THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 3, 2020
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met with videoconference this day at 11 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(1), in consideration of financial and administrative matters; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), in consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Sabi Marwah (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, my name is Sabi Marwah, a senator from Ontario, and I have the privilege of the chairing the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Today we will be conducting a hybrid meeting with some senators participating virtually and others in person. The meeting will start in public, and a portion of the meeting will then be in camera.
Before we begin, I would like to remind colleagues participating virtually of the best practices for a successful meeting. Please keep your microphones muted at all times unless recognized by name to speak. Senators attending remotely are responsible for turning their microphones on and off during the debate.
When speaking, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of English, French or no simultaneous translation. The new version of Zoom, which has been updated on all of your computers, no longer requires senators listening on the floor channel to switch to either the English or French channel when they speak. Accordingly, senators may speak in either language on the floor channel.
Should members want to request the floor, please use the “raise hand” feature if you are attending virtually, and advise the clerk if you are attending in person. Should any technical or other challenges arise, please signal this to the chair immediately and the technical team will work to resolve the issue.
I would now like to introduce the senators who are participating in the meeting: Senator Larry Campbell, British Columbia; Senator Claude Carignan, Quebec; Senator Dennis Dawson, Quebec; Senator Tony Dean, Ontario; Senator Éric Forest, Quebec; Senator Josée Forest-Niesing, Ontario; Senator Raymonde Gagné, Manitoba; Senator Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia; Senator Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Yonah Martin, British Columbia; Senator Lucie Moncion, Ontario; Senator Jim Munson, Ontario; Senator Don Plett, Manitoba; Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec; Senator Judith Seidman, Quebec; and Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta. We also have Senator Beyak joining us this morning. Welcome to all those viewing across the country.
Honourable senators, the first item is approval of the public minutes from November 19, 2020, which is in your package. Are there any questions or changes? I see none. Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the minutes of proceedings of Thursday, November 19, 2020, be adopted.
Senator Carignan moves the motion.
Honourable senators, in order to determine if this motion is adopted, the clerk will proceed with a roll call vote. I would ask senators participating virtually to unmute their microphones once their names are called.
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, I will call the member’s name, beginning with the chair and then going in alphabetical order. Senators should indicate if they vote for, against or abstain. As simultaneous interpretation will be suspended for the vote, I will conduct the vote in both official languages.
The Honourable Senator Marwah?
Senator Marwah: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Campbell?
Senator Campbell: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest-Niesing?
Senator Forest-Niesing: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Mr. Chair, we have 17 “yes” votes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Honourable senators, the next item is the request from Senator Beyak for an exemption to the Senators’ Office Management Policy regarding of the procurement of legal services. Senator Beyak is here. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada; and Charles Feldman, Parliamentary Counsel will now join the meeting by video conference as witnesses.
As background, honourable senators, steering has considered this matter on two occasions. Both the former and current members of steering approved only a portion of the expense based on the documentation provided. Senator Beyak is now appealing the steering decision to the full committee. As usual, the presentation will be followed with time for questions.
Senator Beyak: My name is Senator Lynn Beyak, I represent Ontario in the Senate of Canada. Good morning, honourable members.
This presentation respectfully details my reasons for requesting that payment in full be made to Miller Thomson for the May 2019 invoice of $25,515.
Since my call to the Senate in 2013, I have employed the same executive assistant for all of my office purposes. Shirley is my sole permanent staff member, and we hire by contract for special projects and legislation, if we need clarification on committee reports, constitutionality or regulations. The Miller Thomson invoice is such a contract.
The understandable misinterpretation of the invoice initially occurred during my suspension, when Internal Economy was managing my budget. It came from the fifth report assertion that I had hired counsel. I had not.
When my letter of April 8, asking in writing for three weeks with counsel to prepare for a meaningful meeting with the Senate Ethics Committee, was rejected on April 9 and they proceeded without me on April 10, I did not hire counsel; there was no point. Gerry Chipeur from Miller Thomson did what he could to persuade the committee chair to allow us time to prepare, to no avail.
My contract with Miller Thomson commenced on April 16, 2019, and was related to committee reports and legislation that I would be voting on in May and June in the Senate. It was similar to several past contracts and projects in my office that were all paid in full.
I met Gerry Chipeur in Ottawa personally on May 1 and 2. He briefed me on the legislation we had contracted for — Bills C-48, C-69, C-71 and C-262 — as well as other reports I had requested. The Miller Thomson invoice is for the same tasks and services other senators, their employees and offices perform or use, without question or scrutiny, on a regular basis. For cost efficiencies, I hire extra staff on a needs basis and maintain only one permanent staff.
Further misunderstanding revolved around the committee’s observation that the Senate Ethics Officer’s inquiry report is not a committee report; it is merely tabled in the Senate through a committee, but it is not a report of that committee. The Miller Thomson invoice covered committee reports only, not the inquiry.
Adding to the confusion, one of the committee members inaccurately emailed other members saying “Senator Beyak is pleading for money to pay for her lawyer.” As the opening today stated, I never requested legal fees, so that might have influenced votes.
Another member, in her thoughtful reading of the fifth report and questioning, also assumed I had hired counsel. I only had lawyers in the past to purchase my home and business, and to make our wills. I hired no one throughout the Senate ethics inquiry.
Thank you for your consideration of full payment for this long-outstanding invoice. I believe with the facts before you, my word that the contract is valid and duties were performed to my full satisfaction, and that it is similar to past contracts, you will come to a favourable conclusion.
My own well-documented, responsible and prudent use of Senate financial resources over my nearly eight years with the Senate of Canada should also be a factor, I humbly believe.
If there’s anything further you need to know to approve this standard work invoice, I would welcome your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. We will open it up for questions.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, Senator Beyak, for being here.
I assume you have a copy of what was provided to all of us on Internal Economy. I want to ask you about a document that we have from March 18, 2020, from Miller Thomson. It is a letter provided to the Senate, clarifying the hours of service that he provided in the amount of $25,515.
In there, Mr. Chipeur says that he spent lots of time but only billed 30 hours. Those 30 hours were broken down as Bills C-71, C-262, C-48, C-69 was 1 hour; Senate Ethics Officer’s inquiry report, 3 hours; Ethics and Conflict of Interest Committee study of the inquiry report, 5 hours; and Senator Beyak’s speech regarding the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Committee report, 21 hours.
So how does that square with what you just said?
Senator Beyak: Thank you, Senator Tannas. I think it’s fairly simple, if you’ve been through the whole process, but it’s difficult to explain now.
I hired Gerry on April 16, with contracts for the legislation and the Senate Ethics Committee’s report. I had no idea when I hired him that I was going to be suspended on April 30 — or recommended for suspension. On May 1, I asked him to turn all his attention immediately to the Senate Ethics Committee report, to the speech that I had to prepare within five sitting days.
Senator Plett: I really think my question was the same question that Senator Tannas had, so let me ask this question — and I’m not sure whether this should be for steering committee or for Senator Beyak, but there’s a clear discrepancy here.
I guess my question to Senator Beyak — and later on, I may question the chair about this — is the following: Why did steering turn down your claim if, in fact, it was only, as you say, to deal with that legislation? Clearly, you must have explained that to steering, and they must have seen the document Senator Tannas is talking about. Yet, they chose to not pay the bill. Did they give you a reason? If so, what was the reason?
Senator Beyak: Thank you, Senator Plett.
No, there hasn’t been a reason. From the start, it has been perceived that these were legal expenses. They’re not legal expenses. We were not given permission to hire a lawyer. I asked the Senate Ethics Committee on April 8 — the letter is attached — if I could hire a lawyer and prepare for three weeks to address the Senate ethics inquiry report. They wrote back to me on April 9 and said, “No, we have to move expeditiously on this matter. You cannot hire counsel. You cannot have three more weeks.”
I didn’t understand that, because there had been a whole year doing the inquiry report — five months when I didn’t hear from anybody — and yet, suddenly, there was an urgency to settle it within three weeks.
So I couldn’t hire counsel. There was no point hiring anyone if I couldn’t have a meaningful meeting with the Senate Ethics Committee.
From the start, this has been perceived as legal fees, and they’re not. On April 16, I contracted with Miller Thomson to provide me information on four bills that were controversial to my riding; the mining associations supported Bill C-69, but the oil industry did not.
I had no idea I was going to be suspended on April 30 — or recommended for suspension — or I wouldn’t have signed a contract for two months. I had expected Gerry to provide me three hours per week.
Senator Plett: Fair enough. However, I do know Gerry Chipeur very well, as you are aware. I haven’t read the document; I haven’t done my job, maybe. I haven’t read the document that Senator Tannas is talking about, but Senator Tannas is on the steering committee. He has a document there where Chipeur has said that the lion’s share of the bill is to deal with the Senate Ethics Officer and the inquiry. You gave him an explanation, but I’m not sure — why did Chipeur state on his invoice that it is one thing when it is another? For complete transparency, I will let the committee know that I spoke to you this morning, because my initial reaction was not to support your claim.
Then, when you explained to me that it had nothing to do with legal expenses, the inquiry or the ethics report, I very quickly felt that if it only had to do with legislation, you, as every other senator here is, are entitled to do that.
You said that in the past, the committee had paid for you to do exactly what you are now asking. I certainly need some consistency. At some point, I’m going to ask the steering committee — maybe later on, I’m not sure what the procedure will be — why they turned this down if, in fact, they had the information that you’re now telling us.
I would like you, one more time, to tell me why Chipeur indicated that it was one thing when you say it is something else?
Senator Beyak: Thank you, Senator Plett. His original invoice said “Senate Ethics Committee” for the entire amount. That’s where he spent the lion’s share of his time. He did some work on the four bills for me. That was going to carry over in May and June, when I expected to still be in the Senate voting on those four bills and on committee reports, one from the Aboriginal Peoples where I had also sat on, housing and the other the Senate Ethics Committee report. I’ve been here nearly eight years; there have been 12 Senate ethics inquiries over the years. Each time, before I voted to suspend a fellow senator, I asked for research on why.
So he spent a lot of time on the Senate Ethics Committee report, which was preparing for my main speech.
Senator Plett: Let me ask you this question, then. At some point in this committee meeting, if I were to say — and I’m only saying “if,” not that I will — that I would like us to carry this over to another meeting so that Gerry Chipeur can send us a letter explaining exactly how much of this was for — I know Mr. Chipeur isn’t going to perjure himself in any letter that he sends to us. But if I were to offer that to you, and I could make that happen here, would that be acceptable to you? Would it be acceptable to you that you would ask Mr. Chipeur to send us a letter explaining exactly what he had done and how much of this bill, in fact, should be a legitimate expense for legislation?
Senator Beyak: Thank you, Senator Plett. That would be very acceptable.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for appearing before the committee to try to enlighten us. I appreciate Senator Plett’s explanation. However, there happens to be correspondence from Miller Thomson that gives a breakdown of the allotted hours.
To summarize, there is one hour devoted to consulting the verbal notices and documents relating to Bill C-71, C-262, C-48 and C-69, while there are 21 hours allocated to preparing a speech, which I unfortunately missed. It must have been quite a speech.
By the way, what was the subject of this speech, and when did you deliver it?
[English]
Senator Beyak: Thank you, senator. Once an inquiry is launched against a senator, there is a three-pronged process. First, the inquiry by the Senate Ethics Officer, then it goes to the Senate Ethics Committee. The third part is the speech to the Senate. Because all of my submissions had been missing from the Senate Ethics Committee report, I asked Miller Thomson to go through it and prepare a speech for my third and final presentation to the Senate as a whole, where then they could debate, adjourn or amend for 10 days.
That didn’t happen. I was suspended as soon as I sat down. But the speech is supposed to convince other senators of my point of view.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: To your mind, is this time allocation accurate, one hour for the various bills and 21 hours for writing a speech?
[English]
Senator Beyak: I personally thought Gerry spent a lot more time on the bills. He gave me much background on Bill C-48, the tanker bill on the West Coast. Some of the Aboriginal peoples who attended with Senator Neufeld and me —
Senator Campbell: I’m having difficulty with the sound. I can’t hear Senator Beyak. It’s very soft.
Senator Beyak: I’m sorry, I’m right in front of the microphone.
Bill C-48 was the tanker bill for the West Coast, and some of the Aboriginal people who met with Senator Neufeld and I supported the tanker ban; most did not. They wanted tankers on the West Coast as they are on the East Coast.
About Bill C-262, Miller Thomson had some vast experience with UNDRIP. With Bill C-71, Bill Blair had been going across Canada. I had already sponsored Bill C-42, the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, in the Senate and couldn’t see why we were redoing it.
So I got a lot of information from Miller Thomson on the four bills. Bill C-69 was the other; the oil industry didn’t like the environmental changes that the mining industry did.
I would have said he gave at least 10 hours of research into that. If it only took him an hour, he obviously had a lot of background already.
The majority of his time was spent on the Senate Ethics Committee report —
Senator Dean: Thank you, Senator Beyak. I want to be clear. I’m looking at the March 18, 2020, invoice from Mr. Chipeur.
I have two questions. Is this the invoice that you’re seeking payment for? Second, have you paid any portion of this invoice at this point in time?
Senator Beyak: No, I haven’t paid anything. This is not the invoice that I’m seeking payment for. I’m seeking payment for a contract made April 16 with Miller Thomson for legislation and the Senate Ethics Committee report. Mr. Chipeur didn’t charge me anything. We go back many, many years. He talked to me about my options with the Senate Ethics Committee and why we needed three weeks to meet with them if I hired him. But I didn’t hire him because they did not give us permission to meet.
Senator Dean: So we don’t have a copy of the invoice that you’re seeking payment for?
Senator Beyak: You should have.
Senator Dean: It’s the same? So this is the March 18 —
Senator Beyak: I don’t know why it’s dated March 18.
Senator Dean: Neither do I, but I want to be clear whether this is the invoice that you’re seeking payment for. Do you have a copy of the March 18 invoice in front of you?
Senator Beyak: I just received it. No, I don’t think I have a March 18 —
Senator Dean: We better place it in front of the witness, chair, so that we all know what we’re talking about.
The Chair: Why don’t we proceed in the meantime?
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I think Senator Beyak needs to clarify the work that her legal counsel is doing. There is a nuance to be made when we talk about legal advice in relation to the law, as opposed to a lawyer who is employed in our office and who, when studying files on our behalf, works as an advisor on parliamentary affairs.
The document provided to us by Mr. Chipeur does not necessarily refer to legal advice, but rather to work that he did when he was hired under contract. In my opinion, that is where the nuance lies, and I am not sure that the members of the committee see that nuance.
I would like to have information from our legal counsel so that they can explain this nuance to us, because it must exist.
I want to make sure that we know the difference between the two and that, if we are called upon to make a decision on the documentation we have, we will make it on the right basis.
[English]
Senator Campbell: I have the same concerns. When I look at the bill, the first thing that strikes me is that 29 hours dealt with the Senate Ethics Officer, Ethics and Conflict of Interest and a speech, which, I agree, must have been one heck of a speech.
If you go to the last page and look at the documents from Mr. Chipeur that were included, there are letters to Senator Andreychuk and Senator Joyal, articles on “Senators’ Thought Crime,” “Extreme Mass Homicide” — they all have to do with the suspension. They don’t have to do with speeches or any of the bills. I’m confused, like many others, I’m sure. There is no question that a senator can hire a lawyer to give advice on bills. However, from where I’m sitting looking at all this, they should be paying about $800 for his work on the three bills.
It matters not that he spent 10 hours on it. He only chose to bill you for one hour. That’s what it is, so it does not matter how many hours he did. I’m confused, at this point, as to the breakdown of what is defending you because of the inquiry and what is actual work on the bills.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Thank you, Senator Beyak, for appearing before us and providing answers to these questions.
For me, there is not so much confusion. If I look at the March 18 letter from Miller Thomson, your counsel, Mr. Chipeur, indicates quite clearly, as you have suggested, that he spent a considerable number of hours advising you for which he did not charge. He estimates in that document that he would have spent somewhere near 100 hours of his time, choosing, however, to bill you for only 30 of those hours at the rate that he specifies in the document.
For me, that clarifies things completely, coupled with the breakdown he provides on the first page of the letter. In the first page of the letter, he goes on to say that although it’s not a precise tracking of the time spent, he does provide an estimate of the apportionment of his time between the various headings that he outlines.
You have been asked questions in this respect already, but the first heading bunches together the parliamentary advisory role work on Bill C-71, Bill C-262, Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. You acknowledged in an earlier response to this committee today that it’s possible he might have only billed you for one hour, in which case, it would suggest to you that he would have had a lot of background information already, thus requiring less intensive research work in that regard. Are you in a position, senator, to provide us with any evidence that is contrary to your counsel’s own indication of the apportionment of his time?
He tells us that of the 30 hours that he billed you, only one of those hours was billed for parliamentary advice provided to your office. The balance of the time is under other headings that would suggest that it was in his other role as your counsel with respect to the Senate Ethics Officer’s inquiry.
Do you have any evidence that would suggest Mr. Chipeur is wrong in that apportionment or in that assessment and, if so, can you provide it to us?
Senator Beyak: Thank you, senator. Senator Plett’s suggestion this morning is the best evidence and the best proof of what the delineation is.
The counsel that you speak of was advice, not legal counsel, because I wasn’t allowed legal counsel in that time period. The contract begins April 16 and covers the four pieces of legislation. If he only billed an hour, that’s wonderful. He obviously had background. The rest of the time he spent on the Senate Ethics Committee report. His original invoice says, “Senate Ethics Committee for $25,515.” He stayed up all night reading the committee report, then he spent two days with me discussing it and the pieces of legislation. May 3 to May 9 we spent documenting the speech, which was quite a speech. It had to contain everything from my submissions to the Senate Ethics Committee that were not included in their report and led to my suspension.
The Chair: If I may comment, you’re contradicting your own case because, to make sure senators understand, senators are fully allowed to hire outside legal counsel for anything to do with parliamentary business and legislation. That is a permitted expense, so there is no debate on that.
What is not permitted is anything that is not related to parliamentary business — for example, an inquiry, an ethics report or anything that is similarly adverse to your own personal situation. That’s not a permissible expense. Senator Beyak, you have just yourself said that Mr. Chipeur was used on the ethics report. That’s not a permissible expense. That’s why we asked —
Senator Plett: Chair, you’re making a decision on behalf of the committee. That’s wrong. Let’s hear the witnesses and then let the committee decide.
I don’t disagree with you, senator, but it’s not your position to interrupt the witness and tell her she’s wrong. That is up to us.
Senator Forest-Niesing: If I may, I have a follow-up question in response —
Senator Beyak: I was not finished. I wasn’t contradictory at all, Senator Marwah. The Senate Ethics Committee is a report that Mr. Chipeur analyzed for me, for my speech. The Senate ethics inquiry is a completely different document from the Senate Ethics Officer and that’s where I believe the confusion is coming from. In my contract with Mr. Chipeur, it was the Senate Ethics Committee report that was inaccurate.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I just want to clarify, then, in follow-up to this last statement that we are still talking about the Senate Ethics Committee report that was concerning you. If it was the Senate Ethics Committee report that concerned you, would you not agree with the conclusion that Mr. Chipeur was advising you as your counsel, as opposed to providing parliamentary direction to you?
Senator Beyak: As I stated earlier, senator, every time there has been a suspension that has come before the Senate — and there have been three in the past, as well as seven resignations and a few early retirements — and each time we had to debate those issues, I requested legal advice. I would never suspend a colleague without doing full research, and in this case the colleague was myself.
The Chair: Senator Tannas, go ahead, and then I’ll ask the Law Clerk to respond to Senator Moncion’s question about clarification of legal advice versus legislation.
Senator Tannas: I want to quickly go back to the initial exchange with Senator Plett. Senator Plett asked that if Mr. Chipeur would provide clarification, would Senator Beyak accept it? I think she said yes. This March 18 letter, which clarifies his billings under contract 20004331, specifically says that he spent 29 hours on Senate ethics report to do with, obviously, Senator Beyak, and one hour on the legislation.
By the way — I believe we can have this confirmed by maybe Pascale or Pierre — the one hour was paid for. It was provided to Miller Thomson, and that was part of the decision that was made by the steering committee.
Ms. Legault: Correct.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, Senator Beyak. I am very troubled because a number of times — this is a public hearing — you have said you were not provided with counsel. Are you talking about counsel at the Ethics Committee or here, for Internal? I just want a clarification.
Senator Beyak: I asked the Senate Ethics Committee if I could hire counsel, and they needed three weeks to go over the Senate ethics inquiry report to present, to the Senate Ethics Committee, my side of the inquiry. They wrote back the next day and said no; they had to move expeditiously. It had already —
Senator Jaffer: Senator Beyak —
Senator Beyak: — and so I could not hire counsel.
Senator Jaffer: Senator Beyak, I didn’t make that question clear; I apologize.
My question to you is this: Internal never denied you counsel, right? It was something to do with ethics?
Senator Beyak: That’s right. It wasn’t before Internal then. Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for the clarification.
The Chair: Philippe, do you want to give us clarification on the legislation advice?
Philippe Hallée, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: I will try. It was a bit of a confusing process all along. I think what we’re discussing here this morning is essentially the statement of work for a contract that was established, which allowed for Senator Beyak to receive legal research and analysis. That’s essentially the statement of work in the contract.
We’re debating as to whether the advice she received fit into the statement of work. There was a lot of confusion through different correspondence received from Senator Beyak, and also particularly from Mr. Chipeur, which seemed to suggest that it was advice pretty much all along — as a matter of fact, in the form of oral and written advice or speech writing. Essentially, what we’re debating this morning is whether the service that Senator Beyak received from Mr. Chipeur fit into the contract that was established, as opposed to legal advice that she could have perhaps gotten through the legal assistance policy, which was not involved in this case.
Senator Plett: I think we need to somehow draw this to a close, so let me offer a suggestion. First of all, chair, let me say to you that I agree with the statement you made: The perception of a contradiction is certainly there. Senator Beyak does not believe she has contradicted herself. It sounded to me like she did, but I do not want to tell her that.
Steering has dealt with this maybe once or twice. This is the first that I have dealt with it. I believe, as our legal counsel has said, there are certain things that are expensable. Senator Tannas said that what steering believed was expensable has, in fact, been paid.
I would like to exhaust all avenues of knowing for sure that we are not preventing a senator from collecting something that very clearly she should be entitled to. Today, I would not be able to support her claim, but I would like to give her the benefit of the doubt. I think we can simply ask Mr. Chipeur to send this committee a letter —
An Hon. Senator: A lawyer.
Senator Plett: A lawyer, right. Exactly. Unfortunately, we need them. I’m not sure why, but they are a necessary evil.
We could ask Mr. Chipeur to send us a letter explaining the position. I don’t think we need Senator Beyak back here. I think we need Mr. Chipeur simply to send us a letter explaining exactly what he thinks is in line with the rules insofar as this was done for this and this was done for that. We have that letter in front of us and we can make a decision.
I would rather that we postpone this for a meeting or two — it doesn’t cost the Senate anything to postpone this — so that we can give any senator every benefit of the doubt. That would be my suggestion, chair, if that would be agreeable.
Senator Forest-Niesing: While I cannot disagree that benefit of the doubt should be given wherever and whenever possible, and despite the fact that I was not a member of this committee, my review of the documentation led me to conclude that benefit of the doubt was, in fact, given. Ample opportunity was provided for clarification of the breakdown of legal expenses. Repeated requests were made of Mr. Chipeur, which I understand were eventually responded to with a letter dated March 18, 2020.
To Senator Plett’s point, I would say that the breakdown you are suggesting — which is a perfectly reasonable request — is, in fact, already before this committee and set out in as much detail as Mr. Chipeur himself admits is possible, given that he did not keep track of his time and did not bill for the entire time that he provided services.
So I don’t know what additional information we could possibly request of Mr. Chipeur that he hasn’t already provided to this committee. I would take the position that we already have all the information we need in order to make a very clear assessment of the request.
The Chair: I think we should draw this to a close and make a decision. We have a few more speakers.
Senator Plett: I would like to respond to Senator Forest-Niesing — maybe Senator Martin would like to give me the opportunity to do that — because she specifically said I had said something that I did not say.
Senator Forest-Niesing very clearly said that I had said I wanted a further breakdown of a bill. That is not what I asked for. I asked for Mr. Chipeur to send us a letter telling us why there is a discrepancy.
Senator Forest-Niesing also says that she doesn’t know what other information he could give us. Maybe, because she doesn’t know, we should ask Mr. Chipeur if there is more information he could give us. If he says, “No. My bill stands for itself. I don’t want to send another letter,” then that’s what we have to deal with. But if Mr. Chipeur can add something to it — I don’t know why Senator Forest-Niesing would not want to give somebody the benefit of the doubt.
Please, Senator Forest-Niesing, do not say something that I said which is not correct.
The Chair: Senator Martin can go ahead, and then let’s bring it to a close. I think I have a suggestion as to how best we may move forward.
Senator Martin: The only thing I wanted to add, listening to this very carefully, is that I am curious about whether or not Senator Beyak had the opportunity to seek legal counsel within the Senate as an institution, that if we were in a position of facing suspension or whatever other penalties, that we would have the opportunity to understand such complex processes like an inquiry, as well as a report from an ethics committee. I’m trying to put myself into a senator’s position, if I were ever in that position.
Having said that, when our legal counsel intervened earlier to talk about her choosing to enter a contract instead of seeking legal counsel within the Senate, my question would be: Did she have that opportunity? We do have certain resources, but I was curious about that particular point, because it’s a very big institution. These are very serious situations. I would want any colleague in a very difficult position to have every opportunity to be given counsel, as well as consideration.
Those are my comments, chair. I look forward to what you are proposing to bring us to a conclusion on this for today.
Mr. Hallée: Senator Martin, what I was suggesting was not that Senator Beyak should refer to us for advice on this matter but merely that what we are debating this morning is not fitting, apparently, from the contract that was established. However, there could have been a request under the legal assistance policy, not necessarily to have advice from my office but from an external lawyer, if approved by CONF in this case, that could have been provided to the senator in her discussions with CONF about the inquiry of the SEO. I was not referring to my office in this case, just to be clear.
Senator Tannas: We already have a notice from Miller Thomson that on April 29, they confirmed receipt of the letter and confirmed that no additional information will be provided. That’s in the timeline that was part of the package from April 29, 2020, after the explanation letter. It clearly lines everything up.
I hope that we can dispose of this today, one way or another. I do have some sympathy for what Senator Beyak said about the refusal at Ethics. I wasn’t part of Ethics and don’t know the circumstances under which they would refuse to provide that funding and that additional three-week extension.
In terms of our job here at this committee, I suggest it’s clear, and, chair, I would make a motion if you would permit me, but I will leave that up to you.
The Chair: Senators, we’ve all heard the arguments for and against moving forward, but I’m inclined at this stage to give Senator Beyak one more chance to talk to the lawyer and get further elaboration of his invoice. I think we owe it to Senator Beyak to give her one more chance. We have given several chances in the past, but given that she’s a sitting senator, I think she deserves one more chance.
If it is agreeable to all of you, we will approach Mr. Chipeur and ask him to provide further clarification if at all possible. Depending on his letter, we will act on that. Is that agreeable with you, senators, or would you prefer we vote on it now?
Senator Beyak: I do have a copy of the March 18 letter here, and it is very clear there are five hours for the Senate Conflict of Interest Committee report.
I don’t think I’m making clear enough that the Senate Ethics Committee is a report of a committee. The Senate ethics inquiry is a different thing. Mr. Chipeur only billed three hours for looking over the inquiry from the Ethics Officer. He billed five hours for the committee report and 21 hours for the committee report. Again, that was after I heard that I was going to be suspended and had a chance to speak to the full Senate. I asked him to take all his attention off the four pieces of legislation and concentrate only on the Senate Ethics Committee report.
Senator Plett: Chair, or Senator Beyak, I would suggest we stop.
The Chair: Can we move on and suggest —
Senator Beyak: Well, we’ve got the final here from him that we should pay him for 26 hours.
The Chair: Senators, if I could have order, please. If we could proceed along the lines that I’ve mentioned and give one more chance to Miller Thomson to clarify their position and get a quick response and deal with it expeditiously right after. Are we agreed senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. That’s what we will do. Thank you, Senator Beyak, for appearing before us.
Honourable senators, the next item is an amendment to the Service Level Agreement with the House of Commons for broadcasting and information technology-related initiatives. David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, will now join the meeting as witness.
I would emphasize that approval is being sought only for the amendment to the SLA, which is $37,410, not the entire amount of $1.6 million. That had been previously approved some months ago. As usual, the presentation will be followed by time for questions.
David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Good morning, senators. I’m seeking approval for an amendment to the summary of services and costs of our SLA with the House of Commons for broadcasting and all information technology-related initiatives.
As you recall, our SLA was put in place in 2019-20, covering a period of five years after approval for funding through the Main Estimates and review by CIBA on December 12, 2019. The SLA replaced a number of individual memorandums of understanding that defined services rendered to the Senate by the House of Commons. An annual review of the cost summary to reflect changes in fees and estimated units consumed is part of the SLA. The total annual expenditure approved was $1.56 million. The updated cost shows an increase of $37,000 for 2020-21, for a total of $1.6 million. The increases stem from Adobe licensing and Lenel support. An updated cost breakdown is provided in Annex A, and a summary table of the changes in prices is provided in the document. These additional costs have no impact on funding requirements because ISD will reallocate funds within its existing budget.
Senators, it is recommended that this committee approve the revised Appendix II (Summary of Services and Costs) of the master Service Level Agreement between the Senate and the House of Commons for a total of $1.6 million for 2020-21, representing an increase of 2.4% from 2019-20. Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, are there any questions for Mr. Vatcher? I see no hands up. May I have a mover for the following motion:
That the revised Appendix II (Summary of Services and Costs) of the master Service Level Agreement between the Senate and House of Commons, for a total of $1,601,305 for 2020-21, representing an increase of 2.4%, be approved.
Senator Dean moves the motion.
Honourable senators, in order to determine if this motion is adopted, the clerk will proceed with the roll-call vote.
Ms. Legault: Honourable senators, we will proceed in the same fashion as before.
The Honourable Senator Marwah?
Senator Marwah: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Campbell?
Senator Campbell: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest-Niesing?
Senator Forest-Niesing: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Abstain.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Mr. Chair, we have 15 “yes” votes and one abstention.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Senator Plett: Chair, as has been done in the past, people are given an opportunity to explain why there’s an abstention. I abstained because I was out of the room for the presentation.
The Chair: I’m sorry about that.
Senator Plett: No, that’s fine.
The Chair: You had me worried.
Honourable senators, the next item is a request for a one-year extension to the sole-source MOU with Shared Services Canada for office land lines. David Vatcher will also assist with this item. As usual, we will have time for questions after the presentation. Mr. Vatcher, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Vatcher: Not really, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your time.
This is a straightforward request and I do wish to mention that we will use the next year to reduce the number of lines that we use at the Senate, as we believe this is an easy cost-saving exercise to perform. Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Are there any questions for Mr. Vatcher, senators?
I see no hands up. Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the one-year extension to the existing sole source contract agreement with Shared Services Canada — Bell Canada “Local Access Service” contract, for a maximum amount of $50,000, be approved.
It is moved by Senator Forest.
Honourable senators, again, we will proceed with a roll call vote.
Ms. Legault: Honourable senators, we will proceed in the same fashion as before.
The Honourable Senator Marwah?
Senator Marwah: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Campbell?
Senator Campbell: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest-Niesing?
Senator Forest-Niesing: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Mr. Chair, we have 16 “yes” votes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
The next item is a request for proposal for vehicle maintenance contracts and related services. Caroline Morency, Director General, Property and Services Directorate will join the meeting via video conference as a witness.
As we will be discussing this request for proposal in public, I would like to remind you not to refer to dollar amounts or your personal opinion on the supplier or selection criteria as this could influence the bidding process. If senators wish to discuss sensitive information, this should be done in camera.
You may begin your presentation, Ms. Morency.
Caroline Morency, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Good morning, honourable senators. Today we’re seeking your approval to proceed with a competitive process to establish one or more contracts for vehicle maintenance and related services. I believe you have the briefing note on this item in your background material.
As you are aware, the Senate owns a small fleet of vehicles. At the present time we have four shuttle buses, four small delivery trucks and two cars. One of the trucks has been declared surplus and will go up for sale on the government’s GCSurplus website within a week or two.
These vehicles require regularly scheduled maintenance services, such as seasonal tire changes, safety inspections, required parts maintenance, oil changes, interior/exterior cleaning, as well as ad hoc repairs due to minor accidents.
The shuttle buses represent the majority of the expenses over the last five years, which is expected, given that they are operated daily when the Senate is in session.
Our existing contract for vehicle maintenance expires in the spring of next year, so we plan to proceed with a competition immediately following an approval. The Property and Services Directorate will work closely with the Finance and Procurement Directorate to undertake this competition. The new contract will not have any impact on funding requirements, since these expenses are already included in existing Senate Administration budgets and any annual changes would be considered and explained during the Main Estimates process.
I would be pleased to answer any questions senators may have on this matter. Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Are there any questions for Ms. Morency? I see no questions.
Colleagues, we will continue with the rest of our public items and vote for this item in camera so we can discuss the dollar amounts at that time.
The next item is a motion to task the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates with reviewing the formula for determining all caucus groups and house officer budgets, with a view to establishing a fair and consistent approach to budget determination. The committee started this work under the mandate provided by the previous CIBA membership and the purpose of this motion is to allow them to continue their work. Are there any questions or comments?
If not, can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates be authorized to examine and report on the formula for determining the allocations of caucus/groups and House Officers budgets, with a view to establishing a fair and consistent approach to budget determination; and
That the subcommittee submit its report to this committee no later than the end of February.
It was moved by Senator St. Germain.
Ms. Legault, would you proceed with a roll call vote?
Ms. Legault: Honourable senators, we will proceed in the same fashion as before.
The Honourable Senator Marwah?
Senator Marwah: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Campbell?
Senator Campbell: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Forest-Niesing?
Senator Forest-Niesing: For.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Jaffer?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Legault: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Ms. Legault: Mr. Chair, we have 17 “yes” votes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
Honourable senators, the next item is the IM/IT Roadmap 2020-2024. This is for information only. David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, will join the meeting via video conference as a witness. You may begin, Mr. Vatcher.
Mr. Vatcher: Senators, over the next few minutes, we will go over ISD’s IM/IT Roadmap for the current and next fiscal exercises. This should give a broad view of our way forward as it relates to IT with respect to requests for investments that have been made by ISD in recent years. The road map is based on past and present decisions, new realities and how legislative partners and the IT industry are facing similar circumstances.
ISD’s mandate remains essentially the same. We’ve updated our mission statement slightly to specify “secure and modern technology.” This reflects on our efforts to increase security and to bring life cycle notions to the forefront as a best practice.
A bit of context: This roadmap is a continuation of a previous road map presented to this committee in May 2016. Road maps, of course, look forward, and they tend to be true to life in the near future but become a little more theoretical the further we look ahead.
This was true for the 2016-2019 road map. ISD was successful in implementing most of its items. I say “most” because, for example, “bring your own device,” or BYOD, though planned in the previous road map, has not yet been implemented at the Senate.
Although not related, the move from Centre Block to the Senate of Canada Building was prioritized over such initiatives given its importance. It should be noted that the move from Centre Block to the Senate of Canada Building was not part of the previous road map even though it was a major undertaking.
While important initiatives listed on page 4 of your document are a source of pride for our team, I will focus on the items that [Technical difficulties] as we look forward.
As in the previous road map, we have identified five strategic priorities going forward in our 2020-2024 Roadmap. They are: The assessment and implementation of cloud technologies and services; improvement of our current life cycle management practices; renewal and expansion of online services, applications and IT equipment; strengthen both information management and information technology infrastructure security as well as related employee awareness; improve communications and collaboration through the use of modernized tools.
You can see on the last page of my presentation the major commitments for the next three years, which include the hyperconverged infrastructure we are now setting up, our ability to now perform virtual and hybrid chamber and committee sittings, the LEGISinfo revamp, our major network upgrade and standing offers for IT equipment.
I hope all of this sheds some light on our planned way forward. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Any questions for Mr. Vatcher, senators?
I see no questions. We’ll move on. I think that’s the end of our public items, senators.
Before we go in camera, I would like to inform members that the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates has a report on next year’s budget that will be discussed at our next meeting. In order to give senators more time to review the material, the report will be circulated today so you will have at least a week to review the material.
I also wanted to give senators enough time to discuss the material and let you know next week’s meeting is the last meeting, and last meetings always tend to be jammed for time. Senate Estimates suggested to me that we have a second meeting of CIBA next week that will have just one item on the agenda, which is the Senate Estimates report on the budget to discuss in detail, which eases the pressure on the last meeting.
Senators, I am in your hands as to which approach you would like to take, whether we have a second meeting of CIBA on possibly Tuesday, or whether we expand the meeting on Thursday for an additional half hour and dedicate one hour to just reviewing the budget. I am totally happy with either solution. Whatever senators believe is best. If we need more time, we should do it earlier. If you feel we can do it on Thursday, that’s fine too.
Keep in mind that the Senate Estimates Committee have reviewed this in great detail with several meetings over a lot of hours. They have gone through this to some extent.
Senator Forest-Niesing: My apologies for bringing us back to a question concerning the presentation by Mr. Vatcher.
My question for him was to request if he could perhaps explain what “hyperconverged infrastructure storage” means so that I might understand the short-term commitment being proposed for that item.
The Chair: Are you still on the line, Mr. Vatcher? Can you quickly explain that and we’ll move on?
Mr. Vatcher: My apologies, senator, I did not hear your question adequately.
The Chair: Senator Forest-Niesing, I’ll follow up with Mr. Vatcher and he can respond to you in writing after the fact.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I’d be happy to, chair.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I just wanted to provide some context on the request that was made by the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates. Last year, given the short time we had to study the budget, CIBA members did not have time to ask questions about the more complex elements of the document that had been presented.
This year, there has been a lot of discussion about the budget, how it will be presented and the different elements we will be looking at, and we were hoping that CIBA members would agree to have a meeting entirely devoted to the budget, so that all the information would be presented and people would have enough time to ask questions. To quickly explain the work that was done by the committee, we reviewed all the documentation, submitted all our procedural questions and requests for additional figures before we met to talk specifically about the budget, to receive the information and to see the presentations. This is the same format that we would like to use to allow all CIBA members to fully understand the budget and ask any questions they may have. We would do an overall review of the budget, instead of doing a 20-minute meeting for something that represents millions of dollars for the Senate.
This is the reason for our request. We do it out of respect for the integrity of our colleagues who must defend their decision to accept a budget the size of the Senate budget in less than 30 minutes. We believe that 30 minutes is not enough and that a minimum of two hours would be ideal. That is why we are asking for an additional meeting.
[English]
Senator Marshall: I’m also a member of the Estimates Subcommittee. I support Senator Moncion’s request. I think that in the past, we haven’t spent sufficient time going over the budget. We spend a lot of time at the subcommittee, but the budget only appears before CIBA — there’s usually very little time spent on the budget.
My suggestion is if we don’t have a separate meeting that there be sufficient time carved out as part of our regular meeting. Because there are decisions in the budget that we’ll make, but senators need to be aware of the implications of the budget decisions. All of those decisions really impact the operations of senators’ offices.
Again, I would like to say that if a separate meeting is not possible, then a significant portion of a regular meeting should be carved out just for the budget discussion.
Senator Plett: I really appreciate Senator Marshall at least qualifying at the end. I would hate to have to contradict my opinion with hers, so now I don’t need to.
First of all, chair, you’re saying this is our last meeting. We’re scheduled to rise on December 18. Would the last meeting, first of all, not be December 17?
The Chair: If we are there that week, Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Fair enough.
The Chair: The current schedule said we are going to rise next week. If that’s not going to happen, then we have two weeks.
Senator Plett: Of course, many of us are hoping we will rise next week, but I don’t think that is a foregone conclusion.
Chair, we all have tremendously tight schedules here. To find another day for a one- or two-hour meeting poses a huge difficulty for many of us.
Thursday, if we were to start our meeting an hour earlier, it would be far preferable, certainly for myself as the leader of our caucus, for my time and indeed for the time of my deputy leader and my whip who are also part of this group. For us to try to find a one-hour time slot on a Tuesday is very difficult, as it is for our token lawyer in the group.
Chair, I would strongly encourage that we start at ten o’clock next Thursday. Maybe we could allot an hour or an hour and a half, say, from ten o’clock to a half an hour later than our current scheduled time. That would certainly be preferable to myself and hopefully to the rest of my team.
Senator Moncion: Thank you, Senator Plett. This is great, especially coming from your group, from you as the Leader of the Opposition.
If we can have that hour or hour and a half extra and if it were to be the first item on the agenda, after the approval of the minutes of this meeting, then that would be a good compromise.
I would encourage everyone, if we are agreeable with this, to send all your questions ahead of time so that we are more efficient when we meet to discuss the budget next week.
Thank you for the suggestion.
The Chair: I like two words that Senator Moncion said. One was “good” and the other one was “compromise.” I think it is a good compromise so I suggest we proceed on that basis.
We’ll start next Thursday’s meeting at 10 a.m. and we will go possibly to 1:30, if we need to.
Is that okay, Senator Plett?
That’s agreeable. We start at 10. I strongly encourage senators to send their questions to Finance and to Ms. Legault or to the leader of the Senate Estimates, Senator Moncion, so at least staff can answer your questions accurately and promptly as soon as they receive them.
With that, we will go in camera. I did want to point out there is some issue with the in camera portion. We may have to operate in a slightly different format.
(The committee continued in camera.)