with whom we work closely, and then we have a multi-MOU with Legris Conservation, which is an expert in the field that does the kinds of conservation work specific to paintings of this scale and historical value.
Senator MacDonald: I’m looking at the prices here. Chamber desk maintenance, $7,200. The desk had a lot of wear and tear, and that seems to be a reasonable price. The monarch’s throne was almost $24,000. That doesn’t get a lot of wear and tear. We don’t have the monarch sitting in it very often. Why is that so expensive?
Mr. Steinhauer: Specific to the chamber desks maintenance, that’s annual maintenance that we do, so we don’t restore the desks one by one, but they are maintained. So the $7,500 is for the annual maintenance of the desks.
Senator MacDonald: I don’t find them expensive — but $24,000 to restore the monarch’s throne. What are they doing with it?
Mr. Steinhauer: The throne itself is quite large in scale, as you can imagine, and then second, it dates from the 1860s, so it is one of our most valuable pieces within the collection. Conservation work for that type of an object is quite intensive. We can’t just go to a regular furniture maker to restore it.
Senator MacDonald: I appreciate that. When they conserve it or restore it, are they taking it completely apart and restoring it? What are they doing with it?
Mr. Steinhauer: For every object that we have, we have a condition report, and all of the conservation plan that is in front of us is based on the condition report. There is the heritage value that gets taken into consideration. In this case, the heritage value of the throne is the highest value that we have within the scale. So it’s the heritage value. It is the state that it is in, and the state is being analyzed by my team and by conservators, like what is the work that is done. Then we go out for tender where people can bid on these projects, and then they come back to us with a full conservation proposal. Then we approve the work.
Senator MacDonald: You’re comfortable with it?
Mr. Steinhauer: Yes.
Senator MacDonald: I have a question for Senator Cardozo.
You mentioned the collection of French kings on the right-hand side coming in, which Senator Joyal put together and donated to the Senate. It is a beautiful collection, and I love it. It starts with François I, one of my favourite French kings. He is quite an accomplished fellow.
Why wouldn’t we start a collection of the British kings, going back to Henry VII, on the other side of the hall?
Senator Cardozo: I would imagine if a senator took that on, that could be done. Maybe you’re looking for projects here.
Senator MacDonald: Well, we take on a lot of things here.
Senator Cardozo: I don’t know the exact number that we have, but we have a number of kings and queens, some of which you and I wouldn’t have heard of. We have paintings of them already. When I mentioned one of the ones that we’re getting restored is Queen Alexandra, I’ve got to tell you, I thought I knew a lot of kings and queens, but I had not heard of her.
Senator MacDonald: She wasn’t a monarch. She was a queen consort.
Senator Cardozo: Right. These are very large and very beautiful pieces of art.
Senator MacDonald: Yes. I wonder if we could do a search on what paintings of kings we have, kings and monarchs of Great Britain. It would be nice to balance that hall out, wouldn’t it?
Senator Cardozo: I think so, but if you look at the space, I think the reason Senator Joyal did that is probably the opposite case you’re making, that he probably felt there was no evidence of the French kings and a lot of evidence of the English kings and queens.
Senator MacDonald: Historically, it would be balanced and it would look good. Maybe we can do a check and see what we have in the archives.
Senator Cardozo: Sure.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: One of the things that comes to mind is that we did a check on the Speakers and found there were a couple of Speakers from way back that we didn’t have portraits of, but we have all but a couple.
Senator MacDonald: If I could add one more thing, you mentioned that sometimes we can’t find photos of senators. I go online, and there are a number of senators out there whose photos aren’t online, but there are photos of them out there. I wonder if we could start doing a little search to track down some photos of senators who have served since 1867 but who don’t have a photo with their names in the historical record that is online by the Senate.
Senator Cardozo: Interesting point. Certainly, in talking to Senator Varone, one of his interests was to have the plaques, but also to have an online database of information that would have photos as well as other information so one could either, on-site here or online, be able to find a lot more information about each of the senators from the past.
Can I just mention one thing about the throne? In terms of the cost, the reason we didn’t bring the thrones over was that they were not in good enough condition. I assume that the decision was made back then that it was worth building these new ones because the old ones were in precarious enough condition that we didn’t want to bring them over, whereas all the other desks and chairs were brought over. So that gives you a sense of the condition. They might not be used a lot, but maybe they weren’t built very strong. Maybe they were sort of plugged into the wall too strongly, and when you take them out, they fall apart. I don’t know.
Senator MacDonald: I’ll leave those suggestions with you, and I can privately, over the years, push you on it.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you. And I’ll push back, senator, so you can get involved in that too.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator MacDonald and Senator Cardozo.
Senator Boyer: I want to add one comment on this conversation across the aisle here. When we are talking about the French and the British kings and queens, perhaps we should consider the First Nations, Métis and Inuit leaders gallery as well. That is just a comment.
I have a question, and thank you both for being here. I know that at one time we had an issue with non-Indigenous artists painting Indigenous art. I believe, Josée, we have dealt with that, but if you can please give me a rundown on how you can ensure this won’t happen again, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Steinhauer: For sure. In this example, we take the example of the Canada Council for the Arts, which has a clear policy in place in terms of how people are represented, and if a certain culture or a certain person is represented, that it’s themselves telling that story versus somebody else telling that story.
We have guiding principles in place, both for the decorative arts — so that’s all of the sculpture work outside of the building — and also internally, because we are embarking on the clerestory window project for the Senate Chamber — that a person that is being represented is — they themselves do it. If you’re telling an Indigenous narrative, it would be done by an Indigenous artist. If you’re telling the history of Black Canadians in Nova Scotia, for example, it would be Black artists from that group.
It’s very important that the artists themselves tell their stories versus somebody else telling it for them.
Senator Boyer: It’s the Canada Council for the Arts that you actually work with?
Mr. Steinhauer: They have an incredible policy available, and I borrowed our guidelines based on their policy.
Senator Boyer: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Any other questions or comments?
Senator Cardozo: I have a quick comment. Just in relation to Senator Boyer’s question, senator, you will know this, but I want to let the others know that there was a room in the Centre Block which had what was thought to be Indigenous artwork on the ceiling, which is — the number of the room is —
Mr. Steinhauer: Room 256-S.
Senator Cardozo: Room 256-S is connected to the Railway Committee Room. Through examination, it was found that — I guess the best you could say is that at some point someone felt there should be some Indigenous art in the building. It was painted by a non-Indigenous artist and also in a style that was Aztec, so not very Canadian Indigenous. A lot of thought went into that, but in the end, they decided to do away with that painting and, when we restore that room, to have Canadian Indigenous artists. The folks there have worked with Indigenous senators and MPs to come up with a process so that we will have authentic Indigenous art that is Canadian, and Senator Boyer has been very active in that. I just want others to know that a lot of time and thought went into correcting that piece of history.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Cardozo, and thank you, Mike and Josée.
Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the first report of the Subcommittee on Advisory Working Group on Artwork and Heritage Assets be adopted?
It is moved by Senator Osler that this motion be adopted. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried.
[Translation]
The following item involves the forecasts for the resources working on our buildings in 2026-27 as part of the rehabilitation project. The salaries will be reimbursed by Public Services and Procurement Canada.
As witnesses, we have Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate; Jennifer Smith, Manager, Strategic Planning Services and Issues, Property and Services Directorate; and Louise Cowley, Director, LTVP and Accommodation, Property and Services Directorate. After the presentation, senators will have an opportunity to ask questions.
Ms. Labelle, you may go ahead with your presentation.
[English]
Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you, honourable senators, for the opportunity to present our annual briefing note on our salary forecast for the Long-Term Vision and Plan. This note does not seek any new funding or full-time equivalents for the Senate Administration.
As per past practice, we are seeking CIBA’s approval to recover salary funding from Public Services and Procurement Canada for Senate resources championing your requirements across 14 LTVP projects ahead of the next upcoming fiscal year, forecasted at $3,248,983, for a maximum of 35.1 existing FTEs.
We seek your approval on this topic every year. What makes this year different is that PSPC has now reduced the amount of all parliamentary partner recoverable funds for the LTVP salaries. This is applicable starting in fiscal year 2026-27, and the reduction is 9%. This matter is being managed by the administration, and we have complied with PSPC’s cap using our existing CIBA-approved resources for the upcoming fiscal year.
Further cuts in future fiscal years present two risks: The administration might not have the appropriate resources to fully deliver our high-profile projects, like Centre Block or the Senate Office Complex in Block 2, and this may impact parliamentary business as we would be short on resources to ensure your requirements are built into the end-state Parliamentary Precinct; and also to properly coordinate moves, monitor construction, test systems and equipment, and to address deficiencies and brief committees.
Second, there is a risk that the number of existing LTVP resources may exceed the amount of funding the Senate receives from PSPC. To mitigate these risks, all directorates with LTVP FTEs are carefully reviewing vacant positions before staffing over the next decade. The Senate Administration is also working with PSPC to create a multi-year partner engagement plan that will enable proactive resource planning until the LTVP is complete.
With this, we thank you for your attention on this matter. Again, I’m with Jennifer Smith and Louise Cowley, and we are happy to answer any questions on this file.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. Fellow senators, do you have any questions or comments?
[English]
Senator Tannas: I just wanted to ensure I understand. When does the 40 Elgin fit-up end?
Ms. Labelle: Essentially, the substantial completion will be done in December of this year. We move, then we address deficiencies and then we should be good. There will be, potentially, a second phase with security-related items.
Senator Tannas: We have 6.2 salaries being funded for that project, which is going to go away by fiscal 2027-28, right? So, PSPC has reduced funding by 7.5%, and then, on top of that, those 6.2 positions will disappear, as well, likely in 2027-28; is that right?
Ms. Labelle: That’s an excellent question, senator.
We have dedicated resources to the LTVP, but once they finalize one project, they are shifted to another project. So, of the 6.2 FTEs you see for 40 Elgin, you have a portion of a communications person, a portion for security, a portion for planning, a portion for moving, an asset management portion, et cetera.
They would be either redirected to other projects or —
Senator Tannas: Right, but they won’t be upping the funding in any of these other boxes, right?
Colleagues, just to ensure everyone is aware, these folks — we’re now at 28, I think — are being paid for, not by the Senate but by PSPC. Yet, they are full-time, tenured Senate employees. So, we have this complicated ballet that these ladies here and others are managing such that, as these projects finish, we need to find work for these people in regular Senate jobs that are under the 449-person cap. Ensuring we do that will be a preoccupation for us for the next number of years. If there isn’t an appropriate replacement, it must be ensured that we are treating people fairly on the way out and that we have done right by them.
When we are back here next year, you will be talking about 22.1 FTEs; that would likely be your funding. You may need more, and you’ll have to talk to us about that, but that’s what this is foreshadowing; is that right?
Ms. Labelle: Again, regarding some of the resources, depending on the phase of other projects, we may need to ramp up our resources, so these resources may likely be reallocated to other projects.
Senator Tannas: I’m saying the 22.1 FTEs is all that the other department will pay for, so you may be coming to us to say that we now no longer have sufficient funding to cover all the people we have hired for this project before. That’s what this is about.
Ms. Labelle: And we’re working on that multi-year plan right now.
Senator Tannas: Great, thank you.
Ms. Labelle: I also want to add that, specifically for 40 Elgin and Centre Block, we also have consultants just so that we don’t fully have just indeterminate employees to help mitigate some of the work.
Senator Tannas: That’s good. That gives us flexibility, right?
Ms. Labelle: Correct.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: This is my ignorance, and I’m hoping to get some education on this. I’ve been at this table for a few years now, and we have heard this discussion but we haven’t heard the part about PSPC pulling back. What’s happening there? What can we expect in the future?
Ms. Labelle: That’s an excellent question, senator.
We presume this was aligned with the reduction in spending announced by the government for fiscal year 2026-27; however, it was 7.5%, and we are seeing here a 9% reduction, which is actually above and beyond what was publicly announced.
Again, we are working on the multi-year plan and trying to align with some of those numbers that were publicly announced.
Senator Moodie: As part of that plan, are you projecting forward into further reductions? Are you expecting further reductions?
Ms. Labelle: We expect guidance from PSPC. We have posed the question, so it goes through joint governance with all parliamentary partners and Public Services and Procurement Canada. It has always been a year-by-year approach, but we’re now asking for a multi-year plan, which we have not yet received the details on.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: It’s not a question. I just want to say how skilled our managers are. A reduction of 9% is being made, and our managers planned for that. While we may often be critical of decisions, when we consider all the effort that has to go into this entire project, we realize what a massive undertaking the rehabilitation of the Parliamentary Precinct is. It’s important to point that out. As Chair of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, I want to recognize the expertise of our managers, who are looking ahead and anticipating budgetary challenges. We’re seeing a 9% reduction right now, with no additional funding being sought. Excellent work, ladies — there are many of you.
The Chair: Thank you for that comment. Are there any other questions or comments? Thank you, Ms. Labelle, Ms. Smith and Ms. Cowley. Can I have a senator to move the motion? The Honourable Senator Forest has moved:
That the Senate’s 2026-27 salary funding for the Long Term Vision and Plan, estimated at $3,248,983 and 35.1 FTEs, be approved.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried.
Thank you, Ms. Labelle, Ms. Smith and Ms. Cowley. I believe you’re staying with us for the next item on the agenda. You’re busy today.
[English]
Colleagues, the next item concerns a service agreement with Public Services and Procurement Canada. As usual, this presentation will be followed by time for questions. Josée, you may begin your presentation.
Ms. Labelle: Thank you, chair and honourable senators.
This particular item addresses the annual briefing note on sole‑source contracts with Public Services and Procurement Canada. As the designated custodian for the Parliamentary Precinct, PSPC is the only entity authorized by legislation to complete additional building services and non-LTVP renovation projects in the Senate buildings. The administration is not seeking new funding as these costs are already included in existing budgets, as previously approved by CIBA.
As per the Senate’s procurement policy, we are seeking a decision on the costs of these sole-source contracts for fiscal year 2026-27, which are estimated at $531,000. This is approximately $50,000 more than the amount spent over fiscal year 25-26. Again, these are simply estimates.
As you can see in appendix A, $370,000 relates to building and equipment maintenance fees, such as the maintenance of specialized heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems as an example. The balance of the $160,000 is for construction and renovation projects, such as the Senate Chamber handrail to improve accessibility.
A contingency is also included for emergency repairs based on past experience. To focus investment on spaces providing operational advantages over multiple years, the Property and Services Directorate will also closely work with clients so that requests for this type of work are limited to urgent obligations, health and safety requirements and spaces not included in the LTVP program. This approach supports our continued effort to operate efficiently while continuing to provide the services previously approved by CIBA to the Senate.
Again, I’m with Jennifer and Louise and we’re happy to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you. Senators, do you have any comments or questions? Seeing none, thank you once again, Josée, Jennifer and Louise. Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Senate Administration be authorized to proceed with the Expense Initiation and continues proceeding with sole-source contracts with Public Services & Procurement Canada (PSPC) for the provision of additional building services and non-LTVP renovation projects, equipment for the 2026-27 fiscal year, whose aggregate costs are estimated at $531,000.
It is moved by Senator Henkel that this motion be adopted. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Seeing no objection, I declare the motion carried. Thank you, Josée, Jennifer and Louise.
The next item is concerning the renewal of the Service Level Agreement with the House of Commons for nursing services. Annie Carpentier, Director of Talent Optimization and Employee Well-Being, will now join us as a witness.
[Translation]
Annie Carpentier, Director, Talent Optimization and Employee Well-Being, Human Resources Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators.
[English]
I’m here today to propose a renewal of the service agreement with the House of Commons for nursing services, for a period of one year from April 1 to March 31, 2027. Since 2013, the Senate has had an agreement with the House regarding the provision of nursing services, which includes, as examples, health and mental health consultations, referrals for certain types of care and the administration of vaccination clinics.
[Translation]
Last year, the nurse’s office received a total of 106 visits from senators and senators’ staff. In addition, 94 people received flu vaccinations during the last vaccination clinic. The total cost for renewing the service agreement is $23,480, and no additional funding is being sought.
We would now be glad to answer your questions.
[English]
Senator Osler: Thank you very much for the presentation. I have a two-part question. The first is on a service level agreement and the cost to the Senate would be $23,487 for the year. I noted that, in the year 2025, there were only 106 total visits to the health unit from either senators or Senate staff. In the briefing note, it’s mentioned that use has been declining. Part of the reason may be its actual physical location in West Block.
First, is the House of Commons paying the same amount that we are for the services? Is it a 50-50 or do they pay more? Do we know anything about their usage?
The second question is really on value for money, health promotion and increasing accessibility for senators and senators’ staff. The briefing note does mention that perhaps accessibility is decreasing because of where it’s located.
When I look at the services that the registered nurses provide — clinical assessments, minor medical interventions, health monitoring, counselling, coordination of referrals and vaccination clinics — all of which could be portable, I would like to inquire if has it ever been asked that the nursing services be on site in a Senate building regularly, once a week? If it hasn’t been requested or considered, I’m requesting that it be considered or asked that they be physically on site in a Senate building one day a week.
Ms. Carpentier: To your first question on the House of Commons, they need more. So they have three nurses on their team and I think we are paying 20% of the salary of one nurse.
Senator Osler: I understand.
Ms. Carpentier: Also I think that other parliamentary institutions are using the House of Commons services for nursing services.
For your other question, we have never been requested. I think we’d need to try to find a space because their offices are equipped. They have an office at West Block, and also at 180 Wellington, so this is something we would need to explore. I know they have specific equipment in those offices. I don’t know if it would be available. But online appointments are available or if you call them, they can come to your office as well. I know that they offer that service, too.
Senator Osler: I have a supplementary. Could we get an idea of their medical equipment? I have a health background and with everything I see as the services they provide, the equipment is portable.
Ms. Carpentier: Okay. We can ask.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: Thank you, Senator Osler, and thank you Ms. Carpentier. Those are very good questions. My thinking ties in with your point. I want to raise three things.
First, I don’t think the service is promoted enough, since a lot of people don’t even know it’s available. Second, it is true that, if we could schedule a day for the nurse to be on site, people could make appointments and meet with the nurse. That would make things easier not just for employees, but also for senators, who have little time to get around as it is.
Third, I have a question about something I experienced, but I’ve also heard a lot of comments on this as well. We’re here a few days a week and we’re very busy, and sometimes, we absolutely need to get a prescription or to see a doctor quickly, which isn’t always possible. If we have to travel outside the country and need a certain vaccine . . . . As senators, we don’t have access to any prescription-related or doctor-related services, so I was wondering why we don’t have access to a nurse — the term to describe the type of professional I’m referring to is nurse practitioner or specialized nurse practitioner.
Ms. Carpentier: I don’t have an answer to your question, but nursing services has an agreement with an Ottawa doctor, so you do have access to a doctor, in accordance with the service. They can steer you to the right place, for instance, if you have an emergency or need to get a vaccine quickly. Nursing services can refer you to a clinic.
Senator Henkel: Thank you for that answer, Ms. Carpentier, but I have personal experience with this. I called and I wasn’t referred to a doctor. I was told to consult my doctor, even though I was here. Nevertheless, I’d like to know why we don’t have access to a nurse who can prescribe medication, a nurse practitioner. I think that is something we should look into.
Ms. Carpentier: Very good. Thank you.
Senator Henkel: Thank you.
The Chair: That’s a good question, and I’ll let Annie answer it when she’s able to. I don’t know whether that service is available in Ontario, but we definitely have it in Quebec.
I’m not an expert on that, so I’ll leave it with you. You can get back to us with an answer.
[English]
Senator Moodie: I want to explore more about what understanding we have of the use of these services.
When I look at the scope of the practice of the nurses, within each of these areas, the nursing scope is quite limited. Do we understand how often care is requested beyond that service for physician engagement? Do we understand what satisfaction our users are getting out of this service? Senator Henkel really does raise this question. As I look at this, I wrote myself questions. How often do we need to escalate care? How often is that care refused?
It’s all speaking to value for money. We cannot afford a nurse practitioner. I’m not sure the House of Commons can, either. So, a bigger question is: Does this service give us access to what we need in a timely fashion? Is it worth the value — $23,000 is not a lot of money; for 106, it works out to about $221 per encounter. In health care, that’s not a lot of money.
It’s really understanding our use and satisfaction. Have we ever done a survey with the staff? Do we know how many people feel this is good, accessible and worth their while? Have they been able to access care beyond the nursing service?
The Chair: We do have the stats in appendix B on the nursing services statistics for the Senate of Canada.
I want to highlight, though, that in 2025, we had substantially fewer sitting days, so it does vary based upon the sitting days, the elections or prorogations we have had over the course of the years.
I think there are three issues here. There is the location. There is the communication, as Senator Henkel said; it is extremely important. I always say that power is communication, and communication is power. Also, the sitting days are variable. However, Senator Moodie makes a good point on the cost around the well-being of our staff, the dignity, they are so important. It’s an extremely important topic.
I will continue with other questions. I’m here to facilitate, but I just wanted to make that comment.
Senator Boyer: I have been here eight years and over my time here, I have called nursing services two or three times, and I have been very happy with the responses that I have gotten. I do believe that nursing services were available during COVID and were giving out COVID shots at the time.
The only thing I might suggest — and I agree with Senator Moodie — is that we probably need a survey. A survey with some hard data would really help us improve the services.
Thank you for the work you have done up to this point.
Ms. Carpentier: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for that comment.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I want to follow up on the earlier request regarding doctor access. Keep in mind that, in Quebec and Canada alike, everyone has a hard time getting in to see a doctor.
When you look into the request, please keep in mind that a senator should not have better access than any other citizen. I agree that the nursing services are excellent and that we can turn to them for help, but prescriptions have to come from a doctor.
Please bear in mind that the public mustn’t think that we have better access to care than other citizens in Canada, who have just as much trouble accessing certain health services. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. That’s an excellent point, Senator Oudar.
[English]
Just to dovetail off of that, staff who do live in Ottawa and Gatineau have access to their own personal doctors. This is mainly a service fee for parliamentarians who don’t have access to their provincial care. If they do have access to their own provincial care, it’s not a substitute here. We do know that, in Canada, access to family doctors is an issue of concern.
So, we do want to state that we do not want to be privileged but — this gets to Senator Henkel’s point — if it is an emergency, then refer to the ER or refer to the hospital in question. This is a very important comment.
Senator Moodie: On data and understanding, how many times have nurses referred or had to refer one of the clients — and this includes not just senators but staff — who presents themselves to their care? It would provide a clearer understanding for us as to how important this service is.
The other thing I would say is that any Canadian can access medical care where it is possible. This is about purchasing care. This is additional care on top of others and is for increasing access for this community, so in terms of comments about not being different than other Canadians, we have set ourselves in that position already; we are purchasing care.
Ms. Carpentier: I can come back to that later.
The Chair: It’s about convenience, but we’ll have you respond to that later.
Ms. Carpentier: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: I want to point something out. When it comes to the health and well-being of employees of the Senate, the costs we are talking about are not exorbitant. We are employers, but we are also senators who have to fulfill our roles.
Having access to at least one nurse practitioner who can prescribe medication in the event of an emergency, who is able to prescribe antibiotics, a vaccine or whatever the case may be, is a priority.
We’re not talking about increasing costs. We’re talking about getting the information and finding out whether that is different from the services we have now.
I want to say that everyone’s health, safety and well-being is a priority. Having access to health care and advice is a priority. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: I need a mover for the following motion:
That the Service Level Agreement for the House of Commons for the renewal for nursing services for senators Senate employees for 2026-27 in the amount of $23,487 be approved.
Senator Moodie moves the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried.
We’ll move on to item 8. Senators, the next item relates to items that were sent for information purposes only. This week, two documents were sent for information purposes. They are the updates to the reservation of board rooms in the senators’ work area, E-79 SCB, and a report from the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, which is a decision reported to CIBA.
Senators, do you have any questions or comments on these documents?
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: When I read the proposal, a question came to mind. I understand that the rooms have to be reserved and that there’s a concern that people may use them longer than planned.
Instead of not reserving the rooms — and I’ll explain my rationale in a moment — why not just put a time limit on it? People could reserve the rooms as they currently do but only for a limited period of time. Rather than not reserving the room, you could reserve the room for up to an hour, for example. Why? I’ll give you a very simple example. Recently, we had to hold an emergency meeting.
We couldn’t meet in a small office. There were four of us. We had to reserve the room, but we were in there for 40 minutes. Another consideration is that the rooms can be reserved when the Senate is not sitting. I’ve come to the chamber a number of times, and when the Senate isn’t sitting, it’s a ghost town. Why reserve a room when no one’s here? I wonder about the rationale for the room reservation request.
[English]
The Chair: It’s a good question. During the sittings, we’re debating legislation and committee work. I sometimes get many texts from our committees — Banking Committee — about whether we could meet urgently, and three or four of us going into a room. That happens often during our debates when you want to respond accordingly.
Shaila, I think you can answer that question.
[Translation]
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments, Senate of Canada: The first question was about introducing a time limit, and that’s one of the options that was considered. In the end, we decided to put this system in place as a pilot project, to see whether we needed to implement other measures.
One of the operational considerations we thought about was who would enforce the time limit if we put one in place. Someone would have to be on site to tell a senator or group of senators that they had to leave the room once their time was up. Workstations have always been managed on a first-come, first-served basis. We don’t necessarily want to have too many rules around that.
Let’s start with this. We’ll see how things go over the next few months. If it turns out that we need to introduce a time limit, we’ll follow up with the Speaker’s office and you will be informed.
Senator Henkel: Thank you, Shaila, but I’m opposed to it, so I’d like that on the record. I’ll explain. Numerous pages are around, and they can respectfully and easily write and send a note. I also think that we are responsible enough and that if another senator has reserved the room, they will simply follow the normal operating procedure for meeting rooms. During my entire career as an entrepreneur, I used meeting rooms that different departments shared, and I think that we are responsible enough to give up the room when others need it.
I don’t think the issue of who’s going to knock on the door or remind senators that they have to leave the room is a concern. Instead, I think what’s being added could cause more problems. According to the first-come, first-served rule, if I’m using the room first, I could stay there for three hours if I need to. That’s my concern. However, if people know they have to keep reserving it and there’s an hour limit, everyone has an opportunity to reserve the room.
Ms. Anwar: The reason this was proposed is that we received two or three requests from senators’ offices for a system to manage boardroom reservations.
Senator Henkel: Perhaps the best solution is to establish a one-hour time limit.
I repeat, I think the ability to reserve a room ensures that everyone’s time is respected, so that all senators have access to that particular room, which is the biggest one. I would just like it on the record that I don’t think it’s a great system.
Ms. Anwar: We’ll try it as a pilot, and if there are issues, we will definitely make changes.
Senator Henkel: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Your comment is noted.
I always say we do live in a dynamic world; it is never static. We’ll see how this works out, and then we’ll take it from there. They are appropriate comments, and they are well noted.
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: Forgive me, but this is niggling at me. You said you had received two or three requests. I think you should ask all senators and consider their input before going ahead with this system, because, as of yet, no one has been asked whether this is okay with them.
Ms. Anwar: The rooms are managed by the Speaker’s office. We consulted, because this is part of the secure area of the chamber. The note was provided for your information.
Senator Henkel: I will say it again: I would prefer that all senators be consulted on this before it is implemented.
Ms. Anwar: All right.
The Chair: That’s a suggestion, and a survey of all senators would be appropriate. It wouldn’t cost anything if you decided to do that.
Senator Forest: Do we all agree?
The Chair: Does everyone agree? The question can be asked today.
[English]
Senator Osler: Thank you for the information. I have gone to the back room looking for an office — one of the small meeting rooms — and, to be honest, I did not know you had to reserve them in advance. I always found they were often fully occupied, and I haven’t been able to access them as much as I would have liked. As a group that doesn’t have a meeting space, sometimes we do need to have brief meetings. As one of the smaller groups, finding a way to manage these small workspaces is important.
I do have concerns that a “first come, first served” basis with no time limits or ways to manage things may make those workspaces even harder to access. I would support finding out the opinions of our colleagues. As senators, we will have to self‑regulate; I would not want that task placed upon any pages or staff. If there is a framework, whether it’s a reservation system, time limits, “first come, first served,” some type of sign up sheet — we need to have more of a framework so that those spaces can be used fairly and equitably. Otherwise, I fear it will just be a bit unmanageable. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for those comments.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Good morning everyone. My apologies for being late. It was the ice.
A reservation system for those rooms already exists. A few times, the rooms were occupied even though they had been reserved. I suggest hanging a piece of paper on the door, indicating that the room is reserved from one o’clock to two o’clock, for example, with the name of the senator using it, especially for the two big rooms. That would solve the problem of people walking in and using the rooms without reserving them. It’s a very simple system, and people would know that their meeting could be interrupted because someone had already reserved the room.
Ms. Anwar: That’s a good idea, senator. For the pilot, we do actually plan to hang some sort of tablet on the door indicating whether the room is free or not. Will test that out with Room C126.
Senator Moncion: For the doors of the big rooms, a piece of paper will do; an iPad isn’t necessary.
The Chair: Yes, a piece of paper. An iPad would require a password.
Ms. Anwar: The problem with a piece of paper is that changes will be made frequently. We discussed a number of options. We now have a plan to try something out and see how it works.
To follow up on Senator Osler’s comment, we don’t want to make pages responsible for asking senators to leave the rooms. That would put them in an uncomfortable position.
The Chair: Thank you. That’s a good suggestion. Tennis courts in a number of parks work the same way. You write your name, and if the court is free, you play. Then, when the people who reserved the courts get there, you already know they booked the court. I’m not a big tennis player, but from time to time, I dabble in things I’m not good at.
Senator Forest: I’m going to toss you back the ball — the tennis ball. A reservation system was already in place. Why do things the easy way, when we can do them the hard way? It’s two rooms, not the whole building. Let’s be practical here. After all, there is already a reservation system.
Senator Henkel: Thank you. That’s exactly why I put my hand back up. There’s already a system, and it works for those who of course knew that the rooms had to be reserved.
Senator Moncion just said it: A number of senators have told me that they didn’t know about the reservation system. Again, I think the solution might be to better communicate what the tools are for reserving that room in particular and to put a time limit, an hour, on how long the room can be reserved, to make things easier. A pilot project wouldn’t be necessary. This would make everyone comfortable. If I know I have to leave the room, if someone is waiting at the door . . . . I’m struggling to understand why we’re spending so much time on an existing solution that could just be tweaked.
The Chair: That’s a great point, Senator Henkel. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Tannas: It is my understanding that this isn’t being given to us for decision; this is under the Speaker’s control, and it is the Speaker telling us, for our information, that this is what’s going to happen. Is that correct? It’s for us. If we want to survey ourselves and then give it to the Speaker for her information and her decision, then that’s what we ought to do, but this isn’t a decision for us to make. So, if we’re going to do a survey here, let’s do it and send a message to the Speaker and say we aren’t happy, or that we are happy or we would like to try something for a month and then ask her to reconsider.
Ms. Anwar: Our goal is to try this for a few months, and if it works, it works. If there are additional adjustments to make, we will propose them to the Speaker and, of course, consult with CIBA, as well.
The Chair: Consult with CIBA, yes.
Senator Moodie: Senator Tannas raises exactly what I was going to ask before, but I also have a question about process. This is an area used by senators; this is primarily the area that pertains to senators. I’m not understanding how the process works such that it comes to CIBA. What is the purpose of that? Are we expected to share it with the broader senatorial group?
Ms. Anwar: No.
Senator Moodie: So, I don’t understand the process here. The Speaker, who controls real estate in this building — some of it — is entitled to do this, but she is doing this without consulting senators. That is just a point.
Ms. Anwar: I think this is part of —
Senator Moodie: Is this consultation?
Ms. Anwar: It hasn’t been implemented yet. This is part of the consultation, and it was on our recommendation that it be brought to steering and to CIBA for information.
Again, we had workstations in Centre Block as well. It has always been sort of a self-governing, self-managed area. What we have had here since we moved into this building, because we have larger spaces than what we used to have in Centre Block, is that some of the board rooms are used more often than others and, sometimes during the sitting, for very lengthy periods of time.
There were not really any rules with respect to how to use those rooms. At a certain point, the Speaker’s Office asked the administration to manage it in terms of taking reservations. We have found that there are more reservation requests than we can accommodate during sitting times. What was happening is that some reservations were being made in an “I want all the Tuesdays from 2 to 4” kind of way. So, without any rules or guidelines, we were asked to come up with a better way to manage it.
Through the SENovation system, any senator or staff can submit suggestions to the administration if they have improvements or suggestions to make. We received several comments through the SENovation saying that they had reserved those rooms, arrived at the rooms, they were already occupied and the senators that were in there were reluctant to leave. We were asked to see if there is a way we can manage that better.
It is under the Speaker’s purview, because it’s part of the secure area behind the chamber.
Senator Moodie: I appreciate that answer. I’m hearing from you an additional piece of information, which is that this is your consultation of this group, not just for information. So, if this is your consultation, what I believe I’m hearing from the group is that we have a response that we would like taken back.
Ms. Anwar: We’re sitting in two hours, so I would ask that if we are to do a survey of all senators, that means that it would be status quo in terms of implementing these new rules, which means first come, first served. If rooms are reserved but then occupied, it’s up to senators to sort it out themselves until we have the results of a survey, which could take some time.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I repeat, a reservation system is already in place, so it’s first-come, first-served. That’s how it works if the room is free. Personally, I always reserve the room, and, yes, sometimes people are using it when I get there. Being from Gaspé, I don’t disturb them, to be courteous. As of tomorrow, though, I reserved the room, so please make sure it’s free. Yes, it’s first-come, first-served, but if a senator has reserved the room, people have to respect that.
The Chair: That’s an excellent point. Are we satisfied with the comments? We’ll do a two-month pilot, after which, the Internal Economy Committee will make a decision to . . . .
Ms. Anwar: It’s not an Internal Economy Committee decision.
The Chair: You’re right. We could see whether a survey or consultation is needed.
[English]
Senator Tannas, did you have another comment on that item?
Senator Tannas: No.
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: I’d like to end the discussion on this. Back to what Senator Moodie said, if consultations are done, I think all senators should be consulted, and rightfully so. In the meantime, I ask that we keep using the current system. The only thing that needs to be done is to inform all senators and their staff. The executive team must know that the rooms need to be reserved. That would be until we see whether everyone agrees on this pilot project.
The Chair: Excellent. I agree.
[English]
Senator Tannas: I would make the motion, then:
That we request the Speaker reconsider implementing this plan until she can formulate a survey and come up with something that has the support of all senators, but that, in the meantime, we stick with status quo.
The Chair: Excellent. The motion has been made by Senator Tannas.
Are all senators in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Next is other matters. Colleagues, do you wish to raise any other points in the context of other matters? Attention, senators. We are not done yet. Are there any other matters?
I do have one matter to raise. Yesterday, I received a letter from the Joint Interparliamentary Council. The CIBA secretariat will distribute a copy of the short letter to all of you right now. I know senators want to receive documents ahead of time, and the secretariat has committed to meeting our expectations, but this letter was only received yesterday.
I felt it was important to consider it now instead of at our next meeting scheduled for April 16 and have a preliminary discussion among ourselves in terms of next steps.
In a nutshell, JIC is requesting that the House of Commons, the Board of Internal Economy and CIBA consider amending the current travel points system policies applicable to senators and MPs to allow the existing four special travel points — both for senators and MPs — that are currently limited for certain travel to Washington, D.C., and New York City to be used for additional purposes. By doing so, the JIC argues that parliamentarians would be better able to advocate for the interests of their constituents and, more broadly, for Canadian interests.
They make three specific recommendations: one, expand travel to the United States to any location within the continental United States where Canada maintains a consulate general; two, authorize the use of travel points to the United States for parliamentary association activities, which is not currently permitted, as well as for senators and members of parliamentary functions, including participation at regional meetings; three, SOMP would continue to apply to senators to determine which travel expenses are eligible.
Colleagues, the co-chairs of the JIC have offered to appear in front of our committee to discuss these recommendations further. As you know, we have delegated the review of SOMP to a working group, so do we wish to share this letter with them to get their recommendation, or, as a first step, do we invite Senator Saint-Germain and MP Tom Kmiec, the co-chairs of JIC, to our next CIBA meeting and have them explain the rationale behind JIC’s decision and the discussion they had at their March 10 meeting?
Do senators have a preference? I’ll open the floor for discussion.
Senator Moncion: Bring Senator Saint-Germain and the other person here to explain. It takes that decision off the CIBA steering committee’s hands and brings it to where it should go, so this is great.
Senator MacDonald: I just want to say I concur with Senator Moncion on this: Bring them in and have them explain it.
The Chair: Excellent. I think we all agree on that.
Senator Cardozo: I have been advocating for this at JIC and other places. It’s really important, and I support us pursuing this.
The Chair: This is why I wanted to bring it up, to have them come and be as transparent as possible, as usual.
Senator Cardozo: You can circumscribe it so it’s not misused, but I think the ability to go to other places is really important these days when we need to expand our reach.
The Chair: This is why we didn’t delay bringing it to steering, then CIBA and then have them appear. Time is of the essence at this point, especially in our negotiations.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I just want to let my fellow senators know that I sent you all a letter with explanations in response to all of Senator Downe’s questions when the 2026-27 budget was presented.
It’s an explanatory letter summarizing the increase in the Senate’s budget over the past 10 years, which was 1.9% when you take out inflation.
I think all the committee members, but especially administration staff, are thorough and responsible in the work they do. If you have time to read the letter, it provides details on the budget items that have gone up in the past 10 years.
I sent a specific response, because, in December, Senator Downe had already received a letter from the chair explaining certain things. I sent a second explanation to the senator, as well as Senator Batters, regarding employees who telework.
It was to provide the information. Each of your offices received the explanatory letter.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: I just want to give colleagues one example of why the changes that are proposed by JIC are useful.
It’s been very frustrating for senators from Atlantic Canada and from Quebec, as well, who want to go attend the Boston seafood show every year. It’s an extremely important show for Atlantic Canada. We depend so much upon the seafood industry. It’s in Boston every year. We can fly to New York, but we can’t fly to Boston. It just doesn’t make any sense. It’s very frustrating for people.
That is just one example of how these changes will help us in our work.
Senator Osler: I agree with inviting the two co-chairs to answer questions. It would be important to explore and ask questions. I can see the value in both one and two. Number two is with parliamentary associations and parliamentary function travel, but I think, for number one, we would need to explore with them and have clear expectations, rules or boundaries around what types of travel would be allowed and how it would help their parliamentary role.
I very much look forward to having them here at committee.
The Chair: Thank you. I think it’s unanimous on that, so we will put it on the agenda for the next meeting. Thank you for that.
[Translation]
We will now suspend briefly, so the clerk can make sure we are in camera.
First, though, I do want to point out that, for the most part, Internal Economy Committee meetings take place in public.
Only when we discuss sensitive matters do we move in camera. I’m talking about salaries, contracts and contract negotiations, labour relations and personnel matters, and security matters, for instance. The committee wishes to be as transparent as possible about the work it does.
I will ask the clerk to let the committee members know when we are in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)