Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence - May 8, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 8, 2014
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9 a.m. for the consideration of administrative matters and other matters.
Senator Noël A. Kinsella (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, the first item on our agenda is the adoption of the minutes of our last meeting. It is moved by Senator Tkachuk. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Minutes so adopted. Are there any urgent matters arising from business from those minutes? I think they are covered by our agenda; therefore, we will proceed to Item No. 2: update on the east pavilion recapitalization project. Brigitte will help us through that.
The steering committee colleagues did have a subsequent meeting with the Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Works, along with one of her senior engineers. I wish to report from that meeting with the officials the advice and the evidence they laid before us. On the back of the Centre Block, there are two big towers called ventilation towers. There's one on the west side and one on the east side. Seismic movement in the region has caused them to become threatened. Many of us will recall that when we were sitting a year or so ago, a fairly heavy earthquake occurred. It did move the towers.
They have to put in vertical bars that secure the walls of these towers, and then they have to secure the brickwork. Their technical people are of the view that they have to do this now; it cannot wait until we vacate the building in the planned year 2018 because of the state of disrepair of the ventilation towers.
On the east side, covering the side entrance and the areas occupied by the whip's office, there's a tower there and it's called the pavilion. The pavilion has a number of problems, some relating to the roof. The roof there is an old copper roof, and it's coming apart and the bricks are very, very loose. So their technical people presented the technical evidence and said that they must do this work immediately. Their plan is to begin to do that this spring.
Technically, it will mean they will put staging up along the east side of the building and part of the northeast corner, plus over on the ventilation tower on the House of Commons side — that particular tower. That's going to start in a matter of a couple of weeks. We will see staging going up there. Then they're going to put, as we see in West Block, they will cover that with the colourful way in which Senator Munson described it. That will be that side. For the towers, they're using a different material because of the nature of it. So we'll have two green towers in the back and the white tower on the side.
We pressed them, but they cannot wait until we're out of here in 2018. They feel they have no alternative. They listened to our concerns such as we raised here. If the chambers, the House of Commons and this side, are in session, we can't have drilling going on. They have come back and said, "No, we will not have work being conducted during the hours of the Senate sitting," even if it means they will come in later in the day or work from 9 at night until 6 in the morning. So they will work around and be respectful of our need for a quiet environment during Senate sittings.
However, it means that our colleagues who are occupying those offices on that east side are going to be — ventilation will be taken care of. They'll run air-conditioning vents in, but in terms of daylight, they will try to maintain the necessary level of candlelight for lighting in the given offices, but there will be the shroud covering our windows — because the Speaker's office is covered. That's the report on that, but if Brigitte would like to make more technical information available to this committee.
Brigitte Desjardins, Director, Senate Real Property Planning Directorate, Senate of Canada: Good morning, honourable senators. You have summarized the meeting very well; two pages of my speaking notes have been set aside. You did very well.
I would like to add to the chairman's summary that I am currently circulating some pictures, so you get to see the visuals that were provided to us by Public Works and Government Services Canada. You're able to see the severity of the damage of the masonry work, the rooftop, et cetera.
Honourable senators, as I looked at those pictures provided to the committee members this week that you are viewing, it reminded me very much of the video I presented to you about two years ago, I believe, showing the extent of the deterioration of the northwest tower of the East Block, as it was also being rehabilitated. You will remember the state it was in, as I made my way to the roof of the tower on the scaffolding, and how we applied pressure to a steel rod only to see an imposing crack in which we were able to see right through the dormer being held by the actual steel rods.
I am pleased but mostly relieved to see that this is past us. I will feel the same way when both the ventilation tower and the Centre Block pavilion projects are completed.
I don't have very much else to add, because you've provided such a good summary. However, there is one point — it's another matter. Ms. Chahwan highlighted it at the meeting. I am pleased to tell honourable senators that Ms. Chahwan has assured the committee members that the Sir Wilfrid Laurier monument will not be impacted by the upcoming installation of the War of 1812 monument; it is not being moved from its current location.
The Chair: If I may add to that. We inquired of Public Works their estimate in terms of how much all of this would cost.
As members of this committee will remember, one of the earlier ideas that Public Works Canada had for the temporary location of the Senate Chamber was creating a bunker chamber. They were talking about hundreds of millions of dollars that we saved them when the Senate said: No, we want the Government Conference Centre. They were going to renovate it for the government-wide ultimate use and it's only going to cost a very small amount, modifications for the 10 years the Senate would be there.
We're talking about a savings of hundreds of millions of dollars because of this committee actually walking down and going through the building under Senator Tkachuk's leadership. But could you just remind the senators, with this recapitalization — and all the other fancy terms they had — how much money are they estimating this work is going to cost, the two ventilation towers and the pavilion tower?
Ms. Desjardins: The estimate that was shared with us was in the vicinity of $21 million. To be able to do that now will incur a cost avoidance at the time Centre Block is rehabilitated starting in 2018. The work that they will be undertaking now will not have to be repeated starting in 2018. So for them to be able to take care of this health and safety matter, which the department is liable for, it represents an opportunity for them and they will not have to do that when the building is vacated.
The Chair: There is a huge amount of money, but this is what it costs to rehabilitate buildings built years ago, using that technique that they use. I think it's important that we are a tenant of these facilities. In their eyes, they're the landlord. They are responsible for all kinds of public buildings across not only the National Capital Region but indeed across the country, so it's not the Senate that is incurring this cost. If anything, we've been watching them to make sure the minimum amount, but it's a huge amount of money and as we know and as Canadians know, the rehabilitation of the West Block is a huge amount of money.
Senator Munson: I do have a question. I guess we could have a controlled explosion and just blow the whole place up and start all over again. That's a joke; a bad joke.
However, it gets your attention, so that's always part and parcel of getting your attention. But honest to goodness, rehabilitated, it's a lot of work on Parliament Hill and a lot of money being spent and it has to be done, of course.
First of all, in the section that will live in a shroud for a little while longer, how long will that take? Two years? In some modern countries in the world, when they're building these massive skyscrapers and doing things, they actually work 24 hours a day. They put lights on and work at night to build these places. I recognize that this is costing a lot of money, but is there any plan in Public Works that they will be working on this at nighttime?
It seems that we sometimes live in an environment of 9 to 5. I don't know if that's part and parcel of this project, but we have some great workmanship going on here. We're very proud of what we see and what is happening in the West Block on our tours, and the masonry work is exemplary. But everybody goes home at a certain hour and I recognize that, in terms of employment, the economy of this region and the rest of it, it would seem to make sense that they go at this full steam ahead.
The Chair: Just to answer that, the deputy minister, assistant deputy minister and the chief engineer did say that they would be working throughout the night in order to not be working when the Senate is sitting, but I don't know about whether it's 24-7. Do you have any information?
Ms. Desjardins: Yes, I have some information. Daytime work will be the minimum noise type of work. The more noisy work will occur between nine o'clock at night and six o'clock in the morning. You probably see the light inside the scaffolding area in the West Block also. There is work occurring at night to progress with the work, and the same has occurred for the northwest tower. Work was undertaken at night, and the same will occur here with the east pavilion as well as the ventilation tower.
Senator Munson: In dealing with ventilation and light, I'm more concerned about our staff. They have to work behind the shroud for a long period of time. Are you satisfied that they will receive what natural light is there and will receive the proper ventilation to do their work the way they want? Because I think it's going to be very difficult for them. They're in their offices for 8, 12 hours a day.
Ms. Desjardins: Health and safety of the occupants is very important and we intend to work very closely with the department to ensure proper comfort of the occupants. If there is a certain amount of discomfort we will certainly find the option to ensure that it is alleviated.
Senator Munson: Thank you.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brigitte, you said it was going to be two years, so they're going to start right away?
Ms. Desjardins: This summer.
Senator Marshall: I expect it will be finished June 2016.
Ms. Desjardins: Around the end of fall, November or December 2016.
Senator Marshall: That work has been tendered obviously, and awarded and it's ready to go?
Ms. Desjardins: The ventilation towers have just been awarded, and the Centre Block east pavilion is about to be tendered.
Senator Marshall: Okay. The landlord is Public Works. When were we aware that there was a problem? The earthquake happened three years ago and I had understood that there was no damage, but obviously that's not the case.
Ms. Desjardins: The department conducts regular exploratory work on the buildings because of their age. They're actually doing some on the east side of the East Block. You've probably noticed scaffolding there. There is exploratory work for the masonry occurring there. They did that last summer for the east pavilion of the Centre Block and they found an acceleration of the deterioration that was beyond what they had expected.
Senator Marshall: Okay, and that happened last year?
Ms. Desjardins: During the course of the summer and the fall, that is right.
Senator Marshall: During their inspection. That was my question.
Senator Lang: My main question was answered in the question on the length of time for the work. I want to make a couple comments, if I could. Having lived in Alaska and experiencing a number of quakes over the period of time that I was there, I was very surprised to find the strength of that quake we experienced in the chamber here two years ago. I had no idea that the tremors here were as extreme as they could be in that case.
I think the important point here, if we can get it on the record as well, is that we talk about the $21 million. The reality of it is that if you were to go and build a new building and tender it, I think you would be quite surprised, but you would probably be in the same numbers when it's all shook down. We can't discount the reality of costs of a new building versus refurbishing our history here, as far as Parliament is concerned.
I want to make one other point. I asked that those pictures be circulated amongst the media that are here as well so they recognize the severity of what these buildings are facing if we were to do nothing. I think that's important, because obviously we have no choice. We have to go ahead and we have to live within the template that's going to be provided us. I have no doubt that good work will be done. Those are my observations.
Senator Fraser: I'm sorry to be so thick, but I remain confused about the exact location of this. Is the east pavilion the whole east end of this building? What are we talking about, and what will be the extent of the shroud?
The Chair: The shroud will cover from your office corner on the east side up to the back of my office, and around the back about 50 feet. It will go from the ground right up to the top.
Senator Fraser: In the front of the building as well?
The Chair: No.
Senator Fraser: It's not going to be wrapped. Thanks. I have a lovely chart. Thank you. I retire.
The Chair: Honourable senators, there is our report on that matter. If it meets with your agreement, we'll turn now to No. 3, telecommunication services outside the Parliamentary Precinct. There are notes on pages 4 to 7 of the briefing note. Also, for those of you who follow the media, there is an interesting article on some senators not using computer security card at home, as a title. Does that relate to telecommunications?
An Hon. Senator: Ask the reporter.
[Translation]
Hélène Bouchard, Director, Information Services: Honourable senators, at the meeting held on February 25, 2014, my colleague Nicole Proulx, along with Jim Cook — who is here today — proposed that you implement a new administrative directive for telecommunications services outside the parliamentary precinct.
As we indicated, we are regularly faced with challenges in terms of billing and services for property reasons. In addition, no standards have been established regarding the amounts allocated for those services and the options you are entitled to, or the way those expenditures are submitted to the Finance Directorate.
Following the presentation, you shared your point of view with us and put forward a few suggestions. We took note of them and have prepared a document we can discuss. It consists of two options and a few issues to take into consideration.
Moreover, you will find attached to the document a comparison between the telecommunications services outside the parliamentary precinct available to members and those available to senators.
[English]
When different options were discussed on February 25, the possibility of establishing a fixed amount was debated by this committee. This option was not considered as it was determined that senators would still need to provide a proof of payment for these services. Also, under a fixed amount model, without standardized criteria, one could choose to maximize the services under internet account rather than having a telephone line. Under this scenario, the services may not be acquired based on actual business needs but rather based on the fixed amount allowed, which in fact would be in excess of the actual needs.
The option (a) proposal remains similar to the previous recommendation presented in February. In this new proposal, we have increased the maximum amount for both services and standardized the costs across the country. However, we do realize that we may have to adjust the average cost for certain senators based on their residential area and the specific services available in those areas.
If this committee feels that this is the preferred option, we would then suggest that it may also be an opportunity to review the number of allowed telephone lines. To be specific, should the number of lines outside the Parliamentary Precinct be reduced from two to one? At the present time, only eight senators have two telephone lines. If so, should these senators be grandfathered?
Second, should these services be made available in the home region only? Consider that when senators are in the NCR, they have access to their Ottawa office. If you feel that the answer to this question is yes, what about those senators who reside in the NCR?
The second option is to completely eliminate the telecommunication services outside the Parliamentary Precinct. During the February 25 meeting, this option was brought up by senators a number of times.
Regarding telephone lines outside the Parliamentary Precinct, a telephone line outside the Parliamentary Precinct was initially approved many years ago to allow senators to communicate by fax with their offices. Over the course of time, a second line was approved to allow senators to place calls without using what would then have been a more costly wireless device.
At this time, everybody has a wireless device and the rates are much cheaper, so it's very economical. Significantly more inexpensive solutions are now available, such as email, to send and receive information or scan documents. Furthermore, the Senate wireless voice rates are reasonably inexpensive. Finally, all senators are also provided with a Tele-Canada calling card that provides them with excellent long distance rates.
An internet account outside of the Parliamentary Precinct was initially approved to allow senators to communicate via email and to provide senators with remote access capability to connect to Senate network resources, and ultimately work remotely when necessary, as well as providing them with an important tool for research on the Internet.
Today, most homeowners already have access to an Internet service for personal use. In order to access the Senate network, ISD would provide the software, which can be installed on virtually any computer with Internet access. Also, virtually all senators also now have access to an iPad, which will allow for email communication and Internet access through both Wi-Fi and 3G connections.
Senator Munson: Just as a point of clarification, you talked about the iPad. I do have that one line that was there for faxes and things like that, and of course the secure unit. I rarely use that anymore because I'm so portable in what I'm doing. You mentioned what we can do. The clarification is, and this is a plug for Bell, but I have this bundle. I pay for my own Internet and telephone, you name it, television. It's all there. In this proposal, is there something in there that would pay for the Internet component of this, or how would that work out, or do I continue what I do and just keep that one line, or eliminate it, really?
Ms. Bouchard: There is a problem right now with the invoice aspect. When senators have bundles at home, they have their Internet, telephone and also their cable. Those who benefit from an Internet account paid by the Senate take the portion for the Internet and get reimbursed for that part.
Senator Munson: I don't do that.
Ms. Bouchard: No, you don't. This is a problem because the service is under the name of the senator, so sometimes we have to deal. When you have a problem, you're expecting us to resolve it, so there is some ownership issue at this time. That could be a problem also.
Senator Munson: It's an issue in the sense that I do use my computer at home doing personal work, and I'm doing whip business as well. How do we resolve that? I guess that's the question.
Ms. Bouchard: The question was more for the Internet account. Many years ago, not everybody had Internet. We wanted to be able to provide you with a way to communicate with your office. Today, this is part of your life. Internet and homeowners, it's there. This is a question for you to answer, because I cannot really make that recommendation. The Internet is part of our lives. So if you want it, perhaps it should be paid personally.
But the Senate will provide you with the tool to be able to access the Senate network. It's two different components. You need to have Internet, but the Senate will provide you with the tool to access the Senate network, so this is separate software. That's what we do in the Senate administration. I have Internet at home for personal use, but I have the software installed on my computer to be able to securely access the Senate network.
Senator Marshall: I have a few questions. Do all senators have a BlackBerry now?
Ms. Bouchard: Yes.
An Hon. Senator: No.
Senator Marshall: But they have a cell phone? And all senators have access to an iPad, if they want one?
Ms. Bouchard: I would say "most." Jim, maybe there are a few who don't?
James Cooke, Telecommunications Office, Information Systems Directorate, Senate of Canada: I believe we have 60 senators with iPads.
Senator Marshall: I guess you said you have portable computers that people take with them, and we reimburse for voice mail call forwarding and some long-distance plans.
Ms. Bouchard: That's right.
Senator Marshall: But the secure ID — I use my own computer at home, and I have my secure ID on my BlackBerry. How much does that cost the Senate?
Ms. Bouchard: That's between $100 and $150 for two or three years, per senator. It depends.
Senator Marshall: And everyone has that, do they?
Ms. Bouchard: Not everybody. In the statistics we are saying how many senators have them. About 29 senators have a secure ID, which means they're able to access the Senate network. But on these 29 senators, when we looked at who accessed the system, we probably have maybe 15 senators who are using the service.
Senator Marshall: So you can tell who's using it.
Ms. Bouchard: That's right, but you have to have the secure ID card to access it.
Senator Marshall: I said this before when this came up previously: I think we should just cut out these expenditures.
That is my question.
Senator Downe: I'm no computer expert, but I would be concerned if the proposal is that I take my personal computer, on which I pay my bills and so on, and put software from the Senate on that. Why would I possibly do that? The two should be kept separate.
I think if somebody is using Internet, they have a separate bill for their home office. They shouldn't bundle it and the Senate has to try to figure out which part is Senate work. Keep it separate.
Given what I have been reading about security, I'm not in favour of having my personal family computer and log over on top of some software from the Senate — that, five years later, I hear that has been breached and everything is out because it's part of my job?
Ms. Bouchard: I'm not sure I understand your question, senator. I'm sorry. The software it's just giving you the possibility to access the Senate network. It's a container; it provides you with a little container to access the Senate network, and it's very secure. That's why you need a secure ID card: There are passcodes.
Senator Downe: That's my point. We have been hearing about secured computers, and we pick up the paper every day and there is a breach. So why would I put myself in that position because of my work? That's my point, if the Senate gave me a computer with that on it and I used it just for that.
But these should be separate. If I have the Internet, there should be a separate bill for the Internet for my office and also for my home. It shouldn't be lumped into my family cable bundle and so on. That's my view. I'm not prepared to put on my personal computer any outside software.
Ms. Bouchard: To give you some historical information about why the bundle: It is because, at one point, this is what we have tried to do with the senators to get a separate account for services that have been paid for by the Senate. But then the senators come back to us and said, "If I take a bundle, it's much cheaper, so I'm saving money for the Senate." It's hard, because we didn't have any criteria or standards. At one point, the senators were right because we were saving money by using a bundle package instead of being separate.
We have also services for telephone lines. Sometimes we have a business line installed in senators' homes, which is completely separate but it's almost double or triple the price. It's very expensive. Sometimes when we tried to use that route to be able to provide that service to the senators in their homes, but the senator said, "It's ridiculous to pay the amount," but because it was a business line, it was more expensive.
So some would prefer to say, "Maybe I should get a residential line and have it paid by the Senate," because it's cheaper.
Senator Downe: This comes back to my point: These should be separate. If I'm using my home phone to do a radio interview, my family is waiting to use the phone, and that's not fair to them. It should not be billed to the Senate. That is my personal phone. I need a separate line for that.
If you have an office in your home, it's a cost of having the office. They shouldn't be tied together, I say for the third time.
Senator Tkachuk: Change comes quickly, but we all have cell phones now, so we can use our cell phones for business. It's paid for by the Senate. My iPad receives my business emails, so I don't see why we pay for any residential phones whatsoever. I don't understand that. We don't need to fax anything. This supplies my emails. If I need to do some research on a speech, I go on my own computer and look it up. What's the big deal?
I think we have to find a way. Percy raises a number of good points. We should give it a rest for a week and think about how we do this, and then come to some conclusions. But there are all kinds of ways for us to solve everyone's problems and save a whole bunch of money.
Senator Seth: We already use a lot of cell phones, iPads and all that. For research, the staff does a lot of research — newspapers and all that. We tend to do everything on the phone.
Is there any maximum limit how much money we can use? I have noticed that if I start using more Internet, my bill starts increasing and I start getting worried about what I did.
Second, when I am here as a senator and making phone calls with my cell phone, I have to call home to find out how everything is. Is it allowed, or that will be a problem?
Ms. Bouchard: No.
Senator Seth: So there is no limitation for either of these things?
Ms. Bouchard: When you talk about the Internet access, are you talking about using the Internet on your iPad?
Senator Seth: Internet, cell phone.
Ms. Bouchard: For the Internet on the iPad, we have 5 gigs. I don't think we've seen senators go above the limit. It happens only when senators are travelling and they are not going through Wi-Fi zones, which is preferable because of the roaming charges. So when you travel, that could be expensive because of the roaming charge.
But for those who are using the iPad extensively, you have 5 gigs, and it's quite a lot.
Senator Seth: How about the cell phone?
Ms. Bouchard: You were talking about communication and, yes, it is allowed. You're using it for your business. When you're not in your region, you're allowed to communicate with your family. It's part of the SARs. You are in a business; you have to contact your family because you're outside your region. You're allowed to have communication.
Senator Seth: How come I notice when I use more Internet on the cell — to see the news or do research — that my bill is higher? Yet, I'm not doing more long-distance calls.
Ms. Bouchard: On the cell phone?
Senator Seth: Yes.
Ms. Bouchard: Are you using the Internet when you're in Ottawa?
Senator Seth: Ottawa, from here to Toronto.
Ms. Bouchard: I will need to see your invoice. It's hard for me to answer that unless I see the invoice.
Mr. Cooke: Senator, your BlackBerry will have 500 megabytes, which is a lot. If you're going over, we can look at it. I have made a note here, but for the most part that's usually enough unless you're roaming outside of Canada.
Senator Cordy: An indication of the question shows this is a complex issue. I don't think we should be making the decision today; I agree with Senator Tkachuk. Things have changed a lot in the 14 years since I've been here and we really have to evaluate the whole program about what's going on. We all have calling cards so we shouldn't be having long distance charges if we use our calling card.
I agree with Senator Downe. I don't think there should be bundling. It's more convenient and cheaper for the consumer, but I think it creates a lot of hard work for finance in trying to determine what part of it actually is Senate and what isn't. I know when they explained to me how much cheaper it would be to bundle, I said no. I want it completely separate — the Senate bill and the private bill. This is something we need to have a fairly good discussion on and go back. We kept adding things on, but we haven't taken anything away. We have to look at that closely.
Senator White: One of the carriers here, although they don't like it, will bundle and split the bill. I spoke to both of them when I came here. They will give you the bundle rate. They take the bill and if it's four pieces they will send two pieces to the Senate and two pieces to your home. That's what I have. They're not happy to do it, but they'll do it rather than lose your business.
Senator Cordy: That would be fine if the bill is separate, but not when you're getting one bill and expecting finance to figure it out.
Senator White: It gives you the bundle deal and still allows you to split the bill.
Senator Lang: Like everyone else around the table, I think there is a certain amount of confusion and I certainly agree with Senator Tkachuk. We have to give it more thought on what direction we should go. It seems to me that every time we start to differentiate between what call is going to what bill, we've now complicated things for finance and now you have to justify all of those particular items to finance, which turns into an accountant's nightmare as far as I can make out. I really do think that we should seriously consider going back and scrutinizing, and thinking about the possibility of a monthly allocation for communications. You go about your business however you want to go about your business.
It's different throughout the country, and I'll go closer to home. In my case I have no choice but to use Bell at this stage. I guess I can switch to Telus now. I don't know what the implications of that are, but up to now we've had Bell and that's it. We don't have options.
I would be satisfied, as a senator, to say look, a part of my expenses is being covered. If they're not being totally covered that's fine, but I do have an office that I have in my home and I know I don't expense that to the Senate; I don't expect to. I do most of my telecommunications on behalf of the Senate there, but at the same time I do watch a hockey game. So you get into this confusion and I don't understand. Finance gave us a fairly good overview the last time we discussed this. I think we should go back to the idea that there is X amount of dollars per senator and you do what you want to do with it because we all know we have telecommunications. There is a cost to it as opposed to turning this into an accountant's nightmare.
Senator Fraser: Senator Lang took some of the words right of my mouth. There are 105 Senate seats and there are probably 105 different ways senators use the communications service. For example, I do not use the BlackBerry and I do not bill the Senate for the large amount of Senate work that I do on my personal cell phone because unbundling that wretched bill and then dealing with the Senate finance administration is too much hassle.
On the other hand, I have a home fax provided by the Senate, which I use in significant part for the Senate finance department. They can fax me bills that I have to authorize and then get on with their business instead of waiting until I'm back in town so I can sign them in person. It seems to me that it would simplify everything, free up manpower, save money dramatically if we had a flat bundle of dollars every month that we choose how to spend, even if we adjusted it a little bit according to how far you are from home. For example, I'm sure that Senator Lang's phone bills from Whitehorse would be higher than mine from Montreal, so maybe the monthly allocation could take that into account. We find things more and more complicated, and they will be more and more complicated as we go on. Let's just cut the cord here. Cut the Gordian knot and do it.
Senator McCoy: I have a question, which could be answered now or later: How does this affect staff and office space in our home region? This is not the senator's use, but a staff member's use?
Ms. Bouchard: Are you talking about the Internet services?
Senator McCoy: I'm talking about all of it — fax lines, land lines, Internet service.
Ms. Bouchard: First of all, the Internet access we're paying for you and the land line outside the parliamentary precinct is only for senators. These services are not available to senators' employees.
Senator McCoy: That's another factor that one might wish to consider.
Senator Johnson: Thank you, chair. I tend to agree with my colleagues. At the same time I like option (b), particularly with regard to telephone lines, I feel that in this age we're in, that that's not necessarily anything. But I don't use fax and haven't for a decade. We're all at different stages in our use of the latest tools that are available in terms of technology.
I would be interested to know what this is costing and what the difference would be if we did something in terms of an overall amount. Also, I live in a rural area that's only serviced by certain providers and every situation is different, whether it's the Yukon or Gimli, so we have different needs in that respect. At the same time, I use the iPad. I hardly use anything and I would never put a Senate network on any of my systems. I did that in the early days when we were starting out, and I didn't find it helpful at all. We're here enough to find out what we need to know. Do the best we can do in terms of eliminating complications, reducing cost and definitely getting rid of telephone lines, I think, but then I remembered people who still use fax. That goes back to an idea about an overall amount.
The Chair: We have had a good introductory discussion on this matter this morning. It has been suggested by several honourable senators that we need to delve into this a little bit more. I wish to encourage that we do that with our colleagues who are not members of this committee, and we will pick it up and see how far we get on this. Clearly it's complex and not as simple with all the variables. We might need to examine what's the best paradigm to deal with this on a going forward basis, so thank you for your input this morning.
If we could turn to Item No. 4, taxi policy, I think the bottom line here is a suggestion that we get rid of taxi vouchers — they have become problematic — and deal just with taxi receipts. Nicole, do you wish to speak to that? I tried to provide a quick and dirty executive summary of the debate that I'm anticipating, but the bottom line is, do we get rid of taxi vouchers or not? That's simply to focus your attention, which I think I've achieved, but we're going to hear from Nicole.
Nicole Proulx, Director, Finance and Procurement, Senate of Canada: Thank you. The Senate taxi policy was revised and adopted by this committee in January 2011. It contains several provisions in relation to taxi usage, and obviously that taxis be used only for parliamentary functions; that is the basic principle. The policy also covers the usage of taxi vouchers, also known as taxi chits or taxi coupons. I'm here to explain why we are coming forward with this proposal.
The vouchers are very convenient for senators, their staff and the Senate administration; however, there are several downsides. There are administrative fees charged by companies, and this ranges from 8 to 12 per cent. There are delays in receiving used taxi vouchers from the taxi companies. Sometimes it can take several months, so we get stacks at one time. There is the record-keeping requirement. When you use taxi chits, you are to keep a copy in your office and log it in a register. That's what the policy states. There are obviously risks of misplacing or losing the vouchers, and there is an inefficient process for the reconciliation. I will just provide a bit of the description of the process, and you will see that it is quite heavy.
[Translation]
First, the vouchers are printed by Senate Printing. They are then sent to the Finance Directorate, which is in charge of issuing coupons to those who request them. So, before the vouchers are sent out, a branch clerk must indicate the responsibility centre and a number on them to be able to track them.
When taking a taxi, the user fills out the voucher, gives a copy to the driver and keeps a copy for their records. Taxi companies then send their bills, along with all the relevant coupons, to the Finance Directorate. As I mentioned earlier, the system is not consistent enough, so the vouchers are received irregularly and sometimes cover a period of several months.
The Finance Directorate has a huge Excel sheet where it enters the amount on every coupon based on the user's responsibility centre. At the same time, the clerk reviews the information on the voucher. That can involve telephone calls and additional verifications.
The bill is then paid in order to avoid late fees. So the payment is made before the information is received.
The clerk prepares individual reports for each senator's office or each directorate and attaches a service note that must be signed by the senator or the directorate head to confirm that the services were provided. For that purpose, the individual who signs the service note is expected to ensure that the report is consistent with all the voucher copies in your offices.
The Finance Directorate must then ensure that this information is received. If there are any comments — such as in the case of an inappropriate coupon — a follow-up must be carried out and the money recovered, or the taxi company must be contacted to make the necessary corrections.
[English]
I think this demonstrates the inefficiencies of the current process, which leads to the proposal that the chairman so eloquently presented before. We are suggesting that the taxi vouchers be eliminated effective September 1, 2014, basically to use up all the coupons that are in circulation. The individuals who use the taxi service for parliamentary functions would still be entitled to reimbursement, but the process would be different. It would be paid by personal funds and then a request for reimbursement of expenses would be submitted by presenting the claim and the appropriate required supporting documentation. This is the same as any other claim.
Senator White: Thank you very much for the presentation. My comments will refer to the only time I've had experience with taxi chits, with the City of Ottawa when I was the chief. We had about 25 investigations against cabbies and taxi companies that were committing fraud. I have to tell you that I don't support the taxi chit system because I think it breeds the opportunity for the few to rip you off. Although I may like to use them, and I haven't, to be fair, they're not an efficient use of service, and they do give great opportunity for fraudulent claims. Thank you.
Senator Downe: I agree. On the other side, when I was in the PMO, we spent a lot of time trying to figure out where people were going with these taxi chits, so I support this policy as well. Everybody can get a receipt. Almost all cabs now, I assume, take debit or credit cards as well if you don't have cash. The bureaucratic problem that you outlined is horrendous, and we can eliminate a lot of red tape. It goes back to what Senator Lang said earlier about telecommunication. By doing a lump sum, we get rid of a lot of bureaucratic and staff work. This is the same principle. It makes it easier, and taxpayers are protected because we have to submit a receipt or we don't get reimbursed.
The Chair: On the house side, they don't have the chit system.
Senator Munson: I agree with the idea of saving money. We talked about that 10 or 12 per cent, whatever the taxi companies charge. For those of us senators who live in Ottawa and are invited to various functions — for example, I'm invited to speak at a function at Carleton University this afternoon in my capacity as a senator — you just submit your own receipt or personal Visa or whatever card, but you cannot use your Senate American Express card.
Ms. Proulx: No. The Senate AmEx card is for travel of over 100 kilometres. It would be when you submit a travel claim under the 64 points.
Senator Munson: I think it's a great idea. Thank you.
Senator Marshall: If we were to cut it out, which I agree with — because administratively it must be really burdensome and I don't know how you reconcile it and have no idea how you manage to do that — did you say you were going to use up the ones you had?
Ms. Proulx: There are many in circulation. We just thought that — this is in your hands. We would be very happy if it were —
Senator Marshall: I would cut it out as soon as you could administratively do so.
Ms. Proulx: I certainly will not argue with this.
Senator LeBreton: I want to second what Percy E. Downe said. Even when I was Leader of the Government in the Senate, the odd time when a staffer missed a bus, taxis now are taking credit cards, so if you have a staffer in that position and can't afford it, I'd have a little petty cash account and submit the receipt. I think you should recover all the outstanding chits. As a matter of fact, I was told one time by a person that they were using a taxi chit to go to the airport. When they handed the taxi chit to the cabbie, they were roundly given hell because the taxi driver didn't want to take the chit. He wanted cash. So there is that element, too.
It's asking for abuse. We should cut it out, recover all receipts, and tell the taxi companies we're not going to honour them. When people take cabs — and I'm an Ottawa-area senator, Senator Munson, but I usually drive myself to these events, because I don't drink and drive. I don't say you do, either.
We drive ourselves; we have our own cars. But if I had to take a cab, I would simply pay for it and submit it as a claim.
Senator Cordy: It's a great idea. The amount of hours it would save, from an administrative point of view, would be significant. You don't need the headache. I agree with others who have said it should come into effect as soon as possible.
The Chair: I would like to propose a motion that we get rid of the taxi chits effective June 1, 2014.
Moved by Senator Cordy, seconded by Senator LeBreton.
I'm sorry — on the motion, Senator Charette-Poulin.
[Translation]
Senator Charette-Poulin: I would like to clarify something. This is an excellent suggestion, but you said that a receipt and supporting documentation would be required. Ms. Proulx, can you tell us what you mean by that?
Ms. Proulx: The user would have to provide the claim and the receipt, in addition to some information on the trip. I should point out that the taxi policy will have to be revised, to remove any references to payment by voucher.
[English]
The Chair: Are you ready for the question? Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Can we do this one final item — No. 6? It is to confirm the establishment of our working group on Senators' Travel Policy, including Senators Smith, Marshall, Lang, Tkachuk, Furey, Downe and Cordy.
So moved.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Doyle?
Senator Doyle: On a related matter, are you finished with the taxi thing?
The Chair: Yes, we're done that. We also just confirmed —
Senator Doyle: That was my question on the taxi thing.
On a related matter, what is the policy regarding using one's own car to go to the airport, for instance? There seems to be some problem with that. I was wondering if you can claim taxi fare in that regard — when you use your own vehicle to go to an airport.
Ms. Proulx: If you claim for a taxi, you would need to submit a taxi receipt. I'm sorry; I missed the first part of the question.
Senator Doyle: When using one's own car.
Ms. Proulx: If you're using your car and driving to the airport, you can claim the kilometres.
Senator Doyle: And the parking, as well?
Ms. Proulx: Yes. It just cannot be staff.
Senator Seth: It was a great idea to pass as soon as we can to get rid of the chit. Suppose we come from the airport and go to Carleton University, would we use our Senate card to claim or our private one?
Ms. Proulx: If you're going to a function, the travel card is what you would claim on your 64-point claim. That normally would be to take you back to Ottawa. In this case, you're going directly, and it would not be logical to submit another claim for that one, so I would say "yes."
I would raise a caution, though, because the Amex card should be used only for travel that is charged to the 64 points.
Senator Seth: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators. Another point?
[Translation]
Senator Charette-Poulin: Finance services provided our staff with some excellent training sessions on the rule changes.
[English]
I was called to the Senate in 1995, and we're definitely moving from a tradition-based institution to a rules-based institution. A lot of the decisions I make very quickly over the phone. If I'm at a social gathering and somebody says to me, "Oh, senator, we're going to invite you to speak. Is that okay?" Absolutely. And I say yes. It's starting to cost me a little fortune out of my personal money, because of the change in rules.
Could we have sessions for the senators on the rules, please? I have to be the one making the decisions on my agenda, and I need to be better informed.
Ms. Proulx: I would be very happy to provide either group sessions or individual sessions and meet with senators.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Group sessions, because there are a lot of rules.
Senator L. Smith: Just to reinforce that, in the working group, two things will occur: There will be sessions for your staff, but we want sessions for the senators. As per your point, there have been a lot of changes. The taxi policy was just an example of what we went through yesterday.
So we understand it, when senators drive to the airport, it has to be the senator's car or the senator driving the car. We're not going to have staffers drive a senator or two or three senators. Historically, there are cases where a staffer would drive two senators and both senators would charge the kilometres.
We have to simplify the rules. Just so we have it straight: You can claim kilometres to the airport, but your staff should not be driving you, okay?
There's going to be training for everybody; we're very cognizant of that.
(The committee adjourned.)