Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 7 - Evidence - November 24, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 24, 2016
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:02 a.m., in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters; and, in public, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, we'll go to item 3 of the public portion of the agenda, which is the adoption of minutes of proceedings of the November 3, 2016, meeting.
Any comments or questions? If not, if someone could move it. Moved by Senator Manning, seconded by Senator Cordy. Thank you, colleagues.
Item 4, adoption of minutes of proceedings of November 17, 2016, meeting. No questions? Could I have somebody moving that?
Moved by Senator Marshall, seconded by Senator Downe. Thank you, colleagues.
Item 5, first report of Advisory Working Group on corporate credit card. I give the floor to Senator Wells on this to report.
Senator Wells: Thank you, chair. The Advisory Working Group on the corporate credit card of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its first report.
I want to begin by thanking my Deputy Chair, Senator Jaffer; and the third member of our working group, Senator Batters; as well as the staff who helped us, the clerk, Mr. Charbonneau, and Mr. Ruben Hyppolite.
On March 24, 2016, the Advisory Working Group on the corporate credit card was established, with the following three senators appointed as members: Senator Wells, Senator Jaffer and Senator Batters.
Your Advisory Working Group was given the mandate to review the terms of reference for the statement of work and make recommendations with respect to the competitive process for procuring a new corporate credit card. Your working group met with Pascale Legault, Chief Financial Officer, at its meeting on October 25, 2016.
Colleagues, prior to that meeting, there was a lot of groundwork done with the working group and with staff. I appreciate their work on that over the summer.
The Advisory Working Group was advised of the following during that meeting: that the contract with the current credit card provider for travel services, American Express, AMEX, will expire on March 31, 2017. A request for proposal to procure a new long-term contract for a corporate travel credit card would be in keeping with best practices, particularly given that the current contract is an interim extension ending on March 31, 2017.
An RFP involves the development of detailed requirements, the undertaking after a competitive bidding process, negotiations and an award of contract, in addition to allowing for sufficient time to facilitate a comprehensive transfer if AMEX was not the winning bid. While a competitive process could be launched immediately, it is customary to allow 45 to 90 days for a change in provider with such contracts. Alternatively, a sole-source contract could be renewed with the existing provider.
Because there is no service cost to the Senate for travel cards, the mandatory competitive process for a service contract over $35,000 for the Senate administration or over $70,000 for the senators' offices is not applicable.
During the fiscal year 2015-16, the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration authorized the Senate administration to implement an integrated Enterprise Resource Planning system, the ERP, to replace several of the existing aging systems. This implementation is taking place over the next two fiscal years with a plan for full implementation in March 2018. There is a risk associated with introducing a new card program during the ERP implementation period.
Several interfaces with the existing Senate systems are required to make this implementation successful, such as changes to the e-claim system and the new proactive disclosure model. A new credit card would introduce another system change and require additional programming, interface change and training.
Delaying a change of the existing credit card provider will help mitigate the risks of possible interference with several initiatives and systems being introduced over the next two fiscal years as part of the ERP project. The interface for a new card program could be created at a later date once the implementation has been completed and stabilized.
In our forward movement, in addition to providing an excellent service over the last five years, AMEX also provides premium insurance coverage at no additional cost.
A two-year extension of the current contract allows sufficient time to complete the successful implementation of the new ERP system and draft a new solicitation document. If any transition period is required, this option also ensures that there is no interruption of service.
Colleagues, I'll remind you of the difficulty that the Government of Canada is now undergoing with the Phoenix system, in changing a system that is integrated with other systems. The subcommittee felt that that would be too high a risk given the changing systems that we have under the ERP program.
The following timeline was proposed by Senate administration and agreed to by the subcommittee: November 2016, amendment to current contract with AMEX. Spring 2018, the finance and procurement directorate under the direction of the Advisory Working Group will finalize the requirements to be included in the solicitation document for a competitive process, and we'd issue the solicitation document. Fall 2018, contract award and transition period, if required. Of course, by then, the ERP would be fully implemented. April 1, 2019, start of a new contract.
Your Advisory Working Group recommends that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration approve an extension of the current contract with American Express for two years, until March 31, 2019, and that the committee approve the timeline above and the new contract be awarded by April 1, 2019. Respectfully submitted.
The Chair: Any questions, colleagues? No? You did such a great job, David.
David, can you just move the motion?
Senator Wells: I move that the first report be adopted.
The Chair: It's moved by Senator Wells, seconded by Senator Downe. All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you, colleagues.
Item 6, we have requested an appeal on a decision that steering committee of Internal Economy had taken on Senator Duffy having sent us a letter in the summer, I think it was, a few months back. The first one was in June, essentially making a request for payment of part of his legal fees.
Under the advice, of course, of our Law Clerk, and understanding there has never been a precedent in the Senate for having reimbursed fees in instances of criminal charges against any senator, we thought we would remain consistent to that policy. Maybe I can allow Michel the floor to explain the advice he gave to steering.
Michel Patrice, Law Clerk & Parliamentary Counsel and Chief Parliamentary Precinct Services Officer, Senate of Canada: Yes. Essentially there's been one other situation where a senator engaged in legal criminal proceedings and made a request from steering at the time that was denied, because in accordance with the criteria of the policy, essentially the criteria in section 2.3.4, that it would not be appropriate for the Senate to assist a senator in such a circumstance.
Steering followed the precedent set years ago, in 2007 and 2008, actually.
The Chair: Now we have a request from Senator Duffy, which is well within his right to appeal the decision that steering took, to Internal Economy as a whole, and it's up to Internal Economy to decide if they want to grant that.
Senator Marshall: What happened in 2007?
Mr. Patrice: Senator Lavigne.
Senator Marshall: And you referenced a section of the policy. What was that?
Mr. Patrice: There's criteria established in the policy. It's a legal assistance criteria to be found appropriate under this policy, legal assistance provided for the representation or defence of a senator must meet the following criteria, and then there are six criteria. The one that I'm talking about is the one in (e), the particulars of the case are such that it is otherwise appropriate for the Senate to assist.
Senator Marshall: What's the process? Is he able to appeal this to the Senate?
Mr. Patrice: Yes. The policy gives the authority to steering committee to make the decision, and then the policy provides in section 2.4.6 that the senator can appeal to the Internal Economy Committee.
Senator Marshall: The full committee.
Mr. Patrice: To the full committee, and obviously, as any decision, a senator can bring it to the floor of the Senate.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Senator Manning: Just for clarification purposes, the 2007 and 2008 situation with Senator Lavigne, if my memory serves me correct, in a court of law he was found guilty.
Mr. Patrice: That was the end result, but at the time that he made the request, obviously the trial had not started.
Senator Manning: In this situation here, Senator Duffy was found not guilty. Am I missing something here? I do not understand why any of us would go through that process.
The Chair: Michel, I understand the policy was designed in the sense that the Senate would not finance legal fees of anybody who would be charged with criminal offences. I believe that's the basis of the rule.
Mr. Patrice: Well, that's the way that it was interpreted by steering in the previous situation.
The Chair: If you would start a precedent, any senator in the future who would be charged with criminal charges, if you set the precedent of paying these legal fees, you would have to pay future legal fees, I would suspect. That's the premise I understood as well of why in the past they took a decision that way, and we stayed consistent.
Senator Tannas: Trying to think this through, I can't imagine a circumstance where an employer who had an employee with sufficient grounds to get charged for fraud against them would, after the fact, even if they were found not guilty, pay for their legal fees.
We've got taxpayers and common folks that look at it through the common-sense lens, and I can't see that they would think it was right or fair that we step forward and pay legal fees in this circumstance.
I think if Senator Duffy feels strongly about this — and I get that there's a fairness thing and targeting and all the things that I know he feels have happened, that if we ever decided that we should do this, it should be the entire Senate that decides.
I'll vote no, and I think we should send a message to Senator Duffy that if he wants to bring this forward to the entire Senate, that that's the appropriate place. It would be such an extraordinary step, in my mind, and one that would be so charged in the public domain that we should have the concurrence of every member of the Senate.
Senator Batters: It's very helpful to know what the previous one example was, that it was requested and denied, because this is a criminal matter. It's not a civil matter, seeking reimbursement for expenses. That particular criminal matter was judging the guilt or not guiltiness of Senator Duffy, not dealing with whether or not his expenses should be reimbursed, where a civil court judge found specifically on those facts that expenses should be reimbursed.
One thing I also found interesting about this material was that, in Senator Duffy's request, there was no indication as to how much he was requesting. It simply says, at the very end, "reasonable and partial assistance,'' and I note that there were countless media reports throughout that whole trial process referring to how his lawyer was handling this matter on a pro bono basis, which means at no cost to Senator Duffy.
I find it unusual he now wants reasonable partial assistance, because what was consistently represented to the media, including by his lawyer, was that no actual cost was being expended by him.
To me, if that's the case, then seeking reimbursement for expenses not actually incurred seems to be how this whole unfortunate saga started in the first place, so I will be voting no.
Senator Wallace: Michel has explained the advice was given to steering, and I think we understand why steering came to the decision that it did. The issue here, though, is that under that Senate legal assistance policy, a senator has a right to appeal a decision to steering. As I understand it, from Senator Duffy's letter to yourself, he has asked what the process is for that appeal. Undoubtedly, from the letter, he's inquiring as to whether he and perhaps counsel can appear and present his viewpoint.
I'm just a bit confused this morning. The merits of the appeal and the appropriateness of steering committee's decision, I don't believe that's the issue before us. The issue is he has requested a right of appeal to this committee. So the question is: How would that appeal take place? What is the procedure that would be followed for this committee to make an informed decision on the merits? That's the only issue on my mind today.
The Chair: That is exactly the issue, Senator Wallace. We're bringing it to this committee to decide if the committee is open to having him come before it and appeal the decision that steering has already taken on behalf of this committee. That's the process. That's why we're having this debate.
Senator Wallace: Not to belabour this, but as I read the policy, the senator has that right to appeal to this committee. I'm getting the sense that the thought here is —
The Chair: Senator Wallace, the process is that every senator has the right to appeal to steering. Steering can agree to hear the appeal or not, and we can refer it to Internal Economy as a whole, regardless of whatever the instance is. Of course, Internal Economy has the right to hear and a senator has a right to make an appeal to be heard.
But I also get the sense here some of the senators don't want to revisit this decision. The senator, also, based on our rules, has the right to appeal to the highest body of all at any given time, and that's the Senate. So that's the process.
Senator Wallace: I hear you, but quite frankly, with all due respect, I can't agree with that. When I look at the policy at section 2.4.6, the senator does have a right to appeal a decision to the committee. I would think that if a senator has that right of appeal, they undoubtedly, by any rules of natural justice, must have the opportunity to appear before this committee and make a case.
I don't read that to say that it's discretionary on the part of this committee to make a pre-emptive decision that the appeal would not be heard. And that's what I hear happening here today.
The Chair: Your opinion is duly noted.
Senator Cordy: I was part of steering, and we made the decision based on the fact that it was a criminal case. The Senate did not lay the charges; the charges were laid by the RCMP. That's what we based our decision on. When you look back at the Lavigne case, that's what happened. Senator Lavigne was charged and legal costs were not paid. And I don't think taxpayers should be responsible for paying the legal fees in this case.
However, this letter does request an appeal to steering. I don't have a problem with that; if he wishes to appear and present his case for the whole committee, that's fine. He also has the right to appeal and bring it forward to the Senate as a whole.
Senator Wallace: I don't think the appeal is to steering. The appeal is to this committee.
Senator Cordy: No, that's right. The appeal is not to steering.
Senator Wallace: I thought that's what you said.
Senator Cordy: No, sorry. Maybe I said steering. The appeal is to the standing committee.
Senator Munson: We went through a process a few years ago where three senators, in my estimation, did not receive due process by the Senate of Canada, and we have seen the result of that. It's my view that it's difficult to make a decision based on a two-page letter.
It is extremely important for Senator Duffy, in terms of due process, again — whether or not we have a precedent — to appear before this committee, in public or in private — whatever the committee decides, or whatever Senator Duffy decides. I think he still, again, in this respect, needs due process by all of us. I would welcome the opportunity for him to come before us to explain the reasons in a very calm, rational way why he feels he needs assistance — "partial legal assistance,'' as he calls it.
Thank you.
Senator Manning: Just a clarification again. I was listening to Senator Cordy explain the process of how the steering committee reached their decision. And I agree with the process and understand where your decision came from. I am wondering why that process that Senator Cordy just explained would not be sent back in the response to Senator Duffy: "After consideration, the steering committee did not approve your request.'' In his correspondence, he's asking for a reason why it was not approved.
The decision is made, but I'm just saying why wouldn't that be sent back to him that this is why the decision was reached by steering? We have a precedent going back years; it was a criminal charge laid by the RCMP, not laid by the Senate; and so on.
If I received this letter back, I would be asking "why didn't they approve?'' Everybody had their own beliefs why, but the fact is when we follow the paper trail here, the paper trail here is not complete, if you ask me, when we just send back "the steering committee did not approve your request.''
The Chair: You're probably right, Senator Manning, we could have been maybe more detailed on the basis why we took the decision, but clearly the letter also states that if he had any question, not to hesitate to call the Law Clerk to get a clarification on why we took the decision we took and to appeal the process, which was well within his right.
Senator Manning: I agree with that, but we have been through —
The Chair: But you're right: We could have added a section —
Senator Manning: — he-said-she-said situations, so I like to have it on paper.
The Chair: That's an omission — a valid point — that we could have explained maybe in detail why we came to the conclusion we did. We're explaining it now, and we're explaining it publicly.
Senator Tannas: A couple things. I wonder if there is a Government of Canada policy that says if a federal employee is charged criminally with something that they did while they were a federal employee, go through the process, get found not guilty — if the Government of Canada, if it were a regular employee, would then chip in for legal fees. I think that might be something of interest to know. That's the first thing.
Second, just on the point that Senator Wallace has made here, which is a good one, he's asking to follow the policy and appeal here.
I'll go with the will of the group. My own feeling is that this is such a charged subject that whatever we decide here, our colleagues are going to want to weigh in on it. So why don't we skip the step of us going through that and just say simply that, in this circumstance, we would suggest and would step aside, and that if he wants to make his case directly to the Senate, that he do so.
Those are my two unrelated points.
Senator Batters: All I was going to say is that, in response to Senator Manning, now the reasons are in a public transcript, so it's very well explained, as was done earlier by Mr. Patrice.
Also, I don't have the same assessment of due process as does Senator Munson. I think what we've seen here today certainly satisfies me that the appropriate decision was taken. If the will of the group is that Senator Duffy gets to take this to the whole Senate, that's fine, but my opinion on it won't change.
Senator Tkachuk: It's not the will of the group. If he doesn't like our decision, then he can go to the Senate.
Senator Batters: Sure.
Senator Tkachuk: Our decision is that we're not interested in pursuing this matter. We support the steering committee.
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Senator Wallace: The issue for me is not at this stage to question the decision of steering. We each have a view of that, but that's not the issue before us today.
Senator Tkachuk: It is.
Senator Wallace: No, it is not. The issue before us today is that, under the policy, Senator Duffy has the right to appeal that decision to this committee. As has been said, he also has the right, if he wishes, to take it directly to the Senate Chamber. He chose as a first step to bring it here. He may decide subsequently to take it to the chamber, but I think it's completely inappropriate for this committee to decide we're not going to deal with it, even though he has a right to appeal this and he has to take it to the chamber. By any standard of due process —
Senator Tkachuk: He's not — like the decision.
Senator Wallace: I'm talking. By any standard of due process, that is wrong. The issue here is that Senator Duffy has placed this matter before this committee, and I would say properly so. He is entitled to an appeal. If we proceed and make a decision based solely upon his letter and what we've heard here today, by no standard could that ever satisfy due process.
The merits are something else again, but the merits can only be determined when the facts are heard, and he has not, as of today, been provided that opportunity to enable this committee to fulfill the responsibility it has. Regardless of what opinions may be, that cannot be done unless the person who is entitled to the appeal has the opportunity to present their view of it. And it may be at the end of it people agree with Michel. That could well be. I don't know. But I think, as Senator Munson pointed out, I think we're all very sensitive after what we went through in November 2013 with the suspensions to make sure that at a minimum the Senate fulfills its obligation for due process. I think we've all agreed we would not go down that road again, and this committee has made changes in the process to provide for arbitration. We well recognize that. I'm saying don't step back from that. Don't abandon due process and rush to judgment.
It is totally inappropriate to say Senator Duffy should have elected to go to the chamber. He has a right to come to this committee, make his case heard and then a decision made. Today, this is a question of process, not final outcome.
Senator Wells: I find myself in rare agreement with Senator Wallace on some of his points. If the question is whether Senator Duffy can appeal to this committee, I would agree that he can as part of due process, but of course as part of due process this committee, like many courts, decline to hear appeals. That happens —
Senator Wallace: The Supreme Court maybe does that, but others don't. They have the right to.
Senator Wells: They also are supreme and they do have the right.
Senator Wallace: Most appeals don't.
Senator Wells: Well, when terms like "natural justice'' are used, it often tells me that there's nothing else to land on because natural justice is a foggy term that has no basis anywhere other than what the speaker imagines, much the same as a term like "social licence.'' It really has no place in this discussion.
I think if the question is should Senator Duffy be permitted to present to this committee, I have no problem with that whatsoever. But I also have no problem with the committee's decision to hear or not to hear. And we all know this: he has a final place to go, which would be the Senate.
The steering committee made a decision. If Senator Duffy would like to ask to appeal to Internal Economy, first of all, I have no problem with him appearing and appealing, and if that were the question I would vote absolutely.
Senator Tannas: That's right.
Senator Wells: And let the committee decide if we go that route.
Senator Mitchell: I agree with that.
The Chair: You agree with Senator Wells?
Senator Mitchell: Yes. If that's the question, he has every right to come and I think it would fulfill due process and he should do it.
Senator Wells: But also that the committee has every right to decline his coming, if that's what the committee decides.
Senator Mitchell: Okay, I don't agree with that.
Senator Munson: Just very briefly, because if you take a look at his first letter, the second sentence he says "I am writing to give notice of my desire to appeal.'' I would like to move a motion to invite Senator Duffy to this committee, and I would think that at the end of that discussion I would feel much more comfortable in making my decision in this regard.
Senator Cordy: I second that.
The Chair: Before we move your motion, can I just let Senator Tkachuk, who is the last intervenor on the list, make his comments.
Senator Tkachuk: I think, Senator Wallace, you're a very smart guy, but the matter of the criminal charges against Senator Duffy had nothing to do with Internal Economy. So if a senator from Saskatoon pilfers a safe at the Sheraton Hotel while he's on duty here and gets charged with a criminal offence, what responsibility do we have for that? None. That's something that they did.
We didn't do anything to Senator Duffy. The Crown decided to charge him. We didn't do anything. What we did was suspend him. If he had come here and asked to appeal the suspension, that would be different. But he's coming here to say that he should get paid for a charge that was made by the prosecutor outside of our jurisdiction. We had nothing to do with that charge. That was a charge laid by the Crown. Why on earth would the Senate even contemplate paying for that? If we do that, we expose ourselves to every criminal charge outside of the jurisdiction of the Senate. Every one is then exposed to us for a senator who is here. And I think that would be a terrible, terrible mistake.
My view is we should support the decision of the steering committee because it has nothing to do with us. He can do whatever he wants. He can go to the Senate and he can make his case there about why they should hear him. Good luck to that, but I'm just saying we can't go there.
Senator Munson: I just want to reintroduce it — I have one intervention.
The Chair: I will allow Senator Wallace a brief intervention.
Senator Wallace: To Senator Tkachuk's point, as I sometimes do, I have to disagree with him on this.
Senator Tkachuk: Yeah, no kidding.
Senator Wallace: The policy that we're talking about here that provides legal assistance has criteria in section 2.3.4, certain criteria have to be met that the person is required to appear in court pursuant to a charge and the matter relates to the parliamentary functions of the senator, and that's exactly what Senator Duffy faced with those charges. Those issues related to his expenses and housing allowance as claimed in relation to the performance of his parliamentary function.
I understand what you're saying, senator, but the policy says what it says.
Senator Tkachuk: That's a long stretch.
Senator Wallace: We can ignore it or we can feel we have to comply with it. I know what I feel.
Senator Munson: I wasn't going to say anything this morning, but I can't help myself. We all can't help ourselves sometimes. But this didn't happen, a senator committing a bank robbery or whatever in a hotel in Saskatoon. This began in the Senate and it should end in the Senate. The Senate referred this to the RCMP.
Senator Tkachuk: He's not asking for that. He's asking for —
Senator Munson: No, but we're asking for one of our colleagues to have an opportunity beyond a two-page letter where he says "I'm writing to give notice of my desire.'' I respect the work of the subcommittee, but I'd rather come to a conclusion with a bit more information from the senator himself. That's all I'm saying.
Senator Cordy: You all know why I voted the way that I did on the steering committee, but I think when we look at the letter in the second line he's writing to appeal his decision to the standing committee — not the steering committee, Senator Wallace — and I would not feel comfortable turning any senator down for any reason, whether it's travel that steering has turned down or that Finance has turned down. I think that it's part of the process that we have in the Senate, and I would like to have Senator Duffy appear before us, if that's his wish. If he's got anything new to add to the discussion, we'll hear it, and then we will all make a decision based on that. If we agree with him, fine. If we don't agree with him, then he also has the right to appeal to the Senate Chamber.
The Chair: Colleagues, if I can just summarize what I get a sense is the feel of the room here is that there doesn't seem to be a questioning of the decision that was taken by steering, and there seems to be support on the basis of what steering did.
There seems to be deep division in terms if this committee is willing to hear an appeal on a decision that there seems to be an overwhelming view that we're not willing to overturn. So I guess the question is, fundamentally, are we ready to hear Senator Duffy at the next Internal Economy and give him the process to come and plead his case before this committee? And there are some voices that say we're not willing to grant him that appeal and he can go to the next level.
What I think we should do, senators, is look at Senator Munson's motion and have a decision on it. Senator Munson has moved that we allow Senator Duffy to come before Internal Economy to appeal the decision of steering of Internal Economy to not grant him legal fees. Is that correct, Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
The Chair: It has been seconded by Senator Jaffer. It seems like we need a vote on this.
Nicole Proulx, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, I will call members' names beginning with the chair and then going in alphabetical order. Senators will verbally indicate whether they vote for, against or abstain.
The Honourable Senator Housakos.
The Chair: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Downe.
Senator Downe: Abstain.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Jaffer.
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Munson.
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Ngo.
Senator Ngo: Against.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Smith.
Senator Smith: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Tannas.
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Wallace.
Senator Wallace: Yes.
Ms. Proulx: The Honourable Senator Wells.
Senator Wells: Yes.
The Chair: Eight are in favour, five against and one abstention.
So Senator Duffy is going to be granted his wish to come before this committee. I guess at the earliest convenience, colleagues?
Mr. Patrice: Can I answer Senator Tannas' question on the policy? In terms of your question on the policy in the government, this policy was modelled on the government policy with an adaptation, obviously, because we're the Senate.
Senator Cordy: Before we have this meeting, could we have a copy of that policy for each of us?
Senator Tkachuk: I think we also want to ask Senator Duffy to say what he wants when he comes here because the letter doesn't say that.
The Chair: Can we also reiterate in the letter to him that he can come back with a specific request, rather than a general request for legal fees?
Senator Wallace: To that point, on the face of it that's not unreasonable, but keep in mind there were no reasons given in steering's decision. What is it that he's having to rebut? We've heard today what Michel has had to say.
Senator Tkachuk: Maybe he wants money.
The Chair: I think, Senator Wallace, it's not unreasonable in saying his ask for legal fees should be specifically defined for us. That's all we're saying. That request was very general. I think that's what Senator Tkachuk was getting at.
Senator Wells: Senator Duffy does say, in his last paragraph: "I look forward to the receipt of a judgment with reasons from steering.''
I think that's the point that Senator Wallace made. I don't know if it's necessary for us to provide reasons. I believe, in cases, we don't. If he wants to make a case for getting paid, then I think that's what he should do. He should make the case for getting reimbursed or paid for these fees. I think that's what will happen, as opposed to his rebutting reasons — make the case.
The Chair: Either way, colleagues, he will come before the committee and you will have an opportunity to put forward your questions and he'll have an opportunity to answer them.
Senator Manning: When Senator Duffy arrives here, I'd like to know — I guess he can tell us — exactly what his legal fee is. If he's sitting down here asking us for $5,000 and then asks for $500,000, it makes a big difference in the decision-making process, to an extent. I realize it's the principle of the thing that we're going to be discussing here, but it would be nice to sit down in a public manner and have some ideas. Maybe we can pass that on to him.
The Chair: Colleagues, on to item 7, the third report of the audit subcommittee. That can be discussed at the next meeting for consideration.
Under other items I have Senator Smith and his committee, which has been tasked with the formidable challenge of coming back with a proposed model on oversight. I understand we're ready to hear from that committee.
Senator Smith: Thank you, chair. We spent the last few months with Senator Campbell, Senator Batters and myself looking at the creation of an oversight committee moving forward in time that can deal with some of the matters that were brought up with the mandate. Thanks to Senator Marshall, we have had a chance to talk with a lady named Gail Hamilton, who is part of the development of the oversight committee in Newfoundland after the challenges that the government had with some of its members. It was a very helpful meeting.
We also met, earlier along the way, Chief Justice Green in Newfoundland, who was the author of the establishment of this oversight concept and we spent time trying to figure out, with our Law Clerk, the formalities of creating this committee.
What we'd like to do is get the document in front of this committee but we'd also like to be able to visit the various groups. Senator Cordy, we would probably like to sit down with you to review the overview of the oversight committee.
Senator Cordy: I could do that. I would agree.
Senator Smith: Then we'd probably like to sit down, of course, with Senator McCoy who, if I understand correctly, oversees independents. And probably, at some point in time, we would like to sit down with the Speaker.
We have two options: We can either come to this committee first or we can do our homework in visiting around and getting some feedback. The objective is to get the feedback so that we can set something up that's new and refers back to the Auditor General's report. It will be something that needs to be discussed and vetted, but we've done quite a bit of work on it. It will come down to how people see us really administering the powers that we have within the Senate and whether we go outside some of our own jurisdiction or stay inside it.
I think it's worthwhile, if it's okay with the group, that we do our homework first by visiting some of the people who actually oversee the different groups, because we now have undefined caucuses. Then we can come back to this group. Or we can start with this group and then we can go out to the individuals who oversee the caucuses.
The Chair: I think, Senator Smith, I agree with the idea of consulting caucuses and leadership at large before we even bring it to this group for discussion. I know you've done great work with the model but I think it would be great if you could go to each caucus, independent senators and leadership and make sure that there's buy-in by the Senate at large and that there's a comfort level before we bring it here and dissect it even further. I think it would save a lot of time, in my humble opinion.
Senator Downe: I have an issue. First of all, I wonder if we could go in camera.
The Chair: Let's finish with this issue.
Is everyone in agreement that Senator Smith and his committee reach out to caucuses for in-depth discussion on the proposals before they come back?
Senator Mitchell: G3 senators, to make sure.
The Chair: I think the plan is to be all-inclusive: the government representatives, the two officials caucuses, the unofficial caucuses. I think he even mentioned the Speaker and independents. I have faith we'll come to consensus, I'm sure, in due time.
Senator Smith: I have to compliment Senator Mitchell. I did my Christmas message before this, so I was three minutes' late because the cameraman got caught in traffic. I have to thank you, Senator Mitchell, because he said if I can change, you can change. I haven't heard that since Rocky IV, when he was speaking after he beat that great big Russian. That was an unbelievable movie and I'm glad that you're a Sylvester Stallone fan, too, Senator Mitchell.
The Chair: I agree with you.
Senator Downe: If we could go in camera, chair.
The Chair: Is the committee in agreement we go in camera?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)
——————
(The committee resumed in public.)
Senator Wallace: I want to bring to the attention of the committee — and I don't think this would surprise anyone here — that for our former Senate colleagues who have retired, this committee has made financial demands of them to pay repay certain amounts, following up on the Auditor General's report. A number of them, maybe all of them, didn't avail themselves of the Justice Binnie appeal opportunity. As you pointed out a few meetings ago, chair, the committee has requested legal advice on that.
A number, if not all, of those retired senators are under tremendous stress. There is one in particular I'm aware of who has severe health issues, and the anxiety of dealing with these claims is a major part of it.
I realize we're waiting for a legal opinion, but, for the sake of health and peace of mind and also the financial position of these senators who are no longer, obviously, receiving their sessional allowance as senators, this has put some of them under tremendous financial strain.
In particular, I would say: There are some of them for which the claims against them relate exclusively to the primary residence/secondary residence issue and the claims that they made for housing allowance and travel.
Could we at least look immediately at those situations and see if we could come to a resolution on that? The most significant reason I say that is that the SARs rules have been changed to delete all of the references to primary and secondary residence. We now talk about provincial residence.
The consequence of that is that, for the circumstances that were called into question, and the claims that were made against some of these senators, those rules no longer apply.
I believe, in doing that, we were simply clarifying what the intention was all along. So the bottom line is, chair, I have great concern about the health and financial welfare of our retired senators. We should resolve this as quickly as possible. As I say, in particular, it should be a very simple resolution for those for whom the claims we've made against them relate to amounts they have claimed for their primary and secondary residences.
The Chair: I hear your concern, senator. As a point of information, I have been informed by our legal counsel that, within a couple of weeks, they will be ready to come before this committee and give a full report. You remember that we had made a request to the Auditor General to appear on our behalf on this case. He refused, of course, but he offered all of the documentation to our legal counsel to review in order to build our case.
I understand that our legal counsel has all of that documentation now. They are doing their full review, and, within two weeks, I've been assured that they will be before this committee to give their recommendation to this committee.
Colleagues, thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)