Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 5 - Evidence - October 6, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 6, 2016
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, pursuant to rule 12-7(1) of the Rules of the Senate, met this day at 9:05 a.m. for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good morning, colleagues. I want to make sure everybody is in high gear.
I'd like to welcome Senator Doyle back to the committee. I see today he's replacing Senator Batters, a formal member of Internal Economy, but welcome back, Senator Doyle. Senator Cowan is back. He liked it so much last week that he's back this week.
Senator Cowan: I think I'm Senator Jaffer today.
The Chair: You're welcome even when she comes back, senator. Senator Ataullahjan is here for Senator Lang.
We will get right to item 1, which is the adoption of minutes of proceedings for the meeting of September 29, 2016.
Has everyone had an opportunity to review the minutes? If there are no questions, maybe I can have somebody move a motion.
Senator Marshall: I have a question. It occurred to me last week when we were talking about the fifth report — that big report that Senator Tannas tabled — did we agree we are going to put that on the Senate website? Is that on the Senate website?
The Chair: Yes, it is. Right?
Senator Marshall: Where is it on the Senate website? Is it under the reports?
The Chair: Under reports, yes.
Senator Marshall: It is? I was looking this morning. I'll take another look.
The Chair: I believe I even saw it.
Are there any other questions? If there are no further questions, the minutes were moved by Senator Campbell, seconded by Senator Marshall.
Item 2 is the sixth report of the Subcommittee on Budgets.
Senator Tannas: Honourable senators, I have the honour of presenting the sixth report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, which includes a recommended new allocation for one committee budget and two recommendations to adjust the authorized use within an existing budget.
First off, the subcommittee met this week with the chair and deputy chair of the Social Affairs Committee whose budget application contained the proposed expenditure of $7,000 for the purposes of hiring a graphic designer. This is in relation to their study on dementia in our society.
We have reviewed the committee's communications plan and discussed their established process for the production and presentation of their reports in the past. Based on the information provided, the subcommittee recommends the release of funds for this expenditure.
Second, the subcommittee considered a request from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to include a communications officer in place of a cancelled participant on their trips this fall to Western Canada, Toronto and Montreal. After reviewing the committee's communications plan, your subcommittee recommends that this request be approved, provided that the expenses are within the budget amount previously approved by this committee at our meeting on Thursday, March 24, 2016.
And then finally, the subcommittee considered a request from the Transport and Communications Committee to include a communications officer in the place of a cancelled participant on their trips this fall to Western Canada and Eastern Canada. After reviewing their plans, your subcommittee recommends that this request be approved, provided that the expenses are within the budget amount previously approved by this committee on Thursday, April 14 of this year.
Unless there are further questions, colleagues, I recommend the adoption of this report.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Tannas. I noticed on two of these that it's an inclusion of a communications officer in place of a cancelled participant. What do you think would be the committee's view if the communications officer were to be put in at the beginning rather than seeing the opportunity for risk-managed money on a cancelled participant inclusion?
Senator Tannas: We would be open to that. I don't think there's anything that prevents that. In both of these cases, that wasn't their original plan. As you know, the communications department's reputation continues to grow. People are seeing terrific value, and we're hearing those reports back. These two committees wanted to include somebody. They assured us there was money within the budget because they had cancelled participants, so that made it easier for us to understand.
Senator Mitchell: I want to second the sentiment and reinforce — over the last several days, I was getting a little concerned with events that suggested that people are kind of forgetting the context within which the new communications initiative was forged. It was because we needed to communicate, and it's very useful to communicate in the regions, because they're looking for press.
The Transport Committee was in my city of Edmonton and Tony Spaers from the communications group was there and did an excellent job. We had TV, press and other media. It was very good, and I think it should be a priority, not an afterthought.
Senator Tannas: I would say additionally that I think some of the earlier budgets and plans included communications plans where even the communications department wasn't necessarily thinking that they should go. But we're seeing more and more that, with the amount of activity they're generating, they need somebody on the ground. It's a natural evolution, and everybody appears to be on side.
Senator Mitchell: Excellent.
Senator Marshall: So the communications officer — this would be one of our own employees, right?
Senator Tannas: That's correct.
Senator Marshall: We're not contracting?
Senator Tannas: No.
Senator Cordy: The subcommittee feels very strongly about the importance of communications for all committees and subcommittees that do any travel. When you come to present before the subcommittee, you must come with a communications plan. That's part of our evaluation in whether we determine whether you are able to travel for committee work, so indeed we feel very strongly about it.
In these cases, they were plans that came before the subcommittee early and then when they thought longer about it, they determined that while they had a communications plan, they hadn't allowed for a communications person to travel with them. But when they saw the excellent results of having a communications person travel with other committees, and I look at the North as a prime example and the committee that looked at the Legal Committee that did travel across the country, and other committees, I just happened to think of those. They came back and said in retrospect could they please have a communications person with them, because the subcommittee feels very strongly about that.
The Chair: I'm totally in favour of this, but obviously I also want to point out — and I'm sure the subcommittee is cognizant of this — I don't want this to become a natural process. If committees find instances where they don't think it's necessary to have somebody on the ground, but yet you can devise a communications strategy that can be implemented by the clerk or can be implemented by the analyst without incurring the actual extra cost, I'm sure that Senator Tannas and Senator Cordy are aware of that.
I don't want it to become a reflex where someone is automatically added to the box as an additional staffer travelling. There has to be a reason for the person to be on the ground.
Very often in today's era of email, iPads, Skype, and all the rest, you can communicate quite effectively from a distance. The strategy is the most essential part. The actual body being in Edmonton, Winnipeg or Newfoundland has to be determined on a case-by-case basis going forward, right?
Senator Tannas: I agree. Like everything, someday the pendulum will go too far and we'll be there. But in the meantime, what we're seeing and hearing from the communications people is good advice and stepping up to assume a valuable role at the right time. But it will be incumbent on the oversight body of communications to watch that, and we'll be watching that as well.
The Chair: Could I have somebody move the motion for the sixth report? Moved by Senator Wells, seconded by senator Cowan. So I assume everyone's in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Item 3 is a 360 review of the executive committee. In our ongoing process of streamlining the administration and reviewing our administration and trying to continue to exceed our level of excellence, steering thought that it would be a good idea — it's never been done before — but to commission a 360 review of the executive management team, which is our Clerk of the Parliaments, Charles Robert; our Legal Clerk, Michel Patrice; and our Corporate Clerk, Nicole Proulx.
The idea here is to reach out to Boyden, the head-hunting firm we have worked with over the last while. When we went out there, we looked at hiring our CFO and hiring a new Director of Communication. It's a firm we've used and are quite happy with. They've recently done a 360 on our Director of Communications and our CFO. We thought it would be a valuable exercise in terms of self-reflection on the part of our management team.
It's also an opportunity, given the fact now we're in our second year of this new management system, to have an executive committee rather than one person at the top of the pyramid. I'm looking for a confirmation from the Internal Economy Committee that this is a good idea and that we would proceed with this.
Are there questions?
Senator Tannas: Thanks, chair. I would just speak in favour. Having been the subject of and participated in 360 reviews, they are a gift that your colleagues give you that are helpful in self-improvement and self-awareness. All of those things are important if you're going to be a good, functioning leader.
While it can be an uncomfortable process, it's one that is well worth it, particularly the 360, where you're getting feedback from people that are at the same level as you, people that report to you and people that you report to.
From all those different areas comes terrific value, so good luck.
The Chair: Can I have a motion? Moved by Senator Cowan, seconded by Senator Tannas.
Item 4, list of subcommittees and advisory working groups. Senator Manning had asked for a list to be provided of all the current subcommittees and who is doing what, which is a good idea.
We have the Audit Subcommittee, which is chaired by Senator Smith, the deputy chair is Senator Campbell, and the third member is Senator Batters. One of the things among the regular activities is to look at the oversight committee and possible proposals and suggestions, and I understand a fair amount of work has been done on that, Senator Smith. I think in the next couple of weeks you will be bringing us a proposal?
Senator Smith: You bet.
The Chair: Another subcommittee is on Committee Budgets, of course, and that is chaired by Senator Tannas, with Senators Cordy and Campbell. They report to us on a regular basis.
We have the Subcommittee on Communications, which we hear so much about. That's chaired by myself, co- chaired by Senator Cordy, and we also have Senators Batters, Mitchell and Wells.
We have the Subcommittee on Long-term Vision and Planning, and that is chaired by Senator Tannas, the deputy chair is Senator Munson, and the members on that committee are Senator Manning and non-voting participants Senators Frum and Joyal.
We have the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates, which is chaired by Senator Wells, the deputy chair is Senator Jaffer, and Senators Campbell, Downe, Tkachuk and Tannas are the other members on that committee.
The sixth committee on the list is the Advisory Working Group on the Review of Human Resources, which we established a few months ago, chaired by Senator Tannas, the deputy chair is Senator Massicotte; with Senators Enverga, Campbell and Tkachuk. They're doing an ongoing review of the HR department. They also played a key role in hiring the new HR director.
Advisory group seven is the Advisory Working Group on Canada's One Hundred Fiftieth Anniversary, and that committee is chaired by Senator Joyal. It's not really a committee, to be honest with you, but Senator Seidman —
Senator Tkachuk: Senators Joyal, Joyal and Joyal.
The Chair: Well, I'll tell you, Senator Cordy and I had a full debriefing from him yesterday, and I can tell you he's done unbelievable work. He's so passionate about this, and he's done work that very few can do. He's prepared an excellent program, which we have asked him in December, right before we break or after the break, to give a full brief to this committee.
He has quite a package that he's put together in terms of this book on behalf of the Senate for the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. He's also preparing a two-day seminar which will be held in the Senate Chamber. I'm very proud of the fact that once we get to the spring of next year, when everyone will wake up and say oh, we're into Canada's one hundred fiftieth anniversary, people are going to be asking what's Parliament, what's the House of Commons, what's the Senate doing? Well, we have a project on the table for very limited amounts of money that will be significant and important. It will catch a lot of attention in terms of the media. Once we have briefed the communications department, they'll be excited to help roll it out and work on it over an extended period.
Senator Cordy and I were very impressed. His commitment is unbelievable in terms of time, energy and resources.
Advisory group eight, here, is an Advisory Working Group on the Corporate Credit Card, and that is made up of Senators Wells, Jaffer and Batters. I think at some point in time you'll be reporting back to us on the work that you're doing on that.
Senator Wells: That's right.
The Chair: And the last one is the Advisory Working Group on Review of Policies and Rules. That group is meeting, and has met over the summer. Again, steering has had a review of some of the fantastic work they did, and I know they're finalizing the last stages of it. If I'm not mistaken, on October 17 and 18 they're having a meeting to go through the very arduous process of reviewing our rules and policies. If all goes well, which I suspect it will, by the end of October we should be coming to this committee with the final package for review, perusal and, hopefully, approval. That will be a giant step in our overall process of reform, modernization and all the rest of it. But there's been a lot of input already from a number of senators, and I was quite impressed, as well, with the work they've done.
Those are the current subcommittees we have in place and steering has asked leadership and all the caucuses to get actively engaged in the next couple of weeks to get our committee on ethics activated again. For a number of reasons, the traction hasn't been there, and we know the ethics officer has been working on a number of cases on which we're waiting for some guidance as a Senate. I know a number of us feel that it's taken too long, both for the people who have been referred to the ethics officer, vis-à-vis their cases, and for the institution at large. I think we all share the opinion that we should be getting some guidance in a more timely fashion on these issues.
So that's it, in a nutshell, on the committees. Are there any questions?
Senator Wallace: I have another issue to raise, if I could, chair.
As you know, last week was my first week as a member of this committee. I was appointed at the end of June, but, of course, the session ended and so last week was the first opportunity I had to attend and see how things are conducted in these meetings. I want to clarify and understand how process occurs within this committee. As we know, this is a 15- person committee, and there's also the steering committee, which is a three-person committee that seems to exercise a lot of authority but which is effectively a subcommittee of the standing committee.
Yesterday, there was an article published that the Senate was beginning to seize Senator Duffy's salary and would continue to do that to recover some $16,000. Again, just to understand the process of how that decision was made, there are a couple of questions that I do have.
Obviously, the seizure of salary or sessional allowance is an extremely critical and important matter. I'm reminded of what I would say was the ill-advised decision that was made in November 2013 to suspend a number of senators and effectively terminate their salary for an extended period of time. We all, perhaps, have different opinions on the advisability of that decision, and the court certainly seemed to have a view of it. That decision was confirmed by a decision of the chamber — not of this committee or a subcommittee, but the chamber — and that effectively removed the affected senators' salaries for an extended period.
So with that in mind, here's my first question regarding this position we find ourselves in now that a decision has been made to seize Senator Duffy's salary to recover some $16,000 of expenses that he had claimed: Chair, was that decision to take that action one of the entire Internal Economy Committee, or was it a decision taken by the three- person steering committee, of which, of course, the majority — two of the three members — are of the same political caucus?
The Chair: First and foremost, the steering committee is an administrative body. It's not a body that takes decisions. Just to clarify, in your comments that it's a committee that has considerable power, I can assure you that Senator Cordy, myself and Senator Wells don't feel, by any means, to have any considerable power, other than the power that this committee gives us.
So first and foremost, I can assure you that we take no decisions, either in terms of fiscal spending or policy decisions, without consulting and getting guidance from this committee.
We feel we've gone the extra mile, since we've been given the opportunity to serve in these positions, to be as transparent as possible, not only with this committee, but with leadership of the Senate, both the Speaker and all Senate caucuses, including non-affiliated Senate caucuses.
Senator Duffy's expenses were brought to the attention of the finance department during the course of the court case, where there was a number of expense claims made that were not presented in the courtroom as they were initially presented and approved by finance. It was brought to this committee's attention that there were a number of those expenses, this committee determined what the next steps were and they gave us guidance in taking those next steps.
Furthermore, Internal Economy, over the last year and a half, has put into place — again, in the spirit of transparency and accountability — a process whereby we have an independent arbitrator. That was done as per the recommendations of the Auditor General even before his audit was completed, and recommendations of many bodies, vis-à-vis the management of this place, that senators should not be sitting in judgment of other senators' expenses.
So again, Internal Economy created this independent, arm's-length arbitration process in order to address that issue. Knowing full well, if you look at the Parliament of Canada Act, that Internal Economy has the full administrative authority of taking those decisions, we still decided to abrogate our authority in that regard and give that authority to the external arbitrator. Everyone who went through the dispute process with finance and the Auditor General were given the opportunity to go before Justice Binnie. A number of senators chose to do so, and a number of senators chose not to take part in that arbitration process. Again, Internal Economy made it clear that those who go before Justice Binnie will take his decision as firm and final, and we would accept and honour that.
Internal Economy also decided the reason for that process and that decision was that the findings of the Auditor General would be firm and final. We also came to the determination, in the recent while, in the case of Senator Duffy, that if he cannot come to a determination between himself, his office and finance on the legitimacy of those expenses, then he would also have, like every senator does, the opportunity to go before Justice Binnie. He chose not to take that route. As a result, again, I highlight that we were obligated, as per the decision of this committee, to garnish his salary over a period of time at a reasonable rate, since he decided not to go before Justice Binnie.
I've gone into all the details to give you a little bit of the historical background, as well, on how we've arrived at where we are. We've also given the subcommittee a mandate to look at an oversight body again, as per the recommendation of the Auditor General, which will come back to this committee for a final decision, as will the subcommittee that's done the review of rules and policies. And, on a regular basis, as you will find out as a member of this committee, we give a report of all decisions that steering takes, because there are periods of time where this committee will not meet because of the summer break, or extended periods during elections. So, I think even in the case of Senator Duffy's salary, we were in touch with members of this committee via email and gave periodic reports of decisions being taken.
Senator Wallace: Thank you for that. That's helpful, chair. Again, I'll just come back to my question: Which body made the decision to seize his salary? I have been a member of the committee since the end of June. Nobody sought my opinion as a member of this committee during the summer. Maybe I just missed an email. So, I come back to the same question: Which body made the decision to seize $16,000 of his salary? Was it steering, or was it this committee?
The Chair: Steering took the decision based on the guidance we got from this committee.
Senator Wallace: From all members of this committee?
The Chair: All members of this committee. There was an email sent to all senators. Was Senator Wallace on that email?
Senator Wallace: I'd certainly like to see that email.
Senator Tkachuk: Check your email.
The Chair: I will just verify if you were — when was he a member?
Senator Wallace: What was the date of that?
The Chair: I think the decision by this committee was even before then with regard to the fact that senators that don't go before Justice Binnie would have absolutely no other option. From the guidance we always had from this committee, it was clear that, if you're in a dispute with finance over expense claims, you have only one option. You go before the independent arbitrator, and, if you choose not to go before the independent arbitrator, then you forfeit your right.
In the past, the way it worked is that senators would come before this committee to plead their case, Senator Wallace.
Again, the point I'm trying to make is we took a decision as an administrative body of the Senate that we will no longer do that. And this was a decision of this body, that we would no longer take decisions on senators' finances. We don't think it's appropriate for the Senate as a whole, which has the right as well according to the Parliament Act.
The answer to your question is: It is this body that set the structure in place, and all the steering committee did is we executed the process that this body had given us as a process. The process was determined over the last 18 months, prior to your arrival in June, and all we've done is we've executed based on that. We will continue to do that going forward.
If any other senator has a dispute with finance and feels that they can't come to a resolution, they will be referred to Justice Binnie. If they choose not to go to Judge Binnie, then we will extract those expenses from their salaries. That's a decision of this body.
If I've misunderstood previous decisions from members, they can clarify it, Senator Wallace.
I think, colleagues, we are all on the same page on that.
Senator Wallace: Again, I'll take from your answer that the decision that was made, I gather over the summer, to seize his salary, was taken by the steering committee?
The Chair: No.
Senator Wallace: You may have talked to certain —
The Chair: Sorry, Senator Wallace, it was taken by Internal Economy, on the guidelines set by Internal Economy, and, the day the decision was taken, all members of this committee were informed in writing, including you. You were on that email.
Senator Wallace: I look forward to seeing that.
The Chair: It's in your email box. I have proof of it. We can resend it and clarify.
Senator Wallace: What's the date of it, chair?
The Chair: Furthermore, if I may also add, as the process unfolded, we also consulted all leadership in the Senate, including Senator McCoy, Senator Harder, the Speaker, Senator Carignan, in addition to this body taking the decision. I by no means accept the premise of your point.
This body certainly took the decision. Furthermore, as steering, we took the extra step of consulting caucuses and leadership of all caucuses, including nonaffiliated caucus leadership.
Senator Wallace: My comment — don't misunderstand it — is for me to understand what did occur. I've heard what you've said, and I certainly will review all of my emails since the time that I became a member of this committee.
But you referred to the dispute resolution process, and, in that process, in section 4(1), it provides that, if a senator has not reimbursed after being requested to do so and doesn't opt for the arbitration, the independent arbitration, then steering committee would submit a written report to this committee recommending to the committee what actions should be taken.
I'm wondering, did that occur? Did the steering committee — it's section 4(1), the dispute resolution.
The Chair: We had the CFO address all the details of the claims in question to this committee, in public, actually, if I'm not mistaken. If not in public, certainly before this committee.
Senator Wallace: I saw comments from the CFO, but I'm asking you what the steering committee has done. Did the steering committee comply with section 4(1) of the dispute resolution process? Did it submit a report to this committee? If so — and perhaps you did. I'm not suggesting you didn't. If you did, if the steering committee did, I would like to see a copy of that. I haven't seen that.
Senator, again, I realize that people can become defensive with these kinds of questions. I'm just trying to understand —
The Chair: Senator Wallace, no one is becoming defensive, and, as you can see, we're giving you a lot of time to address this issue and in the middle of an agenda. We're trying to explain to you, as clearly as possible, that we did this in the most transparent fashion. The decision was taken transparently, and there was unanimity by this committee. If you want to put it to the floor again so that we can validate that unanimity, we can do that if it would make you feel more comfortable.
I don't understand the premise of your concerns. At the end of the day, this committee was informed in detail of the dispute between Finance and Senator Duffy. We went that extra mile to inform leadership of the Senate, including the leadership in your caucus, Senator McCoy, who I understand represents your group of independent senators. So we reached out to leadership. Details of the dispute were brought to this committee by the CFO. We instructed the CFO to sit down with Senator Duffy because, as per previous decisions over the last year, this committee will not engage and take decisions and sit in judgment over senators' disputes. That's a decision we took. It's in the minutes; it's crystal clear.
Steering followed the guidance of this committee, so you can sit there and go through every little clause and wonder what report was brought here. At the end of the day, you can ask the members of this committee; we worked on a consensus basis here. We haven't had much conflict in the last two years, year and a half, on these questions. If you have a motion to put on the floor and question your colleagues in terms of whether they're comfortable with the structure they've put into place — this is the premise of your question, that somehow steering took decisions here unilaterally. I've put out, for public display, the whole process of how we've evolved over the last year and a half based on the guidance that I've been given by my colleagues here.
We've taken no decision unilaterally. That's the premise of your question. If you feel that the process we've used somehow was flawed, you can question, put it on the floor. We're open for a debate. And my colleagues, I'm sure, will engage you because they're the ones that gave me and the deputy chair the guidance.
Senator Wallace: Thank you, chair. I may well take you up on that when I have all of the information. Those are really the questions I'm putting to you this morning.
The Chair: I will be more than happy to instruct our Law Clerk and our Clerk of the Administration to provide you with all the information you wish to have. As a member of this committee and as a member of the Senate, you can approach them and ask them, including the CFO, for all the details.
If you'd like to have the whole dossier of all the expenses of Senator Duffy to personally review, the CFO will be more than happy to provide it to you as she has to other members.
Senator Wallace: Thank you. I would think, as member of the committee, I would have that right, but I thank you for reminding me of that.
The Chair: I'm just letting the public know you do have that right.
Senator Wallace: Chair, the point is that it's not what the administration has done. I want to be clear on the steps and the actions that have been taken by steering and this committee in relation to this matter. It's a very serious matter. The committee has dealt with it for some time. I haven't. I have my own opinion of a lot of this, as you well know, and I've written each of you about those matters and, in particular, about the powers and authorities of this committee and steering and that I believe they are in need of change. But that's for another day. But thank you for reminding me that I can bring a motion. When I have all of the information, I will. That's the purpose of my questions today and to get some comfort, to know that the dispute resolution process that this committee has put in place was followed in the case of the seizure of Senator Duffy's salary. As of this moment, I'm uncertain about that, but I'll wait to receive the information. Thank you.
The Chair: I appreciate your comments and look forward to your suggestions. You're still a member of this committee, a full-standing member of this committee, and your opinions are as valuable as any other member's.
Senator Wallace: I'm glad to hear I'm still a member of it. That's reassuring.
The Chair: That's it in terms of item 4. Is there a question?
Senator Mitchell: Just as a sort of corollary to that, last week I asked and participated as well in a brief discussion about the progress being made and the assessment of legal action against the retired senators, and I asked when we would expect a decision on the likelihood of winning from the lawyers that have been engaged. What's the likelihood of winning? What's the cost of that action? Is it worth it? I was given an answer that I pondered afterwards, which was that we don't know or can't be told. Why can't we be told when that would happen? I thought —
Senator Munson: I thought that was going to be part of the report that we were going to receive.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, we were going to receive a report from the lawyers. Isn't that what we were going to get? There was another law firm —
The Chair: Senator Mitchell, I wasn't following, if you wouldn't mind repeating.
Senator Mitchell: I remember explicitly asking "When could we anticipate the report from the lawyers giving us those answers to those questions and their judgment on them?'' I thought that Michel Patrice had said, "We can't say.'' I'm saying that they're working for us so why can't we give them a deadline to get it.
The Chair: Let's have Michel answer.
Michel Patrice, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and Chief Parliamentary Precinct Services Officer: I did not say "we can't.'' I said "we didn't know,'' because they were gathering the information — the lawyer and counsel — so I could not commit to a timeline because there are other elements in play that I have no control over. So I don't know when the report will be coming. What has been said is that as soon as the information is gathered and there's an assessment, it will be coming.
In relation to the cost, I did not know the cost. That question was asked by Senator Downe. It's because we have not been billed yet by the law firm. I talked to the law firm on the subject of the billing, and right now it's below $10,000. I've been assured of that in terms of the cost.
Senator Mitchell: For what they've done so far?
Mr. Patrice: For what they've done so far. It's not a question that I can't tell you but that I don't know the information. I cannot commit to a timeline because I'm not in control of the timeline.
Senator Mitchell: Not to belabour this too much, but they're working for you and for us. Why can't we get some idea?
Mr. Patrice: It's because they are trying to obtain information from third parties in terms of building their files.
Senator Tkachuk: Correct me if I'm speaking out of turn here, Michel, but I think you also said that because the retired senators who were advised probably by their own lawyers not to participate in the arbitration process because of the criminal investigation, once the criminal investigation was thrown out, which it was, they now can go to the arbitration process. I think that offer has been made that they can go to the arbitration process, which probably a few of them will take part in.
Mr. Patrice: Yes. The arbitration process is still available to them.
Senator Tkachuk: Right, it's still available to them.
The Chair: I will turn to Senator Wallace. I will remind all our colleagues, especially those replacing other colleagues, that in the last little while, Internal Economy has gone fully public, so choose your words carefully, please.
Senator Wallace: I always do.
Regarding the opinion that's going to be obtained from our legal advisers on each of the retired senators who haven't paid, it will deal with the estimated cost of those actions if they're commenced. But I want to be clear on this: Will those opinions also include their opinions on the strengths and chances of success for each of those actions?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: Obviously.
Senator Wallace: They will. I would assume, then, that each of the members of the committee would be able to receive a copy of that opinion when it's received.
Mr. Patrice: Of course.
Senator Manning: Just to be clear, part of the process is going to tell us the estimated cost of recovery of those funds? We will receive that?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Cowan: And my question was answered, chair.
The Chair: Are there any other questions in regard to this? Comments?
Seeing none, we'll move to the in-camera portion of the agenda.
(The committee continued in camera.)