Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration

Moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to recommend the adoption of the third report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, pertaining to the 2026–27 Senate Main Estimates, presented in the Senate on December 11, 2025.

The Senate Main Estimates for the fiscal year 2026-27 are proposed to be $141,409,806, representing an increase of 1.5%. This includes economic salary increases and related benefits, which account for 2.5% of the overall budget growth. Excluding these increases, the overall Senate budget would have decreased by 1%.

Senator Forest, Chair of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, will provide a broader perspective on the proposed highlights for the 2026–27 estimates. Thank you.

Honourable senators, in 2023, the Senate began a spending review process long before the government undertook a comprehensive expenditure review. A number of efficiencies were identified at that time and have already resulted in annual savings of approximately $384,000. For instance, the Communications, Broadcasting and Publications Directorate was restructured, the media review supplier was changed, and the number of telephone landlines was reduced.

In addition, in 2023, the Senate set a cap of 449 full-time equivalent positions, and this cap has been respected ever since. After adjusting for inflation and for the transfer of the Parliamentary Protective Service, or PPS, the Senate budget has increased by approximately 19% over the last 10 fiscal years. Over the same period, excluding 10-year inflation and the transfer of the PPS, the House of Commons saw its budgets increase by 32%, while the public service experienced a 77% increase.

Here are the increases recommended in this budget for next year: First, a $3‑million increase to cover rising mandatory, non-discretionary expenditures. This includes adjustments to senators’ indemnities and travel expenses, as well as contributions to employee benefits.

We recommend a $1.6-million increase in budgets for services to senators provided by the administration to cover inflation as well as economic increases for executive-level, management-level and unrepresented employees, legal employees and Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada employees.

We also recommend an increase of $305,000 for office budgets for house officers, caucuses and recognized parliamentary groups, which includes a general adjustment based on a 3% inflation rate, as well as an increase of $85,000 for institutional training for senators’ staff and administration employees, plus funding for institutional programs. This would allow the Senate to achieve a training investment equivalent to 1% of its actual payroll, thereby aligning the Senate with public service training investment levels.

We also recommend increasing senators’ individual living expenses budget from $30,000 to $36,000, given the financial impact of rising hotel accommodation costs in the parliamentary district.

Lastly, we recommend increasing each senator’s annual office allowance from $268,405 to $271,645 for 2026-27 to cover economic salary increases and inflation. This amount may be subject to a slight upward adjustment on April 1, 2026, based on actual economic increases, in accordance with the salary adjustment formula applied to parliamentarians.

In closing, I would once again like to thank the members of the subcommittee for their work. I would also like to thank the entire management team for their professionalism and highlight the outstanding support provided by the Finance Directorate throughout this budget process. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Would you take a question, senator?

Yes.

Senator Loffreda basically said a few sentences in his speech about the $141-million total for the Senate budget. Then we heard your speech. I was hoping to hear more details in your speech because we all know that most of your speech focused on the parts that deal with senators. For sure, that’s important, but we all know that a substantial amount of the Senate’s annual budget is for Senate Administration.

I would like to hear more about that. How many employees does the Senate have in its administrative department? Is that an increase or a decrease or the status quo? What are the amounts where the Senate Administration has received substantial increases? Have there been cost savings that they’ve found? I would like to hear more about that, please.

Thank you for the question. As I mentioned earlier, we agreed back in 2023 on a maximum of 449 FTE positions, and that limit has never been exceeded. We’re holding steady. After tabling the budget, we began an administrative review process encompassing all the directorates. We continue to evaluate efficiency measures and see what we can do to improve the Senate’s performance even more, in light of the new 21st‑century realities.

In terms of employees, the 449-FTE limit has never been exceeded since it was set in 2023.

Thank you. One topic that has been receiving quite a bit of news coverage lately has been the federal public service has been mandated to start coming back to work on-site in larger numbers than they have been previously. Where is the Senate on that? That’s been something I’ve been asking about throughout the time when many Senate Administration employees began working from home. That was the case for quite some time. Is that still the case, where we have Senate Administration employees working from home, or are they all now back to work five days a week? What is the situation on that, please?

I can’t give you the exact percentage of employees working remotely, but it’s true, some have returned to the office. The percentage of employees authorized to work remotely relates to decisions made by the Internal Economy Committee. I don’t have the percentage at the moment. I couldn’t tell you. It’s beyond my technical expertise.

I don’t have the exact number of administration employees, but I mentioned that we set a limit of 449 FTEs in 2023. That limit has never been exceeded since it was set. Each Senate directorate is asked to stay below the 449‑FTE limit.

Senator Housakos, did you have a supplementary question?

Did you wish to comment?

That was a comment.

Will you take another question?

Yes.

My understanding is that in 2016, we had 325 full-time equivalents, and now we have 449. Could you explain what those 124 additional people have been doing in the last nine years?

That is an excellent question. I wasn’t Chair of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets at the time. I can’t answer your question right now, but I can send you a detailed explanation. There have been many transfers, such as the PPS transfer. There are undoubtedly various reasons, but in 2023, the cap was set at 449 FTEs. I can get back to you with a precise answer.

Thank you. I look forward to receiving that. I’m sure you will circulate it to colleagues as well.

In 2016, we also had the Parliamentary Protective Service, which is now off our numbers as well, so those numbers may be even higher.

You mentioned in your comments about the increase in our chamber versus the House of Commons, but, unfortunately, you didn’t mention that there are more MPs now than there were a few years ago, while the number of senators has remained the same, 105. That might contribute to some of the difference in cost.

Can you also confirm that in 2016 the Senate budget was roughly $70 million, and now it’s being proposed to be $141 million? Is that correct? If not, could you find out and let us know?

I think your figures are correct. If we take a comparable element from 2023 and remove inflation, the Senate’s budget has increased by 19% over 10 years, compared to 32%. There has been an increase in the number of members, but not by 80%. If we compare the two, I think that, over the past 10 years, the Senate has been very well managed. The House of Commons manages its own budget, but if we compare the figures after adjusting for inflation, the Senate has increased its budget by 19%, compared to 32% for the House of Commons.

This is my last question. I understand about 10 years ago it was about $800,000 total cost per senator. Now it’s $1.2 million. The House of Commons would have a much higher cost per MP, and there are 15 more MPs than there were nine years ago. That would be a significant cost for the House of Commons that we have not incurred, but our costs have gone from roughly $800,000 per senator per year to $1.2 million. Could you also find out in some detail what that increase included?

I will ask our highly competent services to provide us with these details. There has been an increase of 15 members out of a total of just over 330 — if we look at the percentages, we have maintained our numbers at 105 senators — but I could find the figures for you and share them with our colleagues.