THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 10, 2020
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met with videoconference this day at 10 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(1), in consideration of financial and administrative matters; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), in consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Sabi Marwah (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. My name is Sabi Marwah, a senator from Ontario and I have the pleasure to chair the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Today we will be conducting a hybrid meeting, with some senators participating virtually and others participating in person. The meeting will begin in public, and then a portion of the meeting will continue in camera.
Before we begin, I would like to remind colleagues participating virtually of the best practices for a successful meeting. Please keep your microphones muted at all times unless recognized by name to speak. Senators attending remotely are responsible for turning their microphones on and off during the debate. When speaking, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of English, French or no simultaneous translation. Should members want to request the floor, please use the “raise hand” feature if you are attending virtually, and advise the clerk if you are attending in person. Should any technical or other challenges arise, please signal this to the chair immediately and the technical team will work to resolve the issue.
I would now like to introduce the senators who are participating in this meeting: Senator Larry Campbell, British Columbia; Senator Claude Carignan, Quebec; Senator Dennis Dawson, Quebec; Senator Tony Dean, Ontario; Senator Éric Forest, Quebec; Senator Josée Forest-Niesing, Ontario; Senator Raymonde Gagné, Manitoba; Senator Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia; Senator Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Yonah Martin, British Columbia; Senator Lucie Moncion, Ontario; Senator Jim Munson, Ontario; Senator Don Plett, Manitoba; Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec; Senator Judith Seidman, Quebec; Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta; and Senator Pat Bovey, Manitoba.
Thank you to those senators joining us at this very early hour from Western Canada for today’s meeting. We know it’s early there. Of course, welcome to all those viewing from across the country.
Honourable senators, the first item is the adoption of the public minutes from December 3, 2020, which is in your package. Are there any questions or changes?
Senator Forest-Niesing: I do have a change to propose to the second paragraph on page 2 of 4 in the English version of the minutes, but page 3 of the bundle. It is in the second paragraph under the heading “Request for Exception.”
The sentence starts with “After debate, . . . .” Following the comma, I would propose the following change in the wording:
After debate, one further and final attempt be made to seek clarification from Miller Thomson in relation to the nature. . . .
And it could go on from there.
The Chair: Colleagues, does anyone have any concern with this modification to the minutes?
Senator Plett: Yes, I do because I did not suggest that it be final. I suggested that it be “further.”
The Chair: Senator Forest-Niesing, if my memory is correct, we did say “further clarification.” We never said it would be final. I think we better leave the minutes as they are.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Chair, I do understand the point being made by Senator Plett. However, in light of the material that was before us at the meeting, and particularly in light of the very clear indication in the briefing note we had that on April 29, 2020, with Miller Thomson confirmed receipt of a letter and confirmed that no additional information would be provided. Given also the number of attempts to obtain clarification that were revealed by the material, I’m wondering whether the attempt is not, in fact, final. If it is not, that causes me some degree of concern.
The Chair: I think the issue is the minutes record what was really said, not what we really mean today. I think you can record your intent that you would like it to be final today, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to change the minutes to reflect what was said at that time. Your point is noted. It will be noted for this meeting’s minutes at the next meeting.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Minutes of Proceedings for Thursday, December 3, 2020, be adopted.
It is moved by Senator Dean.
Senators, we discussed the issue of a roll call vote at steering, and we said from now on we will proceed in a manner similar to the hybrid chamber, whereby senators who wish to oppose or abstain are provided the opportunity to do so. In the absence of any opposition or abstention, it is interpreted as support for the motion.
Colleagues, are there any dissents on the motion? I see no changes, so it is adopted.
The next item on the agenda is a report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates, specifically regarding the Main Estimates 2021-22. Senator Moncion, the chair of the committee on Senate Estimates, will offer opening remarks. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, and Nathalie Charpentier, Comptroller, will also be joining the meeting.
Senator Moncion, over to you.
Senator Moncion: Thank you, colleagues, for agreeing to meet earlier this morning.
First, I would like to thank my colleagues on the subcommittee: Senator Marshall, Senator Saint-Germain, Senator Munson and Senator Tannas. I appreciate the work that was done by the committee, their members and your availability.
I also want to thank the staff for their help, their availability and understanding of the work they do on our behalf. It was very much appreciated by all committee members. We are very thankful that we have the quality of staff to do the work with us.
I will be presenting the first report. Your subcommittee has the mandate to review the proposed estimates, keeping in mind the necessity for the Senate and its administration to demonstrate responsible management of the public funds that are allocated to the institution.
Your subcommittee, comprised of Senators Marshall, Moncion, Munson, Saint-Germain and Tannas, met on several occasions to review the funding requirements for the Senate estimates for 2021-22. The documents presented to the subcommittee described the funding requirements for senators, committees, Senate Administration and International and Interparliamentary Affairs.
Each administration directorate also provided a summary detailing the use of their financial resources. Any funding increases from the previous year required detailed documentation and a presentation before the subcommittee to justify the new spending. Your subcommittee submitted a series of clarification questions on various elements of the budget before meeting with witnesses, to which it received responses. It then heard from 10 individuals representing the directorates requesting additional funding, including members of the management teams from the Senate and IIA. They presented their operational and funding requirements as well as their justification for changes. Your subcommittee thanks these individuals for their presentations.
Throughout its study, your subcommittee took into consideration the changes in the Senate, but also the actual and potential impact of the pandemic on the Senate’s operations as a whole. Your subcommittee is also mindful of the Canadian economic situation and emphasizes the importance of balancing operational needs and quality services to senators with proper stewardship of public funds.
[Translation]
The Main Estimates have been prepared with prudence and restraint to ensure that the level of Senate spending remains stable without compromising services to senators. Based on the planning assumption that the parliamentary calendar and Senate activities will be similar to those of a typical year, and that the effects of the pandemic will continue to be felt throughout operations, in particular due to a virtual work environment, the financial plan for 2021-2022 is based on the following principles: maintaining high quality services to senators, ensuring good stewardship of public funds by seeking potential savings, investing in information technology infrastructure, the disposal of obsolete assets, and consolidating resources to fill operational gaps by focusing resources on critical activities.
During its deliberations, your subcommittee identified key elements it believes worth noting to ensure continuity in the development and study of future funding requirements.
Budget assumption and strategy: The budget is based on the assumption that an average of 103 senators will be in office during 2021-2022. Your subcommittee also proposes a budget strategy to fund the Senate’s ongoing expenses from the proposed 2021-22 budget and to use an active budget reallocation approach for non-recurring funding requirements. If the amounts are insufficient, a request for additional funds will be considered during the Supplementary Estimates processes. The different sectors of the administration were also encouraged to find permanent or temporary savings in order to finance activities and limit requests for additional funds.
Information technologies: Your subcommittee underlines the importance of information technologies and of infrastructure that supports technologies required for the Senate’s daily operations. As a result, your subcommittee recommends required upgrades to assets and technologies to promote savings, modernize work practices and enable professional mobility.
Budget for caucuses and parliamentary groups: Your subcommittee recommends that the total 2020-21 budget allocated for recognized parliamentary caucuses and groups be renewed for the fiscal year under review, and that the division of budget allocations to Senate House Officers, recognized parliamentary caucuses and groups be determined through a subsequent recommendation to CIBA.
Opportunities for savings: Your subcommittee notes the importance in the current economic environment of limiting expenditures that may otherwise be covered, or not required. Opportunities for permanent and temporary savings were presented to the subcommittee and a list of the main initiatives that could have an impact on senators’ operations or activities is outlined below. However, your subcommittee notes that these impacts should not affect the core functions of senators or of the administration.
[English]
Overall, the projected total budget for the Senate for the year 2021-22 will remain at the same level as the current fiscal year, which is set at $115,563,768. The budgets for senators, committees and IIA were decreased by $401,028, including a budget transfer of $20,000 for photography services to the Speaker of the Senate. Senate-wide expenses were increased by $59,727, mainly related to employees’ benefits. The administration’s budget shows net savings of $705,054 with self-funded initiatives of $1,197,160 for a net financial impact of $341,301 as presented below.
In the review of the 2021-22 Main Estimates, your subcommittee has examined the resources available for senators to conduct their parliamentary and constitutional responsibilities. The following funding requirements are proposed: Senators’ basic and additional allowances and pensions increase by $1,127,415 for funding for the increases that have been in place since April 1, 2020; an increase in Senate pension contribution rate from 19.7% to 23.34%.
For senators’ office budgets, there’s no proposed increase. The overall funding will remain at the same level.
For Senate committees, a decrease of $809,914 in committee travel, witnesses, video conferencing and hospitality expenses. This opportunity for temporary savings is directly related to committee activity levels and is in line with actual expenditure budgets of past pre-pandemic years. This reduction will be monitored during the 2021-22 fiscal year, revisited mid-year, as required, and re-evaluated at the next Main Estimates process.
For International and Interparliamentary Affairs, a decrease of $424,083 based primarily on expired funding and the cancellation of one conference due to the pandemic.
Senators’ travel and living expenses budget, there is a temporary budget reduction of $214,446. No increase proposed for the senators’ individual living budget. For senators’ telecommunication budget, reduction of $100,000 as the projected cost of the monthly fees is planned to be lower based on recent trends and due to the phasing out of landline telephones, fax lines and television subscriptions no longer necessary.
In addition, the proposed budget includes the following changes to the Senate Administration programs that are supporting the work of senators: For ParlVu services, there will be an increase of $211,218 to support the Senate and the increased number of committee rooms with broadcasting capacity, and the higher number of sessions available online.
For the Senate heritage and cultural services program, there is an increase of $206,500 to maintain specialized resources and undertake initiatives to protect the heritage collection and support the Advisory Working Group on Artwork and Heritage. And for cafeteria services, we are proposing permanent savings of $108,000 resulting from the reduction in the hours of operation of the Senate of Canada Building cafeteria and closure of the East Block cafeteria.
[Translation]
Funding for the Senate Administration represents an overall increase of $341,301, or 0.8%. This amount includes new expenditures of $2,243,515, less one-time initiatives to be self-funded totalling $1,197,160 and savings opportunities of $705,054. The new funding requirements also include the following key items: Additional resources for the Information Services Directorate to support new services and enhanced support activities in information management and information technology in the amount of $501,454, of which $170,126 will be self-funded; Reclassifications of positions: an increase of $227,784 to cover the official classification assessments completed during the year; Modernization and replacement of the electronic claim system (E-Claim) for $180,000 (self‑funded); and the harmonization of Senate communications functions, with a permanent reduction of $89,525.
Also, the administration has identified various temporary reductions in administration costs totalling $340,137 and permanent reductions amounting to $364,917 (including the cafeteria savings of $108,000). Details are found in the Appendix.
In summary, a total of four additional net full-time equivalent (FTE) positions are proposed. Therefore, your subcommittee makes the following recommendations: That the Senate’s 2021-22 budget be $115,563,738, which is the same level as the 2020-21 fiscal year; that the 2021-22 budget adjustments listed in the Appendix be approved; and that the proposed budget strategy be accepted. I respectfully submit the report. If any senators have questions, the administration employees and the senators on the committee will be able to answer them.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Moncion. We will open it up for questions.
Senator Plett: Thank you for that report, Senator Moncion. I have two questions.
One is with regard to the budget for caucuses and parliamentary groups. From the way I’m reading this, the overall budget for caucuses and parliamentary groups stays the same, yet we have one group that wasn’t there the last time, so obviously they have a budget as well. Is that coming out of the overall or is that going to be an addition, or are we going to somehow make a recommendation to come forward that for the larger groups, the government, the opposition and the ISG, some of their resources are going to be taken and moved over to the PSG?
Senator Moncion: If I may, the discussion on that portion of the budget, the overall amount remains the same and the recommendation of the division of these amounts will be coming at a later date.
Senator Plett: But that is where they would have to come from, correct? Am I understanding that correctly?
Senator Moncion: Yes, senator.
Senator Plett: Okay, that answers the first question. My second question may be more of a comment, I’m not sure. I’m no longer in the East Block. I had my office there for the longest time. I had an office in Victoria Building when that cafeteria got closed. With the savings of $100,000 and closing the cafeteria in East Block — maybe senators who are in East Block should voice their concerns — I have a concern about us closing the cafeteria and taking away services, when we take the overall budget of not being a very significant number, and losing those services. Those services are quite important, in my opinion. I’m wondering what thought was put into that, and that these senators who are over there are going to lose that service.
Senator Moncion: I thank you for the question, senator. The thought process regarding the East Block cafeteria was a process that went over two years. We had asked administration last year to evaluate the use of the cafeteria in East Block to see the value-added of the service and the cost of the service to the Senate. That evaluation was done and the recommendation came back this year that, for cost efficiency, the East Block cafeteria would not be commissioned anymore or decommissioned, and we would reduce the number of hours that the cafeteria service provided to senators and staff in the new Senate of Canada Building.
We understand that in a lot of the senators’ offices, coffee is available, so we were looking at more of that type of service. We understand that it is going to be a bit of a problem for people who are in the East Block, but it was the thought process. It was a two-year process at the committee level before we decided it would be better if we cut the service.
I can ask Pierre or Nathalie to give you further information on this.
Senator Plett: I would certainly endorse cutting hours to perhaps early morning, lunch and maybe even dinner, when we sit late. This is more of a comment, but when I was in East Block, I used the cafeteria regularly for lunch, and if I got there at 5 minutes after 12, there was a lineup of people well outside the door to eat lunch there.
I’m happy to hear you say this was done over a two-year period of time and that we’re not necessarily using the pandemic to make our decision. That gives me some level of comfort. But again, I’m just going to voice my concern and I’m not going to vote against a budget, clearly, over me having one issue. However, I really struggle with that because I know when I was there how often I used it, and I know how often there was a long lineup when I used it. I was certainly not the only person using it.
Again, I think it’s a very minor saving that we’re having at a considerable sacrifice. Anyway, those are my comments, Senator Moncion, and thank you for your answers.
Senator Moncion: Thank you. I’m glad you don’t have any more.
Senator Seidman: This is a good follow-up. I’d like to pursue this issue about the East Block cafeteria a little more. I too had my office in East Block and I remember well, first of all, the hours there are short already. The East Block cafeteria closes at, I think, two o’clock. Whenever I arrived in the morning, there were people having breakfast. At lunchtime there was a long lineup of staffers, administration. PPS used that cafeteria a lot.
I have to tell you that East Block is, I think, at full capacity. All the offices are filled with senators, senators’ staffers, administration, and they have a limited time for breaks and for lunches. So I do have to say that I’m very concerned. The health and safety of staff and administration are important and, after all, it’s not a profit-making enterprise here. Sometimes we have to look after that first, and it’s possible, perhaps, to find that $100,000 saving elsewhere in the budget or to forsake it, in my opinion. I just think that it’s a poor choice of efficiency to put in peril to some extent — imagine in the winter, staff and administration people running out at lunch time, slipping and falling on the ice, for example.
I just don’t see it. I see it as a false saving, in my opinion, and other than whatever studies that you did over two years, I would like to see that data, for example. I would like to see how money-losing it is, and how the decision was made.
Senator Moncion: Could I ask Pierre Lanctôt to provide the information on the numbers related to the cafeteria service in the East Block and also in the Senate of Canada Building?
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: The cost of maintaining the cafeteria in the East Block would be about $50,000 of the $108,000 savings presented. Depending on the decision, obviously, the $50,000 could be brought back to the budget, but that’s basically the cost.
In terms of specific studies, my colleague Caroline Morency is in this meeting and can provide more details on the specific analyses that were conducted, if needed.
Senator Seidman: Yes, please, I would like to know during what months of the year you did that study, for how long, what hours of the day. I would like to have the details if I could, please.
The Chair: Caroline Morency, would you care to answer?
Caroline Morency, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you, senator, for that question. In fact, the analysis was conducted during the first quarter of the fiscal year 2019-20, so last year. We have conducted an analysis on the type of food that is being purchased and also per hour or per time slots, and we definitely were able to confirm that the majority of sales were done during lunchtime, close to 45%, if my memory serves me right.
So we have a lot of details that we can certainly share with the committee, if the committee wishes.
We also looked at alternatives. For example, we could also close the cafeteria when the Senate is not sitting, approximately 10 weeks, and we could also generate some additional revenues or save some expenses there, I must say. We have a lot of details that we can provide if necessary.
Senator Seidman: I thank you very much for those details, but I do think that if we are going to make a decision with this kind of repercussion on our staff and administration staff, we need to see the details. If I understood correctly, you said you did this study in the first quarter of 2020.
Ms. Morency: No, 2019-20, so that was last fiscal year in the spring.
Senator Seidman: You said the first quarter of 2019; then that would be January to March.
Ms. Morency: No, it would be April of the fiscal year.
Senator Seidman: Sorry, of course, the fiscal year, so it would be April, May, June.
Ms. Morency: That’s correct.
Senator Seidman: If you look at the period of time we’re sitting and not sitting, April, May, June, I would like to have more details on the analysis. I won’t take any more time up in this meeting right now because other people will have questions. And I won’t, of course, vote against the budget because of this, but I will caution us and perhaps ask that we could consider being absolutely sure by reviewing that data, the $50,000, and ensuring this is exactly what we want to do. Thank you.
Senator Martin: Just to continue in the same vein as Senator Seidman, it sounds as though there could be some other considerations, so it would be less than $50,000 if it were to be closed during the time when the Senate isn’t sitting.
The only thing I will add to this point is I’m just thinking about how our staff spend way more time in the offices than we do, and therefore in the entire East Block there are many offices and many individuals impacted.
Just looking at this budget, the itemized lines like an additional junior occupational health and safety adviser, who I’m sure will add to the team, the cost would be $89,000, and that’s one individual. But with the repercussions of closing a cafeteria and impacting many people, I would ask our committee to reconsider if possible. But we are at the last stage here, so I just think that should be carefully looked at again, if there is an opportunity, because there are many people impacted by that decision. I am not in East Block, but many offices are.
The other question I had is with regard to the increase in the heritage fund, the increased Senate heritage and cultural services program, while we’re maintaining the budget for our offices and many other areas are being cut. This is quite an increase. I was just curious as to whether details of this have been discussed. I apologize if it has and I’m asking a question again, but is this something that has been detailed for us?
Another question I had was in regard to the decrease in the travel budget for committees. I guess we’re increasing the budget when it comes to services to us for the potentially ongoing hybrid system, but we should also anticipate that things could resume and committees will be working hard, and travel is important. I’m concerned about reducing budgets for committees when we don’t know what the work of the committees will be. Committees have had to wait a long time, so there would be a resumption of robust activities. I’m worried about that item as well.
So my one question is regarding the increase in the heritage budget, whether we have some details on why this increase is needed.
The Chair: Why don’t we take the question on the committee travel first. Pierre, can you answer that?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, senator. On the committee budget, basically the alignment, we align with the actual that was spent in the last years, pre-COVID, so the committee group and the committees are of the opinion that the budget that remains would be sufficient in 2021-22 to provide for the committee activities, and that decision is to be revisited in 2022-23; that’s for one year. Again, it still keeps enough money in the budget to carry out the activities of committees based on the pattern of the previous years.
The Chair: On the artwork and heritage expense, we have Senator Bovey on the line, who is the chair of that working group.
Senator Bovey, would you like to add some colour to this?
Senator Bovey: I would be delighted to add to this.
Senator Martin, it’s a very good question because, yes, in the proportion of what that committee has had to spend out of the operating budget, this is an increase.
I want to draw your attention to the fact that I did appear before the subcommittee. We went through this. Much of the funds come from moving the cost of the staff for the care of collections from LTVP to the operating budget because, of course, the move to the Senate of Canada Building is complete. There is just a small portion of staff remaining there, keeping an eye on the project for Centre Block.
We do have a mandate to steward the collection in the public trust, so that’s why the staff was moved over. From the operating side, senator, because the move is now done, we made the decision that it was important to do the outreach and programming work that had to be put to the side while the move and conservation of the collection were under way.
In all honesty, I did request more money of the subcommittee for developing the program. I certainly understand that the overall budget for the Senate needs to be frozen. We did some further work and trimmed the program budget that we wanted. In fact, we’ve cut one program in half from our original submission. We have cut back the conservation needs because we were able to deal with some in the past fiscal year.
So I’m satisfied that what we have, what is being recommended for this year, will deal with the staffing issue that LTVP can’t carry on with those monies. And we will be able to develop the beginning of the program, not as strong as we would have liked but certainly strong enough to have an important presence and to steward our public responsibility.
Senator Marshall: I want to talk about the cafeteria in the East Block. I’m a member of the subcommittee. My office is in the East Block. I do use the cafeteria quite extensively for most of my lunch hours, for snacks and coffees. However, I do think that, in this time of restraint, I could adjust but it will require a change in our routine. I did support the decrease of $50,000.
We closed the cafeteria in the Victoria Building a number of years ago. People did adjust to that change. I do appreciate the comments of my colleagues, though, and I leave it up to the committee. I just wanted to make it clear that I did support this change.
Senator Dean: Very briefly, on the question of the cafeteria, it is fair to say that it’s always an issue when a service is withdrawn. On the other hand, it’s my own sense that the shift to this building has caused a shift in patterns of social behaviour. I think, with cafeteria use, that’s certainly the case for me. I spend way less time in East Block than I did. I think that’s true of other senators and of staff. The opportunity to move to this building brought with it access to fresher, newer, better and, I think, higher-quality cafeteria services. I think people are using them. In that sense, the availability of new services here has been a bigger factor in our patterns of use than perhaps the pandemic. I support the recommendation.
Senator Plett: Colleagues, I was in the Victoria Building when that cafeteria was closed. Senator Dean made a good point. Because we are in the Senate of Canada Building now, that makes a huge difference. On the flip side, before we had to move here, we had a cafeteria in Centre Block. People in East Block could go through a tunnel to Centre Block to that cafeteria. That has also been taken away.
According to Pierre, we are talking about less than $50,000. With some reduction in hours and so forth, we are talking about less than $50,000. I believe we can leave the overall budget exactly where it is, continue having that East Block cafeteria open at some reduced hours and find that $50,000 somewhere. At the danger of having Senator Bovey come and pour hot coffee on me in an airplane when I’m flying back to Winnipeg with her, I think a little bit could be taken out of her budget, quite frankly.
That is not a suggestion at all. That’s an observation. So, Senator Bovey, don’t jump on me. I’m sure that observation will not be accepted.
Nevertheless, we are talking about less than $50,000 out of a $115-million budget for something that is at best questionable. Caroline Morency said the survey was done in April, May and June, I think. At least three weeks of those three months, the Senate is not sitting. So that is a pretty small sample of when it is being used.
I respect the decision that the subcommittee made, by all means and, Senator Marshall being my colleague, I fully respect that. I am with her. When I was there, I used it regularly and I know people are using it regularly. Senator Seidman makes a good point about, in wintertime, even right now, we have slippery streets. Centre Block is not a possibility. There is no quick dining place really close to East Block.
I think we are taking away services for a small amount of money. I would certainly not suggest that we even change the budget. I don’t want to amend the amount of the budget, but I think we can review whether we can’t find $50,000 somewhere in this $115 million budget. Maybe we can all tighten our belts a little bit in giving up some of our money and resources. I might even suggest, if all other leaders would want to do that, we could even find a few thousand dollars in our budgets. I am not really supportive of closing that cafeteria.
The Chair: Senator Plett, your suggestion to take $50,000 from the artwork will guarantee a second cup of coffee landing in your lap.
Colleagues, I think we have discussed this long enough. Might I suggest that we revisit the issue? If we decide to keep the cafeteria open, we can find $50,000 somewhere in the budget. Rather than discussing this item, we will take it under advisement. We will keep the budget the same. If it is decided by the Senate Estimates Subcommittee that it is still worth closing, then we will leave it. If not, I’m sure we will find $50,000 somewhere. Is that agreeable, colleagues?
Senator Martin: I definitely agree. I didn’t get a chance to respond, but I do thank Senator Bovey for the leadership she has taken and the good work she has done. Thank you for answering my question.
Senator Bovey: Maybe it can’t happen in this fiscal year, but in this fiscal year I believe the committee has to take a look at a number of policies, such as the deaccessioning policies. This has come up before. There may be ways, in the following year, if we have the right policies in place, to streamline some of the costs and programs. I won’t throw coffee on the lap of my esteemed colleague but, instead, I will say that, because this is the first time this committee has had a chair, let’s move forward and look at the policies that will streamline some of our other operations.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Bovey. I take it as advance warning that you will be asking for more money next year.
Moving on colleagues, are there any other questions for Senator Moncion or the Finance staff?
Seeing no questions, can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Report from the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates relating to the Main Estimates for 2021-2022 be adopted.
Moved by Senator Moncion. Honourable senators, is it your pleasure that the motion be adopted? All agreed? Carried. Thank you, colleagues.
Colleagues, the next item is the third report from the Subcommittee on Long-Term Vision and Plan. Senator Plett, as chair of the subcommittee, will offer some remarks. Caroline Morency, Director General of the Property and Services Directorate, will also join the meeting by video conference as a witness in case of questions.
Senator Plett: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the third report this session from the Subcommittee on the Long-Term Vision and Plan. Public Services and Procurement Canada was tasked to assess the feasibility of opening the East Block Agricultural Entrance, which sits on the southeast corner of East Block across from the pedestrian path that leads to Sappers Gate and on to Wellington Street, to provide more direct access from East Block to the Senate of Canada Building. This short report is the result of a recommendation agreed to by the former LTVP subcommittee at a meeting on October 7, 2020, which followed a site visit to the Agricultural Entrance this fall.
Since October, the committee membership changed as a result of the new CIBA membership, and so today is the first opportunity the subcommittee has had to bring this recommendation to CIBA. You have the report before you so I will not reread the report. I will, however, read into the record the subcommittee’s recommendations as follows:
. . . that given the high cost, the complexity of the work, lengthy timelines and other accessibility considerations that would remain outstanding in order to provide an accessible path from Sappers Gate to the Agricultural Entrance of East Block, it is recommended that the Senate align with PSPC’s suggestion to reassess the re-opening of the Agricultural Entrance as part of the East Block Phase 2 rehabilitation scope; and
That further study of all end state required entrances, including their accessibility, be undertaken as part of a holistic campus exercise within Phase 2 of the East Block Rehabilitation Project.
As the chair said, Caroline Morency, Director General of the Property and Services Directorate is with us, and we are prepared to answer any questions you have.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: The report has my unreserved support. My concern — and this comment is for Senator Plett — is that we are somewhat removed from the location because of our hybrid sessions. It would be helpful to have quite a complete report about how the work is going so that we know whether we are on time and on budget. I am just saying that it would be helpful if the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration could receive from the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan, a report on the general state of the major work going on in the parliamentary precinct.
[English]
Senator Plett: Chair, I had a real problem as the translation was so soft. But Senator Forest, were you making a suggestion that we have a more fulsome report on our budget at CIBA? That’s what I got out of that. I see Senator Saint-Germain shaking her head. I’m sorry; I absolutely could not understand. If Ms. Morency understood, I will let her answer.
[Translation]
Ms. Morency: Thank you for the question, senator. Yes, indeed, the intention was to come back before this committee, if possible, to report on the situation with regard to the budget and to the progress of the work, both for the East Block and for the entire parliamentary precinct. Yes, Senator Forest, we will be pleased to provide the information to the subcommittee, which will then be able to report to this committee. We could also bring in representatives of Public Services and Procurement Canada to give a presentation, if that is the wish of the committee.
Senator Forest: Thank you. I have full confidence in you.
[English]
The Chair: I see no other questions. Senator Plett, would you move the motion for the adoption of the third report from the Subcommittee on Long-Term Vision and Plan?
Senator Plett: Again, when we flip from French to English it’s very soft, but I think I heard you ask, chair, whether I would move adoption of the report, and if that is the question, I so move.
The Chair: That is correct. Honourable senators, is it your pleasure that the motion be adopted? All agreed, senators? Agreed. Carried.
Colleagues, I would like to briefly go back to the last item, which is the Senate Estimates. I was remiss in my hurry to move on. I really wanted to thank the Estimates Subcommittee for their leadership and guidance in getting the budget done. I think Senator Moncion underestimated the amount of work they have together put into this effort. They have looked at this since the summer. They reviewed hundreds of pages of documents. They met several times over I don’t even know how many hours, but it was a lot. They received presentations from 10 directorates and individual staff. They went through questions back and forth. And it was a very thorough analysis of the budget. My thanks to the Senate Estimates Subcommittee for doing this. I think it was a tremendous effort. Well done.
In the same vein, I would also like to thank the clerks and all sectors of CIBA and the Senate for putting together what I consider a very thorough and responsible budget by keeping it flat. So my thanks and congratulations to them as well.
Senator Moncion: Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Colleagues, moving on to Item 4, this is a request for proposal for screening services. Caroline Morency and Julie Lacroix will be in the meeting by video conference to assist with this item.
Senators, I would point out that as we are discussing this request for proposal in public, when you ask questions please do not refer to dollar amounts, nor your personal opinion of suppliers as the selection criteria could influence the bidding process. Caroline, over to you.
Ms. Morency: Good morning, again, honourable senators. Today, we are seeking your approval to undertake a competitive process to establish a new contract for off-site security screening and sorting of Senate mail and packages; off-site security screening and scanning of all trucks, including their contents; and the logistics and mitigation measures to ensure the safe and controlled delivery of goods and assets to the Senate precinct. This work is currently provided by SCI, a subsidiary of Canada Post, under a five-year agreement that will expire in April 2021. The existing agreement is a sole-source arrangement that was approved in January 2015 as a result of the recommendation from the enhanced security measures that were put in place as mitigation measures after the incident on Parliament Hill in October 2014.
The intent is to award a two-year contract with three one-year options. The new contract will include the same services. However, we are recommending a competitive process this time as there may be additional vendors besides Canada Post that are qualified to provide this service. This could then result in a reduction of overall costs to the Senate for these services going forward. We are now seeking your approval to proceed. Julie and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have on this item. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Caroline. Colleagues, I would also remind you that if there are any questions on security, we should ask those questions in camera.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for your report. I read it carefully. You know, sometimes, especially when you are waiting for something important, it arrives late to your office. If I want something, I will get it delivered to the staff’s house rather than the Senate because it takes longer. With off-site screening, will it take even longer to get packages or letters? Letters mostly come by email now so that’s not the issue, but for important packages, how long will the delay be? What will the time difference be?
Ms. Morency: Thank you, senator, for the question. In fact, we’re not anticipating any delays. For the current arrangement and the statement of requirement, our requirements will remain the same. Basically, we expect all the mail to be delivered to our premises early in the morning so we can deliver it in the afternoon, as we did pre-pandemic, senator.
Senator Jaffer: Chair, may I ask another question?
The Chair: Please.
Senator Jaffer: My challenge is that — no, I’ll go in camera and ask this question. Thank you.
Julie Lacroix, Director, Corporate Security Directorate, Senate of Canada: Further to Caroline’s point to address Senator Jaffer’s question, perhaps, if Corporate Security and Caroline’s shop are aware of when you have an urgent or pressing delivery or package, and if your office notifies us, we can coordinate with the third-party off-site screening to expedite the arrival and ensure screening procedures are met.
The Chair: Colleagues, seeing no further questions, we will continue with the rest of the public items and vote on the RFP in camera.
Colleagues, the next item is a proposal to replace the existing expense claims system. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, is on the conference to answer the questions.
Pierre, any comments besides the briefing note?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, senator. I can do a brief overview.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, I am seeking your approval to replace the claims management system, also known as E-Claims. I am also seeking your approval to purchase the required licenses under our existing contract with the supplier of our current system.
The E-Claims system was developed by the Information Services Directorate and implemented in 2013. Senators and the administration staff use it to prepare their travel and other expense claims and submit them to Finance. Approximately 5,500 claims are submitted each year through the claims management system.
The system has been upgraded over the years, but it is not fully integrated with the Senate’s resource management system. However, its biggest shortcoming is that it uses outdated technology and therefore needs to be replaced. We have looked at various options to replace the E-Claims system, including developing another in-house system and reviewing specialized software.
The evaluation criteria included the use of up-to-date technology, the standardization and integration of business processes based on our current platform, the ability to improve service quality and speed, and a desire to ensure rigorous financial control
I will now continue in English.
[English]
This option has several pros: Many users in the IT support team are familiar with the existing system; the technology is regularly maintained by the supplier; integration and data sharing will be easier; and the system incorporates good financial practices and controls.
The cons, on the other side, will include dependency on an external supplier and it will limit our ability to tailor the system to specific Senate practices and users’ needs.
From a financial point of view, we estimate the total cost of implementing this new solution at approximately $256,000 and a five-year operating cost of $90,000. I would like to point out that these costs include expenses other than the licences. This compares favourably to the estimated five-year cost of $286,000 to update the in-house system. The required funds are included in the mains that have just been approved.
In conclusion, the claims management system needs to be replaced to ensure continuity in the preparation, submission, processing and payment of claims for senators and employees. It builds on financial systems and infrastructure renewal that we have.
I’m therefore asking you to approve the replacement and purchase of the required licences. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Pierre. The first question is from Senator Martin.
Senator Martin: Thank you, Pierre. I understand that we always want to use systems that keep up with the changing times and needs. In the transition from the old to the new, if there are already claims from the previous system, but we’re moving to a new one — and I know it says there’s an 18-month period. Can you explain the plan to ensure that all staff are trained and that the transition between the old and new will prepare us for any glitches from the switch we are making? I’m looking at the transition period and some of the hiccups that may happen as a result.
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you, senator, for your question. The transition when we implement a new system is very important. You’re correct; we’re going to start involving the senators’ office staff early in the new year, and we’ll keep the working group throughout the process to ensure that we know what the issues may be from users’ perspectives.
We have a program, a new tool, for senators’ offices. It’s not the case for the administration. We’re familiar with that tool. Our change management plan will be focused on senators’ office personnel to ensure they are familiar with the system, and the transition will include our support resources.
We’ll ensure there is no interruption in claims. All claims in the old system will be maintained for the period of transition, so we can complete the processing of those claims before moving over to the new system.
Senator Martin: Another concern I have is that the shared drive is often hard to access if you’re working remotely, depending on the device. I know we’re phasing out the Surface Pros, but this is a situation we’ve encountered in our offices.
Would you speak to the shared drive and whether that impacts what we’re going to be doing with these claims?
Mr. Lanctôt: The shared drives are not going to be used for that solution. We have, obviously, the network infrastructure that will be supported. As I mentioned, with the recent upgrade that ISD, the technology group has done recently, we’ve experienced a robust remote utilization of our resource management system. We will certainly ensure that, when we transit to more users using the resource management system, the remote utilization is robust and that issues are not a problem.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I would like to know about the specific improvements in this new system. You say that there will be improvements, but, specifically, which functional improvements will we get if we make this replacement?
Mr. Lanctôt: First of all, the current system is based on old technology. So that is a factor in the replacement. It is not just a question of functionality, we also have to use technology that has good support.
As for the functionality, the system will be more transparent for senators. At the moment, the claims system is not integrated into the Senate’s resource system. Information has to be transferred from one system to the other and this causes delays in processing claims. That is one of the factors that will make the process easier.
It will be more transparent for you, but, basically, it should also mean that it is quicker. We will no longer be talking about weeks, we can certainly talk making the transfer and approving the claims in a day or two, which is much quicker.
There will certainly be a difficult period for the employees, because the interface will be completely different and much more complex. However, with proper training, it will be integrated with credit card data and, at the end of the day, those employees will be producing expenditure reports more quickly and easily.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: I had the same kind of question as Senator Forest about training. The last system was a little difficult for training, but you were all very patient. I appreciate you upgrading, as this will be more helpful, but that was also my concern. How much training will there be? Especially at the moment — hopefully that won’t be for too long — when staff are working from home, often they have to come back to the office to do e-claims. That’s a challenge. Thank you.
The Chair: I see no other questions, so can I have a mover for the following motion:
That CIBA authorize the Senate Administration to proceed with the acquisition of the Unit4 modules, services and maintenance required to replace the current E-Claims system by increasing the scope and value of the existing sole-source contract; and
To allocate internal funds to purchase the ERP modules and licences. The funding request includes a one-time cost of $180,000 for the purchase of modules and implementation and an ongoing cost of $17,800.
Senator Munson moved the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All agreed. Carried. Thank you.
Item 6 is a request for proposals for secure board management software to be piloted with this committee. I invite Alyson Queen, Chief of Staff to the Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the CIBA to present remarks for this item.
Alyson Queen, Chief of Staff, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, Senate of Canada: Thank you, senator, and good morning. It has become abundantly clear this year just how much information flows electronically to senators on a regular basis. With the pandemic, this has only increased with senators and staff now also having to navigate processes for virtual meetings. We know that the CIBA Secretariat adds to that volume for all of you and your offices quite significantly, with requirements for CIBA and CIBA steering meetings.
In aiming to be more efficient and productive, the CIBA Secretariat has researched a number of options to streamline processes for senators, including receiving suggestions from your own experiences on other boards. A secure board management solution, sometimes known as board of directors software, was highly recommended as a possible solution by senators who have already used the technology and are familiar with its benefits. It is that proposal we are bringing to you today, the details of which are in your package.
I do have three brief points to make, senators. First, I want to emphasize that we’re not trailblazing into new territory. Many private and public corporations in Canada that have boards have some form of board management tool in place to meet their needs. I also want to reassure the committee that we have worked closely with our colleagues in the Information Services Directorate to review all of our options and come to this recommendation today. We are also recommending that this first be piloted to ensure that we do realize benefits on our investment for you, your staff and the secretariat.
I will offer one additional comment following some commentary on the previous item, and that is with any new technology, we will ensure sufficient time for training and for adjustment to the new tool. With that, senators, I would now be pleased to take any questions you may have.
The Chair: Are there any questions for Alyson? Again, we will vote on the RFP details in camera, but if there are any questions that Alyson can address right now, I’m sure she’d be glad to.
Senator Tannas: Alyson, one question I have that would be potentially important in the early days of this is the ability, for those of us that are old school, to print. There are some board packages where they don’t allow printing. I think this group would want the option to be able to print their document out if they so desired.
Ms. Queen: Thank you, senator.
The Chair: You’re dating yourself, Senator Tannas. I see no other questions for Alyson, so we will vote on this in camera.
Moving to the next item, honourable senators, it is for your information and is an update on Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act. Anne Burgess, Senior Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel; and Mathieu Beauregard, Manager, Applications Development and Systems Integration are joining us by video conference. As usual, there will be time for questions.
Anne Burgess, Senior Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: Good morning, honourable senators. I’m here to discuss the legal framework established by the Accessible Canada Act and how it applies to the Senate of Canada. The act provides for binding accessibility standards and establishes compliance and enforcement measures and a complaints mechanism.
The Senate’s main obligation under the act will be to establish and implement a plan to meet mandatory standards aimed at the reduction of barriers to accessibility. These standards will be set out in regulations, which have not yet been enacted. The Senate’s accessibility plan will need to be in place one year after the regulations are in force and must be the result of consultations with persons with disabilities. Once the Senate’s plan is in place, the Senate, like other parliamentary institutions, could be the subject of investigation by the federal accessibility commissioner or face complaints from employees or the public, although the compliance and enforcement regime is tailored to respect parliamentary privilege.
The Senate Administration is already working on accessibility issues. A working group has been established under the leadership of Mr. Mathieu Beauregard, who is appearing with me today. Honourable senators, unless my colleague wishes to add anything to this opening statement, we are ready for your questions.
Senator Munson: Thank you very much. I appreciate this very much since we supported this Accessibility Act unanimously in the Senate and we even had amendments to make it better.
You talked about timelines and about working on this. Do we have our own timeline to have our ducks in order to be ahead of the curve? In other words, will we be ready to go with everything that’s accessible properly with the way that we broadcast and the way that we function in the Senate of Canada?
Ms. Burgess: The most recent timeline that I’m aware of has been shifted to the right considerably in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are expecting the regulations to be enacted no earlier than next summer, the summer of 2021, which means our accessibility plan will need to be in place one year after that, so probably summer of 2022 at the earliest. Mathieu can speak to some of the work he has been leading in terms of our readiness for coming into force.
Senator Munson: I have one other question. I guess the office of the accessibility commissioner hasn’t been formed yet. Is there a person in that capacity right now? And if there is, would we invite that person to go over our plan? I think Mathieu wanted to say something to the previous question. I’m not sure.
Are we inviting the accessibility commissioner, if or when he or she is appointed, if not already, to go over our plan?
Mathieu Beauregard, Manager, Applications Development and Systems Integration, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you for the question. At this point, senator, the working group is conducting a comprehensive inventory of all of our products, services, procedures and policies, and we’re identifying potential barriers with all directorates. Once the regulations are published from Accessibility Standards Canada, we will be in a better position to evaluate the impact on the Senate and to prepare a project timeline identifying the costs and the effort. At this point, I’m sure we can also reach out to external entities to validate or verify our plan.
The Chair: I see no other question. Thank you, Anne and Mathieu, for the update.
Honourable senators, we’re now into Other Matters. You will note that a report from the Subcommittee on Diversity was included in your package for future consideration at the next meeting of CIBA. Senator Jaffer is chair of the Subcommittee on Diversity and wanted to make a few brief remarks.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, chair, for your support.
Senators, the members of the Diversity Subcommittee are Senators Tannas, Dawson and Dean, and Senator Seidman is the deputy chair. We have been working on unconscious bias training for some time and in the new year, we will brief you on this. In the meantime, members of our subcommittee will be working with their groups to further inform the groups as to what this unconscious bias training will be. Obviously, this training will not be mandatory.
I don’t want to take any more time at the moment, but you will receive more information from your group members who are part of the Diversity Subcommittee as to what this training is about. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Colleagues, are there any other matters senators wish to raise under Other Matters?
Colleagues, as we near the end of the public meeting, I do have an announcement to make, and since this could be the last meeting of CIBA, I thought I should make it now. After nearly three years at the Senate, our Interim Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments, Mr. Richard Denis, has advised the Speaker that he will be retiring, effective December 31, 2020.
Richard came to the Senate in 2018 when many significant transformations were under way and have since been accomplished. During his tenure and through his collaborative leadership, we moved from Centre Block to the new Senate of Canada Building, and he oversaw the first-ever broadcast of a Senate sitting from this very building, bringing the Senate and its work closer to Canadians. Much more recently, as a result of the pandemic, there was the significant milestone of the first hybrid sitting.
These accomplishments are incredible legacies for Richard, but so many of Richard’s other achievements aren’t well known and that is, in part, because of who he is. With his quiet and humble style, Richard has always been the first to encourage and promote the contributions of others, offering positive support to those who enable the work of the Senate while working incredibly hard himself behind the scenes.
On behalf of this committee and our colleagues throughout the Senate, I want to publicly thank you, Richard, for your service and leadership in the Senate, and I want to wish you and your family the very best in your retirement.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Richard Denis, Interim Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments, Senate of Canada: Thank you very much, senators.
The Chair: I also want to take this opportunity to thank the other two clerks, Pascale Legault, the clerk of CIBA, and Philippe Hallée, the Law Clerk. I also want to thank all the staff, interpreters, ISD support, communication, broadcasting, the CIBA Secretariat and senators’ staff for their support of CIBA this past year, especially in managing the virtual and hybrid sittings. Thank you to all of you; you made it all possible.
With that, colleagues, we will take a brief break before continuing this meeting in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)