Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 1 - Evidence for October 8, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 8, 2009
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:34 a.m. to consider administrative matters; and in camera to consider other matters.
Senator George J. Furey (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning colleagues. I see quorum, so we will begin our meeting. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the minutes of October 1, 2009.
Are there any questions or problems with the minutes of the October 1 meeting? If not, could we have a motion to adopt?
It is moved by Senator Massicotte. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra-minded? Carried.
Item 2 involves membership changes. While Senator Dawson is here this morning replacing Senator Downe, he will no longer be a full-time member of the committee. He will be replaced by Senator Fox. Senator Cordy will be replacing Senator Cook.
I believe this morning Senator Hubley is replacing —
Senator Hubley: I am replacing Senator Munson.
The Chair: Senator Fox, as well, has agreed to join the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, the steering committee.
Senator Robichaud: Brave man.
The Chair: We need a motion to have Senator Fox replace Senator Cook on the steering committee.
It is moved by Senator Dawson. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra-minded? Carried.
As well, Senator Cordy has agreed, for some strange reason, to join Senator Robichaud on the Subcommittee on Review of Committee Budgets and International Travel —
Senator Cordy: They told me that I will make a lot of friends.
The Chair: — and to join Senator MacDonald. Is it agreed, honourable senators, that Senator Cordy join Senator Robichaud's subcommittee to replace Senator Dawson?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All those in favour? Contra-minded? Carried.
Item 3 is the report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets and International Travel.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chair, we have three reports from our subcommittee. I will start with the 11th report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets. You have the reports before you, I think. The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its 11th report. Your subcommittee considered a request submitted on September 18, 2009 by Senator Grafstein to use the 64-point travel system to fund his attendance at the London Conference on Combating Antisemitism, which took place on February 16 and 17, 2009.
[English]
Your subcommittee recommends that the request not be approved for the following reasons: The travel occurred in a previous fiscal year; and the application was received more than seven months after the travel had occurred, while the guidelines stipulate that applications should be submitted at least 30 days prior to the departure date.
[Translation]
Your subcommittee also considered a request from Senator Hervieux-Payette to attend the Atlantik-Brücke meeting in Freiburg, Germany, from October 23 to 25, 2009. Your subcommittee met with the senator on October 7, 2009, and, after careful review, recommends that approval be granted for the senator to use the 64-point travel system to cover the cost of airfare and ground transportation to and from the airport in an amount not to exceed $5,000.
Your subcommittee wishes to remind senators of the May 7, 2009 decision of the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration which requires that a senator must, within 30 days of completion of the international travel, submit a detailed report to the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration including the objectives of the travel, meetings held, achievements, costs and next steps. This report shall be tabled in the Senate as an appendix to a report of the committee. Respectfully submitted by the members of the subcommittee: Senator MacDonald, Senator Cordy and myself. I move the adoption of the 11th report.
Senator Fox: May I ask a question?
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions, colleagues?
Senator Fox: I am not familiar with the particular group meeting. Maybe you could let me know what it is.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: It is actually quite a low-key conference to which people are invited. It deals with globalization and the economic situation. They also talk about NATO and Afghanistan.
In this case, it was not Senator Hervieux-Payette's first time attending this meeting. We do not know who else will be there because invitations are sent out individually.
Senator Comeau: You refer to a May 7 decision of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration that asks for a report a certain number of days after the international travel, specifying the objectives of the travel and so on. I wonder why that is done 30 days afterwards rather than before. Are the goals and objectives of the travel set beforehand too?
Senator Robichaud: Yes. We definitely have a specific form for that. But the motion that was passed here asks for a report to be submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration no more than 30 days afterwards.
Senator Comeau: Fine. Thank you.
Senator Massicotte: Are you talking about the 12th report? That is one of your recommendations.
Senator Robichaud: I have not done the 12th report yet.
Senator Prud'homme: I assume that Senator Hervieux-Payette is aware that she has to submit a report within 30 days.
Senator Robichaud: Yes. We met with her yesterday. It was the first meeting at which we considered an international travel request and it is our intention to invite honourable senators who make such requests to meet with us so that we have all the information about each request.
Senator Prud'homme: If memory serves, a few years ago, you will recall, I was invited to give a lecture and to receive an honorary doctorate in Lebanon. I had been honoured by Parliament. Half the expenses were paid, and you were the first to voice significant concerns. You know that I often act quickly; I said not to worry about it.
[English]
Never mind, I will take care of everything, and that was the end of it.
[Translation]
The danger with new requests like this — this is for the future — is that, knowing my fellow senators as I do, it is very easy to get oneself invited. So be prepared to get a lot of requests from senators who receive invitations and to find the criteria hard to apply. I am just saying that it will be very difficult. I have two major invitations at the moment. I decided to put them off. But I do not know how you are going to handle it. As soon as you open the door — and I am quoting my friend Senator Robichaud almost word for word,
[English]
"As soon as you open the door," he said years ago, "expect a stampede. As long as you know that, it is okay."
The Chair: Are there other questions, senators?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I assure Senator Prud'homme that I will look at requests like that with a watchful eye and that we will try to follow the guidelines that this committee has provided.
[English]
The Chair: We have a motion from Senator Robichaud to adopt the 11th report. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: The subcommittee examined the requests for its 12th report. Your subcommittee has the honour to present its 12th report. Existing policy requires that staff with senators on a committee trip travel economy class. Your subcommittee received a request from the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to approve business class travel for two committee staff members who will be travelling with the committee to Estonia and Belgium in November as part of its study on the wireless sector. The change from economy class to business class can be accommodated within the existing activity envelope.
[English]
Your subcommittee recommends that the request be approved. Your subcommittee will be reviewing the existing policy to determine if changes are warranted. If so, your subcommittee will report its recommendations to the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration for its consideration.
Respectfully submitted, Senator MacDonald, Senator Cordy and myself.
I move the adoption of the report.
Senator Prud'homme: I always read both versions. In French, it says, «two employees that have accompanied;» and in English, it says, «staff travelling with.» Which is the correct version?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: If you had been listening to what I said, I made that correction by saying "who will be travelling."
Senator Prud'homme: "Who will be."
Senator Robichaud: Please forgive my mistake.
Senator Massicotte: Just an explanation. I do not see that it is relevant whether there is enough in the budget envelope or not. This is taxpayers' money. There is always a debate about whether senators should travel business class. We could discuss it in more depth next time.
Why allow this and broaden the category of those who are eligible to travel business class when there is already a debate and when members of the House of Commons are travelling economy, even to Europe? Is this not pushing it a little too much and likely to attract public comment?
Senator Robichaud: We were informed that, in the House of Commons, they can request business class for a flight longer than nine hours. It is true that it is public money and that we have to be extremely careful when we want to use it. But when you travel, you have certainly been able to travel with your staff. When we get to where we are going, the staff are the first to hit the ground running. So I feel that they should be allowed to have the comfort of business class on long flights so that they are at least in as good shape as the senators.
Senator Massicotte: I am open to the debate. But I have personally asked several senators and they have told me that they travel economy when they are paying for the ticket themselves but business class when the taxpayers are paying. I have a lot of questions about that. If we extend that to our assistants, it really is pushing it. I am open to your opinion. This is a very sensitive issue.
Senator Robichaud: I agree that it is a sensitive issue. We really have no clear, definite policy and the request was made to us by the chair of the committee on transport. In this case, it seemed reasonable to us that, for a trip that long, the two staff members travelling with the committee should have the same level of comfort as the senators. Of course, it can be discussed and, as I say at the end of my report, we could review the situation and come back to you with recommendations.
Senator Massicotte: I do not know if these documents go into our files, but, if they do, the French version should be amended to reflect Senator Prud'homme's comments, that is, as read by Senator Robichaud when he made his presentation.
On the matter of business class trips, I have to tell you that I have always had reservations about them. For me, it is a matter of conscience. I have refused to travel business class. Maybe I am one of the only ones. For the Liberal Party congress in Vancouver, I flew economy. I still got out of the plane able to make it on my own two feet. I am deeply offended when I think that the tickets are going to cost $7000 when there are people in coach paying $800 or $700. I do not agree with costs like that. Senator Robichaud, I do not agree with the recommendation.
Senator Robichaud: I understand completely because I am trying to fly economy.
The request we received was for a 16-hour flight. We have to consider the length of the trip.
Senator Massicotte: I can understand 16 hours. But I hope that, for normal Montreal-Paris or Montreal-London trips, people will say no. The prices are exorbitant these days. It is an unjustifiable luxury that taxpayers should not be paying for.
Senator Robichaud: Perhaps we should look at the last suggestion in my report that calls for us to review the policy on international travel. I completely agree with you.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: May I suggest, not so much for this application but future ones, that we look at what Foreign Affairs does? They have a specific policy that if staff travel more than eight hours, I believe, they get business class. We should have the same kind of policy. That way, if anyone questions it, we have exactly the same policy.
Also, I feel that if the senators are going business class, it is uncomfortable to have the staff travel separately. It really separates people.
Senator Dawson: I am in a conflict of interest since I am the one who asked, but I would like to get into a debate on the whole issue.
We have a clerk who has changed three times in the last few months. She is six months pregnant. We need her. We are finishing a report. It seemed obvious to me that it was a reasonable request. I was not raising the issue of trying to change the system. I do believe it should be clarified and it should be changed, but that was not the objective of the request.
If I may, Senator Fox, for Vancouver, you could use an upgrade coupon. What if you are from Alberta or Vancouver and fly the route every week? You might find it pleasant to look reasonable by going economy class if you are doing it once a year, but if you are doing it twice a week, I think it is a little less reasonable.
Senator Fox: When I was a minister, I flew economy just the same.
Senator Dawson: They had propellers in those days.
Senator Fox: It would have been even worse.
Senator Tkachuk: I had a question not on the policy but on the spending envelope. Did it fit in the spending envelope because there were fewer people flying than you had budgeted for?
Senator Dawson: The Transport Committee is under new management since the request started, but yes, the request had been for 12 members travelling on this trip. I think we are six now. That being said, we also looked at the total envelope. It still falls well below the amount that had been originally requested.
Senator Prud'homme: Maybe you should change the wording. I am concerned about precedent. Once you change it, it will be very difficult after to regain the equilibrium. People will say, "You have done it once already, so why not again?" You could say in your 12th report, "in view of special circumstances." You cannot say because the clerk is pregnant, of course. The term "special circumstances" protects you and enables you to say "no" in the future. I would vote in favour of it if you are willing to accept an amendment to say somewhere, "in view of the special circumstances." Take out "if so" and just put "your subcommittee will report. " That means you are serious.
I know you very well, and I know you will do it. Your subcommittee will be reviewing the existing policy to determine if changes are warranted. Your subcommittee will report its recommendation to the committee.
My two amendments would be, on the last paragraph, take off "if so," and in the first large paragraph, "in view of certain special circumstances, your subcommittee," or some such wording in English that the talent at the head table would prefer. You protect yourself for the future that way.
The Chair: Do you have any problem with amending the report, Senator Robichaud?
We will treat Senator Prud`homme's suggestion as an amendment to the report. The report would then read, "In view of special circumstances, your subcommittee recommends that the request be approved." In the next paragraph, sentence two will begin with, "Your subcommittee will report," taking out "if so." All those in favour of the amendment? Contra-minded? Carried.
Senator Cordy: Maybe I spoke too quickly when I said that I would join the subcommittee. The comments that have been made about watching the taxpayers' money must always be kept in mind, no matter what committee we are on, and this one particularly since it deals so much with finances.
Yesterday was my first meeting. Senator Dawson has told us that he was the person who made the request, and I think it important that we look at this particular issue. The House of Commons staff on committees and interparliamentary committees — and I am familiar with the practice particularly through NATO — are allowed to travel first class if the trip is over nine hours. Staff of Senate committees are not allowed to follow that policy of the nine-hour travel. Flying from Montreal direct to Paris would not be nine hours anyway. It would be shorter, so would not apply. As a subcommittee, we have a responsibility to look at the issue to ensure that our staff are treated as fairly as other staff on the Hill.
The Chair: If there is no further discussion, colleagues, we have a motion from Senator Robichaud to adopt the 12th report as amended. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Fox: I am contrary minded.
The Chair: The motion is carried, on division.
Senator Fox: Good thing we took out the pregnancy test, because I do not think male person who is going is pregnant.
Senator Robichaud: Your subcommittee considered a request from the committee on National Security and Defence for the release of supplementary funds to cover the cost of consultants until the end of the fiscal year. In reviewing the request, your subcommittee took careful note of the fact that the initial release was approved in the Senate on May 27, 2009, to cover the period of six months. Therefore, that funding should be sufficient to cover the cost through the end of November. Therefore, your subcommittee is recommending the release of funds to cover the cost of the consultants for four months, which would bring the committee to the end of the fiscal year. Your subcommittee requests the adoption of the 13th report.
The Chair: Are there any questions, colleagues?
Senator Tkachuk: Like Senator Dawson, I have a bit of a conflict of interest on this report. I do want to ask a question that arose on this very matter and it relates to a matter of policy for this committee. I do not know how we can resolve it or if we can resolve it.
If you remember, a few years ago we had this issue arise of payment. It was decided by this committee, I believe, that both the chair and the deputy chair have to sign off on the contract amounts. In case of a dispute, it would go to the full committee. In other words, if there was a dispute on payment of a contract amount because one of the two did not wish to sign off and certify that they knew it to be true, it would go to the full committee of Defence. If they decided to pay it, then it would be paid.
Because of the difficulty that arose, Internal Economy said that hereafter if there is disagreement between the chair and the deputy chair, it will go to the steering committee for resolution. The steering committee is normally three members. To have a steering committee meeting, both sides have to agree to go to the meeting. If it cannot be decided there, it will come here.
In the meantime, the steering committee of this particular committee has been changed to include five members. The opposition member no longer has to be present for the steering committee to meet. Therefore, there is no opportunity for the matter to be brought before this committee when there is a dispute. They will just call the steering committee meeting, the three members on the majority side will decide and it is a done deal.
The intended policy of Internal Economy has been subverted by adding more members to the steering committee, thus circumventing the requirement that an opposition member has to be present at a steering committee meeting. Therefore, the chair can do whatever he wants and pay whatever he wants. The chair does not need the certification of the deputy chair at any time.
The problem in this committee is a problem that I do not think exists in other committees. That is why I think I have a right to speak on this matter, even though I am the deputy chair of this committee and I sit on the committee. It is a policy problem that we have to address.
In this case the committee has moved a resolution saying that the consultants work for the chair, at the direction of the chair, does not require certification by the deputy chair. How can I as deputy chair on the minority side certify this to be as true when I have no clue as to what they were asked to do or what they did, which is what has happened.
In my 16 years here, that situation has never risen, because the chair and the deputy chair agree on what the consultants do or what the media consultant does or what the Library does, and they proceed in what I would call a civilized fashion. That is not the case here. It is a problem.
I agree with Senator Robichaud that this budget was passed and since it was partially released, the rest should be released. I am just forewarning this committee that we should have this discussion, maybe at the next meeting. How do we change the policy of Internal Economy to take into consideration this means of circumventing the policy. I know we are in a public meeting, and I want it on the record.
The Chair: There are two issues. First, Senator Tkachuk, we are talking about a funding issue here, not an approval issue.
Senator Tkachuk: I know that.
The Chair: On the issue you are raising, Internal did in fact present a guideline. We did not table it in the Senate so it is not policy. That was deliberate because we do not want to be seen as heavy-handed in interfering with the workings of all committees. Committees are masters of their own domain, as they should be, and we do not want to be seen as usurping any of the functions of committees.
If a particular committee is dysfunctional — and that is probably the word to use for what you are describing, Senator Tkachuk — as far as I am concerned, and I am open to suggestions from members of this committee, that is a leadership issue that should be worked out between the two leaderships. I do not know if anyone else would like to comment.
Senator Comeau: We have just heard the deputy chair of a committee tell us that the committee on which he sits as deputy chair is dysfunctional, that it is no longer following what would be a normal way of proceeding in this place. The response from the chair of this committee is that committees can pretty well do what they wish because they are masters of their own domain, and if there is a problem with the committees, it is up to the leadership to deal with it.
I am not sure I entirely agree with that. I think senators have to take some kind of responsibility. By all means, leadership can try to be helpful. However, I think we as senators also have a responsibility in that if we see a committee that is dysfunctional — it is not working and it is ignoring the deputy chair of a committee so much so that a deputy chair cannot even sign off on the hiring of communications consultants, senior military advisers and so on — we have to rise to the problem.
Even though we may be reluctant to go to the chamber and say that this would be the proper procedure according to the policy that we have suggested — or reluctant to go say to the chamber that this committee is not working and here is a recommendation from this committee — I do not feel comfortable doing nothing.
I am not comfortable, as well, with the response as to why we are hiring so many outside consultants to do this work when we have a perfectly capable Library of Parliament with extremely good staff. I have heard the argument before, many times, that we need these ex-military people in order to interpret military jargon. I do not think I need a military person to tell me that 2400 hours is 12 midnight. I still think we speak the same two official languages.
Therefore, I am not very comfortable with this report.
The Chair: There are two issues that you raised, Senator Comeau. On the first with respect to reluctance, I do not think there is any reluctance on our part to move forward or to take action. The question is whether we have any jurisdiction or authority in matters like that.
On the second issue, the allocation of funding, we do have the authority because our primary responsibility is financial and administrative. If we want to debate, for example, whether or not allocation of money should be made for professional or other services, that is well within our bailiwick. However, to interfere with the actual running of a committee, I do not see where we get the authority as an Internal Economy Committee to do that.
Senator Tardif: I wanted to add in regard to the question of whether leadership should be looking at this, I can say that at the kind invitation of the Speaker of the Senate, the two leadership teams met and these types of issues were discussed. I think there was an agreement that we would continue to meet on a more regular basis to look at the types of issues of, for example, the functioning of committees and/or decorum in the Senate chamber.
I believe I heard, as well, our Speaker say in a decision he gave in regard to a question of privilege that these things should be dealt with more effectively by leadership and the affairs of committees should be looked at and cared for by committees.
If I understand correctly, today is a discussion of a financial issue and this other matter might be more appropriately dealt with in another context.
The Chair: I can appreciate you raising it, Senator Tkachuk, but I agree with Senator Tardif in terms of whether we can do anything about it here this morning. Again, what we have before us is consideration of allocation of funds.
Senator Tkachuk: I want it to be clear that we have a member on the budget committee and this budget was approved. Even though I do not agree with it, it does not matter; I will support this committee recommendation. I wanted to raise a policy issue because this was the only opportunity I saw on the agenda where I thought it could be raised.
The Chair: Fair enough. Obviously, we are always open to hearing and airing any issues that any senators feel they should bring before the committee. We thank you for raising it.
Senator Prud'homme: I agree with Senator Tardif that this matter should be dealt with at the leadership level. However, surely this committee can express this malaise so that when the leadership meets again, they will see there is a growing malaise. It reflects on the Senate as a whole.
I was Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs for 13 years in the House of Commons with 30 members; and we never had trouble. It was a matter of patience and give and take. This committee is beginning to affect all of the Senate. The quarrels are reported in the media. Certainly, members of this committee have the right to express their malaise so that the committee leadership might take that into consideration and find a solution. The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence is important but will not be able to continue harmoniously. By the way, there are no members from Quebec on that committee. I will not say that in my goodbye speech, but I have a strong malaise because no one from Quebec is on such an important committee. The leadership should address that issue as well.
Senator Robichaud: I want to assure the committee that different views were brought forward when we considered the budgets. However, we are limited by what comes out of the committee if it has been approved by the committee. I understand where you are coming from. I want you to know that different views have been expressed, but we are bound by what we receive. We have to act on the information we are given; and this is what we do.
The Chair: We have a motion from Senator Tkachuk to adopt the 13th report of the subcommittee. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra minded? Carried.
The next item on the agenda is the contract for simultaneous interpretation equipment and technical support. I would ask Ms. Heather Lank to update the committee and give us an overview of the request.
Heather Lank, Principal Clerk: Honourable senators have before them a request for Senate Administration to pursue entering into a contract, which might be valued at over $100,000, for simultaneous interpretation equipment for committees that are on the road. We would like to do this through a request for proposals — not sole source. We are looking to find out how we can get the best value for money in terms of getting equipment for committees on the road.
Generally speaking, when a committee travels for public hearings, there will always be a budget item for interpretation equipment. It never approaches $100,000 in a specific committee budget, but if you put together all the committee budgets in the course of a fiscal year, it can begin to approach $100,000. Senators will see in the briefing note before them that, in the past fiscal years, the total amounts have been $86,000, $51,000 and $95,000. In 2009-2010, per budgets we have received to date, the figure is in the neighbourhood of $76,000. Wanting to err on the side of caution, we bring forward a proposal for this committee's approval to find out if there are suppliers who can offer this to the Senate at a lower cost to get the best value for money. That is the purpose behind this request.
Senator Massicotte: I have a couple questions. The idea is good. Are there many national suppliers that can satisfy this request?
Ms. Lank: That is one of the things we will find out through this process. Historically, ISTS has been the major supplier to us. I do not suspect there to be a large number of suppliers. One of the reasons for undertaking this process is to find out whether there are suppliers that can offer this service to the Senate in a cost-effective manner. We will have that answer as we go through this process.
Senator Massicotte: If the committee approves this request, it must also approve any tender contract in excess of $100,000. Once the decision is made, there remains the tendering process. Will the matter then come back to the steering committee with, for example, the three bids that were received, for recommendation, or is the matter handed over to the administration and they decide? What is the process from here on?
The Chair: Normally, it will go to tender and when administration is prepared to make a decision, they will inform the steering committee of it.
Senator Massicotte: The steering committee passes a resolution to confirm its agreement.
The Chair: Whether it will come back to the full committee before it is awarded will depend on how comfortable the steering committee is with the process. The time frame will depend on the time of year, whether Parliament is in session or prorogued. There is a whole host of issues to be concerned about. Generally, it will come back to the full committee.
Senator Massicotte: The steering committee should look at contracts over $100,000. On that basis, I agree with the process.
The Chair: It is entirely to ensure that the process is fair.
Senator Fox: I have a process question. How do you put out the request for proposals? Is it gazetted in the Canada Gazette or is it sent to the main suppliers? How is it done?
Ms. Lank: I wish I could answer that. My knowledge of how this works is not well developed.
The Chair: Ms. Proulx, Director of Finance, can answer that question, Senator Fox.
[Translation]
Nicole Proulx, Director of Finance: Requests for proposals are published in the MERX system for a specified period of time. So people submit their proposals according to the published requirements and then the proposals are evaluated by a committee.
Senator Fox: Do you not have a list of people who have already submitted bids, for example, and whom you contact? I suppose people keep such a close eye on MERX that there are no worries on that score.
Ms. Proulx: Exactly. Typically, companies watch MERX, but in cases where we already have suppliers, we can contact some of them, of course, so that they can put bids as well.
Senator Fox: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Are there other questions, senators?
Senator Cordy: We have to worry about everything being cost-effective. Will this mean that the small translation organizations in Halifax or Sudbury or wherever will not be given contracts because we will have one national contract?
Ms. Lank: I cannot say what the outcome of this will be in terms of the process. We will have to develop a clear list of criteria that need to be met before posting and determine the requirements of Senate committees. Certainly, I cannot presuppose the outcome in terms of how it will be awarded. As Senator Furey said, if any issues need to be looked at and reviewed before the final decision is made, there is a forum for that purpose.
The Chair: Normally, the only thing that will preclude anyone from bidding on a public tender is whether they qualify. It is a question of criteria in terms of meeting the needs of the particular contract.
Senator Cordy: Will each contract be done separately or will you have one contract for the year?
Ms. Proulx: Basically, it should be specified in the scope of work and the requirements whether we want to have specifically regional representation or services. In the past, there has been only ISTS. My understanding is that ISTS has other companies under different names in the regions. We have to define the scope, and we will work with Ms. Lank to ensure that it does not negatively affect other companies.
Senator Massicotte: I am having difficulty with this. It is a good point that Senator Cordy raises, given that you are looking for someone to provide national services. Therefore, to qualify a company must be able to provide services anywhere that they are needed. How does the local company compete? He is obviously excluded unless he has the measures, the time and the relationship or friendship with national networks to be able to bid.
Ms. Proulx: Again, it is stated in the scope. The points you are raising are very important to defining the scope. In the past, it might have been part of the criteria that someone be able to provide national services. We will work together to ensure that this point is addressed.
Senator Massicotte: The purpose of this resolution is to find a national supplier. National means at least provide 97 per cent of the services we need, which eliminates 90 per cent of our suppliers in the past. I am having difficulty. How do you satisfy the purpose of this, saying national supplier, competitive bids, get on with the show, and how do you not exclude the local supplier?
Ms. Proulx: The way it is presented and the way it was done in the past was it was basically ISTS all the time, so there was no opportunity for others to compete. Again, in defining the scope, if we want to tailor it so there is a possibility for regional companies, obviously it will have to be amended to do that.
Senator Massicotte: The resolution would have to be changed. This purpose would not be met.
The Chair: It would be met, Senator Massicotte, if a national company has regional representation, it fits the bill and you are satisfied it can achieve the objectives.
Senator Massicotte: You said "national company," but if you are trying to put out a request for proposal to attract local companies as serious bidders for consideration, you are not meeting the objectives here.
The Chair: You would be, even if you geared it towards regional companies. If a national company supplied a lower bid and it had regional representation, you are right back to where you started. It all depends on whether or not the structure that is prepared originally is fair and reasonable. That is all this attempts to do, to be fair and reasonable and ensure everyone in this business gets a crack at it.
Senator Massicotte: I do not understand, but I am okay.
Senator Hubley: My questions were somewhat along the same line, and I believe to some extent they have been answered. Can you give the assurance that the plan will be cost effective if, for example, we were looking for Aboriginal translation in the North? Can you assure us that these things would be present?
Ms. Lank: On that issue, we are talking here about equipment and technical support, not whether it is Aboriginal languages or French and English. This is dealing with the technical support and the actual equipment and does not have any affect whatsoever on language at all.
Senator Hubley: Thank you.
Senator Comeau: I would like to come back to Senator Cordy's and Senator Massicotte's interventions regarding the issue of the smaller interpretation suppliers, the mom and pop operations. I am not coming at this to make sure that we have regional contractors involved. My question is mainly about the small interpreter who does not have a national operation and may not have a network of colleagues all over the place that could get a chance to bid on it. I am not approaching this from a regional perspective in order for someone from Halifax to get it. If it is someone from British Columbia or Ottawa, so be it. There is a lot to be said for being able to provide those kinds of contracts to small operations, regardless of where they are. Unless we have established some criteria, it will be a national firm that has regional offices throughout Canada. I think we may be missing the boat, given the fact that we have had problems in the last number of years encouraging people to get into interpretation, and we have seen that here in Ottawa. This might be a disincentive for people from setting up these small operations. I think we should approach this cautiously. Like Senator Massicotte, I do not feel entirely comfortable with where we are heading. I think there should be a lot of attention placed on this point so that we do not discourage the small operations and send a signal to the small operations, that henceforth the one-man, one-woman interpretation shop, or the two-person shop is no longer able to apply for interpretation jobs.
The Chair: It is a good point, but we have to be mindful of the fact that, in any public tendering process, you have to be fair. You cannot excuse something so small operations get an advantage over larger operations because they will come back and say, "Look, we invested millions of dollars in purchasing equipment so we could give lower bids to government to obtain contracts, and now you are skewing the process so smaller operations can build in the cost of buying new equipment to compete with us. Where is the fairness in that? "
At the end of the day, as long as the tender is fair and reasonable and open to all operations, small or large, I think we have achieved our goal, which is exactly that, to be fair and reasonable. It is always a concern, Senator Comeau, that smaller operations not be disadvantaged, but you cannot, in an attempt to embrace small operations, skew a public tender to favour them over a larger operation.
Senator Comeau: I am not sure I explained myself correctly. I am not in any way, shape or form suggesting that we should go out there and pad the cost of interpretation contracts — not in any way, shape or form. I am suggesting that we be mindful as to how we establish this new venture we are getting into, this new way of doing things, and maybe take the opportunity while we are at it to really consider the results of our actions as we progress. I am not trying to suggest that we should waste taxpayer's dollars in any way. That is the least of my suggestion.
The Chair: I appreciate what you are saying, Senator Comeau. At the end of the day, we have to be fair and reasonable and be seen as being fair and reasonable. Are there any other comments?
Senator Tkachuk: How long is the contract being considered for — one, two or three years, four years?
Ms. Lank: We have not established a specific time frame. That would be part of the discussions that we would undertake before issuing the request for proposals, The amounts that I cited to you are amounts per fiscal year. We do not know to date whether it would ever even approach the $100,000 or exceed it, but we are keeping that possibility open.
The Chair: In any event, colleagues, it will come back to full committee for approval, all things being equal in terms of timing and whatnot.
Can we make a note of that, Madam Proulx?
Can we have a motion to approve the recommendation? Moved by Senator Robichaud. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra minded? Carried.
We will now go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)