THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 15, 2017
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8 a.m. pursuant to rule 12-7(1) for consideration of financial and administrative matters; and to prepare amendments to the Senate Administrative Rules to provide all groups (caucuses) of senators with funding for a secretariat and research projects, regardless of whether the caucuses are organized with or without political affiliations.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good morning, colleagues. I’d like to just point out that we have some pinch hitters here today. We have with us Senator Dawson who’s replacing Senator Munson. We have Senator White, whom I know had an eventful day yesterday, but we thank him for being here today replacing Senator Marshall. Senator Ataullahjan is here for Senator Plett, and we have, of course, a guest who has been making frequent appearances with us, Senator Joyal, who is going to be later on in the agenda.
Good morning, everyone. We will go right to item 1, which is the adoption of minutes of proceedings of June 8, 2017, the public portion. If there are no questions, it’s moved by Senator Jaffer. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. We’ll go right into item 2, and, of course, that’s going to lead to item 3, so update from the Audit Subcommittee, and I’ll turn it right over to Senator Smith.
Senator Smith: Thank you very much, chair.
Honourable senators, as chair of your Audit Subcommittee, I am pleased to briefly update you on the activities of the subcommittee. We have two of our representatives here who will go into discussing and presenting the heritage element of the presentation, Brigitte and Tamara.
[Translation]
Thank you for being here today.
[English]
Your subcommittee recently met with the external auditor to discuss the audit planning report for the year March 31, 2017, specifically the planned scope and timing of the audit of the financial statements.
[Translation]
During the 2016-2017 fiscal year, the activities of the Senate remained relatively stable, and the most important change was the changeover of the remuneration system to Phoenix. Because of the problems with Phoenix that have been widely reported in the media, an external auditor came to conduct some additional validation monitoring of the amounts paid to employees by the Senate in order to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the payroll.
[English]
In other words, there have been big issues with the Phoenix system, and some of our employees have had to suffer through the process, including one of my own, a young lady, a graduate from the University of Ottawa. The HR department has done a great job, but this young person went without for three months and she was embarrassed to ask for help, which I found to be quite amazing, but the HR group under Luc’s leadership did a nice job of getting it cleaned up. If you multiply that by hundreds of people, that could be problematic.
Similarly, in the context of the Public Accounts of the Government of Canada, the Office of the Auditor General is performing numerous substantive procedures related to the payroll expenses processed by Phoenix in 2016-17.
Your subcommittee has requested that our own external auditor support the work to be performed by the OAG related to their examination of payments made to a sample of employees at the Senate, so they’ll do a test case in some sampling. KPMG has agreed to perform the required specific audit procedures and will report its findings to the management and then to the OAG.
In terms of additional audit-related work, given the conversion effective April 1, 2017, of the Senate’s legacy accounting financial system to the Unit4 Business World ERP application, your subcommittee has approved an audit of the financial reporting application conversion and related general IT controls.
[Translation]
Finally, you will remember that in October 2016, during discussions with the Audit Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, at the conclusion of the audit of the 2016 financial statements, senators had expressed the wish that KPMG conduct some additional audit procedures in order to verify the existence, accuracy and comprehensiveness of heritage assets registered in the PastPerfect system and declared in the financial statements, and that the firm conduct an audit of internal monitoring procedures, processes and practices which support the management of the collection.
The subcommittee examined the KPMG proposal relating to the audit of the Senate’s heritage asset collection as of March 31, 2017, and requested comments from management.
[English]
The most significant heritage assets are located in the Centre Block and are used on a day-to-day basis. When the Senate temporarily relocates in 2018, the heritage assets located in Centre Block will need to be relocated or stored.
Just as an aside, a group of us went over to see the building the other day, and I would encourage all senators when you have a chance, if you haven’t, go to the next one because it’s unbelievable the acceleration of the project. It’s really taking shape.
The Senate heritage asset collection is managed by the Heritage Collection Management Program within the property and services directorate. A heritage strategy for decanting of the Centre Block has already been approved by the Senate subcommittee on the LTVP and detailed planning has begun. The program has inventoried the heritage assets held in the collection in their PastPerfect collection management software, including detailed information such as description, location, condition, heritage value rating and other measures.
After considering comments from management as well as KPMG, your subcommittee is satisfied that an audit of the heritage asset collection is not as useful an expenditure of funds at this time; rather, it will be postponed and reconsidered after the move to the temporary location at the GCC.
[Translation]
That said, given the great interest in the heritage asset collection shown by senators, the subcommittee asked managers of the Heritage Collection Management Program to appear this morning in order to give us an overview of the collection and the program, and to answer senators’ questions.
With the permission of the chair, I would now invite Brigitte Desjardins and her colleague Tamara Dolan to take the floor.
Brigitte Desjardins, Director, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you, Senator Smith. Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable senators.
[English]
Thank you for allowing Tamara and me to appear before you in order to give you an overview of the Senate’s heritage program. It has been a busy few years for my team, and I can tell you we are extremely proud of this initiative and what we have accomplished to date, as it deals with the stewardship of our Canadian treasures.
Without further ado, Tamara will be doing the presentation, as she is the Project Coordinator of the Heritage and Curatorial Services. She is also what I call our curator.
Over to you, Tamara.
Tamara Dolan, Project Coordinator, Heritage and Curatorial Services, Senate of Canada: Thank you and good morning.
Today, I’ll be going through the presentation called “An Overview of the Senate’s Heritage Program” so you can follow along as I’m speaking. I want to give an overview of the management of the Senate’s heritage collection, discuss the collection during the LTVP and our plans for moving forward.
I’ll flip to the first page, which is the timeline.
Prior to 2012, the Senate did not have a formal program for managing the heritage collection; the historic furniture and artwork was managed along with all the regular assets. In late 2012, Public Works identified the safe removal of artwork and artifacts from Centre Block as one of the enabling projects for the long-term vision and plan, the LTVP, to ensure that Centre Block can be closed on time and rehabilitated within the timeline.
After Public Works identified this, we realized that we did not have all the information we needed on the heritage collection to prudently manage it and plan for the heritage collection during the LTVP, so we initiated a project to gather all this information and register it in the museum-grade database PastPerfect so we could plan for the collection.
The information we were looking to get included information on the condition of objects, research into the history and the dimensions.
We’re currently focused on the LTVP and preparing the collection to move from Centre Block for interim locations, such as storage in the Government Conference Centre. After the move-out, we want to start to shift our focus to the more day-to-day programmatic requirements to ensure that we can set the collection up for success going forward and that the Senate has the proper resourcing and funding to manage this collection of Canadian treasures.
This next page represents the different groups within the heritage collection by location. We have objects in the museum rooms in East Block, pieces in storage, pieces in senators’ offices, in committee rooms and in the chamber.
While the objects represented by the green, the purple and the light blue — senators’ offices, corridors and public spaces — might appear like a small piece of the pie chart, they represent the largest resourcing impact because these are the objects that move the most frequently and therefore require the most attention.
One thing to note is that the Senate does not have a monetary evaluation of the heritage collection. The objects in the collection are considered part of Canada’s material heritage and part of our national identity. If an object is lost or damaged, we can recreate it, but you cannot recreate that connection to Canada’s past. Because of that intangible aspect of the significance of objects, creating a monetary evaluation for objects, not just at the Senate but at museums in general, becomes quite difficult. Additionally, the appraisal value of objects is really based on what they can get at an auction. It fluctuates with time and doesn’t really capture the significance of the object to the Senate and to Canada at large.
The collection is distributed across the parliamentary precinct and also at our storage facility at 45 Boulevard Sacré-Coeur, just across the river in Gatineau. The most significant pieces are really in the Centre Block. Those are anticipated to move with the Senate to the Government Conference Centre in the summer of 2018.
The majority of the objects in East Block are actually located in the museum rooms. So these rooms were created in the 1980s by Public Works as public engagement spaces for the library to bring tourists to and educate the public. While there are some objects of historic significance that date back to the time period those rooms are recreating, a lot of the objects were purchased in the 1980s from antique shops and different locations to recreate that feel. While they help stage the room, they don’t have a connection to the Senate or Parliament, and other pieces were created by trades at that time to outfit the spaces.
So we really view these spaces as a little bit different, because they’re more staging spaces and areas for public engagement.
The next slide looks at some of the risks. We are always trying to find opportunities to protect the Senate’s heritage collection and reduce the risk of damage. The Senate’s heritage collection, especially the heritage furniture, was really designed to be used by senators, and we want to continue that use because it creates that linkage back into Canada’s past. But as they’re used, it increases the risk of damage, so we have to create that balance of increasing the use and also protecting our heritage collection.
Items in offices, the chamber, committee rooms and anywhere on the public tour route do tend to have the greatest risk of damage. We try to implement specific conservation procedures to protect those objects, because we are aware of this risk. For example, during the summer recess, we started hiring heritage carpenters every year to treat the surface of the desks in the chamber, because we know they are used very regularly throughout the year.
Also, we’re working with the Government Conference Centre’s architects to really integrate the display of artwork into the Government Conference Centre so that it’s more of a proactive approach to displaying artwork rather than doing so after the building is built in the hopes that will reduce other risks to the display of artwork. Then we want to bring the same train of thought back to Centre Block when we return here.
Objects in storage or the museum rooms and the Speaker’s dishes in storage don’t move frequently, so the risk of damage is considerably lower for these objects.
From now until the end of 2018, we’re focused on the move-out of Centre Block and the move to the Government Conference Centre and other interim Senate locations. This is anticipated to be our focus until about the end of 2018 in support of Public Works’ timelines. After that, and once the Senate has really settled into the new locations, we plan on shifting our focus to the long-term programmatic requirements of Senate’s heritage collection. We want to have an assessment of the policy, governance and resourcing requirements to really set the Senate up for success in the management of the collection and ensure that these Canadian treasures are preserved going forward.
I want to thank everyone for giving me the time to discuss the Senate’s heritage collection and bring attention to the management of the collection and the collection in general. Please let me know if you have any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Tamara. I want to point out that, on sheer percentage, our biggest valuable asset is our dishes and cutlery.
Ms. Dolan: They take up the biggest percentage, yes.
Senator Tannas: My first question is around the dishes and cutlery in storage — never moved.
Is it all one set or are there different pieces from different eras and so on? Do we ever display them or could we build a display of dishes, if that’s what we’re going to do? Any thought to having a garage sale for the rest of it?
The Chair: What you want to say is an auction.
Senator Tannas: Having a high-class auction or selling them a piece at a time in the gift shop to people that might really appreciate it and want a piece of history? Is there something we can do other than store them away?
Ms. Dolan: No. This is definitely something we have given a great deal of thought. What happened is when different Speakers purchased new dish sets over time, some of them would break and if it wasn’t a complete set, they would be sent to storage. It’s a mix of objects. There is a very small selection displayed in two display cases in the Speaker’s corridor, but the exact questions that you’re asking are things that we have thought about.
There are different options. For instance, the Americans in the White House do have a display of their dish set. Other organizations like the House of Commons, they keep a sample of everything and then dispose of the rest in different means. A museum might be interested in displaying part of them in their collection. There are different options we’ve looked into.
Going forward, those are exactly the options we want to explore because we want to increase public access to them and having them in storage doesn’t do that.
Senator Tannas: That’s wonderful. Just one quick question. You’re working for the transition over to the GCC, and maybe a nice dish display, et cetera, over there, all the existing displays that are moving over, where they’re going to go, you are coordinating and consulting with Senators Bovey, Joyal and Frum?
Ms. Dolan: Yes. We met with them a month ago, and we discussed our proposed strategy for the GCC. Based on that meeting, we have adjusted with their comments and will continue to do so.
Senator Tannas: Wonderful.
The Chair: When the old Speaker was the new Speaker, he didn’t buy any new dishes.
Senator Batters: I wanted you to speak more about the value issue, because I’m on the Audit Subcommittee, and that is one of the things we wanted you to come and speak to this committee about so people would understand that the vast majority of things, as we just received an inkling about dishes and books used to stage, those are not high-value monetary assets just so our committee members have the comfort of knowing that how we’re handling these things is in accordance with the value they’re assigned.
Ms. Dolan: Yes, exactly like you said. With the museum rooms, they’re staging items. What we also want to do is make sure when we’re focusing our resources and the Senate’s funds to manage the collection, we’re focusing on the high-value objects.
Often when people see 6,000 items, it’s a large number, and that’s why we wanted to have the pie charts to break down percentage-wise what these 6,000 items are, and that having such a large collection of dish items increases the number, even if perhaps not each individual one is as valuable to the Senate.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Downe: We’re down in the weeds here talking about china cups. I read this and assumed these were gifts the Speakers received, but you’re telling us every Speaker has an option to buy a set of china.
Ms. Dolan: In the past Speakers have purchased ones as required is my understanding. So if a set was no longer in use in because they had broken over time, then a new one was procured.
Senator Downe: Given the assets we have, why don’t we tell the new Speakers when they come in go and pick from what’s available?
Ms. Dolan: Unfortunately, the ones that are available aren’t complete sets, because they’re the leftover pieces from time.
The Chair: We are in public and have to be on the record, so, Michel, maybe you can clarify the dishes issues.
Michel Patrice, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and Chief Parliamentary Precinct Services Officer, Senate of Canada: In terms of the dishes, it’s not the choice of the Speaker to buy new dishes, when we have a new Speaker. A few years ago — and I don’t remember the date exactly — the Senate approved the Senate emblem that now represents the Senate. The old dishes used to have the government crest. What happened is when the Senate approved the Senate emblem, like a letterhead and so on, there was a change in terms of the paraphernalia and the dishes displaying the Senate emblem. That’s why there was a purchase of the new set of dishes. It’s not a new Speaker saying, “I’m going to get a new set of dishes.” As you understand, the Senate and the Speaker, in terms of his role in parliamentary diplomacy, have to entertain the odd reception on behalf of the country.
The Chair: Some of those are worn out because they’re very old. We’re hoarders, I guess.
Mr. Patrice: And we tend to keep everything. So for those who have visited our warehouse, we have pieces of furniture that are broken, because maybe we’re going to reuse them, so we have a tendency of keeping everything.
The Chair: I can assure everyone in the Canadian spirit that previous Speakers, including the current Speaker, are quite frugal with the budget.
Senator Joyal: Who has the authority to sign on behalf of the Senate when you loan an artwork or art object? In the Speaker’s office, there is the table on which the Queen and the Prime Minister and the others signed the Constitution Act, 1982. I know this table has been loaned to the Museum of History to be permanently displayed in the historical wing of the museum. Who has the authority to sign? And who has the authority to sign the borrowing contract?
I know that in the Speaker’s sitting room, there are two statues of John A. Macdonald and George Étienne Cartier that were loaned by the Canadian Museum of History. Is it the Speaker who signs on behalf of the Senate for any loan that the Senate might be requested to loan to other institutions in Canada? That’s my first question.
Do you have a conservation or restoration program that is spread over a five- or eight-year period so you can manage to maintain the good condition of the works of art? Some of them, after a period of time, need restoration. What is the correlative budget in relation to that?
Finally, in the East Block there is also the Privy Council room that you have not mentioned, which is in, in my opinion — I might be wrong — a room where the furniture is original because it pertains to what was there at the end of the 19th century, contrary to the Macdonald and George Étienne Cartier room, which has been refurnished to create the ambiance of the period. I was under the impression that the Privy Council room was furnished with the original furniture of the Privy Council, which, in my opinion, makes them very valuable, considering that the Centre Block burned down in 1916 and almost everything disappeared at that time except the mace that, as you know, was saved from the fire.
Could you comment on those three points?
Ms. Dolan: Yes. I’ll start with your first question, and I’ll ask Michel Patrice to jump in, as required, because we work with the Law Clerk’s office when it comes to loan agreements.
Typically there are two loan agreements we end up using. For items that are on display, for instance, in this room, most of the artwork is on loan from the NCC, in which case we’ll work with the Law Clerk’s office and also the lawyers for the NCC to review the loan agreement. Then it’s typically from our procurement side that has the signing authority for those.
Now, with loans to and from the Speaker’s office, it tends to reside within the Speaker’s office that the signing authority is, and I will have Michel Patrice please correct me.
Mr. Patrice: It’s specific to what we call the Constitution table, because that’s where it was signed. Effectively, the table is under the control of the Speaker, so the Speaker entered into an agreement to loan it, not permanently but on a temporary basis, and actually in the spirit of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Confederation. So there’s been a temporary loan to the museum so that it could be on display for the Canadian public. I believe the term is two years.
In terms of the other loans and the contracting authority, as per policy, we have a person who has, within the Senate, contracting authority. Obviously, depending on the value and the nature of the loan because those loans are often with no cost to the Senate, for example, with the NCC or whatever the candidate, the appropriate authority, depending on the value, if there’s a cost to the Senate, could go to steering, depending on the value. Most of our loans are at no cost. So we have loans with the NCC, the Canada Fund, the War Museum. The paintings in the chamber that we have are not Senate property. They are on a long-term contract. I think we have had them since the 1920s.
Senator Joyal: But, for the works of art that belong to the Senate, who signs on behalf of the Senate in that context?
Mr. Patrice: We rarely loan out the works of art. The works of art that we have, for example, are the Speakers’ portraits, the donations and gifts that we have received. Like I said, we rarely loan. The only one, to my knowledge, that we have loaned outside was the famous Constitution table.
The Chair: I think the senator’s question is who signs when we do loan them out? Who signs off on loaning them out?
Senator Joyal: If you are ever requested to loan something that belongs to the Senate, who would sign?
Mr. Patrice: The actual signing person is the —
Nicole Proulx, Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and Chief Corporate Services Officer, Senate of Canada: The contracting authority, as delegated by the committee, goes to Procurement., so it would be in Procurement.
Mr. Patrice: The head of Procurement.
Ms. Proulx: Yes, and there’s consultation with the Law Clerk.
The Chair: So, for my own clarity, the decision would be taken by the Speaker’s office or steering of Internal?
Mr. Patrice: In terms of the Constitution table, since the table was under his control and possession, it was taken by the Speaker.
The Chair: And in terms of other art?
Mr. Patrice: The signatory to that agreement would have been our contracting officer, as per policy, so it’s the head of Procurement.
Senator Joyal: When the Speaker borrows something from, for instance, the Museum of History, such as, as I mentioned, the two statues that are in the sitting room, it would have been him that would have signed the borrowing contract?
Mr. Patrice: The actual signing person would not have been the Speaker. It would have been the contracting authority, under the direction of the Speaker.
Ms. Dolan: For your next question, in terms of the conservation program, the way we approach it is that we have two streams. We have a stream for the furniture and then also the artwork and the artifacts. We try to go out on about a five-year basis. We have the pieces that we plan to do, and then we have certain funds set aside for emergencies, essentially, if something is damaged unexpectedly.
So we do have, right now, about a five-year plan, and then, at the end of the fiscal year, we sit down and reevaluate the next year and make sure that it’s still on target with our overall plan. Then, throughout the year, we adjust accordingly.
Senator Joyal: What is the budget?
Ms. Dolan: We have two standing offers, one for furniture and one for artwork. They are each worth about 30,000 per year. So 30,000 for art and 30,000 for furniture.
Senator Joyal: The Privy Council room in the East Block?
Ms. Desjardins: May I add something first, senator, with regard to the conservation budget? Because the Centre Block happens to be a forced move — we are being forced out of the building — I’m currently negotiating with Public Works. That’s an item that Michel and I are tackling this summer, to obtain funding from the department to conserve certain items that have a price. We’re looking at about $100,000 a year budget to be able to spend.
For us, it represents an opportunity. Otherwise, if we were not being forced to move out of the building, we wouldn’t have to do some conservation work.
This is another stream that we are really going toward because it has occurred. There is a precedent. It occurred with the Library of Parliament when the rehabilitation occurred there. This is one that is forthcoming.
Senator Joyal: When you say “department,” you mean Public Works?
Ms. Desjardins: Public Works, that’s correct.
Ms. Dolan: In regard to the Privy Council, we consider the Privy Council room part of the museum rooms. It’s actually a combination of original pieces and replicas. With the chairs themselves, some are original, but we actually have archival materials that say that, as more members were added to the Privy Council, they had to make more chairs. It was already kind of ongoing.
The table itself is actually a replica that I believe was built by Public Works’ trades because the original table in there was given to Saskatchewan when it became a province.
The configuration of the Privy Council has changed over time, so Public Works decided to date it back to a specific period. But there was a round table in there at one point, and, at that point, the original rectangular table was given to Saskatchewan and is still there.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Thank you, my question has already been answered.
[English]
The Chair: If there are no more questions to Senator Smith or Ms. Desjardins or Ms. Dolan, I will thank them for their presentation.
Item 4, changes to the Senate Administrative Rules, caucuses. We have documentation, of course, which was distributed a while ago. People had an opportunity to review.
You have the floor, Michel.
Mr. Patrice: A document was distributed, I understand, to all of you. I did receive some comments on the draft document. The purpose of the document was essentially pursuant to the order of reference that the committee received from the Senate, which was, essentially, to effect that change necessary, what I’ll call consequential change to the Rules report, where the definition of groups and caucuses had been modified.
I’ve produced a table. Obviously, there are four columns to that table because one series of changes represents changes to the current SARs, as they are in effect now. The other two columns represent changes to the proposed SARs, which is before the Senate, by a report of the committee, the twelfth report of the committee, which is to, if adopted, come into effect on November 1.
What I did is basically reviewed the Rules report in terms of the intended purpose of the change and translated the change into the SARs so that it flowed through.
I’ve looked at all provisions that, for example, dealt with caucuses and also in terms of leadership. Where no change was required, I’ve put the provision and said, “No change required.”
The first major change was, essentially, the change to the definition of “caucuses,” which is the first one in terms of the definition, which now relates to the Rules of the Senate.
Previously, the way that the Rules of the Senate and the Senate Administrative Rules were structured was a bit circular in terms of caucus and recognized party and so on. Now, the way it has been done, it is going to be able to evolve together. Now caucuses, as you see, represent what is a recognized party or a parliamentary group as defined in the SARs.
The same in terms of the house officers. It now reflects the evolution of the Senate, and in terms of the changes that were made to the Rules of the Senate, which is a definition that encompasses basically the makeup of what the Senate is looking at now. The rest are essentially, I would suggest, consequential changes in the SARs.
The other thing that these Rules do is to enable Internal Economy, in terms of the Main Estimates process, to allocate funding to the various groups. As you remember, the Senate had to pass a motion, notwithstanding the Senate Administrative Rules, to allow the allocation of funds to the ISG.
I think I will leave it at that. There are some changes to the table that were previously distributed, based on comments received. In the French there was a change made to the definition of agent supérieur du Sénat. It used to say le président à titre provisoire. It’s different than what you received. It’s now le président intérimaire. That reflects the language used in the Senate Rules. It was an oversight in terms of the table that was distributed.
I received comments from the various groups, and in particular, this week I received comments coming from the Independent Senate Liberals that were conveyed to me by Senator Cordy. In the English version, there were grammatical corrections in terms of “becomes vacant and reverts,” on page 2, so basically removal of two Ss. Then in terms of interpretation service on page 5, it used to say, “Upon request, a caucus shall be provided with an interpretation services at its meetings. ”
We removed “upon request” and recognized that by default interpretation will be provided and recognizing that we function in a bilingual environment and it’s a right.
I’m pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Batters: Thanks very much. Because the particular draft that we’re looking at here doesn’t specifically set it out, it just talks about the Rules of the Senate, I’m looking at the definition of “caucus,” which talks about the distinction between those who are members of a recognized party and those who are members of a recognized parliamentary group. It was at the Rules Committee and then, of course, it went through to the chamber. I’m wondering if you could outline for the record that actual definition.
My contention has always been that there is a big distinction between those who are listed as recognized as a political caucus. There are very distinct, major differences for that, specific things that need to be adhered to, and then for parliamentary group it’s more wide open, it simply says for parliamentary purposes.
Mr. Patrice: I will read the definition on the record in terms of the Rules and what the Senate has adopted:
Recognized party or recognized parliamentary group
A recognized party in the Senate is composed of at least nine senators who are members of the same political party, which is registered under the Canada Elections Act, or has been registered under the Act within the past 15 years. A recognized parliamentary group in the Senate is one to which at least nine senators belong and which is formed for parliamentary purposes.
So there’s a change in terms of the existing rule. It used to be that a recognized party was composed of five members, 12 members is in the other place.
So there’s a change in that respect. And also the concept, as you said, of parliamentary group, which is no longer linked to a political party that has been registered under the election Act.
Then the definition goes on:
A senator may belong to either one recognized party or one recognized parliamentary group.
Senator Batters: There isn’t any further definition of parliamentary purposes for that parliamentary group, correct?
Mr. Patrice: There’s no definition provided in the Rules. Each recognized party or recognized group has a leader or facilitator in the Senate.
Senator Batters: I also had a question about the chapter 5:2, house officer. It refers to, in both the new section, so this is page 11 of 16 of our materials, how these amounts for additional office allowances would be an amount set by Finance. That’s what it says in the existing version as well.
I’m wondering, what does that mean? Is there a specific definition about that? What does that mean, “finance rule”?
Mr. Patrice: Finance rule is basically the Internal Economy’s power to set that amount. That’s a finance rule. That’s set by Internal Economy.
Senator Batters: Not Senate finance administration?
Mr. Patrice: No.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I would like to make sure that I understand the change being made here, in chapter 1:03, regarding the definition of a caucus as a recognized political party or a recognized parliamentary group as defined in the SARs. That definition is used for interpretation purposes whenever the word “caucus” appears in the SARs, in chapters 4:03 and 5:02. That is why we don’t have to repeat it in each section of the Senate Administrative Rules.
Mr. Patrice: Exactly.
[English]
Senator Joyal: I’m not trying to finesse legally, Mr. Chair, but when we use the words “for parliamentary purposes,” does it have any bearing on the expenses that a senator might incur in the performance of his or her duty as a senator, as has been interpreted by Justice Binnie in the arbitration that he had to go into to come to terms with the disputes that we had with the Auditor General?
Mr. Patrice: It’s an incorporation by reference. “For parliamentary purposes” appears in the Rules of the Senate. I would suggest that it’s a bit outside of the scope of this committee.
I would suggest that it doesn’t change the other provision in the SARs, which deals with the use of Senate resources for Senate purposes.
So parliamentary function is defined in all of that. It would not change other than the change, the proposed changes, made to the new Senate Administrative Rules, which does provide further clarification in terms of what constitutes Senate business and parliamentary function.
Senator Joyal: Again, Mr. Chair, you understand the implication of this. I know it might not be the object of the discussion this morning, but since I’m not as familiar with the Internal Economy Committee, I think we have to make sure that if we are to have some kind of an audit committee that the terms are very clear and consistent all through the Rules, and all through the other rules that apply, so that we have the same understanding. And so that there is no uncertainty on the interpretation of expenses and avoid any kind of dispute over what is admissible, what is not admissible. Is it within parliamentary purpose or not? I think this is, to me, key to maintaining trust, transparency, stability and all that we have been looking to achieve in the revision of our practices.
Mr. Patrice: I would suggest that what we’ll call the new report and the lessons learned, in terms of his report and his excellent exposure in terms of the role of the senator, has been included in the proposed Senate Administrative Rules under the concept of the role of a senator, which then encompasses and it was inspired, frankly, with the Speaker’s inquiry on the role of a senator in terms of the various activities that the senator is engaged in, in addition to his role as legislator. That’s concluded now in the proposed SARs that are before the Senate.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I think that the report of the Auditor General was released when there were no recognized parliamentary groups as defined in the Rules of the Senate. So, I think it is important that it be a political party, that it be people who adhere to a political party or a recognized parliamentary group. The problem with our rules is that they did not necessarily define the role of senator very clearly, whether a senator belonged to a group or not.
In that sense, and because we are talking about external audits, and because the Senate seems to be heading toward a system of external audits, I think that one of the mistakes we need to avoid is to yield the power of doing audits when the Senate has not yet clearly defined the criteria and scope of the role of senators, not only in their role as legislators, but also in their representation role.
If we want to avoid repeating past mistakes, we have to ensure that the roles are clear, including the definition of public engagements. This was discussed at the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. There is no criterion or clear rule that defines the nature of a public or official engagement. So it is up to us to define the scope of our work more clearly, so that if auditors come to do audits because we have asked them to or because external audit teams have been created, they will at least have a minimal framework on which to base their auditing decisions.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, if there are no further questions on this issue, I suspect we’re in agreement with the changes and that can I deposit this report to the chamber at some point, probably today.
Colleagues, I do remind everybody that this information has been distributed well in advance to all leadership, so I suspect that it has been presented to their respective caucuses.
Senator Cordy: Just for confirmation, I know you said, when you were speaking, that you’ve made the change that every caucus is entitled and not upon request. In the copy that I have, it says upon request.
Mr. Patrice: That’s right.
The Chair: Can I have somebody move the motion that we adopt the report, and I can table it? Senator Cordy, seconded by Senator Dupuis. Thank you, colleagues.
[Translation]
Thank you, Michel.
[English]
Thank you, Suzie.
We will now go to item 5, colleagues, the thirteenth report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets.
Senator Tannas: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the thirteenth report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, which includes recommended allocations for three committee budgets.
Before reviewing each budget request, I wanted to provide some context. The total funds available for all of 2017-18 is $2.382 million, of which we hold back $500,000 for committee witness expenses. This leaves $1.882 million for release for individual committee budgets. Thus far this year, the subcommittee has recommended, and you have approved, $704,552 for release for committee activities.
Last April, we advised the committee that the subcommittee had asked all committees to present budgets for travel expected to take place before the end of June.
At that time, the subcommittee approved nine budget requests that included funds for committee travel.
We are pleased to report that of these nine requests, six committees have now completed their travel. One committee has completed part of its travel plans and two committees have postponed their planned travel until the fall.
The subcommittee met earlier this week to consider the three budgets and presentations: Two for committees with travel plans in the early fall and one committee for a communications event, for a total aggregate budget request of $185,770.
We met with the Chair of the Official Languages Committee, who presented a budget application which contained proposed expenditures of $67,400 for one activity: fact-finding and public hearings in the Province of Prince Edward Island.
This is in relation to their study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act and this budget application included funds for 12 senators to travel.
Based on the information provided, we recommend the release of funds for activity 1 in the amount of $67,400.
We also met with the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, who presented a budget application which contained proposed expenditures of $115,770 for one activity: a fact-finding and public hearings trip to Halifax and Montreal.
This is in relation to their study on the effects of climate change in the agri-food, agriculture and forestry sections. The budget application includes funds for 15 senators to travel.
Based on the information provided, we recommend the release of funds for activity 1 for this committee in the amount of $115,770.
We also met with the Chair of the Aboriginal Peoples Committee, who presented a budget application which contained proposed expenditures of $2,600 for general expenses in order to allow the committee to host an event called Indigenize Youth.
This budget was a follow-up to an emergency funds request that was received a few weeks earlier to pay for some expenses related to this communications event, such as hospitality, meals, honorariums for some of the supervising adults and performers, transportation and some other miscellaneous costs. The event took place on June 7, 2017, and was, by all accounts, a success.
Based on the information provided, we recommend the release of funds for general expenses in the amount of $2,600.
Colleagues, the subcommittee is therefore, today, recommending the release of $185,770 of the $1.882 million set aside for committee expenses. This would bring, in aggregate, all of our total recommended releases to $890,232 so far this fiscal year.
I’m happy to answer any questions that you have, colleagues.
Senator Batters: Thanks very much, Senator Tannas. I was just wondering about that Agriculture Committee trip. They’re going to Halifax and Montreal to look at the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors. I’m wondering if you happen to know, or maybe I should just check with the Agriculture Committee people, if they’re going to any other locations for that study, or is that it for that particular study?
Senator Tannas: Good question. They do plan to travel across the country in a series of trips. We asked them about what happens in Halifax and what happens in Montreal for an agriculture meeting. They picked those two places because they’re central to a lot of farming, so they can have producers that can actually come and testify. They said that their committee hearing dance card is actually already quite full with requests from producers and producer groups to come and make presentation around this.
In one of the communities, I can’t remember which one, they’re actually going to do a site visit to a farm, as well, to actually see some of the equipment, technology and so on that’s being utilized specifically around adjusting to climate change.
Senator Batters: If anyone from agriculture is paying attention to this, I hope they take the opportunity to go to Saskatchewan because there’s some great research being done showing how the agriculture and forestry industries are actually carbon sinks.
Senator Tannas: Exactly. They are intending to go right across the country in a series of trips. It’s a long-term study over the next year or so.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
The Chair: Let’s not forget, colleagues, there’s a lot more to Montreal than just the metropolis. It’s just a short drive away from a lot of vibrant agricultural industry right around the north and south shores of Montreal.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: With your permission, Mr. Chair, we should include the very rich agricultural lands of Mirabel that were expropriated by the federal government.
Do I understand that the second recommendation in the report of the subcommittee concerns Agriculture and Forestry in English, and Fisheries and Oceans in French? Is that the translation?
Mr. Patrice: That is an error.
Senator Dupuis: So which committee is travelling?
[English]
Which one is travelling?
Senator Tannas: It’s agriculture, senator. Sorry about that.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: My question, to understand the report, is that in the case of Agriculture and Forestry, 15 senators will be travelling. I expect that that is a total of 15 senators for each hearing.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Yes, the budget is for 15 senators. We queried the chair of all of the committees as to how many they had confirmed. We asked for budgets that were realistic. In the past, we always budgeted for the full committee to go and half would go. We have allocated money that could have been spent and could have been used elsewhere.
In this case, we heard from each chair how many people are going. They were all very close to the number they had actually budgeted. In the case of Agriculture, if I remember, 12 have confirmed but they want to keep it budgeted at 15 because the other three might decide to go.
The Chair: Colleagues, if there are no further questions on this, Senator Tannas, maybe you can move a motion.
Senator Tannas: I will. I will move the motion to accept the thirteenth report.
The Chair: All in favour, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
Item 6 is membership of the advisory working group on the review of human resources. We had a discussion about expanding the group.
Senator Tannas: Yes. I have been asked to work with Senators McCoy and McPhedran to help fill out the committee for a study this fall with respect to harassment policies. Senator McPhedran and I have not yet met, but we will, and we’d like to bring a more fulsome report next Thursday.
The Chair: And maybe you can reconfirm: I understand Deloitte has been engaged in the audit or review of the HR department and that’s going forward.
Senator Tannas: It is under way. The kickoff meeting with Deloitte is actually today.
The Chair: Very good.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I would have a question regarding additional work on an eventual harassment policy. I understand that the proposals that will be made will come back to us and that we will have the opportunity of speaking on them.
The Chair: As usual, yes.
[English]
Item 6 will be deferred until further consultation to make additions to the committee.
Item 7, Canada one-hundred and fiftieth medals — update from Senators Wells and Joyal.
Senator Wells: As I begin, I’d like to also note that Senators Unger and Bovey were part of our working group, and they worked diligently on this.
Our most recent meeting was yesterday, where we went through a number of items. But I want to state that last week, we attended the Royal Canadian Mint for the ceremonial first striking of the medal. Many of you might have seen the video that was on the Senate social media sites. It was very interesting. We met the CEO or the president fo the Mint and her senior team, and they were all very excited about this project. We were very impressed with the work that went into the design and the striking of the medals.
We’re passing around a sample that’s been generated, with the presentation box, for all senators to view. Please feel free to take it out and feel the weight, heft and quality of the medal. A sample of this medal will be available for viewing in the Speaker’s office throughout today.
On the timeline, colleagues, we’re preparing the nomination form and procedure to submit nominations. That will be available to senators by June 30. It will up to individual senators to determine how they will receive —
The Chair: Colleagues, order. Let’s show the courtesy of listening to Senator Wells’ presentation, please. I appreciate your excitement, but let’s try to limit the excitement.
Senator Wells: It will be up to individual senators to determine how they will receive and vet nominations.
Senators will need to ensure that the person being nominated will be able to accept the medal prior to submitting the nomination form.
We’ve met a number of times with our Communications Directorate. They will be providing a news release template for senators to use. The Senate website will have a medal registry on its homepage.
Colleagues, I’m now going to pass it over to Senator Joyal to fill out the rest of the information we’ve prepared for you in this update.
Senator Joyal: You will receive an email before the end of the month asking senators who have been expressing acceptance of the one-hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Senate medal the right scripture of their names. On the medals, you will see the name of each senator will appear. We want to know before the end of the month how you want it to be spelled. If there is an initial before your name and your family name — that sort of thing — we want to have that in the bank so we could proceed with the scripture of the medal as soon as possible for senators.
Senators will have two months to come forward with the name of the recipients they want to propose. As Senator Wells has mentioned, we have prepared a form that you will receive before the Senate adjourns so that people could have it during the two months of summer break so they can go around and identify within their respective communities and provinces which candidate they want to identify and provide for.
That will leave two months for us to have the names inscribed on the medals. That is from September 1 to the end of October.
We are planning a ceremony of handling of the medal by the Speaker to the senators on November 7, which is the anniversary date of the first sitting day of the Senate in 1867. At the end of the day, we will ask after the Orders of the Day will be completed in the Senate chamber that the Senate would suspend temporarily to allow the Speaker to hand medals to each senator who expressed their wish to accept the medal. There will be a photographer, and as we did for the Golden Jubilee Medal, each senator will have a photograph souvenir.
Besides that, there is a certificate. This is it. There is also a certificate that accompanies the medal, which could be framed, that testifies to the institutional medal. It’s not a senator’s medal; it’s the Senate of Canada one-hundred and fiftieth anniversary as an institution. So dispel the perception that the senators are giving themselves a medal. Our institution is celebrating its one-hundred fiftieth anniversary of existence. That’s the essence of the medal, and that’s why you see, on the one face, the interior of the chamber and, on the other face, you have the coat of arms of the Senate and the anniversary date.
After the handling in the Senate chamber, senators will be provided with all their medals to distribute. The following week, which is the week of November 12, the Senate is adjourned, as you know, for our usual fall break. So senators will have 10 days to go around and distribute their medals in that week because we’re not sitting. Any of you is free to plan any public ceremony with town councils, volunteer groups, community organizations or whatnot to provide for the distribution of the medals.
As you know, the medals are personalized. It’s important to know that when you’re handing the medal, you are giving something personal to the individual who has been selected.
With that critical path of deadline, we would be able to meet our target. I should say the proof is that, within only two months, we’ve been able to come forward with the medal from the Royal Mint. It is extraordinary for the Royal Mint to have done that in such a short period of time with the quality of the medal, which the top quality that they have been doing. In fact, Senator Wells, the Speaker, me the other member of the team, Senator Unger, were there last week, and we could compare the quality of that medal with the other medals that the Royal Mint has been minting in the last years. It is among the best the mint has been issuing.
There is a lot of interest in the other chamber in relation to that medal. MPs, of course, might want to suggest names to you of persons who, in their opinion, should be considered for their volunteer work and the contributions they have made.
There are criteria, of course, that we have developed to identify the recipient. I have them here. I could quickly go through them: to be a Canadian citizen; have made a meaningful contribution, which may include volunteer work, to their community, region, province or territory; and not be a spouse of a sitting senator or member of the House of Commons; not a sitting member of the House of Commons or provincial or territorial legislature; not being an elected member of a municipal body constituted under the various provincial and territorial acts pertaining thereto; not a sitting member of a federal, provincial or territorial bench, or the military courts as constituted under the National Defence Act, or a sitting member of provincial, federal or territorial tribunal.
In other words, we want really for senators to identify people at the grassroots level, not people who already have the Order of Canada or all other medals. We want to go down on the floor, as I usually say to Senator Wells —the hockey mom who takes the kids on Saturday mornings or people who volunteer at seniors’ homes to create a living condition that is better.
It’s for that level of people. We are not looking for star celebrities in provinces. It’s not people who collect medals who are really the candidate for this. It is really people who are humble in their way to contribute and not seek recognition at all. It’s really that level of recipient we’re aiming at.
I want to thank Senator Wells for his dedication to that initiative. So far, we have received only positive comments.
For your own information, there are 56 senators who have expressed a wish to receive a medal that will be personalized to them, and there are 76 senators who want to distribute the medals. That’s where we are at.
We have canvassed everybody. Everybody was invited to determine their position in relation to the medal, and we’re happy with that.
Senator Tannas: I wonder if it would make sense to have an Ottawa ceremony for recipients who want to come to Ottawa. I’m spending a lot of time inviting people to Ottawa for tours, because this building is closing for a decade and this the last chance for folks.
Is there any thought to recipients having an Ottawa ceremony? I know the logistics of that might be something else if all recipients decided to come, but on the other hand, it would be nice if all recipients wanted to come.
Senator Wells: That is a good question, Senator Tannas, and I thank you for it. I would leave it up to the individual senator to set up their own ceremonies as to where they would like to do it. If you would like to do it at or near the Senate Chamber, if that were permitted, with a photographer there. There has been no contemplation of a group ceremony, but that doesn’t preclude you from working with other senators who might wish to do that.
Senator Downe: I didn’t hear your comments about the participation. It was 56 --
Senator Joyal: Fifty-eight senators have expressed the wish to receive a personal medal that will be handed to them. When I say “personal,” it’s a medal with the name of the senator on it in a ceremony that will be taking place in the Senate chamber.
There are 76 senators who have expressed the wish to receive the allotment for them to distribute the medal.
Senator Downe: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Wells, and you said Senator Bovey worked hard on this project. It’s a great initiative, recognizing the accomplishments of Canadians on this most important anniversary. There is nothing more important this year than celebrating the anniversary of our nation. I thank you senators for your service on this project.
Colleagues, item 8. If I can ask Luc Presseau and Angela Vanikiotis to come before us. Never mind. Sorry, Luc and Angela. I said I would be making the presentation myself.
Last meeting, I mentioned we would be sitting down and streamlining the rules with regard to the official languages training program that is offered to senators and their staff. We’ve sent the document around to everybody for your perusal. We’ve made it a little bit clearer, a little bit simpler to understand and simpler for the administration to apply.
There hasn’t been any change in regard to senators and their spouses. They have unlimited training, of course, when it comes to developing their use of the second language. That will be coming out of central funding.
The only real change we’ve added is that when it comes to staff training and what’s available to them, it will be — for example, when they want immersion, they can qualify for two weeks of training in a period of every three years. As per the recommendation of Senator Plett, there would have to be some kind of approval given by a professional trainer who has already given them training — or they’ve taken courses already with the courses that are provided in Ottawa, which could be provided by the House of Commons or various other private agencies like Algonquin College or the University of Ottawa. All those services will still be available.
Another change we made: Since we made the rules clearer and simpler to understand for the administration, every time there is a request for official languages training, it won’t have to come to steering. Given the fact that these rules are clear, the administration would be able to apply them without having to go through an approval process.
I don’t know if there are any questions, colleagues. I think the document is even simpler than how I’ve explained it, I believe. If we’re all okay with it, I would ask somebody to move a motion to approve this document. Thank you, Senator Tannas.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Great. Done.
Are there any other items, colleagues? If there aren’t any other items, I suggest maybe there is less of a need to go in camera. I see there is only the adoption of the minutes. Unless there are any other outstanding issues that deserve in-camera attention, I can ask us to deal with this issue in public and finish up the meeting, unless someone disagrees with it.
Senator Batters: If we go in camera, though, doesn’t that keep your minutes in camera?
The Chair: Not necessarily, no. If there are specific questions, I’ll go in camera. If there aren’t any specific questions, we can just adopt it.
Senator Tkachuk: I move the adoption.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Tkachuk. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
(The committee adjourned.)