Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 21 - Evidence - June 21, 2018
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 21, 2018
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:30 a.m., in public and in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Larry W. Campbell (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome to the Thursday morning meeting of CIBA. My name is Larry Campbell. I’m a senator from British Columbia. Starting on my right, I would like the senators who are on the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Plett: Donald Plett from Manitoba.
Senator Joyal: Serge Joyal, from Kennebec, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Claude Carignan from Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey from Manitoba.
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Mitchell: Grant Mitchell, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest from the Gulf region in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Munson: Jim Munson, Ontario.
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We have the Governor General coming at 9:30. With your permission, I would like to rise at 9:25 so we can get back up there.
Before we begin, I would like to say a few words of thanks to Ms. Jacqueline Kuehl, who will be leaving the Senate on July 6 to pursue her passion to work in law at the Department of Justice.
Jacqui served as the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel for the past year and brought 20 years of experience of working in the legal profession. She stepped in when others had the opportunity to go to another place and she’s done a magnificent job. She sat with us on the executive committee with Pascale and Richard, overseeing the operations of the Senate administration and has been instrumental in the transformation of the Human Resources Directorate, which was no easy task.
I want to you know on my behalf and on behalf of the committee that we appreciate it. We know that law is your love and you’re going back to your love. Thank you very much.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Chair: Honourable senators, a copy of the public minutes from June 14, 2018, is in your package. Are there any questions or changes? Could I have a motion to adopt?
Senator Jaffer. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried. Thank you.
Item No. 2 is on the Senate Liberal caucus funding request. We are resuming debate on this item deferred from last week.
It was moved by Senator Dawson:
That, notwithstanding the amount listed in the Schedule of the Senate Administrative Rules (Finance Rule 2018-2019 “A”), the Senate Liberals continue to receive research funds for caucuses for the fiscal year 2018-19 in the amount of $460,000, even if the caucus has fewer than eleven members.
Senator Marshall: Is there anybody here who could answer a few questions? Is that mostly for salaries? It looks like it could be five or six employees.
Senator Munson: It’s our caucus research funds. Primarily, it’s salaries; contract.
Senator Marshall: Six people or so?
Senator Munson: I don’t think it’s that many — five, I think. But it is continuing.
Senator Marshall: So you’ll be able to keep your research staff.
Senator Munson: Yes, for about four or five months beyond Senator Eggleton’s retirement in late September. It was an agreement reached with all leaders. They felt that because commitments had been made for these research funds, four or five months would be acceptable to all.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much.
Senator Batters: Since the Trudeau government has come to power, the caucus group budget in the Senate totals — I’ve made this point before — doubled from $2.7 million to $5.4 million. With this request, the Liberal caucus is requesting to stay at their same $460,000 annual amount, despite the fact that they will drop below that 11-senator threshold in September.
The caucus bracket, Senator Munson, that this $460,000 in annual funding would apply to is from 11 to 20 senators; is that right?
Senator Munson: That’s right.
Senator Batters: How long has that formula been in place? Do you know?
Senator Munson: I don’t.
Senator Batters: Does the administration know?
The Chair: Probably a year, maybe two years.
Senator Batters: I think it was a few years, but I’m not sure exactly when.
This is because Senator Eggleton is retiring in September, I believe, when he reaches age 75?
Senator Munson: Yes. He retires at the end of September.
Senator Batters: So a foreseeable circumstance.
How long has the Senate Liberal caucus been at a compliment of 20 senators or less?
Senator Munson: Maybe Senator Dawson could help me out here. We’ve been dropping each and every year; certainly we are a diminishing species.
The Chair: As a note, it was April 1, 2017, that these allocations were set.
Senator Batters: Those new brackets?
The Chair: All I have is other caucuses, including any allocation to house officers, and then it goes over 20; 16 to 20; 11 to 15; 10 members or fewer. That was in April.
Senator Munson: They were 20 for some time. We’ve been dropping every two or three years.
Senator Dawson: The formula was adopted when the independents were growing, and we were trying to find a number at which we would start recognizing political entities in the Senate.
We had artificially tried to find a number that, for accounting purposes, looked logical. It wasn’t really predicted for the disappearing species that the independent Liberals are. We’re going from 11 to 10, but the amount of work and the number of committees don’t change enough to really warrant what had been planned in that budget of growth.
We’re not asking for more money; we’re not asking for new money. We’re just asking to recognize the fact that that formula had been adopted in a growth pattern and now it’s being applied in a decreasing pattern.
We understand that we will have to readdress the big picture when we get to the following year’s budget.
Senator Batters: I want to make the point that the same amount of money is applicable for a group of 20 senators, which is potentially more work and more staff required than for 11. That’s my point.
Senator Munson: I want to emphasize, as Senator Dawson said, that we’re not asking for any more money, but there’s $260,000. We anticipate $150,000 will be used from now until the end of the fiscal year.
Senator Batters: Because if this wasn’t approved, your annual budget would drop down to $160,000?
Senator Munson: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I wish to remind you of a basic principle regarding budget planning, which is that of critical mass. Obviously in this case, whatever the number of senators in a group or a caucus, certain basic services are essential and their cost will remain the same, whether they serve 105 people or 10 people. That is the case currently with the research and communications services for each group.
I support the request of the independent Liberal senators’ group. Like all of the other groups, they too need research, analysis and communication services, among others. That principle seems realistic in terms of budgetary planning. It is also a principle of equity that speaks to the sharing of the resources that are put at our disposal. Consequently, I strongly support this request from our colleagues.
Senator Forest: I totally agree. If I understand correctly, this request will apply until the end of the fiscal year, so until March 2019. In September, half of the year will have gone by, and half will be left.
The other point is that there was a prior agreement with the leaders of each group. Personally, I support the request from the independent Liberal senators’ group.
[English]
Senator Plett: First of all, I would like to say that I think we need to develop formulas and numbers on what we get, depending on the size of the groups, and we need to stick with that.
However, I do not agree that there is less work just because there are fewer people. Our numbers have been diminishing, and that has increased my workload considerably, as well as the workload of others. Being in charge of a caucus of three, imagine how much work that is for one individual. Nevertheless, it has not necessarily made my life or the life of many people in our caucus a whole lot easier.
Chair, we are spending a lot of time discussing something in regard to which, according to last week’s meeting, our leaders each sent a letter of support. For us to go against the letters that the leaders sent would be very unprofessional, in my opinion. I don’t know that I necessarily agree with what’s being done, but I definitely support the proposal for that reason. I think we need to do what we promised we would do and move on.
The Chair: Are there any further comments?
Senator Munson: If anybody wants to alleviate our pain and stress, just take a look at the face of how we are diminishing as a species. We still want to participate in all the debates in the Senate in the fall, but if, over the summer, anybody feels a compulsion to become an independent Liberal and help us move to another level of funding, we would certainly appreciate it.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Munson.
Senator Munson: Sober second thought over the summertime.
The Chair: This advertising was brought to you by the independent Liberal Party of Canada.
We have a motion before us, honourable senators. Do I need to read it or dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: All those in favour of the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Against?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Item No. 3 is an oral report from the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, for information only.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: This is simply to inform the members of the committee. We received a letter in which the subcommittee explained that it received a second proposal from the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry about a trip to Paris and Amsterdam next fall. The decision of the subcommittee remained the same, which is that the request was denied.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. That’s for information only.
Item No. 4 is a report from the Subcommittee on Diversity.
Senator Jaffer: Before I start, I want to take a second to thank Jacqueline. You did a tremendous job on Human Resources and you’ve left us in a good place. Thank you very much for your work.
I also want to give a bit of history before I read my notes. This committee was started a few years ago with a great number of challenges, and if it were not for Senator Stewart Olsen and Senator Marshall, we would not be where we are. I want to specifically acknowledge them. They really empowered me when we were experiencing many challenges. I think this is what makes the Senate special. Senator Stewart Olsen and Senator Marshall worked shoulder to shoulder with me, and I want to acknowledge their work in the past.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, I have the honour of tabling the first report of the Subcommittee on Diversity.
[English]
On February 22, 2017, the Subcommittee on Diversity was authorized to examine the issue of diversity in the Senate workforce. The subcommittee held three public meetings, during which it heard from 10 witnesses.
I would like to thank Senators Marshall and Saint-Germain for their work as members of the subcommittee. I would also like to acknowledge Senators Omidvar and Tannas for their contribution to the study.
[Translation]
During its study, the subcommittee observed that the Senate administration had made considerable progress. The statistics it examined showed that the percentage of employees that are members of one of the employment equity groups in the Senate administration have increased since 2009.
[English]
However, detailed statistics on representation in the Senate administration by occupational category also indicate some gaps. For instance, there are no Aboriginal peoples in management positions, and the representation of people with disabilities in some occupational categories was below their national workforce availability.
[Translation]
The subcommittee made 10 recommendations, and some of them could apply both to the Senate administration and to senators’ offices. Senate administration was encouraged to conduct an update on self-identification for those who want to self-identify.
The subcommittee was also interested in measures that could encourage the hiring of veterans, and the improvement in regional representation from the different regions of Canada among the employees of the Senate administration.
[English]
Finally, the subcommittee requests that the Senate administration submit a response to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration by June 13, 2019, on the steps it has taken to implement each of the recommendations contained in this report and what further steps need to be taken.
I would like to thank the staff for their assistance in the production of the report, especially to Mr. Charbonneau, who has really helped.
The subcommittee received support from the Human Resources Directorate, from CIBA Secretariat and from the Communications Directorate. I would also like to thank the subcommittee’s analyst from the Library of Parliament, Michael Dewing, who drafted the report.
To conclude, I move that this report be now adopted and that the report be tabled in the Senate.
Senators, you have this report in the package you received.
The Chair: Are there any comments?
Senator Saint-Germain: I want to commend Senator Jaffer for her professionalism and the importance she gave to this issue. She did very good work. I know that she is dedicated and that she wants to make sure this report will be implemented. I commend her for that, on behalf of all the honourable members of the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I have two questions of clarification regarding the recommendations. I find that the report is well crafted, but I would like to understand the objective of two of the recommendations. The first is recommendation 4: That the Senate administration consider implementing a name-blind recruitment pilot project like the one being conducted in the public service. It is the expression “name-blind recruitment” that seems ambiguous to me. Are you talking only about the surveys people fill out and the results you obtain from that?
The other recommendation was that the Senate administration examine ways of integrating employment equity into its procurement practices. That is not very clear to me.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: You are talking about No. 4, the name-blind recruitment pilot project, right?
Senator Moncion: The recommendation in the diversity —
Senator Jaffer: No. 4?
Senator Moncion: Yes, and No. 7.
Senator Jaffer: For No. 4, yes, there is a name-blind recruitment pilot project in the public service, and we would like to implement that. We want to see what the results are.
Senator Moncion: When you are talking about “recrutement anonyme,” what do you mean by “recrutement”? Recruitment is when you hire people.
Senator Jaffer: There is sometimes a feeling with employees who apply that they are not chosen because of their name. The idea is that it is name-blind so that first you are chosen and then they find out what your name is. There is research to show that if your name is Jaffer, for example, perhaps you won’t get chosen.
Senator Moncion: It might not necessarily be clear here.
Senator Jaffer: It is in the text.
Senator Moncion: I know. And No. 7, “pratiques d’approvisionnement.”
Senator Jaffer: Employment equity is something we want to look at to make sure that when we do procurement, we look at other groups as well, not just the normal groups that we procure from.
Senator Moncion: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Batters: On page 6 of the report, section 1.3, “Overall Representation,” I think these are the baseline numbers you used. It states:
It should also be noted that the data do not include employees and individual senators’ offices.
That’s for all of the numbers that you looked at overall.
If certain employee groups and senators have more diverse offices, might we be in a situation where we’re meeting some of the targets?
Senator Jaffer: That’s a very good point. We did think about that, but that changes, and we are really looking at diversity within the administration. CIBA has control of the administration. We don’t have control of individual senators’ offices.
You have a very valid point, but many things we were looking at — for example, in senators’ offices, there is no job security; there is change. From year to year it will be different, while the administration — that’s what we were focused on, not on senators’ offices.
I want to share my own view on why we don’t want to focus so much on senators’ offices. I’m very respectful that senators decide for their own employees, so I didn’t want to go into that space.
Senator Batters: Sure. Thank you.
Senator Munson: Thank you, senator, for this excellent report, and we have to act on these recommendations.
Recommendation No. 8 is that the Senate administration create an Aboriginal young interns program, which is admirable, but I’d like to add a caveat. There are 700,000 to a million people who live off reserve, Metis and non-status, and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples at one time, headed by former leader Dwight Dorey, was always pushing for the idea that these marginalized people, as they are, be included in any programs. Of course, there is the Assembly of First Nations, and so on, where the administration can look for recruitment, but I think it would be advisable also to include Metis and non-status and, of course, Inuit, and Innu in Labrador, that they too are given the same opportunity as we have given our pages, who were picked from all across the country. I’d just like to put that on the record. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Munson.
Are there any other questions?
All those in favour of the report being tabled in the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you very much.
Next is Item No. 5.
Honourable senators, the Advisory Working Group on Artwork and Heritage Assets was appointed with the delegated authority to act on behalf of the committee on matters related to the Senate Policy on Heritage Assets and Works of Art.
It is my honour to table the first report of the working group. Senator Joyal and Senator Bovey are here to answer any questions that you may have. The report is placed before you for information.
Senators, you have the floor.
Senator Bovey: Thank you all. I think we’ve officially been doing this on an advisory basis for two months. The terms of reference were given to us on April 19, though we had been meeting before then, taking a look at the move of the collection to the new premises.
By way of introduction, and I’m sure Senator Joyal would like to add to this, I want to commend the curators of this collection. This is a significant collection, one that has not had, in my view, the kind of presence it deserves. There are major Canadian artists in it.
In readiness for the move and an audit of the collection, staff have been working on setting up a timeline for developing collection policies, loan policies, conservation policies, all the required policies of a cultural heritage collection. As with public access, they have been working on developing the database, giving attention to artists because our collection had talked about whom the portraits are of and not the artists, so we’re bringing it in line with the copyright legislation of Canada.
As we plan for the move, they are doing an inventory of every work in the collection so that at such time as an audit is under way or the auditors come in, they will be ready with policies in place to be audited against, not only the financial audit, with a database that is up to date. So they’re working to bring it in line with any regular audit of a collection held in the public trust.
We have done some work on conservation ideas. We had a non-committee, through the full committee, do field trip to the Canadian Conservation Institute last week, taking a look at issues of conservation. I can tell you that some of the works are being conserved now in readiness for the move. Some have been designated, because they are too big or there isn’t space in the new quarters, to undergo conservation in the 10-year period that we’re out of these premises.
Of course, the First World War paintings in the chamber itself, which are in dire straits and in need of conservation, will be returned to the War Museum for the 10-year period and conservation will be done by the War Museum.
We’re aware that Canadians would like to make donations to the Senate collection, and I had the thought the other day that we really need to have a collections policy in place before stuff starts rolling in.
I’m looking forward to increased public access to the collection. I know the curators have been talking about doing a publication and involving scholars across the country to add to it, which I think would be very positive. If the database can have public access and online access, I think we will be doing our job in making these treasures available to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Senator Joyal: I would like to add, Mr. Chair, an element of reflection for senators, members of this committee, which is the fact that the new chamber will look very different than the one in which we presently sit.
Senator Bovey mentioned the historical element, referring to the service of those Canadians who gave their lives for the country and who are remembered by the four paintings, plus the stained-glass window above them that remembers the war cemetery. Of course, that will disappear totally from the new chamber. There will be no historical reference to past service. That’s the first element I want to point out.
The second element is the constitutional monarchy. As you know, we are one the three elements of Parliament: the Queen, the Senate and the House of Commons. The symbolism of the monarchical element will be maintained through the presence of the two thrones in front of the chamber, plus, of course, the mace when we are sitting, but the bust of Queen Victoria that adorns the throne chairs will not be there. So that element, which is an important one of our existence and our historical link with the birth of Confederation, will not be there.
Moreover, the monarchical elements of French origin, which are represented by the coat of arms of the French monarchy that adorn one of the pillars in the chamber, and the second one, which is, of course, the British coat of arms that adorns the second pillar, would also not be there.
Furthermore, as you know, there is the reconciliation initiative taken by the government, and Aboriginal sovereignty will also not be represented.
So, we have a preoccupation that those elements could be perpetuated in the new chamber so that the chamber doesn’t look like a dining room of a Westin hotel or any other chain that you would like to quote. The Senate Chamber is not a living room or a dining room; it’s a symbolic room whereby the essential elements of our system of government and our history should be represented.
There will be on the walls on both sides the coats of arms of the provinces and territories, and the coat of arms of Canada on top of the throne.
But as I mentioned to you, we have concerns about other historical elements that should be represented in the chamber to maintain the elements of significance and identity of our chamber in comparison with the other place, which has its own symbolism and is not a duplicate of ours. So we have a concern about that.
We will continue to meet with the appropriate representative of Public Works and the curator to come forward with some proposals that would meet our preoccupation in relation to how the new chamber will look and how close it will be to the one that we have in terms of significance and identity.
The Chair: Are there any questions?
I think we, as a group, should recognize how incredible it is that we have two senators with the background and the experience of Senator Bovey and Senator Joyal. I don’t know where we would go to find that expertise, but I want to thank you for the hard work and I think it’s just starting. I hate to tell you guys, but I think the next 10 years will be interesting. Thank you very much.
Honourable senators, next is Item No. 6, but in the interests of time we will now move in camera to consider Item No. 8. If there is time, we will return to this item at the end of our meeting.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Item 6 is the update of the ADP payroll, I’m going to push it to the next meeting if there’s nothing urgent; it’s an ongoing process.
I will recognize Senator Moncion with regard to her concerns and question.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: With regard to the funding of groups and caucuses, for the moment, when we prepare the estimates for committee budgets, we are going to follow the existing rules. We would like to avoid the many situations we experienced this year where the Liberals submitted requests for additional funds, all the more so since the envelope of $160,000 included in the rules will not be sufficient to fund their work for 2019-20. In addition, the Independent Senators Group is asking for a funding adjustment.
Since the subcommittee has to work under the current rules, in order to avoid going around in circles as we did this year, we would like to draw up a road map, not only to guide the committee that will be developing the estimates, but also so that the people who work in accounting can prepare a budget according to the dates and deadlines provided.
[English]
The Chair: Could I suggest that you report to us on what those changes should be so that we can discuss them and you can move forward on that?
Senator Batters: I don’t think we should be making any move to have this dealt with in this fashion. We have the rules that are being dealt with right now. If we are going to potentially change those rules, I don’t think we should be dealing with this as “Other Business” brought up at the end of the meeting, where we have had no time to consider it. I think we should deal with that when we come back in the fall.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I’d like to remind you that we consulted the leaders of the different groups and caucuses, and asked them to agree amongst themselves and propose a budget formula to guide the budgetary planning of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. In keeping with our recommendations, I would wait for the results of these discussions between the leaders. We can then examine their conclusions and act accordingly, including through a motion if necessary, in order to submit the changes to be examined by the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
[English]
Senator Marshall: I’m a member of the subcommittee. I haven’t discussed this with Senator Moncion yet, but my initial reaction is that we’re doing the budget and we would use the rules as they currently exist.
The Chair: Any further comment on this?
Senator Moncion: By the time the Rules Committee looks at these changes, it will be too late for the budget. That’s why I was raising it here.
The Chair: Perhaps you could get together with the Chair of the Rules Committee and, if this is what the committee wants at the end of the day, see if we could move this forward.
Senator McCoy: With respect, I think the jurisdiction belongs to this committee. The rules for allocation of funding to caucuses is in SARs. Therefore, the Rules Committee doesn’t have a role to play.
The issue was raised two or three months ago to put a different approach together that would actually deal with the situation we have now of having four groups in the Senate in a fair way. Although I understand we’re bound by the rules we have today, I’m heartened to think that the leaders are looking at it.
It seems to me that it would be logical to ask the subcommittee on estimates to give this some consideration and bring back a recommendation that would assist the leaders and this committee, whose decision it is. It’s not a decision of the leaders. It’s a decision of this committee.
The Chair: Thank you. On that note, we need to go and see the Governor General.
Before we go, I would like to thank all of the staff who make this happen and who find a way to turn the mike on and off. It always amazes me.
I would like to thank you for your support over the last year, and I wish everybody a happy summer.
(The committee adjourned.)