THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, August 27, 2020
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met by video conference this day at 11:00 a.m. [ET] pursuant to rule 12-7(1), consideration of financial and administrative matters; and in camera pursuant to rule 12-7(1), consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Sabi Marwah (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. My name is Sabi Marwah, I am a senator from Ontario and I have the privilege to chair the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Today we will be conducting a virtual meeting that will start in public, and the second portion of the meeting will be in camera.
Before we begin, I would like to remind colleagues of the best practices to have a successful meeting. Please keep your microphone muted at all times unless recognized by name to speak.
Interpretation in this video conference will work very much like in a regular committee meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either English, French or no translation. It is important that members speak in the language that they have chosen to listen to. If you make an intervention in English, you must select the English channel, and vice versa for French. As you are speaking, if you plan to alternate from one language to another, you will also need to switch the interpretation channel so it aligns with the language you are speaking.
Should members want to request the floor, please use the raise-hand feature. Should any technical challenges arise in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair, and the technical team will work to resolve the issue.
I would now like to introduce the senators who are participating in this meeting: Senator Pierre Dalphond, Quebec; Senator Tony Dean, Ontario; Senator Percy Downe, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; Senator Éric Forest, Gulf, Quebec; Senator Josée Forest-Niesing, Ontario; Senator Renée Dupuis, The Laurentides, Quebec; Senator Raymonde Gagné, Manitoba; Senator Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia. Senator Elizabeth Marshall will be on the line any minute; I hope she will join us shortly. We also have Senator Yonah Martin, British Columbia; Senator Marilou McPhedran, Manitoba; Senator Lucie Moncion, Ontario; Senator Jim Munson, Ontario; Senator Don Plett, Manitoba; Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec; Senator Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec; and Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Welcome to all those viewing these proceedings across the country.
Honourable senators, the first item on the agenda is the public minutes from July 23, 2020, which is in your package. Are there any questions or changes?
Moving on to Item 2, I thought it might be more efficient to do a roll call on Items 1 and 2 so we can have one roll call rather than two to save time. Is that okay, senators?
The next item is the adoption of the minutes from the proceedings of August 13, 2020. A copy of these changes is also in your package. Senator Dean moves the motion that both the minutes of proceedings of July 23 and August 13 be adopted.
Honourable senators, in order to determine if this motion is adopted, the clerk will proceed with a roll call vote. I would ask senators to unmute their microphones when their name is called.
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer, Clerk of the Committee, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, I will call names beginning with the chair and then going in alphabetical order. Senators should indicate if they vote for, against or abstain. As simultaneous interpretation will be suspended during the vote, I will conduct the vote in both official languages.
The Honourable Senator Marwah?
Senator Marwah: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Mr. Chair, we have 16 in favour.
The Chair: Next we have Item 3, which concerns an audit that was done by Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton on Senate expenses. Joseph Carpinone, Partner and Vice President, and Shayna Miller, Director, for RCGT Consulting will now join the meeting by video conference to answer any questions from senators.
I believe Senator Downe, chair of the Subcommittee on Audit, has some opening remarks.
Senator Downe: Colleagues, at the July 23 meeting, your Subcommittee on Audit tabled the first report on the conclusions of an independent external audit of Senate expenses, excluding salaries, for the fiscal year 2018-19. The objective of the audit was to ensure that expenses complied with policies and procedures, including procurement activities, and that the controls and processes in place are appropriate. This external audit of expenses is in addition to the regular ongoing annual audit of the Senate’s financial statement. It adds an additional layer of scrutiny and focuses exclusively on verifying expenses and related procurement activities for senators and the Senate Administration.
Due to time constraints at our July meeting, we agreed to postpone the auditor’s testimony on the report and, as the chair indicated, they are here today.
Chair, I would recommend that we start with an opening statement from the auditors before turning to questions from senators on the report.
The Chair: Welcome, Mr. Carpinone and Ms. Miller. I’m glad to have you on with us. If you would like to begin with some comments, then we’ll open it up for questions.
Joseph Carpinone, Partner and Vice President, RCGT Consulting Inc.: Thank you. Good morning and thank you for inviting us to present our report. On behalf of RCGT Consulting, we want to extend our gratitude to Pierre, Nathalie and their team for supporting us throughout the entire audit process. I will structure a brief presentation as follows: First, I will introduce the overall audit objectives and scope. I will then provide a summary of our audit approach for the senator expense testing that will include our observations and recommendations. I will follow with a summary of our approach to the Senate Administration expenses testing that will include observations and recommendations. Finally, I will provide our overall audit conclusion.
At the end of the presentation, we would be happy to address any questions the committee may have.
The audit consisted of the review of senator and Senate Administration expenses, excluding salary, with the objectives to validate that expenses incurred by senators and Senate Administration were supported by the required documentation; based on the details included in the documentation, were made in accordance with established policies, procedures and procurement activities; controls and practices were applied in the processing, recording and payment of the expenses as per Senate design processes. The scope of the audit included all expenses incurred between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019.
I will now focus on the senator expense portion of the audit. The audit tested compliance of the expenses with the following policies: Senators’ Office Management Policy, Senators’ Office Management Policy funding rates and Senate Procurement Policy.
To conduct the audit, samples of senator expenses were selected. Proportional samples were selected based on expense categories included in the Senate’s chart of accounts. Based on our sampling methodology, 202 expense transactions were sampled for audit testing purposes. The audit testing phase occurred between November 4, 2019, and November 15, 2019. A sample was deemed non-compliant if one or more policy requirements could not be validated through the documentation within the system of record and the supplementary information provided.
During our testing, we observed good practices resulting in a high rate of compliance. In particular, the Senate has recently implemented the Unit4 system, which has strengthened controls related to workflows, approvals and document retention to demonstrate compliance with policy requirements. It was also found that senators submitted expense claims within 60 calendar days from the purchase date of goods or services, last day of travel, last day of an event or notification of successful completion. Our testing noted one exception, whereby an expense claim was not signed by the senator who submitted the claim.
We have also noted a recommendation for consideration in the area of information management. We recommend that as the Senate continues the transition to the new system of records, Unit4 and e-claims, that it makes greater use of the document storage functionalities instead of paper files or saving documents to the network, to ensure that the system of records contain all required documentation.
I will now shift to the Senate Administration portion of the audit. The audit tested compliance of expenses with the following policies: Senate Administration policy on extended hospitality, petty cash policy, policy on travel and the Senate Procurement Policy.
To conduct the audit, samples of the Senate Administration expenses were selected. Based on our sampling methodology, 85 expense transactions were sampled for audit testing purposes. Our testing noted that all transactions sampled were compliant with applicable policies.
While it was found that all transactions sampled complied with Senate policies, it was observed that for one transaction sampled, the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration approved a non-competitive procurement process for services exceeding $100,000 as well as the renewal of this contract. While this is compliant with the Senate Procurement Policy, it was noted that the annual value of the contract increased from the amount that it was initially approved by the committee. Within the Senate Procurement Policy, it was noted that end users must seek and obtain approval from the committee for major amendments of the terms and conditions of contracts previously approved by the committee prior to final changes being made on the contract. For the contract noted, the committee approval to increase the value of the annual contract amount could not be demonstrated by the Senate.
It is recommended that the Senate clarify the Senate Procurement Policy by establishing thresholds pertaining to the committee’s requirement to approve major amendments of terms and conditions of contracts; for example, dollar amounts of amendments.
To conclude, compliance testing results indicated that expenses incurred by senators and the Senate administration were generally supported by the required documentation and remained in accordance with established policies and procedures, including procurement activities.
Additionally, controls and practices were applied in the processing, recording and payment of the expenses as per Senate design processes. However, opportunities for improvement were noted in the area of information management and procurement policy clarification. Senate management should continue enhancing information management practices by ensuring that all documentation support compliances maintained electronically in corporate systems.
Additionally, the Senate should clarify the Senate Procurement Policy by establishing thresholds pertaining to the committee’s requirement to approve major amendments to terms and conditions of contracts.
Thank you for your time today. I will turn it over to the committee and chair for any questions or comments you may have on this audit.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Carpinone. I see there’s one question from Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Yes, I have two questions. My first question relates to senators’ expenses and the total population of just over $7 million. Table 3 on page 8 states that the total sample expenses were $1.5 million, but when you get down to table 4, it shows to be $738,000. Could you please indicate to the committee why there are two different sample amounts disclosed?
Mr. Carpinone: Thank you, senator. When we sampled the population here, we selected line items from the general ledger, which was a system of record. Typically when we sample, we attempt to generate from a reliable system of record. So the general ledger had amounts that we then tested. In some cases, the sampled amounts were actually expenses that related to an entire credit card or Amex Bank statement. When this was the case, we selected a sub-sample from the Amex statement to obtain the necessary receipts and information needed. This will explain the delta between the amounts sampled and the amounts actually tested, which in turn reduce the materiality or the sample amount that was actually tested.
Senator Marshall: My second question relates to the contract that you referenced in your opening remarks, and that’s the contract for the $250,000 that was increased to $300,000. I think you indicated why it wasn’t considered non-compliant with policy. But when you look at the policy, it does reference that the contract should have gone back to the committee because the increase was $50,000; on a $250,000 contract, I would consider that to be a major amendment. Could you tell us why you didn’t consider that one a non-compliance with policy and elaborate on the procurement issue? Thank you.
Mr. Carpinone: Thank you for the question, senator. The nature of this audit was compliance. When we reviewed the policies and procedures that we assess, we like to evaluate the different languages and the different terminology in this.
When we looked at it, the term “major” was slightly subjective in nature and a bit difficult to assess compliance against a term such as “major.” “Major” can be interpreted in various different ways.
However, we did want to raise this as an observation and communicate to the committee that an amendment was actually conducted or put in place, but the term “major” did not allow us to make a judgment call or assessment on whether or not it was compliant or not. So our recommendation, in turn, is to determine whether or not this term can be further defined and a threshold could be established so that we can determine whether or not this was actually required to go back to the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I have a question about table 3, on page 9 of your report. I am trying to better understand your answer to the previous question from Senator Marshall about the sampling you used for senators’ expenses.
I see that the first item in table 3 deals with transportation and telecommunications. Do I understand correctly that 82.9 % of the expenses were sampled, meaning 118 samples? What proportion of the sampling includes expenses for transportation relative to expenses for telecommunications? In other words, there’s a completely different block for telecommunications here and another one for transportation. I would like to know the relative size of each of those areas.
In addition, according to table 3, the total is 202 samples. How many senators do those samples include?
[English]
Mr. Carpinone: Thank you for the question, senator. To answer your first question, to determine the difference between the transportation and the telecommunication sample size, I will need to get back to you as I don’t have that specific breakdown.
However, to answer your second question, our sampling methodology was such that we set parameters where we wanted to take a proportional sample of the expenses that were incurred. For instance, transportation and telecommunication, the total percentage of expenses was about 83.2%, so we wanted our sample to be very close to that 83.2%.
Once that proportional limit was set, we then ran a random sample generator that randomly selected expenses that related to certain senators. I believe the number derived from this was that there were 45 unique senators included in our random sample.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: This is more of a contextual question, as we are really in a first full-reporting year after many changes in the way that we’re trying to keep track. In your key messages, I’m noting that message 2 says testing results noted a 99.5% compliance rate for senator expenses and 100% compliance rate for Senate Administration expenses.
So my question is about the context or a comparison. When you conduct an audit like this of a major institution, how often do you end up with close to 100% compliance?
Mr. Carpinone: Senator, thank you for the question. It depends on the maturity of the organization, but the answer to your question is twofold. First, with more and more audits of expenses that I’m seeing, that I have experience with, there is a high rate of compliance or the compliance rates are increasing. However, 10 or 15 years back when I was doing audits, the compliance rate was much less, in my experience. So as the pendulum starts to increase, and the maturity of organizations and the scrutiny around expenses is heightened, the compliance rates are much higher that I’m seeing.
Senator McPhedran: I want to make sure I understand your answer. What I understand from what you’ve just said is that it actually happens quite often that you will conclude there’s 100% or, in our case, 99.5% for senator expenses that are compliant. That’s not unusual?
Mr. Carpinone: Correct. It really depends on the maturity of the organization as well. You are correct in your interpretation.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
The Chair: Senators, I see no other questions. One takeaway that I shall follow up on is the auditor’s comment that we should perhaps tighten up the rules on when things come back to steering when there’s an overage. I will take that as an action item and bring it forward to steering and tighten up the exceptions so that at least we have a tighter definition of when it should come back to steering for approval. I shall take that as an action item.
Thank you, Mr. Carpinone and Ms. Miller. We appreciate you coming.
Mr. Carpinone: Thank you.
The Chair: Senators, next is Item 4, which is the Fifth Report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.
Pursuant to section 1.6.2 of the Senators’ Office Management Policy, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure is required to report biannually on the exception requests it has received and their corresponding decisions. It is my honour to table the fifth report of the subcommittee, which outlines these exemption requests and corresponding decisions since February 6, 2020.
The report is before you for your information, but if there are any questions or comments, I would be glad to take them. I see no hands up.
We should move on to Item 5, which is the Sixth Report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. This report contains one point to be adopted by the committee and one point for information.
The first point is a recommendation from steering to make three modifications to the Senators’ Office Management Policy, or SOMP. All three of these modifications are based on previous decisions to provide clarity to SOMP. They’re not changes, just clarifications. The purpose of these modifications is to amend the formal policy to align more closely with the existing practices and provide increased clarity and transparency to senators and the public.
Pierre Lanctôt will join the meeting via video conference to assist in answering any questions. Mr. Lanctôt is the Senate’s Chief Financial Officer.
Are there any questions or comments on the first point regarding the changes to SOMP, senators?
Senator Tannas: I have no comments, but I will move the report.
The Chair: Let’s wait until the second part, Senator Tannas, and then we’ll go to the motion.
The second part of the report is to inform the committee that steering has decided, on division, to leverage the House of Commons’ contracts resulting from their request for proposal processes to procure the equipment required for virtual hybrid sittings of the Senate. This allows the Senate to save both time and money, while allowing for a more competitive process and consistency in IT equipment used by both houses.
On this, I’ll ask for comments or questions on point two.
Senator Tannas, you may move your motion now. I take it that you’re moving both items.
Senator Marshall: I wanted to indicate that Item 2 says it was agreed on division; I was the member of steering that did not agree with it because I had voted against the original proposal. I want to say that I do have concerns about whether we will be ready for virtual or hybrid sittings of the Senate. Again this morning I had trouble logging into the meeting, and I think that when we have 50 or 100 senators trying to get online, we’re going to have problems. I just wanted to explain why it was on division. Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Tannas moves that the Sixth Report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be adopted.
Senator Plett: Chair, I had my hand up as well.
The Chair: I’m sorry. Go ahead.
Senator Plett: I said earlier in the meeting, when Senator Marshall couldn’t get on, my frustrations with this, and I simply want to be on the record as well that I echo her comments. I do not think we are ready to have any virtual sittings, as we clearly are not even ready to have these meetings. I simply want to put that on the record.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett. It is duly noted.
Pascale, please proceed with the roll call vote.
Ms. Legault: Honourable senators, we will proceed in the same fashion as for the first vote.
The Honourable Senator Marwah?
Senator Marwah: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: I abstain.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Mr. Chair, we have 15 “yes,” zero “no” votes and one abstention.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Honourable senators, moving on to Item 6, the addition of a fourth member to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, otherwise known as steering.
At the last CIBA meeting, Senator Munson raised the concern that the Progressive Senate Group was not represented amongst the deputy chairs of CIBA. The motion adopted in the Senate on March 11, 2020, indicated that CIBA would have only two deputy chairs. An additional deputy chair can only be added by way of a motion in the Senate. However, CIBA can add an additional member to its steering with full voting rights if it so chooses. Included in your package is a motion to add an additional member to the steering committee.
Are there any questions or comments before a motion is put forward? If not, can I have a mover for the following motion:
That, further to the motion adopted by the committee on April 14, 2020, the membership of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be increased by one member; and
That the Honourable Senator Munson be the fourth member of the subcommittee.
Senator McPhedran: I so move.
The Chair: Honourable senators, again we shall have a roll call vote on this.
Ms. Legault: Honourable senators, we will proceed in the same fashion.
The Honourable Senator Marwah?
Senator Marwah: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Mr. Chair, we have 16 “yes” votes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. Senator Munson, you may regret this one, or saying yes to this one anyway.
Colleagues, next is Item 7, which is a motion to task the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates with reviewing the formulae for determining all caucuses/groups’ and house officers’ budgets with a view to establishing a fair and consistent approach to budget determination.
On February 27, 2020, when CIBA approved the budgets for the current fiscal year, the leaders of the various caucuses and groups asked CIBA to undertake a study of this issue. This motion provides the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates with a mandate to begin this important work. Are there any questions or comments before I read the motion?
I see no hands up, so can I have a mover for the following motion:
That, pursuant to the decision of the committee on Thursday, February 27, 2020, in relation to the allocation of caucus/groups and House Officers Budgets for 2020-21, the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates be authorized to review the formulae for determining all caucus/groups and House Officers Budgets with a view to establishing a fair and consistent approach to budget determination; and
That the subcommittee submit its recommendations to this committee no later than October 30, 2020.
Senator Tannas, I believe you’re going to move this motion.
Senator Tannas: I so move.
The Chair: Pascale, if you’ll do the roll call vote again, please.
Ms. Legault: Honourable senators, we will proceed in the same fashion.
The Honourable Senator Marwah?
Senator Marwah: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Mr. Chair, we have 16 “yes” votes.
The Chair: Colleagues, I declare the motion carried.
The next item is a motion concerning the distribution of CIBA documents. The purpose of this motion is to formalize the rules for the distribution of documents to senators and their staff. Before we read out the motion, are there any questions or comments?
Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the following individuals be authorized to receive committee documents:
Speaker of the Senate;
Leader of the Government;
Leader of the Opposition; and
Leaders of all recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups;
That, with the exception of documents classified as senator only, the following be authorized to receive committee documents:
Two staff members of each of the officers listed above; and
One staff member per member of the committee.
Senator Marshall, I believe you’re going to move this.
Senator Marshall: I so move.
The Chair: I see Senator Saint-Germain’s hand up. I’m not sure whether this is from an earlier motion.
Senator Saint-Germain: I’m sorry; I forgot to lower my hand. It’s from an earlier motion.
The Chair: My apologies; I should have recognized it earlier.
It is moved by Senator Marshall. Pascale, will you do a roll call vote again, please?
Ms. Legault: Honourable senators, we will proceed in the same fashion.
The Honourable Senator Marwah?
Senator Marwah: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Downe?
Senator Downe: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Mr. Chair, we have 16 yes votes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Senators, we move to Item 9, which is the last item of public business before we move in camera.
Senator Plett: I just want to flag something, if I could, Mr. Chair. We have, in the past, approved some fairly significant money matters during in-camera meetings. Looking at the agenda now, I’m not sure whether there are any coming up, but I think it is not proper for us to approve money matters at in-camera meetings. I think we have a responsibility to be open and transparent, and that the people across the country have the right to know how we approve any money matters.
So I guess, Mr. Chair, I want to at least serve notice that if there are those items coming up and if I oppose those items, that might largely be as a result of how we are doing it. I would like us to consider that if there are issues that deal with spending taxpayer dollars, even if we do discuss them in camera, that they get voted on in public.
Senator Marshall: Senator Plett stole my comments, or stole some of them. I’m referencing Items 13, 14, and 15, Mr. Chair, for the in-camera portion. I just wanted to say that in the Rules of the Senate it says that CIBA may meet in camera, but it says “may meet in camera for the purpose of discussing contracts,” which would be the procurement.
There are three procurement issues for the in camera, and I do think we should start discussing those issues publicly. I know there had been some concerns regarding including dollar amounts in our discussions. But I do think that we have to consider moving those items into the public portion of the meeting.
Senator McPhedran: I really just wanted to underscore the point. I think I heard this mentioned somewhat in passing by Senator Plett in his comments, but I wanted to reinforce the importance of being careful about the nature of our discussion where we are divulging information that would actually allow for an inflation of cost to the Senate.
If I heard correctly, I do support having as much discussion as possible on the content, minus amounts, if a discussion of amounts is going to create any unfair benefits for those who may be competing for the Senate services that are under discussion.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I just wanted to say that my comment is the same as Senator McPhedran’s. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Tannas: This is more for information. We did have a discussion at the steering committee on this issue. I think it has arisen as a result of us trying to do as much business as possible, as CIBA, in public. The issue is exactly as has been described. I think everybody agrees that we should be approving large budget expenditures in public. The issue is when we discuss the procurement process, the request for proposals, and that is when we hear from administration about what they estimate the cost would be. For that to get out would, in fact, impair our ability to have a competitive price-bidding process.
Unfortunately, under the Rules, we’re supposed to approve the actual project at the bidding stage before we’ve actually received the bids. So we’ve got an issue that we just simply need to change. We’ve asked administration to go back, review the steps and the rules, now that we have clearly a desire to approve the final purchase in public, and come back to the whole committee with a solution to this.
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes, I’ll try to be very diplomatic because I’m very frustrated with the hand-raising app. I’m raising it and it doesn’t work. I fully concur with Senator Plett. Those types of submissions and public tenders should be discussed in public. We sometimes have reservations or criteria for discussing further in camera, for instance when security issues are concerned. I also believe that sometimes the threshold of the contract has important information not to be given to eventual bidders to the contract because it may raise their proposals. But otherwise, I do believe we need to discuss in public those contracts that are paid for by taxpayers.
Is there a solution for us today to discuss it in public, and prolonging in the in-camera portion every comment or recommendation that is related to the threshold and the amount of each of these three contracts?
The Chair: Senators, I don’t see any further hands. From my perspective as chair, I’m very supportive of having as much of the discussion take place in public as we possibly can. My only concern is how we do so without compromising the integrity of the bidding process so we don’t inadvertently end up costing the Senate more money. I’m open to suggestions.
Senator Tannas suggested we set up a two-part process whereby we discuss everything in public and then a second portion in camera to deal with amounts, but that creates some complications. Or we have a two-step process where we approve it, then the administration comes back once they have a bid. There are some complications around that, so we left it that we would work with administration to come up with a better process so we could have as much done in public as we possibly could and have some sort of another process to discuss amounts.
As long as we don’t discuss the amounts, I’m very open to discussing this in public. For the remaining three contracts, 13, 14, 15, we could proceed to have those in public. I have no problem. But we should be careful not to discuss amounts in public and that we can go in camera to discuss the amounts. Are we agreeable to that? In which case, we can discuss Items 13, 14 and 15 in public. We just need to be careful not to disclose the amounts in public. You all know the amounts, you have your briefing notes, but we don’t discuss the amounts in public. Are we okay with that, senators, in which case we can proceed to Item 13?
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: At first, I had thought that, as Senator Tannas proposed, we could ask the steering committee to look after finding a solution with the administration so that, in the future, all these contracts are discussed partly in public and partly in camera. I was also wondering whether there is any objection to these three points on the agenda being postponed to another meeting, once the steering committee has found that solution.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, we have a choice. We can defer these items. I must admit the disability management system has been deferred for at least two meetings and it’s getting to the point that it is a bit urgent. I don’t know the urgency of the other two items. Pascale, what is the urgency of those?
Ms. Legault: As early as possible, senators, but if it’s in a week or two, we can probably wait if that’s the preference of the committee.
The Chair: I’m not sure when the next CIBA meeting is. It is assumed we will have one in the next few weeks. It might not happen. Is it okay if we deal with Items 13 and 14 in camera and come back with a revised solution for the large item for the standing offer for computer equipment? I think that’s the one causing the most angst for everyone, including myself. Why don’t we deal with 13 and 14 in camera and we’ll defer 15 until we have a better solution. Is that okay, senators?
Senator McPhedran: Can I just have some reassurance that if we defer 15, it will not in any way impact on the various processes under way to get us to the point where we can function as a Senate for our deliberations using technology?
The Chair: I would answer that, Senator McPhedran, by saying that if there is something that needs to be urgently approved, we will carry on as we always have, which is to do it on a piecemeal basis, so we will manage until such time as we have a better process.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
The Chair: We’ll go in camera to deal with 13 and 14, and defer Item 15.
Senator McPhedran: I’m sorry, Senator Marwah; I thought there was going to be some further discussion. I would very much like to be able to place on the public record, before you go in camera, the following statement. This is a statement I have made in public. It has been posted to my Facebook. It’s on the matter of my recusal with regard to the Meredith workplace harassment complaints in the Senate of Canada.
On August 14, 2020, following an in-camera meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, of which I am a member, I advised you, Senator Marwah, the chair of CIBA, that I was recusing myself from any further discussions at CIBA with respect to compensation for Senate employees who experienced harassment while working in the office of former Senator Don Meredith.
In keeping with my obligations as a parliamentarian and my commitment to transparency and accountability, balanced by honouring confidentiality protections, I have no further comment to make about my decision to recuse myself to this extent.
I will, however, say that if when matters are being discussed and there’s going to be any discussion in camera that affects me personally, professionally, or questions me in any way, I’m making this request now for both the courtesy and the fairness and the ethical consideration of involving me in that discussion. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator McPhedran. I think everyone has a copy of a letter you sent out previously. We’ll cover that in the last two items on the agenda, which are matters pertaining to Senator Meredith. Thank you for your comments. Pascale, we will go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)