Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 7 - Evidence - November 3, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 3, 2016
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, pursuant to rule 12-7(1) of the Rules of the Senate, met this day at 8:00 a.m. for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, colleagues. I call the meeting to order. I was under the impression, colleagues, that Halloween was on October 3, but I see Michel Patrice and Nicole Proulx are all dressed up on November 3.
On that note, colleagues, we'll go right into item 1, adoption of minutes of proceedings of October 20 and 27, 2016. What I've noticed here on the minutes, upon a little bit of prodding from my colleague Senator Batters, is that these minutes don't necessarily reflect everything after. We move that the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates be authorized to examine and report on any supplementary estimates, including new funding requests for the current fiscal year, 2016-17, as well as the Main Estimates of 2017-18, and that the subcommittee review the proposed estimates keeping in mind the necessity for the Senate and the administration to demonstrate responsible management of public funds.
The minutes here should also reflect that this review of the estimates was done upon request of Senator Harder and Senator Day. That was not clearly stated in the minutes. Just as a point of information, we will clearly state that this decision was taken upon the request of Senator Harder and Senator Day to have the budgets reviewed.
Senator Batters: So just to be clear, because I had obviously stepped out for a brief minute during that part of the meeting, that was a request for more money from both of those people?
The Chair: I have not actually seen the letter. I forwarded it to Senator Wells.
Senator Wells: I'd be happy to speak on it. The letter from Senator Harder was for estimates for next fiscal year. The letter from Senator Day was for supplementary for this year. It was related to a budget request.
The Chair: If I may, colleagues, I had a discussion with Senator Wells and Senator Cordy at steering that, given the context is ever-changing in the Senate, that there would be a general review by the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates or the Estimates Committee to come back with a platform that is a bit more long term in scope. Again, with all the non-affiliates and the caucuses changing in terms of numbers, we need to find a more stable, long-term solution to adequate funding of our colleagues. We pass that torch on to you, Senator Wells. Are there any other questions on item 1, colleagues?
If there are no questions, will somebody move the minutes, please? It was moved by Senator Tkachuk, seconded by Senator Cordy. Thank you.
Item 2 on the agenda, we have the mandate of the Advisory Working Group on the Review of Human Resources. As you know, colleagues, we have also had a working group to review the SARs during the summer. They're pretty close to finalizing the recommendations that will be brought to this committee in the next few weeks. We also want to add an element of the review with regard to the administration employee policies and benefits, working conditions and rules. We'd like that work to be conducted by the Subcommittee on Human Resources.
Essentially I'd like to move a motion that the Advisory Working Group on the Review of Human Resources also be authorized to examine and harmonize the working conditions, policies and benefits of Senate employees with the objective of bringing them into line and to make them more consistent with the changes that will be proposed to us to make them consistent with what we will be doing with Senate employees and house leader employees.
Senator Jaffer: I'd like a bit of clarification on that. On the policy side, it would just be on employees because we've done it between the senators, am I correct?
The Chair: Right.
Senator Jaffer: The other point I raised when we were doing a review of the policy. It's good for our staff to have the benefits and harmonize, but I'm concerned about hiring practices. Our staff is political, administration staff isn't, and administration staff has other issues to look at, like diversity and all those good things. I'm hoping we can provide more direction to the committee because obviously our staff hiring practices is a little different from the administration's hiring practices. They're not one staff.
The Chair: I agree, senator. As your committee, the subcommittee working group over the summer took that under consideration. I'm sure the subcommittee on HR will be more than sensitive to that reality. We know there are certain elements where there can't be homogeneity because there are some elements of their work and the work of our political staff that you pointed out that are distinctly different.
Senator Jaffer: Senator Tannas, I take it you are the chair? Sorry, I didn't know. What happened over the summer when I was hiring somebody, I was asked whether I had done a tender or something like that. I was quite concerned about that because senators hire from a different perspective than the administration, so I want to make sure that we take that into consideration.
The Chair: Absolutely, we will.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
The Chair: Keep in mind, colleagues, the work of the working group over the summer on SARs will be depositing a report here for debate and discussion for Internal Economy, which of course we will broaden that debate with our caucus members and senators across the board.
Senator Batters: I'm wondering what the reasoning is for bringing this forward? Not having a lot of experience with what the working conditions, policies or benefits might be for Senate employees for the administration, I'm wondering, are there some massive differences between the two? What is the reason for having this?
The Chair: We've given a mandate to review all the rules and policies and we've done that extensively across the board. We realized towards the end of the work of the other working group that this was an omission. Given the fact that there is already a working group on HR to review the administrative operations of HR, it would be a natural fit for them.
You're asking my personal opinion? Do I think there are some vast differences?
Senator Batters: Or maybe someone from the Senate administration could tell us what the reason is.
The Chair: We think, as senators that have looked at the rules, that there are some vast differences, some that we can bring closer in line, and there are some areas where, like I said, it's impossible to do that.
Maybe Senator Tannas wants to weigh in on this.
Senator Tannas: Senator Massicotte is on both committees, so he was the one who kind of initially said, "Look, I think there are areas where the Policy Review Committee is reviewing a policy that's better off being reviewed through a human resource lens, or at least both sets should look at them.'' Our response was we don't have a mandate to look at policies. We have a different mandate. This just brings it in line so everyone knows there will be two noses looking at some of these policies to make sure they're okay.
Senator Batters: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Any other questions, colleagues?
Senator Marshall: When will we get the revised SARs? You were saying they worked over the summer and it's almost —
The Chair: I suspect we should have them in the next few weeks.
Senator Jaffer: December 1 is our next meeting, and then after that it will be the finalizing. I don't see it coming until —
The Chair: After Christmas?
Senator Jaffer: — after Christmas.
The Chair: I'm always enthusiastically hopeful.
Senator Tkachuk: It should be done before the next century.
The Chair: Colleagues, as you can appreciate, really this was not easy work. There were a lot of rules, and they had to review how they were in the past and how they are currently. There's some good, diligent work that the subcommittee did over the summer. They worked very hard, and we should be appreciative of their efforts, that they really drilled down on all this stuff. The administration, over a year now, has also been working at this. We're trying to get it right so the final document that comes before us is as detailed as possible. It's important work and it's important that every senator has a say on this as well so we are all on the same page.
Senator Cordy: Just to follow up on the chair's comments, steering was invited to attend the past few meetings, which started at eight o'clock in the morning on a Monday morning and finished at six at night and then started again on Tuesday morning and went until our caucus meeting started at 11:45. The work that's been done by this subcommittee is incredible. We were invited in sort of at the closing to see whether or not we had strong disagreements or if they were going in the right direction. The committee did a phenomenal job. It has been very detailed and I congratulate them on the work. It would be nice to say it will be finished next week, but they've really done a lot of heavy work on this.
The Chair: I want to highlight and thank especially Senator Plett and Senator Jaffer, who chaired and co-chaired that committee, for all their hard work over the summer when some of us were maybe poolside. So thank you, senators.
Do I have someone moving the motion? Senator Tannas, seconded by Senator Hubley. Thank you, colleagues. Good luck, Senator Tannas.
Item 3 on the agenda is a continuation of hard-copy subscription service. There has been a debate about going digital or keeping our hard-copy newspapers. I turn the floor over to Pascale.
Pascale Legault, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement, Senate of Canada: A decision is required by this committee before the end of December 2016 to continue with hard-copy newspaper delivery or to transition to electronic subscription for all senators for efficiency and cost saving purposes. Currently, the Senate contracts are through a broker for the subscriptions delivered to the Hill for senators and the reading room. The annual cost was $38,000 in 2015-16.
Clearly there are pros and cons for electronic subscriptions, and the same applies for hard copies. Last year a survey was done by procurement with senators' offices using the broker service, and the trend continues to show that a third of senators are satisfied with electronic subscription while more than a third of senators find the electronic reading is not convenient and/or not efficient for their purposes.
Based on client needs, it is recommended that the committee authorize the administration to proceed with a competitive process to award a contract with a dollar value greater than $100,000 but less than $250,000 for hard-copy newspaper subscription services for a three-year period with an option to extend the contract by a period of one year for a maximum of two additional years.
The administration is also recommending that we send a memorandum to all senators to inform and promote the benefit of electronic subscriptions with options available to them.
Senator Downe: I support the recommendation.
The Chair: Senator Batters, you have a question?
Senator Batters: Yes, more of a comment. I'm glad to hear that the recommendation is to continue with hard-copy delivery because I prefer that, but I like to have the option of electronic as well. I think that at a time when hundreds of journalists and other people in the news media are being laid off across this country, this would absolutely be the wrong message to send, to move away from hard-copy newspaper subscriptions simply to save a very small amount of money.
I also wanted to bring up something related to this, which I hope the Rules Committee, SARs, whatever committee is taking a look at it, because I've brought up this issue before. Many of us don't only have work that we do, of course, in Ottawa, but we also work from our homes, wherever those are. Sometimes that's very far away, like mine is, a substantial air flight away to Saskatchewan. So I don't have access to my hard-copy newspapers easily from my Senate office. Also, we're away for substantial periods of time when we're in our home provinces doing work there. I wanted to be able to get a hard-copy newspaper subscription here as well as an electronic one that I could access wherever I was, home or here. With certain newspapers certain articles are only available online. You can't even get them in the newspaper, yet I'd like to have that option too.
I was told that the rule as it currently stands is you're not allowed to do that. I don't know if that's just interpretation of the rule, because some people I've spoken to, some senators, they've indicated that they do get both. I'm not sure if certain people in Senate Finance are interpreting it one way and others another way, but I would like the option of having both a hard copy subscription to the same newspaper that I also have an electronic subscription to.
Senator Downe: That is available through the Library of Parliament. You get an app from Apple and the library —
Senator Batters: It doesn't work on my computer.
Senator Downe: It works on your iPad.
Senator Batters: I don't have one.
Senator Downe: Well, that's a problem. The Library of Parliament has —
Senator Batters: An electronic subscription is substantially cheaper than an iPad. I think we should have the option to pay it out of our office budget.
Senator Tkachuk: I subscribe to the National Post at the office and I also have it on my iPad. I get both, no problem. Call in the auditor.
Senator Cordy: I have the Chronicle Herald hard copy delivered to my home in Halifax. Because I subscribe to it through the hard copy, it automatically is given to me online. You could check —
Senator Batters: The Globe and Mail isn't. That was specifically the one that I asked about.
Senator Campbell: Why don't you just get an iPad?
Senator Batters: I prefer not to get an iPad.
Senator Cordy: It's tough when it's given through the library that we then allow everybody to get it individually. I don't know what to tell you.
Senator Campbell: You have the option of an iPad. You're picking and choosing —
Senator Batters: I brought it up simply because I thought it was a rule that I thought was potentially going to be dealt with in that SARs issue, and it was specifically dealing with newspapers.
The Chair: Colleagues, I'm looking for guidance here.
Senator Downe: I move the recommendation.
The Chair: It's moved by Senator Downe, seconded by Senator Wells. Thank you, colleagues.
Item 4. Senator Wallace has requested Item 4 on the agenda, thus I turn the floor over to Senator Wallace.
Senator Wallace: As my colleagues would recall, I've raised this issue of the seizure of Senator Duffy's sessional allowance during our last two meetings, and what drew my attention to this was an October 5 published article that said that the Senate would be seizing or setting off against his sessional allowance to recover $16,955.
I've had a look at everything that I believe is relevant. I requested information from the clerk, which she graciously provided to me, and that was most helpful.
Colleagues, I have a motion that I would now like to move, and, after I move it, of course, I would like to speak to it. That motion would be as follows.
Senator Cordy: Do you have a copy?
Senator Wallace: Yes, I think the clerk has that. I'll just wait until you each have it in front of you.
Honourable senators, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration immediately revoke and rescind the decision for Senator Duffy to reimburse $16,955 for ineligible expenses;
That the committee immediately revoke and rescind any further seizure/set-off from Senator Duffy's sessional allowance in regards to the above-mentioned expenses; and
That all amounts to date that have been seized/set-off from Senator Duffy's sessional allowance in regards to the above mentioned expenses be reimbursed to him.
Colleagues, as I'm sure you would recall, I forwarded to each of you my letter of October 26, which deals with many of these issues.
I would like now to move a motion to have that letter tabled here before this committee. That motion is being distributed.
Honourable senators, I move:
That my letter to the members of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, dated October 26, 2016, regarding the decision to require Senator Duffy to repay disputed Senate expenses be filed as an exhibit with the clerk of the committee.
Chair, if I could, I would now like to speak to the motion.
The Chair: The floor is all yours, sir.
Senator Wallace: Thank you. In a June 8, 2016, letter to Senator Duffy, the Clerk of Internal Economy stated that the Senate's Chief Financial Officer had conducted a further review of Senator Duffy's expenses, following Justice Vaillancourt's judgment on April 21, 2016. In the Chief Financial Officer's opinion, Senator Duffy had claimed $16,955 of ineligible expenses, and these were included in seven specific claims that she outlined and described.
The clerk's letter also stated that the steering committee had decided to conduct a preliminary review of the same expenses under Internal Economy's dispute resolution process and that Senator Duffy had 10 days to provide his observations in response. Both the Chief Financial Officer's opinion and the steering committee's preliminary review occurred in spite of the fact that Justice Vaillancourt had made rulings on each of the seven specific expense claims raised by the Chief Financial Officer.
In that regard, Justice Vaillancourt interpreted all relevant Senate rules and policies. He made specific findings of fact in that regard. He applied those facts in his interpretation of the Rules; I would say his objective interpretation of the Rules. He heard evidence from all of the relevant witnesses, and he reached final judgment on all of these matters.
The matter was, of course, before Justice Vaillancourt and not the Auditor General, as was the case with all other senators, including 30 senators who were named in a subsequent report by the Auditor General. Senator Duffy's matter was before Justice Vaillancourt as a direct result of the decision that had been taken by the Internal Economy Committee in May 2013 to refer that matter to the RCMP. It was that referral that ultimately resulted in the matter appearing before and being decided upon by Justice Vaillancourt.
Of course, as we all know, a judgment from our courts is that from the highest authority in this country.
Colleagues, parliamentarians must respect decisions of our courts, even at times when some may not agree with them. We can't pick and choose those we agree with and those we don't. Otherwise, we would send the wrong message to the public, and it would undermine the authority and credibility of our courts.
Neither the Senate's Chief Financial Officer, nor the Internal Economy Committee nor the steering committee can or should ever ignore judgments and findings of our courts, in this case, the judgment and findings of fact of Justice Vaillancourt.
On June 22, 2016, Senator Duffy, through his lawyer Donald Bayne, provided Senator Duffy's written observations in response. Those observations included 15 pages of detailed response, and, in that, Senator Duffy disagreed — and his lawyer disagreed — with the opinion of the Chief Financial Officer regarding the ineligibility of Senator Duffy's expenses that had been identified by the Chief Financial Officer, that is, the seven specific expense claims identified. In his observations, he also stated that the issues had been ruled upon by Justice Vaillancourt and that Justice Vaillancourt had found those expenses to be valid, appropriate and compliant with Senate rules and policies.
On June 23, 2016, in a joint statement issued by our Chair, Senator Housakos, and Deputy Chair Cordy, it was stated that, in Senator Duffy's case, the committee was following the dispute resolution process and that Senator Duffy's observations would, in fact, be taken into consideration.
A July 8, 2016, letter from the clerk to Senator Duffy stated that the three-person steering committee had determined that Senator Duffy had received an overpayment or made improper use of Senate resources and that he had 15 days to pay $16,955 or avail himself of arbitration under the dispute resolution process.
In a July 12 letter response from Mr. Bayne, he stated that the seven expense items were ruled to be appropriate by Justice Vaillancourt and that the steering committee demand for the payment of $16,955 was a collateral attack on the judgment and findings of Justice Vaillancourt and, consequently, that Senator Duffy would not be paying the requested $16,955, nor would he be taking part in the arbitration under the dispute resolution process.
In a July 28, 2016, letter from our Chair, Senator Housakos, and Deputy Chair, Senator Cordy, addressed to all senators, it was stated that the demand for payment by Senator Duffy was as per the dispute resolution process and that the action outlined in the clerk's letter that was attached was to be final and binding.
In the July 28, 2016, letter from the clerk to Senator Duffy that, again, was attached to the letter from Senator Housakos and Senator Cordy, it stated that the steering committee had noted Senator Duffy's July 12 decision to neither repay nor avail himself of arbitration.
Also, that the dispute resolution process was established to be followed in situations like yours to ensure due process. And that the three-person steering committee had determined that Senator Duffy had received an overpayment of $16,955 for expenses that were considered ineligible.
Again, this is directly contrary to Justice Vaillancourt's findings. Consequently, the $16,955 would be recovered by set-off at 20 per cent from Senator Duffy's sessional allowance until fully recovered.
Just to clarify, I made the statement that there was an overpayment of $16,955, and I say that was directly contrary to Justice Vaillancourt's findings. I should point out that's my statement. That's not a statement that was in the letter by Senators Housakos and Cordy.
Colleagues, there is no authority whatsoever for the steering committee to seize and set-off from Senator Duffy's sessional allowance. At this point in time, July 28, no meeting of the entire 15-person Internal Economy Committee had been called to discuss and consider Senator Duffy's observations of June 22, his decision not to pay or avail himself of arbitration, which was on July 12, or the steering committee's July 28 decision to seize and set-off from Senator Duffy's sessional allowance.
Senators Housakos and Cordy had stated that Senator Duffy's situation was being dealt with in accordance with the dispute resolution process to ensure due process. In that regard, I would refer you to section 4.1 of the dispute resolution process. In that section, it says that if a senator does not reimburse the requested amounts, nor exercises an option to use the special arbitrator provided for in the dispute resolution process:
The Steering Committee shall submit a written report to the Committee and may recommend to the Committee to require the reimbursement of the amount determined and any other corrective measure within its authority.
So under section 4.1, steering was to submit a written report to the committee, and it could provide recommendations to the committee. This did not occur.
Under section 4.1, the ultimate decision to be made, after Senator Duffy gave notice that he would not pay the $16,955, nor avail him of arbitration, is to be made by the entire Internal Economy Committee. In that regard, I would refer you to the heading of section 4 of the Dispute Resolution Process, which is entitled "Referral to Committee.'' Again, this did not occur. I've been a member of this committee since June 8, and this just did not occur.
My conclusion is that the steering and Internal Economy Committee did not comply with section 4 of the dispute resolution process.
Colleagues, I now wish to comment further on the actions taken by and the authority of the steering committee. Once again, the steering committee membership consists of two Conservative senators, one Liberal senator and no independent senators.
As I said, the steering committee did not comply with the requirements of section 4.1 of the dispute resolution process. Furthermore, the steering committee is only a subcommittee of Internal Economy, yet from the correspondence to Senator Duffy it is purporting to make decisions that are final and binding on financial matters of serious importance and consequence to Senator Duffy.
The actual authority of the steering committee is limited under section 19.5 of the Parliament of Canada Act. The steering committee can act for the Internal Economy Committee if the Internal Economy chair deems an emergency existed. This did not happen.
Second, the authority of the steering committee originates from a motion of this Internal Economy Committee of December 10, 2015, and in that motion the steering committee was authorized to make decisions regarding agenda and scheduling meetings. Colleagues, neither of these are relevant to Senator Duffy's case. Also, if the steering committee is unable to meet, steering can deal with immediate administrative problems.
Colleagues, as a member of this committee, I can say there was no attempt for Internal Economy, the full committee, to meet subsequent to June 8 on these matters.
I now want to refer you to the actions and authority of this 15-person Internal Economy Committee. Membership of this committee consists of 9 Conservative senators, 4 Liberal senators and 2 independent senators.
The dispute resolution process was created by the Internal Economy Committee without consultation, debate and approval of the Senate Chamber. Matters of such importance are significant, obviously, to all senators, as decisions under the dispute resolution process are to be final and binding. Consequently, all senators should have the opportunity in Senate Chamber to discuss, approve and either ratify, reject or modify the dispute resolution process. This did not happen.
Also, the dispute resolution process was not and has not been incorporated into the Senate Administrative Rules or the Rules of the Senate. Once again, the Internal Economy Committee did not comply with the requirements of section 4.1 of its own dispute resolution process.
The committee did not comply with the requirements of section 4.1 of the dispute resolution process, after Senator Duffy indicated he would not pay the requested amount or avail himself of arbitration. This required decision should have been by the entire Internal Economy Committee.
Also, I would point out that in section 4 of the Senate Administrative Rules, it expressly states that the Internal Economy Committee cannot regulate, direct or control procedural matters, and I think there is little doubt that the dispute resolution process is clearly a procedural matter.
Since June 8, following the opinion of the Chief Financial Officer, there have been no meetings or discussions of the entire 15-person Internal Economy Committee regarding the requirement that Senator Duffy repay $16,955 and that his sessional allowance be seized.
Furthermore, the decision of the steering committee, on July 28, to seize and set-off from Senator Duffy's sessional allowance was, in my view, clearly wrong and without proper authority to do so. The only express authority to deduct from sessional allowance is in section 57(1) and 59 of the Parliament of Canada Act.
In 57(1), which is entitled "Deductions for non-attendance,'' it provides that a deduction from sessional allowance of $120 a day will be deducted for every day beyond 21 that a member does not attend a sitting. Again, that's in the Parliament of Canada Act.
The steering committee, colleagues, in my view, had no authority to seize or set-off $16,955 from Senator Duffy's sessional allowance.
It has been stated by the leadership of Internal Economy that Senator Duffy must be treated the same as all other senators, in particular the 30 named in the Auditor General's report. I can say most definitely that this has not been the case.
Senator Duffy faced scrutiny and detailed investigations over expenses by the RCMP as a direct result of the May 13 decision of Internal Economy to refer the matter to the RCMP, and his expenses were not scrutinized by the Auditor General.
The decisions on the appropriateness of Senator Duffy's expenses were made by a court, namely Justice Vaillancourt, and not the Auditor General. No other senators were referred to the RCMP. No other senators faced suspension motions based on ill-advised allegations of gross negligence in the management of their parliamentary affairs. No other senator was suspended without pay for 20 months. No other senator faced an audit period of three years and nine months, compared to two years for all other senators. No other senator suffered a loss of pay for 20 months, which amounted to a net loss of $155,000. No other senator had to incur significant legal expenses to successfully defend themselves, and no other senator received a court decision confirming the appropriateness of the Senate expenses claimed.
So to say that Senator Duffy is to be treated the same, I would say the reality is otherwise.
Colleagues, much of what I've referred to relates directly to the mandate, structure and authority of Internal Economy and the steering committee and how that has been exercised. In that regard, concerns and shortcomings were clearly recognized by the Auditor General in his June 2015 report to the Senate. As you would recall, in that report, under the heading of "Findings and Recommendations,'' relating specifically to the Internal Economy Committee, the Auditor General, at paragraph 42, said:
. . . authority to make final decisions about how these rules are applied, may give rise to a perceived lack of objectivity, as those individuals may be viewed as looking after their own interests.
Paragraph 43:
. . . the Senators who sit on the Committee may be perceived as unable to make independent and impartial decisions.
Also, in the Auditor General's report under the heading of "Findings and Recommendations'' in paragraph 51:
The Senate of Canada should review the mandate and structure of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration . . . with the objective of creating independent oversight of Senators' expenses.
And in paragraph 52:
The oversight of Senators' expenses should be performed by a body —
— referred to as the "oversight body'' —
— the majority of whose membership, including its chair, is independent of the Senate.
Paragraph 53:
The mandate of the oversight body should include . . . the development and interpretation of rules, policies, and guidelines that apply to the expenses of Senators; the authority to review expenses incurred by individual Senators . . .; the authority to make final decisions on whether those expenses comply with the rules, policies, and guidelines . . .
Once again, those are the findings and recommendations of the Auditor General. Those recommendations to this point have not moved forward. This has not been implemented, and it would certainly be my hope and the hope of others that this occur without delay.
Colleagues, surely there can be no doubt that the Senate must be a leading example, parliamentary example, of openness, transparency, fairness, even-handedness, impartiality and objectivity. It must not only be that way but it must be seen as such by all senators and, equally as important, by all members of the general public.
In conclusion, colleagues, all things considered, I believe we should do the right thing in this matter, and in that regard, I respectfully ask for your support for this motion.
Although this particular situation relates to and has serious negative consequences for Senator Duffy, the issues that I have raised, in particular concerning the powers, authority and mandate of this Internal Economy Committee and the steering committee and how those powers and authorities, in fact, are exercised and impact all senators, should be a concern to all senators in a far broader sense as we move forward in the modernization of this institution. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Wallace. Before I turn it over to the floor, I just want to make some quick, brief comments. I appreciate your revisionist history of the facts, Senator Wallace, but I also want to point out a few blatant inaccuracies in your statement this morning.
First and foremost, the supreme authority over the Senate of Canada is the Senate of Canada, and Internal Economy has been mandated to administer budgets and administration on behalf of the Senate of Canada, and we report to the Senate of Canada. Whenever any decision is taken that isn't consistent to the majority view of the chamber, any senator can bring that to the attention of the chamber. It can be addressed very quickly.
Second, your premise that somehow Senator Duffy was investigated by a higher authority, I want to remind the public that it was Internal Economy that referred the Duffy file to the RCMP for criminal investigation on May 29, 2013. It didn't happen by osmosis. It was this organization that thought it was important for the RCMP to look at the criminal aspect — the Senate look at the criminal aspect of the expense claims.
Furthermore, you're talking about 4.1 in the ethics code about having to report to this committee. There was never a decision taken on any issue that was so widely consulted, where we widely consulted senators as this particular issue.
Steering went far above and beyond consulting Internal Economy. We consulted every single caucus — Conservative caucus, Liberal caucus. We invited independent senators before a meeting with the CFO in order to discuss the issue. We had a discussion with your own leader, Senator McCoy, on the issue. Steering came away believing that there was a vast majority view that these expenses needed to be treated within the process, the independent arm's-length process, that Internal Economy put into place, where as you appropriately pointed out at the end of your statements when you were commenting on the Auditor General's recommendations, that senators should not be sitting in judgment of senators' expense claims. And I can assure you, at least since May 2015, this committee has not sat in judgment, neither has steering, over senators' expenses. And going forward, as long as this is the makeup of this committee, we will not be sitting in judgment of senators' expense claims, which, Senator Wallace, is what you're trying to do.
Having said that, I also want to point out that you said in your statements that Senator Duffy was treated somewhat differently. What other senators were investigated by the RCMP? Well, 10 other senators were asked to be referred to the RCMP by the Auditor General, and we complied. Thirty senators were reviewed and their files were reviewed by the RCMP and they came to their conclusions.
Even bad lawyers, Senator Wallace, understand there is a distinct difference between criminal investigations, civil investigations and administrative issues. And clearly a criminal court of law does not have authority over our work and our business in the Senate of Canada.
I also want to point out that you said that there's no rule in terms of us garnishing salaries of senators. If you check chapter 3:05 of the SARs 4(1), it is crystal clear, and I will read it to you:
Where a person is indebted to the Senate, the Senate Administration may retain such amount by way of deduction or set-off that is or may become payable to that person by the Senate.
So that's clearly in our rules and clearly within the authority of this committee.
Again I want to highlight your last comments where you're referring to the Auditor General saying that it's inappropriate for political people to be sitting in judgment of their fellow politicians and colleagues. That's why this committee, in May 2015, took an unprecedented decision to say that we will not be taking these decisions any longer, we'll set up an independent arm's-length process with Justice Binnie, and no one is going to question his ability or his impartiality, and every single senator since that time who has had a dispute with finance, be it the 30 that had a dispute with the Auditor General, had the opportunity to go before him.
Again, steering acted within the confines of the guidance that this committee gave that when there is such a dispute, there are only two options: You pay or go before Justice Binnie, and Justice Binnie's decision would be final, firm and binding. That is not a decision of steering. That was a mandate given to steering by this committee, and we worked consistently within that mandate.
I don't want to go any further. I will give the floor now to our colleagues to respond to any other questions or comments.
Senator Batters: First, I want to emphasize that the Senator Duffy issue was dealt with in a criminal court, which is, of course, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So simply because a criminal court judge finds that the egregious nature of some of Senator Duffy's expenses that we're talking about here did not rise to the level of criminality does not mean that those expenses are appropriately paid by the Senate, i.e., Canadian taxpayers.
Seriously, let's remember what we're talking about here. I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but we're talking about, as I recall, as few thousand dollars — or maybe it was closer to $10,000 — for Senator Duffy's personal trainer. We're talking about a few thousand dollars for him to pay a speech writer —
The Chair: Senator Batters, because you're going into that element, maybe it would be helpful if we ask the CFO to put forward the general presentation of why we ended up having to come to the point that we've gotten to here.
Senator Batters: Sure, that would be helpful.
The Chair: Just to give a context to what the actual dispute between Finance and Senator Duffy is.
Ms. Legault: Thank you Mr. Chair. Before I go to the specific numbers, I want to clarify that the CFO did not ignore the judgment. In fact, my role as your CFO is to ensure that the Senate has an appropriate financial-control framework in place, and, when issues are raised, I go back to the root cause and try to determine if there is a policy clarification required or training or communication or controls that need to be modified. So it is really with that perspective that I reviewed the detailed ruling.
During that detailed review, I found seven expenses claims, and the first one is for $505. It relates to services provided from November 2011 to March 2012, and the original description that was submitted to Finance to process the invoice was "consulting and editorial services.'' That was signed by the senator as the service provided. The ruling is clear that this was for telecom plan over limits. We have a telecom policy for senators. That was in force. That clearly states, in section 2.3, that the total maximum entitlement for voice and data plan for each senator was seven, and Senator Duffy had already reached the limit for his office. Therefore, if all of that information had been submitted at the time of the expense claim, the invoice would not have been paid.
The second one is for $8. It's for personal photos. The senator himself indicated that those were personal. This may seem like a very small amount, but, when we're using taxpayers' money, we don't have discretion to accept small or large personal expenses.
The third amount relates to $500, and it was for services provided between February and June 2010. The original service description provided to Finance, at the time, indicated that this was for "consulting, editorial services.'' The ruling clearly reveals that this was for payment for a volunteer. The declaration that volunteers sign is very clear. It indicates that they understand that they will serve without compensation and that they will not make any future claims. We also have a clear policy and office management portal that indicates that volunteers are not remunerated. Again, if the information had been submitted at the time, it would not have been processed by Finance.
The next one is for $300. It is a little bit different because it was submitted as a makeup invoice to Finance, and this was in March 2009. When Finance received the invoice, a letter was issued to Senator Duffy explaining that this expenditure was not allowed under the Senate guidelines. After that, a new invoice was submitted, and it indicated that this was for "consulting, editorial services, research, writing and revision for heritage project.'' The ruling reveals that this related to the makeup services for $300. So, again, it would not have been processed if it had remained under makeup services.
The next one is the largest amount. It is for $10,000, for services provided between 2010 and 2012. The service description provided to Finance at the time indicated this this was for "consulting, editorial services, research, speech writing and revision on aging of the Canadian population.'' The ruling provides the information that those were for personal trainer services. This is not an eligible expense under the Senate policy in force at the time, nor would it be under the current rule.
The two last items: We have one for $2,500. It relates to an invoice that was submitted for speech writing for October 2010, and the invoice clearly provided the service description accurately, that it was for speech services. What was not disclosed at the time was that the senator also received $10,000 for the delivery of that speech. If that information had been disclosed to Finance at the time, the $2,500 would not have been reimbursed for that specific speech.
The last one is a travel claim that was submitted. It relates to September 2012. It was for the amount of $3,142. All the appropriate supporting documents were provided, including the boarding pass and everything. This was for a travel claim related to the delivery of a speech, but the information that was not disclosed at the time was that the senator also received $10,000 to deliver that speech. If that information had been disclosed to Finance, the payment for the travel claim would not have been processed.
All together these amounts add up to $16,955, and this is why I made a recommendation for reimbursement.
The Chair: Thank you for the context, Ms. Legault.
Sorry for interrupting, Senator Batters; you still have the floor.
Senator Batters: Thanks for giving me those numbers so that I can plug them into what I was going to say. To highlight, to me, what I found to be the most egregious expenses were the $10,000 for Senator Duffy's personal trainer, $2,500 for expenses to write a speech that he was paid $10,000 to deliver, and then the associated travel of $3,142 and the $300 for a makeup artist that was used by Senator Duffy. I didn't hear that before, but it's interesting that he referred to it as a "heritage project'' in his description.
The expenses were funneled by Senator Duffy, we heard through the trial, through a third party, where the contract Senator Duffy set up did not in any way accurately reflect the true purpose of that contract. As such, Senate Finance administration had no way of knowing what these expenses really were and was in no position to provide the proper assessment of those expenses at the time.
As stated by our CFO this morning, in fact, we know that at least one of those expenses, that makeup artist expense, was initially submitted by Senator Duffy to Senate Finance and was rejected by Senate Finance.
I think it's also important to remind everyone that Senator Duffy was the only senator dealt with by a suspension motion in our chamber in November 2013 who did not personally pay back any of his improper expenses. That was unlike Senator Wallin and Senator Brazeau, who repaid their amounts owing. Senator Duffy did not personally pay back any of his improper expenses, as judged at that particular time. Of course, the suspension motion did not deal with these expenses because we didn't know about them.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Pascale, for going over that list. I think it's important that that stays fresh in our minds so that we stay on topic and don't go into areas that are maybe a little bit more clouded.
The process is clear. One thing I do find disturbing — if I may ask Senator Wallace — with this motion is that you're advocating for reimbursement. You've put a motion for reimbursement; I have that correct.
One of the specific expenses that I find not only disturbing as an expense claimed but also extremely disturbing that you're advocating for this to be an accepted practice within the Senate expense rules is the charging to the Senate for a speech or, in general terms, for what could be described as, and clearly what is, a cost to the Senate for someone's personal business, not just their personal activities but their personal business. If Senator Duffy, which we believe to be the case, has a company, and that company includes him giving speeches across Canada, or wherever those speeches may be, and he gets paid $10,000, for which he was paid to give the speech and it didn't go to the Senate, it went to Senator Duffy or his company or his enterprise. It disturbs me that you believe, which is what it appears to me that you're advocating for, that expenses that are clearly for a personal business enterprise can be charged to the Senate, payment can be made to that personal business enterprise and that you think that's acceptable. Am I getting this wrong?
Senator Wallace: I would not disagree with you that —
The Chair: Senator Wallace, if I may allow all your colleagues to have a round. You have had ample opportunity to put your case forward. Maybe other senators can weigh in, and he can take the questions in the end.
Senator Wells: Thank you, chair, but I would like a specific answer to that. If that's the case, then the use of Senate resources for personal use is turned on its head. I would like a direct answer.
The Chair: We will give Senator Wallace the opportunity to respond to that.
Senator Cordy: Thank you, Senator Wallace, for bringing this in the open in case anybody has questions. I think everybody is pretty clear on what the expenses were and why decisions were made. I appreciate that.
When I hear about the expenses that were claimed, I cannot in good conscience support that the taxpayers of Canada pay $10,000 to any senator or any MP or any public servant — taxpayers of Canada, from my province of Nova Scotia — pay $10,000 so that I could have a personal trainer, or $300 for makeup, or $2,500 for somebody to write a speech for which I get paid $10,000.
What I find even more offensive is that the reasons for the expenses were misleading to Finance, and it was only because of the court case that Finance determined that misinformation was provided by Senator Duffy in order to get these expenses refunded. I find that quite offensive. So I thank Pascale very much for bringing this to the attention of everyone around the table.
Senator Tannas: I hope this is the last chapter in what's been a very sad story. Again, I also want to thank Pascale, although I was so discouraged to hear the descriptions. But it does get the blood running enough to say that I am absolutely committed to doing whatever is necessary — and I suspect all senators, with the exception of a very small number — to authorize, sanctify all the decisions that were made to try to manage this situation in as fair a way as possible. The dispute resolution process was established to take all of this out of senators' hands so we wouldn't be doing exactly what we are being asked to do here right now.
We've heard a lot about Justice Vaillancourt and understand all about that. He had a job to do, to decide whether or not Senator Duffy ought to go to jail or not for these kinds of activities. He made his decision and gave his rationale.
As part of the process that we've gone through, we hired a Supreme Court justice to be here so that any one of our senators could go through the process to get an outside, absolutely 100 per cent impartial decision around specific expenses; not whether or not a senator went to jail, just whether or not these expenses were due. Justice Binnie went a step further and publicly said that the Rules of the Senate are sufficiently clear for those who wish to follow them, and made decisions and dealt with, roughly, 20 senators that went through the process and actually made a number of revisions to the views that the Auditor General came to.
People that went through that process expressed their satisfaction. We didn't have anybody spin out of that process to say it was bad or flawed. In fact, people thanked Justice Binnie in many cases and paid the expenses that were judged to be due out of that process.
The consultation that went on here, to make sure that we wanted to continue to use that dispute resolution process in these new expenses that came out into the public domain as a result of the Duffy trial, was done. I, as a member of my caucus and as a member of this committee, felt I was sufficiently consulted all the way along and agreed, as I think most of us did, that we wanted to see the process continue to its conclusion.
I'm happy to vote on this particular motion. I'm happy to vote on any others that we need to ratify the decisions. If there was something that was improperly done, a step that wasn't taken, a rule that wasn't adequately parsed and dealt with, I'd be happy if we wanted to take some kind of a blanket ratification of ourselves. I think if it was necessary — I don't think it is — we could take it to the entire Senate, and I think we would handily get ratification. If that's what everybody thinks is necessary here, which I don't, but I put that on the table so that we can put this to rest and get on with the business of serving Canadians. Thank you.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much. I won't belabour the point. I associate myself with the comments of my colleagues, especially Senator Tannas.
But I do have one question for Senator Wallace. In preparing your motion, were you aware of the details that Pascale provided to us this morning, or is that the first time you were aware of the details?
Senator Wallace: Do you want me to answer that now?
Senator Marshall: It's just a "yes'' or "no.''
The Chair: Why don't we allow Senator Wallace an opportunity at the end to answer all of our questions?
Senator Marshall: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Wallace?
Senator Wallace: Thank you, chair. I want to thank all of you, and I certainly speak for myself. I wish I was not here speaking on this. I've done it because I feel it had to be done. I'm also not surprised that not everybody in the room agrees with me, but that's the job we have as senators. So I thank you for your comments.
Perhaps dealing with the CFO's description of the seven items, because that's really at the heart of it, that total $16,955. I think each of you know me well enough when I say this: I would not be one to advocate that taxpayers' money be used for improper purposes. I would never knowingly make a claim myself. Anyway, I think you probably realize that. I wouldn't advocate for something that I felt was clearly wrong. I wouldn't do that.
In coming to the conclusions that I did, and with the CFO's comments on each of the seven — yes, she did appear before our independent senators' group back in May and described what her conclusions were. At that meeting a number of us, certainly myself, had questions and exceptions with some of the conclusions. We had a discussion back and forth.
I would say, and I guess you could call that a consultation, but myself and others didn't feel that there was a going back and forth to see if there was any movement. It was simply that this is the position. But I appreciated the opportunity to hear that.
So on each of these items I wasn't there. I didn't hear, beyond that presentation, the conclusions of your department, but I based my conclusions on the facts. Each and every one of these items was considered exhaustively in Justice Vaillancourt's decision. He made decisions on each and every one of these as to whether or not he felt they complied with our rules and policies.
Now, he heard witnesses. We had witnesses from Senate Finance, Legal and Human Resources. There were witnesses called by the Senate who gave the evidence on exactly what the CFO was saying today. He heard that. The recipients of these monies were also called to give evidence.
So when I look at it, I look at the evidence, I look at what did he hear and what was his conclusion. I've heard a characterization of some of these expenses, the personal trainers and speeches. And those were the interpretations put forward by the Crown in the case. Justice Vaillancourt heard all of that. He not only had to make an ultimate decision if there was criminality, and in which case he certainly found there wasn't. All 31 charges were dismissed. But to get to that point, he had to apply and interpret the evidence he heard before him to the rules, and he did that with an objective, unbiased view of it. To me, that provided the factual basis.
I could listen to the characterization of some of these. Would I be comfortable with some of those items? No, I would not. The facts were thoroughly examined, and I'm dealing with the facts. The Senate had full opportunity to present all of the points that we've heard here today — and more — and that was his conclusion.
Again, and Senator Batters and others have said it and I agree, the test to be applied in a criminal case is different than a civil case. The testing consideration we may have internally within the Senate may be and would be different than the test to be met in a criminal case. I agree with that, the ultimate decision. But the factual basis is the same. The interpretation of the rules and policies in an objective way is the same.
All of us, having gone through the Auditor General's audit, each and every one of us knows the problems of our rules and the interpretation that we gave them and how each of us submitted our expenses. For each of us, there was questioning by the Auditor General. He didn't know the background of how it had been dealt with. He just ran it objectively, "This is what the rules say. This is what I believe objectively is the right conclusion.'' In many cases we disagreed with that. We said, "That's not the way we dealt with this internally.''
My point is we dealt with each of those situations. We understand bringing someone in objectively to look at these things. There may be a different interpretation than what there would be internally, but I would say to you that must be the test. Each of us has to be able to read the rules and understand them in an objective way. And that's what Justice Vaillancourt did.
That's my thought on that list of them. I base my thoughts on the facts, and I described to you where those facts originated from.
The other thing I would say to Senator Housakos is there were consultations with leaders, there were consultations with caucuses, and I'm sure there were. I know you well. You would not deal with something in a vacuum and in isolation. So I completely understand that, and I'm sure that occurred.
I can see when you refer to consultations with the different groups that there was a consultation, but it wasn't a give and take. It was just, "Here is our opinion on it, and that's what we're here to tell you.''
On matters of this importance, consultations, discussions, speaking to some senators, all of that is great background. The bottom line is we have to look at who makes the decision in these matters according to our rules. Is it Internal Economy? Is it steering? Are meetings called and dealt with in a proper form? That's my point in the dispute resolution process. That meeting of all members did not occur.
The Chair: Senator Wallace, thank you.
Very briefly, I just want to highlight a little nuance to your argument there when you say that Justice Vaillancourt dealt with these issues. The Senate was never asked to come and present our case on these particular expenses, for example. As you appropriately pointed out, it was a criminal case on criminal charges.
Our dispute with Senator Duffy — and I say "us'' meaning Finance's dispute — was an administrative dispute, and he was given the same opportunity all the rest of us were given since we put that independent dispute mechanism in place.
The only people who say they have not been treated fairly in the last year and a half, since putting the dispute resolution in place, is the leadership of the Senate because of circumstances — myself and the Leader of the Opposition at the time, the Leader of the Government, where we did not have an opportunity to go before Judge Binnie. We accepted the ruling of the Senate and of this committee, and I just paid back those expenses.
I'm glad you highlighted today that in May — that was the time we asked Pascale to go and reach out to all caucus members and all senators.
Senator Wallace, the bottom line — where I take exception with the premise here — is that steering did everything we could to reach out, consult the whole Senate and come to the conclusion that I'm so comfortable we came to, is that the vast majority of our colleagues felt that we should maintain the independent process that we have in place, that Judge Binnie was a credible person and able to adjudicate over these issues. I stand by that today. I'm a little disappointed that Senator Duffy didn't take the opportunity to go before Judge Binnie and get the ruling that many of our colleagues had on these types of disputes.
I don't want to belabour this any further. I'd like this motion to go to a vote before this committee.
Senator Wallace, again in the spirit of democracy and transparency, understand clearly that we're a body that is given guidelines by the Senate. If you're not satisfied with the answers you got today, I encourage you to move this motion on the Senate floor. I think if you do that, it will validate what steering got back as an opinion from colleagues.
I consulted you personally, and your opinion at the time, Senator Wallace, was the same as it was today. I respect the consistency in your opinion.
The leader of your group, Senator McCoy, her position was consistent then as it is today, but unfortunately or fortunately, depending on which side of the coin you stand, the vast majority of leadership in the Senate and senators gave us the indication that this file is going to be treated like every other file, and we can't make exceptions.
What you're asking, Senator Wallace, is for us to make an exception. I'll give you the last word for a minute and then we'll take the motion to a vote.
I'll give Senator Wallace a chance.
Senator Wallace: Thank you for that. I have just some comments about Justice Binnie. I completely agree. You couldn't say enough about Justice Binnie. He is an extremely credible individual. I believe having him as a final arbitrator, as set up in the dispute resolution process and removing at least that part of it from this committee, was a very good move. But in our rules and in section 4.1, senators are not compelled to opt for arbitration. That was envisaged in section 4.1 of the dispute resolution process, that if the person doesn't pay and doesn't opt for arbitration, then something happens. What happens? Steering submits a report and the committee makes a decision what to do with it. That's my point.
If the intention of Internal Economy was that it had to go to arbitration, the rules could have said that.
The Chair: Senator Wallace, there was nothing to report to this committee because this committee gave steering clear mandate that he either go before Justice Binnie — and that is not Senator Duffy — that all disputes go before Justice Binnie and his decision is final. Senators who choose not to go before Judge Binnie — and I use myself as an example — have to pay.
Colleagues, I will read the motion from Senator Wallace:
That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration immediately revoke and rescind the decision for Senator Duffy to reimburse —
An Hon. Senator: Dispense.
The Chair: Given the sensitivity of the subject, I will ask for a voice vote on the record.
Daniel Charbonneau, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, I will call the members' names, beginning with the chair and going in alphabetical order. Senators can verbally indicate whether they vote for or against or abstain.
The Honourable Senator Housakos.
Senator Housakos: Against.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Ataullahjan.
Senator Ataullahjan: Against.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Against.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell: Against.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: Against.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Downe.
Senator Downe: Against.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Jaffer.
Senator Jaffer: Against.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Against.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Ngo.
Senator Ngo: Against.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Smith.
Senator Smith: Against.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Tannas.
Senator Tannas: Against.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: Against.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Wallace?
Senator Wallace: For.
Mr. Charbonneau: The Honourable Senator Wells.
Senator Wells: Against.
Nicole Proulx, Chief Corporate Systems Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, Senate of Canada: For, 1; against, 13; abstentions, 0.
The Chair: Accordingly, the motion is defeated. Colleagues, we have another motion, again a motion by Senator Wallace:
That my letter to the members of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, dated October 26, 2016, regarding the decision to require Senator Duffy to repay disputed Senate expenses be filed as an exhibit with the clerk of the committee.
Is there a need for a vote for this, colleagues? It can be filed? Anybody have any objection?
We can go quickly in camera; I know our time is limited because we have to be out of this room by 9:20.
Senator Cordy: Just as a comment, I want to thank very much, once again, the Communications team. The Teachers Institute was in Ottawa this week. A number of us met with teachers yesterday. The dinner with the teachers was last evening. The teachers that I was speaking to had nothing but praise for the Senate, first, which was really nice to hear. And, second, for the Communications team, which actually set up a kiosk for the teachers. They all knew it was #senca for any pictures that they took for Twitter. What Communications also did was had a signup sheet so that any teachers from across the country who wanted to have a senator visit their school simply had to sign up. The vast majority who went to the kiosk signed up, so be prepared that you may be getting a call to speak at a school in your area. Thank you, Mélisa. Please pass that along.
The Chair: Last quick subject; I give the floor to Senator Jaffer.
Senator Jaffer: I want there to be something in place. In the 16 years I've been here, it's never been that we don't get access. The other day, I was leaving the chamber after a Teachers Institute function, and I was told I couldn't go to the back of the Senate because the Saudi Arabian delegation was there. Happily, somebody intervened from security. I keep feeling that our rights are going. In the Senate precinct, there should never be a time when a senator is told they cannot go into a certain area. I want, chair, for you to please find out who gave those instructions. I feel that our rights are being taken away. How can a senator be told that they can't go into a certain area of the Senate?
The Chair: I can address this issue with the Speaker, but, again, security right now is —
Senator Jaffer: But I want people here to know.
The Chair: To be aware of it.
Senator Jaffer: Yes. It is unacceptable.
The Chair: It is noted, but I strongly suggest you see the Speaker or write a note. Security is under his purview, and I'm sure he'd be very sensible and sensitive.
Senator Jaffer: I'm not trying to belabour it, but I want my colleagues here to know: Our rights here are starting to be eroded, and I don't like it.
The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, colleagues. The meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)