THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 30, 2026
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:01 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 Senator Tony Loffreda from Quebec, and I have the privilege of chairing the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. 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 earpieces while the microphone is active. Earpieces should remain on the ear or be placed on the designated sticker at each seat. Thank you all for your cooperation.
I would like to acknowledge that the land on which we gather is on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples from across Turtle Island.
I would ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
The Chair: Senator Ataullahjan, you are a permanent member now. Welcome to our committee and thank you for your future contributions.
Senator Moodie: Welcome and happy birthday. Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
Senator Mohamed: Farah Mohamed, Ontario.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Francis: Brian Francis, Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Good morning. Manuelle Oudar, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Housakos: Leo Housakos, Quebec.
Senator Osler: Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Henkel: Danièle Henkel, Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I would like to welcome those who follow our deliberations across the country.
[Translation]
Colleagues, our first order of business is the consent agenda for approval. As a reminder, the consent agenda items are not controversial but do require our approval. For these 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 April 16, 2026, in public and in camera.
[English]
Colleagues, before we proceed, I would like to note that the steering committee has decided to pause the transition to Microsoft Teams phones for senators’ offices that was approved at our last meeting. This pause will remain in effect until a presentation on the proposed transition is delivered to caucuses and parliamentary groups. Once these presentations have taken place, this item will be brought back to CIBA for further discussion and consideration.
[Translation]
Do senators have any questions or concerns on this point?
Senator Henkel: Under “Other Matters,” I’d like to add another small item that will only take a minute, please.
The Chair: Noted, thank you. Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the consent agenda be approved.
Senator Henkel moved the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Chair: For item 2, given the legal dimensions of this matter, I would respectfully suggest the committee consider moving in camera for this portion of the discussion as it relates to activities outside of the Senate and involves the use of the Senate logo. I believe it would be more appropriate to address these matters confidentially in order to protect the integrity of the process and avoid any unintended implications while legal considerations are being assessed. Do we agree? Thank you.
We’ll go to item 3. Honourable senators, the next item concerns a request from five senators for an exception to the Senators’ Office Management Policy regarding a request to increase their living expenses budget for the 2025-26 fiscal year.
Senators, I would note that we already approved nine similar requests in 2025-26. In fact, when the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, or SEBS, recommended the reduction in the living expense budget from $37,000 to $30,000, it was anticipated that several senators would need a supplement, and the mechanism put in place was to provide the request via a letter to CIBA.
Additionally, under the Rules, senators may use different types of accommodation when in the NCR: hotel, apartment or owned accommodation. In 2025-26, we approved requests for exceptions for each type of accommodation.
Finally, all senators who have made a request for an increase in the living expense budget were offered the opportunity to present their request to CIBA in person, but only one senator felt it was useful to be physically present. Other senators have mentioned that the letter was sufficient and self-explanatory.
With all of that and for fairness and equitability, are we comfortable to approve the five last requests?
Senator Housakos: First, why have you bundled up all five of these requests into one bundle without looking at them case by case? That’s the first question.
Second, I looked at living expenses for senators over the last decade, and they have marginally gone up. If you see the cost of living in terms of apartment rentals and hotel rates, particularly over the last six to seven years in the Ottawa region, they’ve exploded.
We have found all kinds of growth in many budget areas, but living expenses of senators, which is essential to get senators to Ottawa to do their work, have grown at a rate that I do not think is consistent with the prices of hotels, rentals and so on and so forth in the region.
The last issue is that this may be partly why over the last 18 months — think about it — we’ve had prorogation, we’ve had fewer sitting dates than we normally would under normal circumstances, and yet there are a number of senators busting their budgets and going above their costs. We all know on Thursday — you look left and you look right — at late sittings and the place is empty.
Can you imagine if senators actually stayed here late on Thursday evening to do their work, instead of consistently having a chamber with one third presence, how many requests like this you would have? Instead of five, Senator Loffreda, you would probably have 35. Those are some of the questions I have.
Again, particularly, I don’t know why we’re bundling up because I assume all five cases are somewhat different in scope.
The Chair: Thank you for the question, Senator Housakos. We could look at them separately if you wish, if the committee wishes to do so. We have bundled them up, but you do notice each and every senator has a self-explanatory letter. We send the documents seven days in advance. I think there was ample time for each senator, within the seven days, to look at each request separately.
I was part of the SEBS subcommittee when we did cut that budget with Senator Plett and Senator Forest. We were all there at the SEBS meeting when that amount was cut, and it was cut for the specific reasons you mentioned, Senator Housakos, the number of sitting days and what have you.
We are increasing expenses for next year. The budget I have in front of me for 2026-27 is $36,000. I’m not comfortable with exceptions. Hopefully, next year, by increasing the budget to $36,000, we’ll see fewer exceptions.
There is also a suggestion to have our working group look at some policies for exceptions, but I personally don’t believe, to answer your question — at the end of the day, I’m a facilitator here, but I’m answering your question. I personally believe that we should manage our own budgets diligently, and there should be very few exceptions. At this point, we’ve approved the nine. We have bundled them, but each and every senator presented their case separately. We’ve had seven days to review it. If you wish, we can look at any particular exception request separately. Next year, I repeat again, we are having an increase. Henceforth, I wish that we will have fewer exceptions.
Senator Moodie: I think I would agree with Senator Housakos that we need more detail on each case. By bundling, we are assuming there is validity within each request. We are not looking very carefully at those requests. My familiarity with these requests is that they’re variable, from very little information in some letters to quite detailed financial forecasting provided by some people.
I think the big question remains: Do we have a reasonable baseline budget for living? If we find that there are more and more people — the offer to extend and expand our budgets was really intended for those individuals who travel far distances and who travel overnight. That was the expectation. Many of these are senators quite close to the Ottawa region, to the precinct.
We need to understand why this is happening. I find it a bit puzzling. If you recall, we were given a budget. If you exceeded it, so be it, you met the difference. That was the approach when I joined the Senate. If you purchased a house and you ran out of payments, you carried the difference.
We’re in a situation now where an increased number of requests are coming forward. I think we need to understand what’s happening here a little bit better.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Moodie.
Senators, I’m in your hands. Do you wish to review each one separately? Do you wish the senators to come and present themselves in person? We can defer this item, if you wish.
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: In light of these comments, Mr. Chair, I believe it would indeed be helpful to have more detailed requests, and perhaps also for the individuals who submitted the requests to come in person to answer any questions that may arise. So we have two options: either more detailed requests from those who do not wish to attend, or the presence of those who do wish to attend; we would be happy to hear from them.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your comments.
[English]
Are there any other comments? Based on the comments and questions that we have received — thank you for your questions and comments — we will defer these items to our next CIBA meeting. Thank you.
[Translation]
Colleagues, the next item on the agenda is the creation of the Subcommittee on Diversity.
[English]
You will recall that at our last meeting that Senator Moodie advised us that she intends to move a motion to establish a subcommittee on diversity. The motion was included in your bundle.
Senator Moodie, the floor is yours.
Senator Moodie: Thank you, chair.
Honourable senators, as Senator Loffreda has stated, at our last meeting, I gave notice that I would be moving a motion to create a subcommittee on diversity and inclusion.
For those of you who are not aware, during the First Session of the Forty-fourth Parliament, on February 10, 2022, CIBA authorized the creation of the Subcommittee on Diversity to examine and report on issues of diversity within the Senate workforce. Over the course of its mandate, the subcommittee undertook important and thoughtful work grounded firmly in the specific context of the Senate as an institution.
The committee tabled its most recent report in CIBA on February 27, 2025. The report set out five strategic imperatives, each supported by concrete recommendations that were informed by evidence, consultation and the lived realities of Senate staff.
Shortly after the opening of the Forty-fifth Parliament in June 2025, CIBA re-established the Subcommittee on Human Resources, with an expanded mandate to now include diversity issues within Senate Administration. As a result, the Subcommittee on Diversity was not re-established at that time.
However, in June of that same year, 2025, a letter signed by the four Senate leaders and facilitators was sent to CIBA requesting that the work of the Subcommittee on Diversity continue separately from the Subcommittee on Human Resources.
Colleagues, as the past Chair of the Subcommittee on Diversity, it’s my firm belief that there remains significant value in recreating a dedicated subcommittee on diversity. Its focused mandate and specialized lens allows this work to be pursued with the depth, continuity and attention that it deserves and that’s required.
For these reasons, I would like to now move the following motion:
That a subcommittee on diversity be established and authorized to examine and report on issues of diversity in the Senate workforce;
That the composition of the subcommittee be as follows: two honourable senators from the Independent Senators Group, one honourable senator from the Canadian Senators Group, one honourable senator from the Conservative Party of Canada and one honourable senator from the Progressive Senate Group;
That the following senators be named as members of the committee: the Honourable Senator Salma Ataullahjan, the Honourable Senator Yvonne Boyer, the Honourable Senator Danièle Henkel, the Honourable Senator Rosemary Moodie and the Honourable Senator Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler;
That the subcommittee be required to report to the committee from time to time; and
That the mandate respecting diversity in the Senate workforce be removed from the Subcommittee on Human Resources at this time.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Moodie.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar, I believe you have a question or comment.
Senator Oudar: I have a comment.
First, I’d like to thank Senator Moodie for doing such a great job of addressing diversity. It’s to her credit, and I really appreciate it. It’s an important issue for everyone, just like equity and inclusion. In this DEI component — that is, diversity, equity and inclusion — the Senate had also added accessibility. I believe that was one of the key values.
Let’s not forget why the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration decided not to abolish the diversity committee, but to merge it with the HR committee. That’s a big difference; the goal was to avoid overlap. We also need to consider the organization as a whole and its staff. We’re here to make decisions for the organization and its staff, not for ourselves. I therefore believe that the committee made a wise decision in September 2025 to avoid these overlaps.
In addition, I distributed a document explaining that this practice is in line with global and international trends in organizations. You may yourself sit on boards that have a human resources committee. Boards of directors should have a human resources committee, an audit committee and a governance committee. The human resources committee must address issues of diversity, accessibility and equity to prevent people from working in silos.
I’ll say it again: We need to put our employees first. We need to avoid spreading ourselves too thin and instead pull together so we’re all working toward the same goal. Both in Canada and elsewhere, diversity in organizations is handled by the board of directors’ human resources committee. So, with all due respect, I will defer to the committee’s decision, but I still wanted to tell you, Mr. Chair, that the human resources committee is working hard to promote diversity.
In fact, we will address this topic later in the agenda, and we will do so to continue serving employees and the entire organization effectively. I repeat, this applies not only to staff in senators’ offices, but to the entire Senate. It is important to remember that, if a diversity committee is to exist, its work must be inclusive. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Boyer: When I first became a senator, I felt it was very important that the Senate have a diversity committee because there are few, if any, Indigenous people working at the Senate. My role, I figure, has been to bring my network of people and my ancestral footprint into the Senate to see what I can do as an Indigenous person in making the Senate more accessible to Indigenous people, which has been a struggle for the last eight years.
To put the committee into HR would be to dilute it.
We worked very diligently on this committee up until, all of a sudden, it became part of the Human Resources Subcommittee, definitely without my consent or my knowledge. It just happened one day. It is something I have fought with from the very beginning since I became part of the Senate.
I feel very strongly that it needs to be sitting on its own. We have done an incredible amount of work, specifically on Indigenous issues, myself, and, generally, for the diversity, equity and inclusion of the Senate. I think that it needs to stand on its own. I vehemently oppose it going into the Human Resources Subcommittee.
The Chair: Senator Oudar, would you like to respond to that? I will give you the opportunity.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: It’s precisely because it’s important to me. I’ve spent a large part of my career working in DEI, so it means a great deal to me. I don’t want it to be treated as a secondary issue for our employees; it should be given the attention it deserves.
I would even suggest that we increase the number of members on the Senate Subcommittee on Human Resources instead, and that the subcommittee reflect everything you just said, Senator Boyer, because I agree with you on all points.
The fact is, I want to give it all the attention and recognition it deserves. I would also like to see CIBA’s work on this issue presented to the Senate Subcommittee on Human Resources so that we can ensure representation and improve it. There are only four members, including myself. We’re talking about human capital: An organization’s most important asset is its human resources. So, I humbly propose that we increase the number of committee members.
Perhaps we should also provide a more detailed description of our mandate on our website. I know it’s already there, but I think it could be a little more detailed on the committee’s website.
[English]
The Chair: Do you want to respond?
Senator Boyer: I just want to say that, perhaps, there are issues we could work on together and keep the diversity committee together.
I was a Canadian human rights commissioner at one time. I know exactly what needs to be done, and I worked very well with our chair. I believe we could work together with the Human Resources Subcommittee. We could probably create some very good work together.
Senator Moodie: Senator Oudar, I really appreciate your perspective. In us thinking about what should happen to diversity and inclusion as an area, as a lens and the potential opportunity to integrate it into the Human Resources Subcommittee, or HRRH, there was a clear concern that, without adequate planning and careful understanding of how we would assimilate one committee into the other to maintain the perspectives or lenses that were needed, we should do this in a careful fashion and we should plan for it. That would affect the membership of HRRH. That would affect who was appointed to HRRH to take care and continue this lens.
It was done immediately and without any such preparation, and without the mandate being clearly worked out.
The wisdom of the leaders at the time — Senator Tannas was one of those who worked on this — felt that we had prematurely done that integration. The re-establishment of this committee allows us to take the time to create for the next Parliament the appropriate integration into the Human Resources Subcommittee, if that is what we so desire. Various models were discussed. I was very much a part of that, with Senator Saint-Germain, who was the leader then. We talked about potentially having intermittent meetings and inviting diversity in and those previous members. We talked about permanent members. There were concerns about proportionality and how that would be affected.
So, it was a bigger issue than just saying, “Add two people with this lens.” It needs to be planned in a much more organized way if we are going to do it. While we are completing and attempting to complete a body of work that was established at the outset and based on a working group, findings and a study, the ESR that comes up as item 8 was one of our projects over which we had direct oversight. We looked at and tried to understand the culture of the Senate at that time. That report is just now being brought forward. It was lost for a while because of the transition that happens without notice.
We really want to see and maintain a long-term presence — a clear lens — within the Human Resources Subcommittee. If that’s the direction we go in, we need to maintain that lens so that we do not lose for the future of the Senate the importance of this value that we have identified. We want to maintain as a Senate, organization and institution that we see the value of DEI.
This transitional step, as I see it, allows us to press the pause button and plan for what would be a more effective integration in the future. I think that can be as early as or as late as — but with the right planning, we should do this. I’m not supporting silos. I’m not supporting building empires. I’m supporting maintaining a lens in this institution that allows the Senate to carry the credibility it deserves into the future in this area.
The Chair: Thank you for that comment.
Senator Oudar, I will move on unless you have a last comment on that. I have many senators on the list.
Senator Osler: To you, Senator Oudar, I have three questions. The decision was made in June 2025. What is the HR Subcommittee’s plan to expand its mandate or its composition to include DEI? What actions have you already taken? Will this expanded mandate include Indigeneity and accessibility? Finally, at the committee, have you discussed if this expansion would utilize more resources, and have you considered if incorporating DEI into the HR Subcommittee would use fewer resources versus a separate subcommittee?
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Thank you for the question, Senator Osler.
First, I should point out that I’ve been chair for about two months, so I didn’t take part in the discussions regarding the level of integration, but I have familiarized myself with all the notes that were taken at the time.
Those who know me know that I’m a person of action. As soon as I became chair of the committee, I mapped out all the meetings through the end of the year.
So, all meetings through December 2026 have already been scheduled.
The first item on the agenda for my first meeting was the internship program for Indigenous youth. We discussed it and followed up on it.
Diversity is discussed at every meeting, but it shouldn’t be a separate or isolated topic; it must be part of the organization’s DNA. I’d like to reiterate that it’s dangerous to separate this topic from others, as it risks becoming an isolated issue, when it should be fully integrated into the greater human resources vision.
The committee discusses DEI-related issues at every meeting, and always will. I will ensure this happens in a transparent manner as well. CIBA meetings are a forum where we can provide accountability and report on our work. In our ISG group, each committee or subcommittee chair, myself included, provides a report.
So, DEI-related topics have been, and will continue to be, on the agenda of all meetings.
I’d like to emphasize, Mr. Chair, that the committee’s membership is excellent. However, I’m also very open to the idea of increasing the number of members and including members from First Nations.
[English]
The Chair: To clarify, increasing the membership is not a committee decision. CIBA would take that decision if we arrived at that decision. It is a CIBA decision.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: That’s precisely why I’m suggesting it; I don’t have that authority.
[English]
The Chair: Yes, with the membership, and so it’s a CIBA decision.
Thank you, Senator Osler and Senator Oudar.
Senator Housakos: Briefly, I support the initiative. I did last year; I do now. We had a similar initiative that dates back even to 2015.
As one Prime Minister appropriately said many years ago, Canada is a community of communities and we have to find a way to balance it all. I remember more than a decade ago we had a gender and equality issue that needed to be addressed.
I don’t have a problem with creating a subcommittee. I know it creates a silo sometimes, but sometimes you have to drill down more specifically on an issue in order to address it effectively.
The only thing I want to share with the group that will be taking on this initiative is that it is imperative to honour the mandate of trying to achieve diversity and equality, but we also have to underline the equality part. In our enthusiasm to solve an issue, we can’t become discriminatory toward other groups. It is important to keep in mind that the mandate should be diversity, equality and excellence, and at no point should we ever diminish our requirements in terms of excellence in order to achieve any particular quota or diversity objective.
Senator Boehm: I will be brief as well. I support the initiative. My assumption is that the membership will stand for the duration of the Parliament.
I would only suggest that it would be of value, as the subcommittee continues, that there is something of a rotation so other senators, maybe some male senators too, could be rotated in so as to be exposed to these issues. In our group at large as senators, there is an educational element there that I think is lacking and we should address that too.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Boehm.
[Translation]
Senator Quinn: I sat on the DEI committee, and I was so surprised when the decision was made to disband it. Since then, I’ve spoken with many people in both the private and public sectors, and for the most part, DEI work remains within the purview of HR.
[English]
Having said that, if the CIBA decision was taken to have a single committee, then I would strongly encourage — building on what Senator Housakos and Senator Osler have said — that the Senate needs to be a reflection of Canada. As you look around our chamber, we do reflect, in a large way, the people who make up Canada.
I would encourage us to allow the committee, if we go in that direction, to grow and ensure we have those voices at the table for these types of subjects. It will be the decision of this group whether we have a single function under HR or whether we continue with what was there. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Quinn.
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: Although I’ve only been here for a year, I have some experience in HR and private-sector management, as well as serving on several boards of directors — public, quasi‑public, and private — so there are two points I’d like to address.
The first is that everything related to diversity, inclusion, accessibility and respect for diversity has always been managed by human resources. I’ve never seen a separate committee.
However, within these HR committees, there was a flow of ideas coming not only from employees but also from senior management, who would bring their proposals to HR and monitor HR’s decisions.
My second point is that I appreciated your openness, Senator Moodie. However, that’s where the problem lies for me: When the decision was made at CIBA with everyone’s agreement, I had just arrived in June. Then, that decision was reversed. I understand why, but perhaps it wasn’t explained well at the time.
That is why I’d like to clarify an important point: The decision isn’t being called into question. Rather, we’re asking to sit down again to plan properly. We probably need to work together with the chair of the Human Resources Subcommittee to find a solution other than splitting or adding things without any structure, thought or planning.
I think that would be the best solution for everyone. Given your experience as chair of this committee, and that of Senator Oudar, whose background we are familiar with, I’m convinced that we can achieve something much more meaningful with a structure that will be acceptable to everyone.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Henkel.
[English]
Yes, there was a full CIBA on June 19, 2025, as mentioned, but with all due respect with CIBA decisions, we’re not overturning any decisions here. I always say our management is not a static process; it is a dynamic process. There are always new interventions, events, ideas or concepts that come to mind.
Sometimes it doesn’t work like it should, so this is why we’re revisiting that. With all due respect, it is not because this decision is being overturned. I want to point that out to be clear because all CIBA decisions are rightfully respected and followed until we believe, as a board — and the power is with you — that we should take another look at it. This is what we’re doing today. Thank you for your comment. It is well taken.
[Translation]
Did you want to answer Senator Henkel’s question now or later?
Senator Oudar: Given how much time has already elapsed, I wanted to make a suggestion.
[English]
The Chair: I do want to hear from Senator Mohamed quickly. I want to give everyone a chance. That is my style.
Senator Mohamed: Listening to the comments of Senator Boehm and a few other senators, I would say this if it were the other way. I’m surprised that, in a conversation around equity, diversity and inclusion, if I had heard an all-male committee, I would have been pretty upset. I think that you have to think about whether or not there is a gender balance in your committee as well, and I will leave it at that.
The Chair: Thank you for that point.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar, you have a proposal to make?
Senator Oudar: Listen, we all share the same goal when it comes to diversity. Let’s not forget about inclusion and equity. The Senate also included accessibility; there were the four letters.
I’m reaching out. In my previous jobs, when I was CEO and two of my seven VPs didn’t see eye to eye, I’d ask them to present us with three scenarios, along with the pros and cons. I suggest we do the same, because time is passing and you have other items to deal with. I’m reaching out to my colleagues so we can have a quick meeting together and then propose a solution that might work for them and for us as well. I’m certain that, with our collective wisdom, we’ll find solutions, perhaps in time for the next committee meeting. If a decision needs to be made later, we will present you with three scenarios that my colleagues might find acceptable. I don’t want to unilaterally propose the scenarios without being able to speak with them, and I haven’t had the opportunity to discuss this with them yet. I think we could reach a consensus. We may be able to find common ground and present you with three solutions, or just one if we manage to reach a consensus.
[English]
Senator Boyer: I would like to make a point that when you are dealing with Indigenous issues, it is really important to have an Indigenous voice. If you don’t, it is carrying on colonization by the White people telling Indigenous people what to do and how they should do it. That’s all I want to say.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: That’s why I want to talk with you all and find a solution. I want to hear what you have to say about this, too.
[English]
Senator Moodie: I’m not comfortable with the approach that we are suggesting here. Reinstating diversity and inclusion in a formal way allows us to then, on an equal footing, have the discussion that Senator Oudar is suggesting needs to occur. It should have occurred in the first place.
The transition that occurred in 2025 was precipitous. It did not conclude in any way, shape or form the appropriate discussions that would have allowed us to set up an HR committee that was now prepared and ready to do the work that Senator Oudar has spoken about.
We’re suggesting we turn back the clock a little bit so that we can take up the mantle, reorganize ourselves and move towards an integration process that allows us to maintain the appropriate focus to ensure that, in the future, the Senate is well equipped to be able to call itself a leader in this area.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Moodie.
Senator Tannas: Yes. I just wanted to say that the decision that was made by CIBA to fold the Subcommittee on Diversity came as a surprise. I don’t think we had a vote on it. I think it was a voice vote. A number of people were a bit shocked. None of us had heard about it. It was a decision that was made elsewhere than at this table to propose it, and it was unfortunate. It wasn’t thought through or talked through. I fear we’re in a similar situation right now where we’re going to change back just as suddenly.
Senator Moodie, you agreed that we table this motion for two weeks to allow a discussion to take place, as Senator Oudar has suggested, in good faith to see if it’s possible to come back with a plan that everybody can say “yes” to.
The Chair: Would you like to propose a motion?
Senator Tannas: I move to table Senator Moodie’s motion for two weeks, until the next CIBA meeting.
The Chair: Then come back, get HR involved and have everyone talking. Do we agree with that motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay. Should I read the motion again? No. Okay. I will not read the motion again. In my past life, we always had to have everything on the record. I will not read the motion. It has been well read, so we will move on.
Thank you for that, Senator Tannas. We have tabled the motion for two weeks, and we will come back and have informed discussions, involve HR and hear the pros and cons to each proposal. It is tabled for two weeks.
Are you content with that, Senator Moodie?
Senator Moodie: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you. We will move on.
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: Just to clarify, when we come back in two weeks, will we also be able to hear from human resources officials, such as the director?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Henkel: Just so we’re all fully informed.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Henkel: That way, everyone will be at the table. Thank you.
The Chair: And as I mentioned earlier, I don’t want to rush this important decision, but some colleagues would like more information. Let’s take two weeks to consider the various options so we can have them ready for the next meeting. If possible, Senator Oudar and Senator Moodie, I’d like us to have an overview of the options by the next meeting.
[English]
We will discuss the pros and cons of each proposal. That way, we will make an informed decision. It is tabled for two weeks until we decide otherwise.
Like I said before on the previous CIBA decision, we are not in a static world. We are in a very dynamic world these days, and these decisions sometimes get overturned and overlooked.
I do want to move on, though, because we have a full agenda. This is an important item that we could discuss for hours.
[Translation]
Senator Quinn: For clarity, a discussion with our human resources director.
[English]
The Chair: Yes, and we suggested that Toni Francis join us for that discussion. You see the importance I give to HR. That is extremely important. To me, it was always of extreme importance. Toni holds an important position, and we will have her join us for this discussion later on. Thank you for that suggestion.
Senators, the next item relates to items that were sent for information purposes only. This week, three documents were sent for information purposes. They are the quarterly report from January 1 to March 31, 2026, on Senate intellectual property requests for commercial use; an update on Bluesky social media platform; and a social media proposed new strategic orientation.
Senators, do you have any comments, suggestions or thoughts on these documents that were sent seven days in advance?
Senator Osler: Thank you for sending the documents in advance.
The Chair: Seven days in advance.
Senator Osler: I did have a look at them. I agree with the proposed social media outlook moving forward. Thank you.
Senator Quinn: Quickly, during steering, I noted that we spend a lot of time talking about social media and whatnot. I wish we could take some of that social media time and focus it so that Canadians better understand who we are, what we do, why we’re important and what role we play legislatively and constitutionally. I find that Canadians do not understand who we are or why we’re important. I think we need to refocus that piece of work so that Canadians are better informed. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Good comment.
Any other comments or suggestions on social media? Good. We will move forward.
Colleagues, are there any other items we need to discuss in public, other matters? Senator Henkel, did you have another matter you wanted to discuss, an issue? I remembered that one.
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: The documents we receive are often full of acronyms. I’d really appreciate it if we could have the full names listed next to the acronyms — a kind of glossary or just the full names themselves. Not everyone understands acronyms, and some of them look similar. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for that, Senator Henkel.
[English]
Honourable senators, I do have one item to share. I would like to note that steering discussed the proposed approach to the SEBS report on coordinated travel as well as the Joint Interparliamentary Council’s recommendation concerning travel to the United States. Steering members discussed whether both matters should be referred to the working group on policy for further consideration. We were pretty unanimous on the fact that it should. The working group could review these issues during the course of their SOMP review and report back in due course.
Senators, do you have any views on this approach? Are we in agreement to refer these two files to the working group on policies? If so, I will ask the clerk to prepare a letter for the members of the working group on policies with the goal of receiving their report by September 2026. We don’t want to delay it more than we should, but I think we have more analysis to be done on those issues.
Senator Tannas: Thanks. I’m on that group. I don’t know if other colleagues here are. Yes, Senator MacAdam is, as well.
Can you make sure you or this committee provides some kind of clarity? There has been a decision already made by CIBA, which has been referred to SEBS, to develop the parameters. SEBS developed the parameters, brought them here and now that is somehow being shifted over.
Are we supposed to develop the parameters that have already been developed? Are we supposed to revisit the decision that CIBA made? What CIBA wanted was quite explicit.
What is it that the committee is being asked to do? Can we suggest alternates to the decision — the parameters and the principles that were outlined in the CIBA decision? I’m not sure what we’re supposed to do, so if there could be clarity on that from committee members, that would be helpful.
The Chair: That is a fine observation. Thank you for the comment.
The discussion we had is a matter of consistency. We’re talking about other matters and travel that we’ll look at in camera. It is a matter of consistency, just to get back to us. If that SEBS report — the working group and SOMP — is comfortable with that, report back to CIBA on it. As a matter of consistency, it is going there.
Senator Tannas: In your mandate, you would be looking for consistency, fairness and those kinds of things in the broader context of senators’ travel, is that right?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Tannas: Got it.
The Chair: We always look for consistency and fairness. I’ve always said that leadership is not about being nice; it’s about being fair and strong — a strong policy that will be fair to all and, for consistency’s sake, not take a preliminary decision here when others are being analyzed and studied. It is up to the working group and SOMP to come back to us with a suggestion or recommendation.
Senator Tannas: I think that is clear. Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Does that answer your question?
Senator Tannas: It does, yes.
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: I have a comment in response to Senator Tannas. Thank you for the question, Senator Tannas, and thank you for the response, Mr. Chair. I wanted to say that it might be important to ask each group leader to share with us the points they are unclear about and would like to raise so that we can convey them to the group.
I’ll speak on behalf of my own caucus. A lot of questions were raised, and I answered them to a certain extent, since there are steering committee matters that I can’t share with my caucus. However, I did convey what happened at CIBA. Despite that, there were a lot of questions; some of them were quite relevant. This simply means that the decision that was made isn’t clear enough; perhaps it needs to be reviewed and clarified. I suggest that each leader ask their group if they have specific questions so that these groups can respond appropriately. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Your comment is well taken. Thank you, Senator Henkel.
Seeing no other comments or suggestions, we are going to move on from that item.
[Translation]
We will now suspend briefly so the clerk can make sure we are in camera. Before that, I would like to remind everyone that CIBA meetings are, for the most part, public.
The committee only goes in camera to discuss sensitive matters such as salaries, contracts, contract negotiations, labour relations, and personnel and security matters.
CIBA wishes to be as transparent as possible in the important work it does. I would ask the clerk to inform the committee members once we are in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)