Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence for October 29, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 29, 2009
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:32 a.m., in camera, to consider administrative matters; and in public to consider other matters.
Senator George J. Furey (Chair) in the chair.
(The committee continued in public.)
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, our next agenda item is the report of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets and International Travel.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud:
Your subcommittee has considered a request from the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs to authorize staff accompanying the committee to China to travel in business class. The flights in question take about 18 hours.
Your subcommittee is currently undertaking a general review of the question of the authorized travel class for staff, but since the committee will be traveling during the break week in November, an immediate response is needed. Given the length of the flight, your subcommittee recommends that the request be approved, and no additional funds are required.
[English]
Your subcommittee notes that the original budget request included funding for two staff to travel on a single trip to Russia and China. The committee requested that the activity envelope be divided into two, with one envelope for a trip to Russia and the other for a trip to China. This request was agreed to by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on October 1, 2009, with the adoption of the subcommittee's tenth report.
While the request to create two activity envelopes was accompanied by revised budgets that included one additional staff member for the trip to China, for a total of three staff members, no mention was made in the cover letter of such a change. Your subcommittee therefore requests that cover letters clearly indicate any significant changes, including any increases in the proposed number of staff travelling.
[Translation]
Respectfully submitted, Senator MacDonald, Senator Cordy and myself.
Mr. Chair, I move that the report be adopted.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions?
[English]
We have a motion for adoption from Senator Robichaud. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra-minded? Carried. Thank you, Senator Robichaud.
I have a motion to replace Senator Cook on the Joint Inter-parliamentary Council. The motion would be that Senator Downe replace Senator Cook. Could we have a motion to that effect, please?
Senator Tkachuk: So moved.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Tkachuk. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra-minded? Carried. Colleagues, we will ask Ms. Dodd from human resources to give us an update on the H1N1 virus. The first question is, have you been vaccinated?
Linda Dodd, Director, Human Resources, Senate of Canada: Not yet. I am not in one of the high-risk groups.
[Translation]
But I am sure that the first question relates to clinics.
[English]
It was confirmed yesterday by the Clerk of the House of Commons that a special clinic will not be held on Parliament Hill. This is further to a decision by Dr. Butler-Jones, who is the Chief Medical Officer and the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada.
Part of the problem are the line-ups right now and the challenges faced by health authorities, so they are not permitting any special clinics at this time.
[Translation]
I would still like to inform you about new initiatives here at the Senate.
[English]
Our focus remains on prevention, communication and ensuring essential services remain available for as long as possible. All directors have reviewed their essential services and have contingency plans in place, and tests are being conducted in various directorates. We are also monitoring absenteeism.
Our questions and answers are regularly updated, and based on the review of hits to the website, the information on H1N1 is accessed regularly. A tool kit has been designed and will be published on Intrasen. A message will be communicated to all this morning, as we speak, on preventive measures and the clinics in the area.
The Influenza Monitoring Committee meets regularly to assess the risk and, in partnership with the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament, will implement new initiatives as required. Disinfecting kits have been provided to ensure that all staff take responsibility for their own workplaces, which is one of the measures we wanted to implement the last time.
All other initiatives implemented a few weeks ago and over a month ago remain in effect.
[Translation]
So those are the new initiatives for the Senate this week.
[English]
Are there any questions on the update? I know the issue is around the clinics.
Senator Jaffer: It is not so much on the update, but I am curious as to what plans you have in place if a staff person is sick for a long period of time. You have a budget and you are still paying that staff person but you need to replace that person. In private industry and other places, they have arrangements to replace staff members. Do you have those kinds of plans in place for senators?
Ms. Dodd: We are working on a pool of administrative staff that would be available. There will be a cost to that because we cannot bring them in on a voluntary basis. If there are urgent requirements as a result of committee work or anything like that, please contact my office or Ms. Bernier's office and we will be able to provide names, obviously at a cost.
Senator Jaffer: To the senator's budget?
Ms. Dodd: To the senator.
The Chair: I should inform senators that Human Resources has put together a tool kit that would answer a lot of questions such as Senator Jaffer just raised, which will be distributed next week.
You indicated that there will be no clinics on the Hill. A number of senators have raised questions about that matter. Can you tell us, on the record, who makes that decision?
Ms. Dodd: That decision was made by Dr. Butler-Jones, who is responsible for the Public Health Agency of Canada.
The Chair: It is not a decision of House of Commons or the Senate?
Ms. Dodd: Not at all.
The Chair: It is out of our hands.
Ms. Dodd: That is right, completely.
Senator Prud'homme: On that last point, I find it regrettable that they could not have predicted that getting vaccinated should be an easier process. I have many friends in Montfort. They say it will be a mess because people, including old people, will be coming from all over Ottawa and they do not know where to go. There is the possibility of having clinics in big buildings where you can give vaccinations to many people.
[Translation]
In French we say "clogging up the hospitals."
[English]
We have about 3,000 people in both houses. Maybe someone will raise this issue in the Senate. It could be a good suggestion.
If the Chief Public Health Officer is stuck, he could call the Chief Electoral Officer to get some insight on how they handle elections on election day. For every building and big apartment block, all you need is one nurse with the right stuff. In my view, if the situation gets worse, he will have to be flexible and receive representation.
I will leave it to the committee, Mr. Chair, on behalf of parliamentarians, not only for us but for everyone in Ottawa. We represent Canada. If the situation turns worse, the planning committee will have to be more flexible on the issue.
Ms. Dodd: I know the Public Health Agency has considered all the options. The concern right now is to also offer the clinics on university campuses and in the schools, which is currently not available. The agency has a greater pandemic plan, over and above ours. It is not that they have not considered us; they still consider us, but they have many other issues right now with the schools.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I am thinking of a situation where there was a large number of people infected. I am thinking about families with young children, where both parents work, as in a majority of cases. One of the parents will have to stay home even if they are not sick.
How are we going to deal with absences for people who have to be absent either to care for children or to avoid bringing the virus here? Will they have to claim sick days, or vacation days? Could the situation be more flexible in a case like that?
Ms. Dodd: That is part of the reality. Employees have family leave they can use that is already included in benefits. This is being discussed in every office because as you said, it is not necessarily the person who is sick, it is members of their family.
Normally, family leave is good for a period of three to seven days, and that's all. Leave is already available for families.
Senator Comeau: When the general public has received the vaccine, will it be possible to have a clinic on Parliament Hill for people who have not had the chance to get to a clinic?
In my case, for example, I would not be able to go to the clinics offered in my region because I am in Ottawa. That makes it a problem for me to get the vaccine. I know it is not possible to have a clinic at this point. But might it be a possibility later?
Ms. Dodd: I would like to say yes. I can tell you it is a possibility and we do not want people not going to get vaccinated because they think there will be a clinic here. There is no guarantee of that, and at this point it is not even 40 per cent.
Senator Comeau: I want to be clear. I absolutely do not want us to get treated before the general public. I am simply saying that it is difficult for some senators to get to a clinic. I have made my decision, yes, I want to get the vaccine, but it is not possible for me at the moment. I would like to be able to hope there is a possibility I will be able to get vaccinated at some point in the future.
Ms. Dodd: I have noted your comments. We are continuing to discuss this with our colleagues at the House of Commons who are experiencing the same situation.
[English]
The Chair: Just one other question, Ms. Dodd. Can parliamentarians who spend the majority of their week in Ottawa, who are not from Ontario, get vaccinated in Ontario or do they need an Ontario health card?
Ms. Dodd: At this time they are asking for the Ontario health card. However, there should be an opinion today from the Public Health Agency to allow others who have a Canadian health card to be vaccinated. I do not have the final answer on that, but it is an issue.
The Chair: Are there any other questions, colleagues?
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: There are pregnant women, children, and firefighters.
[English]
Concerning the Parliament, I would not be afraid to explain the need for a specific clinic to the public. Parliament is one block. It is not only for a few parliamentarians. We come from across Canada. Ms. Dodd, it is not for you to say, but perhaps the Chief Public Health Officer could be told by the Minister of Health to organize a clinic, though maybe not the first day. The waiting time is six hours. Some may consider Parliament as unimportant, as has been said in the past. Parliament is a whole; it is not a privilege for a few parliamentarians. It is a group of people.
I think that, at the end of the day, the Minister of Health could make people understand. The situation should be reassessed on a daily basis, in my view.
The Chair: I agree, and I would add that Parliament Hill is also a fairly high-risk area. We receive thousands of visitors daily from all around the world.
Senator Prud'homme: That is an even bigger argument.
The Chair: We have our employees to think about, as well as our parliamentarians. However, as Ms. Dodd has said, it is not our decision. This decision is made outside of Parliament. I do not know that making representations on behalf of Parliament will do us any good.
Ms. Dodd: To clarify further, we continue to press the issue in terms of a clinic, but it originated with Dr. Butler- Jones.
An MP wrote to the Prime Minister, who then directed it to Dr. Butler-Jones to make a decision in terms of the Hill. The decision was made not to have a clinic at this time. They have pushed it to the most senior levels to try and get a clinic at this time on the Hill and the answer was negative.
[Translation]
So the discussions are at fairly high levels.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other questions colleagues? If not, thank you very much.
The next item on our agenda concerns our call centres. I will ask Hélène Bouchard, the Director of Information Services, to update us on it. Could you explain for senators what the call centre is?
Hélène Bouchard, Director, Information Systems Directorate, Senate of Canada: The 1-800 number, yes.
[Translation]
The Information Services Directorate is responsible for telecommunications and provides a call distribution solution for three call centres, the Information Services Directorate, the Client Service Centre and the 1-800 line.
Together, the Senate call centres receive nearly 100,000 calls a year. Last May, our suppliers, Computer Talk and Bell, two partners in the ICE application we are currently using for our dispatch service, informed us that as of October 31, 2009, they would stop providing support for the current version of the application, which has now been replaced by the EPAS version. I apologize for all these acronyms but that is how they are referred to.
That information had been sent as a news release to all clients, but the Senate had never received a copy. Given the circumstances, we have agreed with Bell, which is the main supplier, to extend the service until December 31, 2009, to give the Senate administration enough time to obtain the authorizations needed to implement a new solution before the end of December.
At this point, the development costs and monthly costs may go over $100,000. The new improved version of EPAS we are being offered meets the Senate's needs perfectly. That application is much more flexible than the one currently being used, particularly when we have to answer a large volume of calls during campaigns to flood phone lines and electronic messages systems as a protest. I am sure you remember, a month ago, when we received an extraordinary number of calls.
The new version of EPAS also offers a redundant environment in case of technical defects, something we did not have with the old system. That allows employees to connect to the call centre remotely, and is therefore a reliable solution for business continuity in the event of an emergency.
However, to get the improved version of EPAS, we would have to invest a significant amount in the engineering and design stages. In the explanatory notes, you have a table that explains the development fees we paid five years ago for the ICE version, the monthly fees and the development fees for the improved version.
The table also shows that in the event that we keep the current ICE version, an additional link has to be added to meet the growing need in terms of the calls we receive. Because the current service will no longer be offered as of January 1, 2010, the Senate has two options: issue a request for proposals or take advantage of the contract with Public Works and Government Services Canada, which was amended in 2008 following a competitive process, to include the EPAS application.
By participating in the Public Works service contract, the Senate leverages economies of scale. Like the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament, the Senate receives a majority of its telecommunications services from Public Works. On the other hand, if a request for proposals were issued, the Senate would not leverage the economies of scale of the Government of Canada because it does not have the purchasing power or the volume of Public Works.
As well, the authority to proceed with a request for proposals would commit Administration to signing a contract with the supplier that meets all our mandatory requirements and represents best overall value. However, since we would not be leveraging the economies of scale of the Government of Canada, the cost could be much higher.
Due to the benefits offered by the Public Works service contract, it is recommended that the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration approves that the Senate procures the EPAS solution with a dollar value in excess of $100,000 through the PWGSC contract. It is important to note that the set-up costs and additional costs will be paid out of the existing 2009-10 budget and so no additional funds are required.
[English]
The Chair: The existing contract is a five-year contract that expires at the end of this year, correct?
Ms. Bouchard: The contract expired in October 2008. There is no contract right now.
The Chair: It appears from the chart you have supplied — and perhaps you can explain your negotiations with Bell — that to renew the contract or to get the same service after five years will cost us now four to five times more than it did five years ago.
Ms. Bouchard: Five years ago we spent $11,000 to develop the application. They have told us that we got a good price. We said that it was not really acceptable to spend four times the price we paid five years ago. They said this is new technology, we are hosting the application now and it gives you get more flexibility.
It is hard to argue with them when they come back with what they are providing us in this the new application and how much it costs. The first quote we received was $61,000, and we were able to get the price down by 30 per cent. This is the only area where we managed to get a reduction. There is no reduction in the monthly cost, because the monthly costs are CRTC-approved numbers.
However, we are expecting a further reduction from the $43,000, which represents the cost after the 30 per cent reduction, because there are some numbers in there for project management. We hope to reduce the cost by at least another 10 per cent. I am hoping, but it will not go below that.
The Chair: Essentially, it is the same service for four times the cost?
Ms. Bouchard: It is a better service. It is the same service, yes, but the system we have now is very fragile. I understand that if the T1 line went down or if something else went down, there was no back-up. There is more flexibility in the new system for redundancy and also to increase the number of calls that we receive.
When we had the last call bombardment a month ago, the system could not handle it. There were too many calls and we did not have the capacity to handle them. It is a better, more flexible system. That is why they want to get rid of the one they are using now.
Senator Cordy: I am pretty new to the committee, but I am curious why, if the contract expired in October 2008, we are dealing with it a year later. That sort of limits us in terms of looking around at other possibilities that might be a better bang for the buck.
Ms. Bouchard: Absolutely. Apparently they sent a letter to all clients, which the Senate never received. I do not know where that letter went.
At one point, they called us in May and said "what will you do?" I said "what do you mean?" They said the system will be not supported by October 31. I got very upset and concerned about how we would manage that transition, knowing that I had to come to Internal Economy to get approval.
That was at the end of May and the Senate was about to adjourn for the summer, and I was also trying to find other solutions. The contract ended in October 2008, and we continued on a monthly basis. We were not advised that the system would not be supported as of October 31, 2008.
Senator Cordy: Was the original contract signed for October 2008?
Ms. Bouchard: It was for three years, yes.
Senator Cordy: Therefore, even without the letter, you would be aware that would be the end of the contract?
Ms Bouchard: Yes, I presume that, but we were paying every month.
The Chair: When did you find out that the month-to-month payments would cease at the end of the year; when did they say that would collapse?
Ms Bouchard: First, they are not supporting it. I can continue with the system but, if anything goes wrong, I will no longer have support. That technology is no longer available. Therefore, I have no means of getting that system up and running if something goes wrong.
Senator Cordy: I would have thought we would have started to deal with it long before the end of October 2008, before the month-to-month payments began. The month-to-month scheme would be interim while looking at a long- term, feasible plan.
Ms Bouchard: We looked at call centres five years ago. There are small call centres with no flexible features. They are rigid. You then have large call centres. That is how it works.
Whether you have, for example, 10 or 20 licences or 100 licences, it is the same price if you want to get the same flexibility as a call centre.
We placed some calls to find out how much it would cost for a new call centre. We received information stating that it would be about $125K and $183K — that was ridiculous. The House of Commons went through the same exercise. I understand they put out an RFI. They ended up going with Public Works because the price was much more advantageous than going to an RFP.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Cordy's question was a good question, and I want to understand how the process works.
At the end of May, the contract runs out. When you are planning your budgeting for the fiscal year, which would have been starting in March, you would have known the contract was finished at the end of May. Were there no notices? Would there phone calls or inquiries to see whether the service would continue or whether the price would be the same?
Ms Bouchard: You certainly sign a contract for the service but you are dealing with Bell Canada. However, they were charging us on a monthly basis. You are right. It is probably my fault, partly.
Senator Tkachuk: It would be someone's fault.
Ms Bouchard: I was surprised that no one called us. I did not even know. Why did the letter not come to me? All invoices go through the Finance Directorate. Perhaps the letter or the information was sent with an invoice and we were never advised.
Senator Tkachuk: Let me clarify the sequence of events. In 2008, the contract is cancelled. However, in May, you are informed by letter that, at the end of December, the service will run out unless we pay more, is that correct?
Ms Bouchard: Yes, that is right. However, we did not have that information. That is why they called us at one point, because they had not heard from us.
Senator Tkachuk: Whoever they sent the letter to never received it or never paid attention to it.
Ms Bouchard: Unfortunately, it never came to my attention. I was quite upset. I met with Bell many times to try to understand why we did not receive that information. We are a large client, and I could not understand why they had not called us personally. Why did they just send a communiqué? You never know where a communiqué will go. At least, we would have been able to prepare and do a proper investigation of the kind of system we would need.
The Chair: Are there any other questions, colleagues?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: It is recommended that the committee approve that the Senate procure the solution up to a maximum of at least $100,000. In English, you are saying:
[English]
"With the dollar value in excess of $100,000."
[Translation]
Ms. Bouchard: It is the translation. I know. I saw it.
Senator Robichaud: We start at $100,000 and we do not know where we end up?
Ms. Bouchard: The cost is $43,000. If we pay $5,000 per month, automatically, after one year, we are spending a particular amount. I may not sign a contract for more than $100,000. Certainly the amount is going to exceed $100,000. That is why I need your authority. We exceeded that amount with the present system. With monthly charges and development fees, the amount is going to exceed $100,000. After five years, it will be several thousand dollars. If you multiply $5,000 by 12, you get a cost of $60,000 to support the call system. For the call centre, that figure comes to $0.60 per call. That is what it costs for support for the three call centres. If you consider the $60,000 plus the $43,000, you have already gone over $100,000.
Senator Robichaud: I understand. But do you have an idea of the additional costs? We could approve a figure of up to $150,000 rather than starting at $100,000 and saying the amount is open.
Ms. Bouchard: When you have a recurring monthly cost of $5,000, you automatically have a cost of $60,000 per year.
Senator Robichaud: The amount is fixed.
Ms. Bouchard: Yes, if you want a ceiling, you can do that. However you need to authorize me to spend more than $100,000. If we do the calculation, we hope the system will be in place for five years. I have no control over that point, but we do have assurances. Multiply $60,000 by five and you get $300,000. Certainly at the end of five years we are looking at a figure of between $350,000 and $400,000.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Robichaud is asking, and we would like to know, if there is some sort of maximum here. In other words, if we were to approve this recommendation, could we add something to the effect, if it exceeds 10 per cent beyond $100,000, you will return to tell us before we make that expenditure?
I think Senator Robichaud is saying that we need some sort of ceiling here.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I am sure you can do a fairly close estimate of what it will cost you, first for the installation and then for the charges that have to be paid every year.
Ms. Bouchard: Absolutely.
Senator Robichaud: Are you asking us to approve a figure for the next five years, given that the contract will be for a five-year term?
Ms. Bouchard: For this contract, going through Public Works, we are invoiced on a monthly basis, at present. I know that Public Works is in the process of negotiating an extension of the contract to five years, which means that we are guaranteeing the existing costs. I do not intend to replace this system at the end of two years. So I am hoping that the $43,000 investment will last five years.
The initial cost is $43,000 for development of the application. Then we have to pay $5,100, as shown in the table, for monthly charges. The $2,200 charge is for what is called "hosted the application." That amount is billed to everyone who uses the call centre. We are also including a charge for the licences. At the Senate, we need 11 licences.
The monthly cost is $5,100. If you take the total for one year, by multiplying $5,000 times 12, you get about $63,000. So we can agree on about $65,000 per year in recurring costs. For the next five years, if we add $320,000 and $43,000, we get a maximum of $363,000.
Senator Robichaud: I am still not following you.
Ms. Bouchard: I am not entirely certain.
Senator Robichaud: Isn't the $43,000 for —
Ms. Bouchard: I counted it only once. I added it to my recurring cost.
The $43,000 represents a start-up cost. It does not recur the next year.
Senator Robichaud: Then we are talking about $60,000 or thereabouts per year?
Ms. Bouchard: Thereabouts.
Senator Robichaud: Plus the licences?
Ms. Bouchard: No. The $60,000 includes the licences. The monthly charge includes the licences, the link, the T1 line and the charge for the application, $2,200. The $5,167 represents the recurring monthly charge for the next five years — unless the CRTC decides to approve a 1 or 2 per cent increase. I doubt that the CRTC will decide that. My discussions with Public Works lead me to hope they want to keep the same rates. However, that increase is not an enormous amount.
[English]
The Chair: Before going to Senator Tkachuk, I have one question: Are you satisfied that procuring the e-pass system through the Public Works contract is the best solution for us right now rather than going to an RFP?
Ms. Bouchard: To go to an RFP, we would have to redo the work flow first. We will have to redo our business flow and provide that information to get a quote. With e-pass, costs are minimal. We want to apply the exact work flow to the new system. This is another reason we are able to reduce the cost. We are satisfied with the system. We have had great support for the past five years. I think it worked very well in the other call centres. Going through that exercise again would require a lot of work, and I am not sure that we would get a better product than e-pass. Also, e-pass is the product that has been installed in most federal government call centres.
The Chair: What about costs? Are you satisfied that this cost would be competitive if you went to an RFP?
Ms. Bouchard: Yes; absolutely. For all the calls that we have made and the research that we did, yes.
The Chair: How much use does the call centre get?
Ms. Bouchard: We received about 100,000 calls per year. That is a lot. The Client Services Call Centre receives about 45,000 calls alone.
Senator Tkachuk: I think I am clear, but I want to double check: The $43,000 is your development costs versus the old $11,802; correct?
Ms. Bouchard: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: The monthly cost is $5,167 rather than $2,615?
Ms. Bouchard: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: Development costs are almost four times as much and almost double the cost of your monthly application?
Ms. Bouchard: Yes, but if we had to keep the existing system, we would have needed another T1 link. Let me explain how the system functions right now: Each agent takes space on the T1 link, and we were maxed out on the T1 link. We would have needed another T1 link. The technology for the new e-pass system works differently, and we do not have to add a T1 link. We would have to add another T1 link to keep the existing system, and there was a requirement to add additional licences as well.
Senator Tkachuk: So that would have increased our monthly costs?
Ms. Bouchard: We would have been up to at least $4,000.
Senator Tkachuk: Because of the increased business, we would have had to go over $4,000 anyway?
Ms. Bouchard: Anyway, yes.
Senator Tkachuk: I understand it much better now.
Ms. Bouchard: When we were dealing with Bell Canada to reduce the cost, they took into consideration that we had already spent $11,000. That is why they reduced costs in the existing quote by $11,000.
Senator Tkachuk: Mr. Chair, I am reasonably satisfied with the cost, but the clerk should make note of the concern about the fact that we were not alerted sooner, and Senator Cordy's question should be kept in mind when inquiring about future contracts. I will leave it at that.
The Chair: Colleagues, we are being asked to approve the procurement of the e-pass system through the Public Works contract in excess of $100,000, which includes a monthly fee.
Senator Downe: I understand the cost increase, but I am curious. Is Bell the only provider of this system government-wide?
Ms. Bouchard: They won the procurement contract at Public Works.
Senator Downe: No one else is doing it in the government at all?
Ms. Bouchard: At this point, no.
Senator Cordy: I want to reiterate what Senator Tkachuk said, namely, that I have no problem with the cost, either, but we should be dealing with contracts before they expire. This should have been dealt with in May of 2008 and not in October of 2009.
Ms. Bouchard: Yes; I totally agree.
The Chair: Could we have a motion to approve the recommendation?
Senator Munson: I so move.
The Chair: All those in favour? Contra minded? Carried.
While we have you here, Ms. Bouchard, the next item on the agenda concerns the allocation of computers. We receive numerous requests on a routine basis for additional computers. Right now, senators are entitled to four computers. A number of people, because they use laptops and because they hire people sometimes on a short-term basis, require more than the present allocation. Ms. Bouchard will, hopefully, convince us that she has a solution to this problem.
[Translation]
Ms. Bouchard: Yes, in fact we have presented several options to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, precisely to help senators get the computers they need. In the briefing note, the status quo was one option, of course. There could also be an increase to a maximum of five computers from four, or transfers between senators could be authorized. That option is being considered because we were asked to explore it. The fourth option is to provide a number of computers equal to the number of people working in senators' offices.
To be able to offer senators greater flexibility, we are proposing to go with the fourth option. Today, people employed in a senator's office should be entitled to a computer just as they are entitled to a telephone or an office, because they need to access the network in order to do their job.
Given that the Services Directorate already has the budget for replacing all computers, which happens at the end of their life cycle, and the budget impact for procuring computers for senators' offices is minimal, we are proposing that all computers, with the exception of laptops, that are for a senator's office on Parliament Hill be supplied by Senate administration. Unused computers will be returned to Information Services. Because computers on Parliament Hill would be supplied by administration, senators will be authorized to purchase a maximum of two computers or laptops out of their expense budget, for use outside their parliamentary office. As a result, the number authorized will go from four to two.
A senator will be able to decide to purchase a laptop computer to be shared by their staff members, out of the money for one of the two computers they are entitled to.
Computers used by senators' staff for home use will have to be approved by IEC. If approved, the computer will be counted against the senator's two entitlements.
The purchase of any laptops, whether or not connected to the Senate network, must be charged to the senator's expense budget. The laptop will be counted against the senator's two entitlements.
The Senate administration will only upgrade or replace standard computers connected to the Senate network. Senators will be responsible for upgrading or replacing their laptops or computers used off the Hill, that is, the two to which they are entitled.
However, if a senator wants to upgrade a computer provided by the administration — because we provide one standard computer — still deemed within its projected lifecycle, the computer must be approved, because the configuration has to be approved by the Information Services Directorate. However, the costs will be charged to the senator's expenses budget.
For example, we have the 19-inch standard for monitors. If a senator wants a 26-inch monitor, they will have to cover the extra out of their budget.
We think this new policy will better meet senators' needs in respect of computers on Parliament Hill and off the Hill.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Some of us are now using two monitors for some computers. What will the policy be for using two monitors?
Ms Bouchard: That is a good question. We want to limit the number of computers. There are some requirements to have two monitors. For example, we have a new senator who likes to work with two monitors because he likes to move files from one monitor to the other. That has become a practice now. We also use that in ISD. That would come out of your office budget, though.
Senator Jaffer: But could we still get the second monitor?
Ms Bouchard: I would say so, because it is not expensive.
The Chair: Perhaps you can explain to the other senators what two monitors mean?
Senator Jaffer: Perhaps I can explain. Every staff member in my office has two monitors. I do not need two, but the staff do. It eases their work. I do not want them to lose these monitors. I am not talking about two computers and the new policy.
The Chair: Can you explain this configuration for our colleagues?
Ms Bouchard: Yes. It is a card installed in your computer that gives you the possibility to have two monitors and the ability to move files from one monitor to the other. Those who must work on different applications and different databases need to see the content. It is convenient for those who must work on more than one application.
The Chair: If you are working on file A and want to work on file S, you can just drag it over?
Ms Bouchard: That is right. That is all it is.
The Chair: It requires two screens to do so?
Ms Bouchard: At one point, a senator was looking for a 36-inch monitor, which is extremely expensive, so we recommended the use of two monitors. It provides the same flexibility and the ability to work with different applications at the same time. Not everyone uses that system, though.
Senator Tkachuk: Does it require two screens? You can move files from one area to the other on one screen and not really need two screens. Two screens is a luxury, is it not?
Ms Bouchard: For those who must work on, for example, a database and need access to other files, it provides the possibility to see more on the screen.
Senator Tkachuk: I guess so.
Ms Bouchard: With one screen, you have to close the application and the file that you are working on. This method gives you a better view of what you are working on.
Senator Tkachuk: I did not know work was that complicated.
Senator Jaffer: Yes, because you do not do it.
The Chair: It is a fairly common practice, and you can either go to an expensive large screen or do it cheaper with two screens.
Senator Downe: As I understand this policy, I have two employees in my office, and that would entitle me to a maximum total of five computers. Is that correct?
Ms Bouchard: That is right. We do not want to count the computers you have in the parliamentary precinct.
Senator Downe: Right. I appreciate that.
Ms Bouchard: We only care about the two that you are allowed outside the parliamentary precinct. These are the ones for which you will be accountable.
Senator Downe: I have two employees presently. If one were to leave, then my allocation would be reduced from five to four?
Ms Bouchard: That is what I am saying. In that context, we are not talking about allocation. The only allocation is for the computers that will be purchased from your office budget for use outside the parliamentary precinct.
Senator Downe: Let me reword the question, then. With two employees and myself, the Senate would provide three computers. My budget, if I decide to do this, will now be allowed to buy two additional units for use wherever, either in the office or in my home office?
Ms Bouchard: Yes.
Senator Downe: If the number of employees in my office were reduced from two to one, then I would still be entitled to three, if they were from the Senate allocation, but under the other policy of "up to two," I would only be entitled to one?
The Chair: Let me try to clarify that. In those circumstances, Senator Downe, if you have three computers in your office with two employees and one employee leaves, then that computer goes back to Information Services.
Ms Bouchard: That is right.
Senator Downe: Thank you. I was trying to be helpful.
Ms Bouchard: It gets confusing. At one point, senators, if you have two additional employees who work for you, Senate administration will provide you with two computers.
Senator Stollery: I am interested in the computers used outside the parliamentary precinct, namely, the laptops.
I want to address this business of turning things back in when you change computers. I have had at least one of them sitting around for years that no one has picked up. Computer Services has as much trouble getting rid of old computers as anyone else has. As you know, most garbage systems will not take old computers, so they never pick them up. At least, that has been my experience. I am tripping over it.
Senator Prud'homme: Take it and put it at their door.
Senator Stollery: I rely very much on the laptop. I am getting a bit concerned because I just fried one on the Russia trip. This is the first time that I have ever fried a computer.
Senator Robichaud: How did you do that?
Senator Stollery: You would be surprised at how easy it is. That is how computer people talk. They "fry" them. I fried mine. It was amazing, really. I had a small, quite high powered one, because a friend who is a doctor of computer science at MIT recommends what I should get.
Senators use their computers all the time. When I am in Toronto, in my office, I use that computer to check my email account. I also have one here in my apartment in Ottawa so that I can do things here. That is very important. Every office has a computer. We accept that if you say there are two employees, you get a certain number of computers; that is pretty obvious.
However, the part that does not seem to be dealt with is this business of the laptops. More and more, we are using laptops. We all travel. Everyone here is traveling all the time. It does happen that you can fry that screen, which happened to me. I was amazed. As I understand it, I now have to pay for it. We all use ourselves as the example. I have been here long enough to understand that.
Therefore, the computer comes out of my office budget. That reduces my office budget substantially because those computers tend to be more expensive than the standard ones. Now that I have fried this thing, working on it — I was not playing around — I have to now buy a new one; I am told we have to get a new one. That will also, presumably, come off my office budget.
I am getting a little concerned about that. I think that is something that should be visited more in depth. I cannot believe that, with 100 senators, there are not a lot of people like myself who keep a laptop in their office at home, which they use, in addition to those who are not from Ottawa and have other computers in their apartments.
That is an important issue because that will take something like $5,000 off your budget right away. I do not know how much they cost but I am assuming a couple of grand.
I think that is a problem. You are taking five grand off my budget, though not every year. Nevertheless, it is getting expensive, and the global budgets are not rising particularly fast to allow for this sort of expense. I would like to hear more about it.
The Chair: The normal rule, Senator Stollery, is that if items like laptops or Blackberrys are damaged through no fault of the senator's, and if it is outside of warranty period for the product, then Information Services or whoever is responsible for it will replace it. That is my understanding. Is that correct?
Ms. Bouchard: For the Blackberry, we have to review the policy. However, senators may have to replace their laptops because the technology is no good or because it is broken. It was bought from the office budget. Information Services does not pay for it.
The only thing we will do is repair it if it is not on warranty. We do have a budget to support that. We are trying to help senators with this but, if it has to be replaced because it cannot be repaired, it must be purchased from the office budget.
The Chair: Repairs are done —
Ms. Bouchard: Through Information Services.
The Chair: — through warranty or Information Services.
Ms. Bouchard: That is right. We are taking that responsibility.
The Chair: Free of charge.
Ms. Bouchard: There is no charge for that. However, if it must be replaced because it cannot be repaired, it has to come from the office budget. The Senate does not have the budget to support that responsibility.
The Chair: If Senator Stollery was using his laptop for football, he would be personally responsible for that, correct?
Ms. Bouchard: When you talk about fault or no fault, a laptop can break at any time. There is nothing I can do to predict it. Unfortunately, it happens, as Senator Stollery said. Those computers can fry, and it must be replaced. If it is not under warranty any anymore, it is at least three to four years old.
Senator Stollery: Having discovered how easily this can happen, I can lose $2,000 of my office budget just like that. I do not think that should be the case.
I know enough about computers, which I basically hate, to know how they work. I do not have a Blackberry. Rather, I have one but I never use it. I hate it.
Senator Munson: You do not know what you are missing.
Senator Stollery: I am concerned about the office budget because it is only going up in very small increments, and you can suddenly run into the expense of a new laptop which is becoming more and more common. If you travel, you must have one.
The Chair: That is an issue a little aside from the policy we are considering, but it is something we will ask Ms. Bouchard to consider and report to us at a later time.
Senator Tkachuk: I have a question regarding the two extra computers we purchase out of our budget. An office that has a senator plus two employees gets three computers. I use that as an example. However, I would have an entitlement to buy two more.
Ms. Bouchard: Correct.
Senator Tkachuk: However, if I was buying a computer for my home office, would it require an Internal Economy request, a purchase order or would you buy it for me?
Ms. Bouchard: That is right. You would buy it from your office budget. You do not need any authorization from Internal Economy.
"Authorization from Internal Economy," would come into play if, for example, you wanted to use one of your entitlements so one of your employees could have a computer at home. I think it is important that Internal Economy approves that decision because it takes one of your entitlements to be used by one of your employees.
Senator Tkachuk: What is the definition of an "employee?" I have two employees. If there is someone working part time, do you provide a computer? What about a volunteer?
Ms. Bouchard: For volunteers, I will if there is a requirement. We have a loan program right now and it has been used for those kinds of requirements
Senator Tkachuk: Therefore, if you had three volunteers in your office, you would get three computers?
Ms. Bouchard: I hope it will not become permanent, but yes, absolutely.
Senator Tkachuk: I am asking because reasonable people will do reasonable things. However, as I have found out being a member of Internal Economy, there are many unreasonable people. This situation will cause us to revisit the policy because someone will have five volunteers working in the office, or four part-time people. Therefore, you are supplying six computers.
I think there should be a reasonable limit. I think that is something we should discuss here because that will happen for sure.
Senator Munson: I was never very good at math at all. I think Senator Comeau might want to hear this because of his leadership responsibilities. As a whip, I have three staff. They each work on a computer. I have a laptop, which I work on in my office and take on the road. I have a computer in my home office. Is that okay? Is that all covered?
Ms. Bouchard: That is right. For the leadership, we are providing whatever you need to support your function. The Senate administration will provide particular roles, like the Speaker or opposition, with the equipment that is required to do that role. That is not as a specific senator. You are not using the same entitlements. Did I answer your question?
Senator Prud'homme: I was asked to revise the policy for departing senators the irritants, et cetera. Some may smile when you are 10 years from retirement, you are not paying attention, but you will get there, too.
The problem is that there is no continuity of memory in the committee sometimes. They will always come back and say, "In September 1994, the board of Internal Economy decided that. . . ." and then it is up to them to decide. If you do not like what they decide, it is up to you to pay attention to what you are given as an explanation. Correct me if I am wrong, it is the Internal Economy Committee that ultimately decides to say: "Okay, you explained your case to us very well." You explain the current system, as it is at the moment. However, if the Internal Economy Committee was to decide otherwise, when you come back you will say that you will provide the following according to what the master — I am sorry to use that word, I hate it — has decided. Am I on the right track on this?
Ms. Bouchard: No, if Internal Economy decides it wants to go a specific route, we will adjust accordingly. My role here is to present you with options that would better fit needs of the senators based on our experience working. I know it has been a problem for the steering committee. They have been receiving a lot of requests for additional computers. That is why we do the analysis. We are trying to come back with the best solution.
Senator Prud'homme: Mr. Chair, when Ms. Bouchard says we have received a lot of requests, maybe all these requests should be addressed to Internal Economy through you. If there is a problem, Ms. Bouchard will outline the policy as it stands and tell us what she can do for us. If we do not like it, we can go to Internal Economy, unless I misunderstand the role of Internal Economy.
The Chair: I take your point, Senator Prud`homme. Hopefully, when we adopt this particular policy, it will take care of a lot of those additional requests. If we are to adopt it, we will adopt it with the caveat that Senator Tkachuk pointed out. If you receive any requests for something out of the norm — the norm would be four to five computers — you bring it to the attention of the steering committee immediately.
Ms. Bouchard: It must be reasonable. This is my role.
Senator Tkachuk: I have a question regarding disposing of computers. I have a computer at home. After a five-year period, I traded it in. I wanted to donate it to the Catholic school board, but I was told I could not do it. I had to ship the computer back to Ottawa. It was $130 or something for packaging and shipping. It was sent back to Ottawa where I understand, it was then given to a school in Ottawa. I do not get this.
I understand why you have the policy. You do not want all this stuff simply disappearing into the ether. However, there must be some way we can set up a system to allow local donation. We can do that and present a receipt, a letter of confirmation or whatever. I do not mind that. That would be a good thing to do so it is not being passed to your grandchildren, et cetera.
Ms. Bouchard: I have invited Marysa to answer that question. Disposal of computers is not part of my responsibility.
The Chair: Before you answer, Senator Robichaud has something to add.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I thought we had to postpone it so we could purge all the confidential information from the computer that might be on it.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: I can take the hard drive out and bring it here to be cleaned and take it back. I carry that in my briefcase. I do not ship that. It is the monitor and everything else what we have to be careful with.
The Chair: How good is the cleaning process?
Ms. Bouchard: We have an application from the RCMP that supports the cleaning process.
An Hon. Senator: CSIS is doing our cleaning.
Ms. Bouchard: No, we are not going to the RCMP.
Senator Tkachuk: They have a file on us.
The Chair: It is a satisfactory, state-of-the-art cleaning process?
Ms. Bouchard: It is authorized and secured, absolutely. If we feel that we are not comfortable with it, we simply destroy the hard drive. Do not worry about that.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I was told that if you do not destroy the hard disk, it is still possible to get information that was saved. Is that true?
Ms. Bouchard: There are always some people who are very adept and have tools for that purpose.
The RCMP develops tools precisely to destroy information. Those tools have been tested. I am not a technician so I can't do it. But I can tell you that the tool erases the system, and goes over it a second and third time.
In the case of a computer connected to the network, it is important to know that the information is not on the hard disk, it is on the network. Our concern is with home computers and laptops. For them, we take a lot more precautions because we know the information has been on the hard disk.
But I would reiterate that for the computers on Parliament Hill, that are connected to the network, the information is not on the hard disk, it is on the server, because we are responsible for saving and we handle security.
Unfortunately, I cannot guarantee that the process is 100 per cent secure. I would like to say, however, that the RCMP has tested these applications and we follow specific instructions about how to erase information. I can't tell you anything more about that.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. For the last issue, Ms. Oueriemmi, could you address the point raised by Senator Tkachuk?
Marysa Oueriemmi, Director, Building Services, Senate of Canada: The school program is a federal program. Once the computers are secure, they are disposed through that program. For information purposes, I will make a request to have a report where all those computers go across the country. As well, I receive on occasion from different missions or organizations requests for help. I have received them from NGOs from Haiti, Gabon and all over. When we receive such requests, I can go to the clerk and steering to see if this is something they would like to support. Regularly, we go through the school program.
For information purposes, I would find it interesting to see where all those computers are deployed.
However, senator, if you have a specific cause that is near and dear to your heart and would you like to share that with me, I can have a look at that.
Senator Tkachuk: I assume that is yes, but I am not sure.
The Chair: If a senator wants to donate a computer to a cause in his or her home province, it will not be an issue.
Ms. Oueriemmi: If he provides me with that request, I can bring that forth and get approval to do so, by all means.
The Chair: Could we have a motion to adopt the new policy on computers. Moved by Senator Downe, all those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contra-minded? Carried.
Is there anything under other matters? If not, thank you for your attention.
(The committee adjourned.)