Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue No. 20 - Evidence - April 19, 2018
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 19, 2018
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:30 a.m., in public and in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Larry W. Campbell (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome to the Thursday morning meeting of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. My name is senator Larry Campbell, and I’m from British Columbia. I would like to have senators introduce themselves.
Senator Tkachuk: David Tkachuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Plett: Donald Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator McCoy: Elaine McCoy, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Mitchell: Grant Mitchell, Alberta.
Senator Pratte: Senator Pratte from Quebec.
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia.
The Chair: Item 1 on the meeting is the adoption of the minutes of the proceedings of March 29. There is a copy in your package. Can I have a motion to adopt the minutes? Senator Jaffer. Second? Senator Pratte. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Ninth report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. I think we will skip that for now and come back to it.
Pursuant to the order of this committee, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure authorized to make decisions when the committee is not able to meet. It has an obligation to report its decisions at the first available time. It is my honour to table the ninth report of the subcommittee, which deals with committee budgets and the diversity subcommittee. They were not dealt with at our last meeting because of lack of time. The committee used delegated authority to approve these items. The report is before you. Are there any questions?
Thank you.
Senator Mitchell: This is about the committee budgets and travel. I want to reiterate the points I made in the Senate, just briefly, to emphasize the importance of travelling when the Senate isn’t sitting.
The tradition has been, when I arrived, that’s what we did — we travelled during break weeks. There may be times when it’s necessary, but I think that case has to be made, and made strongly. I think a priority in our work is committee work, it is important, but also Senate work and voting in the Senate is extremely important so we have to watch this very closely.
The Chair: We will move to Item No. 5 and come back to Item No. 4.
Item No. 5 is an update from the Subcommittee on the Long-term Vision and Plan. This item is for information, and Senator Tannas is here to enlighten us with this huge undertaking.
Senator Tannas: Honourable colleagues, I appear on behalf of the Senate committee on the long-term vision and plan, which is a subcommittee of Internal Economy.
To provide an update and the status of our interim accommodation in the Government Conference Centre, in terms of its readiness for occupancy this summer, I had an opportunity to tour the GCC this week with Public Works officials. I can assure you that good progress has been made. Public Works officials are confident that the construction will be completed within the next six weeks.
That said, some work will remain after the construction phase in terms of completing the IT and security infrastructure before the building is fully, operationally ready.
In terms of progress, I observed the following during my tour: The leadership and legislative offices are nearing completion. The chamber structure is in place, the floor, the ceiling, the gallery and some of the finishes.
The committee room structures are in place and finishes are under way throughout the building. Senate administration and staff at public works are working together to maintain momentum and work is progressing. However, there remains a significant amount of work ahead to be operationally ready for the summer move. Despite the progress, some risk remains for full operational readiness. I assure you that we are exploring all options in terms of expediting the process and mitigating these risks.
At this point, the low-risk areas include the leadership and legislative offices. These are clearly making good progress. The higher risk areas include the three committee rooms and the chamber. These are considered higher risk because they require significant security and information technology intervention after construction, but before these spaces are considered operationally ready. In addition, appropriate testing, training and simulation of the broadcast systems are critical so we can be absolutely certain that these are ready for the opening of Parliament in the fall.
Ongoing monitoring and risk assessment is critical to informing a decision on move timing, and as key milestones are reached we will be in a position to better assess the situation based on hard data.
Public Works and the Senate administration have worked diligently on this extremely challenging project, particularly given the complexity of the historic rehabilitation of what was the old train station, and later the GCC. However, we must have a high level of confidence that the facilities will be operationally ready before committing a to a move date. We are not in a position today to recommend a decision for a summer move at this time. There are too many unknowns with regard to the completion of our key operational spaces.
Honourable senators will have an opportunity to assess the progress for yourselves when we visit the GCC next Thursday, and then again once the construction phase is completed around the end of May, after which an informed decision can be made. We recommend that we should return to CIBA before the Senate rises for the summer break with a final status update and to seek the decision for a summer move or an alternate plan.
It should be noted that we are working closely with the House of Commons, and it is agreed that both houses will move simultaneously, not under a phased approach, as this would be disruptive to ongoing parliamentary operations.
The House of Commons will return to the Board of Internal Economy for a move decision in June 2018, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you have on this matter.
Senator Tkachuk: I have a few questions. If it’s not ready, can the move take place, or will it take place from mid-December to the end of January? How is the office space coming on Elgin across the street? And third, are they on budget?
Senator Tannas: I’ll start with the first one. The consistent, and I don’t want to say this disrespectfully, but “on budget on time” is the mantra from Public Works.
With respect to Elgin, that construction is going well and you may recall that was a concern some time ago, because it was very late in getting started and there were concerns around security posts because it is a public building, with public companies and so on. It is going well. It is the least of our concerns now.
With respect to an alternate date, I suppose there are a number of scenarios, one of which for sure would be to move over the Christmas break. That’s got lots of issues with it as well. From our employees’ point of view, who will be asked to work over Christmas holidays, and the lack of experts that may be needed. It has its own set of risks, but that certainly would be one the fall-back positions.
Senator Tkachuk: Okay. Thanks.
Senator Tannas: And we’re told that it is possible. That is a possibility that it could be done in that time frame of the Christmas break.
Senator Pratte: What is the situation as far as the House of Commons is concerned?
Senator Tannas: So we understand, the House of Commons is in a similar situation with respect to West Block.
To a lay person looking at the inside, it doesn’t appear that it could be ready but the professionals say, “Don’t look at that. We know it will be ready.” And so we were supposed to make a decision last month, go or no go, and both the House of Commons and the Senate administration agreed that that’s just not possible, so they are in exactly the same position.
Senator Pratte: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Senator, I have a practical question. I wonder whether there will be parking spaces for senators and the people who work in the East Block. I presume that spaces will be limited, and consequently I was wondering if another parking area is being considered.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Thank you for your question. There are a number of parking places specifically for East Block. We’re still in final negotiations, but we are anticipating getting roughly 20 spots for senators who have offices at the East Block and wish to park vehicles at the East Block.
There are only 10 parking spots at the GCC. There are a number of spots that have been secured in the Chambers Building, 40 Elgin Street, and then the final new space is in the National Arts Centre parkade, and we have secured a number of spots there.
Brigitte has worked very hard on this and we have a high level of confidence that everybody will get a spot who needs a spot near where they want to be.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Practically speaking, if I remember correctly there are about 20 parking spaces that are used by the Prime Minister’s Office staff. Will some of those spaces still be reserved for them?
[English]
Senator Tannas: You’re referring to spots up here on the Hill. All those spots are being taken away. Once construction starts on Centre Block, there is virtually no parking on the Hill.
What we’re going to get is basically laneway parallel parking along the strip in front of the lawn and along the sidewalk parallel to the west side of East Block. Everything else is construction and big trucks and so all that stuff that’s up here to the east of Centre Block is all gone. Over near West Block, they are creating more parking for MPs and for other members of the House of Commons, but there will be nothing here.
Senator Batters: Media reports about the House of Commons move that were relayed at their last Board of Internal Economy meeting seemed to definitely portray a less favourable picture than you discussed today. Is that because they were getting the comments from what politicians had said at those meetings and not the people actually handling the move?
Senator Tannas: I think what has happened is that it is taking a while for the lay person’s view to catch up with the professional person’s view, and it’s actually happening quite quickly, now, as the professionals said.
All the major, heavy work is done. Yes, there is plywood everywhere and you see guys walking around in dust and dirt and with saws going, but this is all stuff we can do quickly. It doesn’t look like it, but what we are hearing now is that it is starting to look like it and we are starting to get it. But there are still a significant number of people who are from Missouri on whether or not we are going to be moving this summer.
Senator Plett: I’m not sure whether being from Missouri or Manitoba is the same thing.
Senator Tannas: Pretty close.
Senator Plett: I apologize for my cynical attitude on this, senator, but you mentioned that we were supposed to be able to make a decision a month ago but we’re not able to make a decision today and yet you say it’s on time. I find that a bit of contradiction. We were supposed to do something a month ago, we can’t do it today and maybe will not be able to do it next month, and yet we are on time.
I have spent my lifetime in construction. When there is a change order that comes out, the schedule changes and the budget changes and then at the end they say, “Well, we’re on time and on budget,” because that has changed.
How often has the time and budget changed for them to be able to say they are on time and on budget? If we should have made a decision a month ago and can’t today, how is it on time?
Senator Tannas: It’s on time from the most recent adjusted schedule.
Senator Plett: Thank you. I think that needs to be on the record.
Senator Tannas: But to be fair, this schedule has been what it has been for a significant amount of time.
I think Public Works is quite right that they will be done their constructions work. The problem is this isn’t just an office building that we move our boxes into. There is security, IT and IT harmonization, because we are on the same platform as the House of Commons and we are all moving. There is all new cable that is running everything. You know a drywall screw and what it can do to cabling and electronics, as an example.
All of the up-testing that needs to happen, and the training, security and all of those things that are unique to our institution — that time is being assumed to be quite compressed and if it moves even by a couple of weeks, that’s when we’ve got a problem.
Senator Plett: But that is something, senator, that every professional knew when we started this job. For Public Works to simply say, “Well, let’s compress all the technical details that should take a month into a week and we can say we’re on time,” that’s not acceptable.
Senator Tannas: Anyway, stay tuned.
Senator Plett: That’s just a comment.
Senator Moncion: I have a question about the move. Is the move going to be scaled, or does everybody move at the same time and create chaos all at the same time?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Senator Moncion: So we can’t scale it so that we do it by groups? We are 105, so for the Senate it probably is as much work as for the House of Commons. If we were to decide at some point not to move at the same time, once everyone moves there will be tweaking everywhere at the same time. We could possibly scale it so it is not done all at the same time and we give staff time to adjust to all the tweaking that will be needed for the Senate.
Even if the House of Commons is not ready, we could look at maybe going to that building before so that we are settled and things are working well, instead of doing it at the same time and having the chaos.
Senator Tannas: The problem is that the Senate and the House of Commons, with respect to its systems and security, are intertwined. So the plan that’s administered by the IT project management office really is new equipment at the same time, like new broadcast equipment and all that, so the plan has always been that we have to move together.
Now, for senators’ offices, which is a tiny component of the real logistics here from a complication point of view — the moving of boxes and telephones and so on — there may be an opportunity for the move to 40 Elgin — so those 19 offices, I believe it is, that are in 40 Elgin — to be done separately. It would probably be possible but, again, the IT may be a problem, and also the security. Now we’d have security that would have to be populated in that building that have roles elsewhere for the people who are not moving. The decision was made very early on, years ago, that we all move together or we don’t move. The original idea was that we would have three months of summer to do it.
Senator Moncion: There are high risks of doing it all at the same time. To mitigate the risks, we could look at just scaling — but anyways. Even if decisions have been made years ago, they can be changed.
Senator Tannas: Yes, thank you.
Senator Tkachuk: The house officers are located close to the chamber. The government offices are behind the Senate Chamber, and then you have the opposition house officers on the next floor up. Is that the way it will be set up for the new building?
Senator Tannas: There was a plan that was agreed to some time ago, and I’m not aware of any changes.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Will postponing the move by a few months have an impact on the date the work will begin here in Centre Block, and will this generate additional costs for the Department of Public Works, since we are not leaving the building on the agreed date?
[English]
Senator Tannas: Certainly that’s one of the issues that we are going to be faced with in June if this becomes a tough call, risky call. We will have to weigh the fact that a delay particularly to the following summer would disrupt an enormous amount of planning, of small-, medium- and large-sized businesses that are contracted to come in here and begin work, specialty people, stone masons, all of that. I heard a number of $100 million for a delay of one year.
The stakes are high and the pressure is definitely on, and I’m confident everyone feels that pressure and knows what the consequences of failure are. That’s why the decision that we’re going to have to make in June will put the pressure on our own people to do the things that we need done post-construction quickly. We’re going to have to think really hard about what resources they might need in order to get things done because no one wants to have a significant delay.
Senator Batters: Briefly, a follow-up to Senator Tkachuk’s last question. You said there is a plan agreed to on the house officers’ leadership offices. Briefly stated, what is that plan?
Senator Tannas: On the main floor is the Speaker and the chamber area. On the bottom floor, it is committee rooms and the entrance to the chamber. On the second floor is the government leader and some functions of the legislative administration. On the third floor, it’s the opposition leader and some components of administration. On the fourth floor, it is a small piece of administration or legislation which is the Black Rod’s office, and then the balance is for leadership of other parties, other groups.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Tkachuk: The house leaders could agree in the house — I think they can; I’m not sure — to change the calendar, if necessary, to instead of coming in mid-December, maybe the end of December or maybe a week or two into October.
Senator Tannas: End of September and move it to October?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Senator Tannas: Exactly. That’s a shock absorber that potentially could be —
Senator Tkachuk: I will be praying for it.
The Chair: Or October or November. Senator Tannas mentioned it, but there will be a tour next Thursday at 8:30, and the CIBA secretariat will require information from each participate on the tour in order to provide safety equipment — boots with steel toes — since it’s a construction site. A note will be circulated to all members, and to permit senators to attend the tour, the committee will not sit next Thursday.
Senator Tannas: One thing I forgot to mention with Senator Moncion’s intervention. It is only the senators in Centre Block who have to move. East Block and Victoria Building occupants obviously don’t move. It is not quite as large for us in terms of our individual logistics, and, as has been discussed, it may be easier to take the people from here to 40 Elgin as a step that can be done earlier.
The Chair: Thank you for your report, Senator Tannas. If we could go back to Item No. 3, this report from the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, I would ask Senator Verner for her report.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Honourable senators, I have the honour of presenting to you the eighteenth report of the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets, which includes the allotments recommended for committee budgets.
Before discussing it, I’d like to briefly go back to the 2017-18 fiscal year. The total funds allocated were $2,382,000. We set aside $500,000 for witnesses’ travel expenses, which left a remainder of $1,882,000 for committee budgets.
During this period, the subcommittee approved 20 budget requests, including funds for committee travel. I am happy to inform you that all of this travel has been completed. In summary, the subcommittee recommended that a total amount of $1,928,000 be made available for committee activities in 2017-18. According to our preliminary evaluation, we have approximately $1,000,000 of uncommitted funds after having included final expenses for committee travel up to this day. The expenditures amount to about $750,000.
I want to specify that three trips took place in the last two weeks of the month of March. Consequently, the final expenditure amount is not yet available. That being said, the total funds in the 2018-19 budget will be $2,382,000. We will again set aside $500,000 for witnesses’ travel expenses, which leaves a sum of $1,882,000 for committee budgets.
The subcommittee met on March 25, 2018, to study five budgets, four of which concerned trips planned for April and May 2018. As indicated a bit earlier by the chair, four of those five travel budgets were adopted by the standing committee following the recommendations of the subcommittee.
The fifth budget concerned a budgetary request submitted by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, which is asking for a modest amount of $5,250, of which the Senate’s share is 30 per cent, or $2,250. This budget will cover witnesses’ expenses, work snacks, the purchase of books and subscriptions, as well as printing services. Based on the information provided, the subcommittee recommends that an amount of $2,250 be released for general expenses.
To summarize, the Steering Committee and the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets recommended the release, as of April 1, 2018, of $373,940 from the $1,882,000 earmarked for committee expenditures.
Unless there are questions, I recommend the adoption of the report.
[English]
The Chair: It has been moved by Senator Verner, seconded by Senator Munson. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Colleagues, the next item is on the management of the Senate’s artworks and heritage collection. I invite Brigitte Desjardins, Director General; and Tamara Dolan, Project Coordinator, to the witness time. Welcome.
Brigitte Desjardins, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, honourable senators.
[Translation]
Tamara and I are appearing before you today to ask the Standing Committee on Internal Economy to approve the creation of an advisory working group which will provide guidelines and advice on matters related to the Senate’s heritage collection.
We receive a host of daily questions that require guidelines on the management of heritage. We expect that there will be an increasing number of requests for advice and guidance from senators on heritage issues when the long-term vision plan is put in place.
The stewardship of the Senate’s heritage treasures is a priority, and the creation of the advisory working group will create a single body, as well as a governance structure, so that we may obtain direction and the authorizations we need to effectively manage the collection of heritage items.
I will now yield the floor to Tamara Dolan, our champion for heritage and curatorial services, so that she may provide more detail on our request.
[English]
Tamara Dolan, Project Coordinator, Heritage and Curatorial Services, Senate of Canada: Good morning and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about the Senate’s heritage collection.
As introduced by Brigitte and outlined in the briefing note, we’re seeking approval on a strategy to have a governance structure for the management of the Senate’s heritage program and the artwork, artifacts and heritage furniture within it.
Over the past year, property and services has been examining the management of the Senate’s heritage program and looking at ways that we can improve it. As a fallout of this, we’re seeking to create a governance body that can review and give direction on proposed strategies for the management of the heritage program.
In the past, the Senate’s Artwork Advisory Working Group, or AAWG, used to function in this capacity. Between 2003 and 2015 they were responsible for reviewing donations, identifying proposed display strategies and other issues related to the ongoing management to the Senate’s heritage collection. The AAWG hasn’t been reformed since 2015, and we’re seeking to create a body that would essentially pick up where they left off.
The current driver is actually the long-term vision and plan and the upcoming move to the Government Conference Centre because we’re seeking to finalize the exhibition strategy for the Government Conference Centre.
In the spring of 2017, the LTVP subcommittee appointed three senators to review the strategy for displaying artwork and it was approved in concept. Now that the GCC is closer to completion and we know more about the building, we’d like to take the same strategy and receive its final approval before we move there this summer.
Going forward, we’d be seeking direction from this heritage governance body on issues related to the day-to-day management, such as proposed donations, improved artwork signage and perhaps finding new opportunities to share the collection with the public, as well as LTVP matters, which we anticipate to increase as the Centre Block renovations move forward.
Furthermore, as I mentioned, Property and Services is reviewing the management of the Senate’s heritage program and this has included an examination of the Senate’s heritage policy, which was approved in 2000 but is slated for review.
We would like to discuss the management and seek direction on the vision for the Senate’s heritage program so that we can ensure that any revisions to the policy support that vision and mandate.
The objects in the Senate’s heritage collection are Canadian treasures and as such, we have a responsibility to manage them prudently. There are many exciting ways that the program can be developed and having clear governance to support this development is essential.
Once again, thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much. Do you have complete records now of all of our heritage assets and our works of art? Is there a complete record?
Ms. Dolan: Yes. In 2013, we purchased Past Perfect, which is museum collection management software. Over the course of about a year and a half we went through the collection and created object records that have details on the provenance, the condition of the object and the size, and we have photographs and historic documents so that we can better manage the information on our collection.
Senator Marshall: That’s being updated on a regular basis. Is somebody going through periodically and checking from the records to the actual asset?
Ms. Dolan: Yes. Typically, what we’ll do is during the summer break we’ll go through all of the assets in the collection and make sure that any changes to the condition of the object are documented and uploaded into the database.
At that time as well we can verify the locations of the objects to make sure that we still know where everything is in the collection.
Senator Marshall: What’s our record with regard to missing items?
Ms. Dolan: So far we haven’t had an issue with missing items. Managing the locations of objects has been a key priority for us. So we make sure that we’re working with our partners in asset management to be notified any time a senator moves and to know where the heritage furniture in their office has gone to. Then we also do regular inventories to make sure that we’re keeping track of the location of items.
Senator Marshall: So if the audit committee decided to do an audit of the heritage assets and our works of art, you feel that we have a good system in place?
Ms. Dolan: We do. We could show the different locations that the objects have moved to and the progress with which we’ve been tracking them over the past several years.
Senator Marshall: Are most of our assets like what we see in here, things that are easily movable?
Ms. Dolan: Yes, I would say so. The largest part of our collection is actually the heritage furniture within senators’ offices, so they are things like chairs and side tables, which are easily movable.
Senator Marshall: We do periodic counts of those also?
Ms. Dolan: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Senator Munson: How do you see the size of the advisory committee shaping up?
Also, the Senate itself in the Government Conference Centre is only one portion of the conference centre. In fact, it’s not even the major portion of the conference centre.
You talked about exhibits. Do you see these heritage paintings and others being put on display for the public and adding other exhibits that the public could come and see as they enter the new Government Conference Centre or the new Senate?
Ms. Dolan: Yes. In terms of exhibitions, typically what we refer to is the layout of artwork in the committee room as part of our exhibition strategy. So there could be some specific exhibitions for the public, particularly as the long-term vision and plan unfolds and the visitor welcome centre develops.
There are perhaps increased opportunities for public-specific exhibitions to go in there, but our strategy is throughout the buildings in how we display the artwork, so it might not necessarily be an exhibition specific to the public but more how we display in committee rooms and how we manage the artwork throughout the buildings.
Senator Munson: And the Artwork Advisory Working Group, would you recommend three, five, one —
Ms. Dolan: I would probably envision about three senators on the committee to create balance.
Senator Munson: Thank you.
Senator Tkachuk: We had an advisory committee on art and there were three members, as they said. It was an advisory committee because not necessarily everybody on Internal Economy was either interested or knew anything about art or anything about design or display. So we picked people from the Senate, like Frank Mahovlich, who knew more about art than most people think he knew. We had Senator Eaton and people like that who were actually interested in this and who I think did a really good job.
They never really reported to us. We just left them in charge and they dealt with the executive committee of Internal Economy.
Senator Tannas: I certainly support the idea of an Artwork Advisory Working Group, but I had a question on my favourite subject. Half of our heritage collection is old dishes from the Speakers of the past. Have you come up with a strategy to see those into better hands than in a storage facility?
Ms. Dolan: We have several different ideas. One of the benefits of having an Artwork Advisory Working Group is we could then present different strategies so we can receive some direction. This is where having governance is so important. We need a body that we can bring those to who are able to make those decisions.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
The Chair: There will be no garage sales for the Speakers’ dishes, just so you know.
I’d like to have someone move a motion that three senators be appointed to work collectively as an Advisory Working Group with a delegated authority to act on behalf of the committee on matters related to Senate Policy on Heritage Assets and Works of Art, that the designated senators report quarterly to the committee, and that the Property and Services Directorate provide operational administrative support to the Advisory Working Group.
My suggestion is that each group or caucus choose someone. Each one of our caucuses have people who are well-versed in art, and they would form the committee.
It’s moved by Senator Tkachuk, seconded by Senator Batters.
Senator McCoy: I have a question on the motion itself. Did I hear that you are delegating full powers to this Advisory Working Group with only a reporting function? Or will they be coming back to get their full committee’s authority to make final decisions?
The Chair: They will be coming back as an advisory group to us.
Senator McCoy: You might want to craft that wording. It sounded like you were delegating full authority and then they would simply report back. You might tweak the wording a little. I thought you probably meant to keep the full authority with the committee.
The Chair: They are reporting quarterly to this committee.
Senator McCoy: Telling you what they’ve done is one thing.
The Chair: No. They will be reporting.
Senator McCoy: That means that they will be making the decisions.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All those opposed? Thank you very much.
Item No. 6 is on a new wireless contract for the Senate. I would invite David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate; and Mathieu Beauregard, Manager, Applications Development and Systems Integration, Information Services Directorate, to the witness table. Welcome, gentlemen.
David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, I am here this morning to request the approval of a new wireless contract for the Senate. In doing so, I will direct your attention to the three different contracts which are currently in play.
I will refer to these contracts by using the name of the primary provider and the year the contract was signed. Currently, our team manages over 700 wireless devices for senators, their staff and the administration. All devices, except senators’ phones, were acquired through a wireless contract established with Rogers in 2010. This first contract will expire in less than a year, in February 2019. Therefore, we need to migrate 550-plus devices from this contract to a new contract.
Senators’ devices reside on a second contract, negotiated by the Senate in 2016, also with Rogers. This contract allowed for the purchase of iPhones but also greatly reduced roaming charges incurred during travels. This contract is still available until 2021.
A new contract was signed by the Canadian government in 2017 with Bell Mobility as the primary provider. This contract replaces the Rogers 2010 contract.
As we’ve detailed in the briefing note, we have looked at various scenarios, including moving all devices to the current Rogers 2016 contract and moving all devices to the Bell 2017 contract.
We have established that the Bell 2017 contract will represent savings of up to $132,000 a year, or close to $800,000 over the course of the next six years, when compared to the Rogers 2016 contract. It will allow for similar low roaming fees, more data, better mid-range phones, as well as the same high-end phones for considerably lower monthly fees.
This being said, we recognize that some senators live in areas of the country that are better served by other service providers than Bell. So, plainly, senators wishing to stay on their current contract to ensure operability will do so if they choose.
[Translation]
Our analyses are based on a 60/40 distribution of mid-range and high-end devices. More specifically, we estimate that there should be one high-end device in addition to that of the senator for each senatorial office, and high-end devices for upper management as well as certain power users, that is to say some employees who need augmented capability to discharge their duties because they must make extensive use of social media, among other things.
What is interesting is that the senators and their employees will be able to use the same family of devices, either an iPhone, a BlackBerry or an Android, so as to optimize their use. With this information in mind, we submit three recommendations to you today. First, we recommend the adoption of the Bell 2017 contract for all Senate employees, and, when possible, for senators. Secondly, we recommend that efforts to transfer devices to this new contract begin immediately. Third, we recommend a life cycle of 30 months rather than 24 months, and clear criteria to define who can use a mid-range device rather than a high-end device.
[English]
Thank you. Mr. Chair, we are ready to answer any questions you may have.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I have two questions for you. The first one concerns our personal devices. We have contracts, and when we make evening calls on the weekend, they are free. However, it seems that all of the calls we make using Senate telephones always generate costs, even after 6 p.m. on weekends.
Mr. Vatcher: In fact, there are costs of 0.01 cent per minute for calls that are made with our devices. These are very low costs. We made calculations based on the previous use of devices in order to predict future costs.
Senator Moncion: The other point I wanted to raise is that Bell services do not have a very good reputation. Those who currently have contracts with Bell may have certain problems. I would like to know if you assessed the aspect of the client service provided by Bell.
Mr. Vatcher: Absolutely. There is a difference between the service an individual may receive and the service provided to a business or an institution like ours. The Senate will have access to a direct line. The service will be provided by our team, with the primary service provider. So, even though certain individuals have problems with some service providers, the same thing could be said about Telus or Rogers, in some cases. The advantage is that we have a team in place that will act as the intermediary between the senators, their employees, the administration and the service provider.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have a first question about compatibility. Your proposal would allow certain users to use a Bell system, while others would have the Rogers system. Is there a compatibility issue for our services between those systems?
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for your question. There is no compatibility issue, since today, with my Telus phone, I can easily communicate with someone who has a Bell phone. So there is no risk. In fact, under the new contract we propose with Bell Mobility, all of the employees in a senator’s office will be able to use, for instance, the entire iPhone platform, since there will be mid-range iPhone telephones. This means that better use will be made of applications and devices for senators.
Senator Saint-Germain: You are sure that there will be no compatibility issues in the Senate between senators’ offices and those of the administration? You are giving us the assurance that there will be no compatibility issues.
Mr. Vatcher: There will be no compatibility issues.
Senator Saint-Germain: That is good. I have other questions.
Mr. Vatcher: However, there could be a problem with coverage in some places because of the walls.
Senator Saint-Germain: This takes me to my second question. First, if you go outside Canada, Bell provides a different service and in many cases there is no access, there is no agreement with other partners. I recognize that that is not our priority. Let’s get back to inside Canada.
A certain number of regions do not have Bell service and are particularly poorly served in other situations by Bell Canada. As you know, we have senators and staff members who come from all over the country. Have you examined that dimension?
Mr. Vatcher: Absolutely, senator. That is why we clearly indicated that if they wish, senators may keep their current plan with their provider, in order to ensure that their device works at all times.
Senator Saint-Germain: You spoke about service quality. You say there is a difference in the service Bell provides to individuals and institutions. In my previous work I was an institutional client, and we went from Bell to Rogers. Let me specify that I have no personal interest in this at all. The reason we did this is that we had an issue concerning the response time, generally speaking, and much higher costs with a plan that did not include 24-hour service. Consequently, the service quality issue that was raised by Senator Moncion is also concerns me. For 24-hour service, can you compare what Bell would offer to what Rogers would offer?
Mr. Vatcher: According to its framework agreement, Bell Mobility must provide a certain level of service given the size of the contract. Of course, we can do additional verifications and come back to you with answers, but the primary service provider must assure the government that it will provide high-level service. Given the size of the contract, we are talking about approximately 240,000 devices.
Senator Saint-Germain: There are 240,000 devices in the Senate contract?
Mr. Vatcher: In the Bell 2017 contract, we expect that 240,000 devices will be used throughout the country.
Senator Saint-Germain: Throughout the country. Fine. That’s something else, really.
Mr. Vatcher: We are talking about 700 devices for the Senate as such.
Senator Saint-Germain: You said that there had to be a certain level of service. In the details you will provide, I would like you to do a comparison between that certain level between Bell and Rogers, please. Thank you.
Mr. Vatcher: Very well.
[English]
Senator Marshall: I want to talk about the cost that they have outlined in the briefing paper — the little chart that shows the options. It shows that the actual costs, in the last 12 months, and that would be for Rogers, the $289,000?
Mr. Vatcher: Correct.
Senator Marshall: Now, when we look at their bid, the cost for one year will be $422,000, which is quite an increase in price. Did they not want to keep the contract with the Senate?
Mr. Vatcher: Senator, thank you for your question. Actually, in the past year, some of our devices were with the 2016 contract, for the senators’ phones, and the remainder, the 550 other devices were on the 2010 contract. The 2010 contract is running out, and there’s just no way of staying on it. So, moving forward, we either go all on the 2016 contract, which would cost considerably more, or we go on the Bell contract, which would cost pretty much the same thing as it actually does.
Senator Marshall: So Rogers has raised its prices? Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Vatcher: No, senator. What I’m saying is that the 150-odd devices we currently have on the Rogers 2016 contract, if we were to migrate all of the 550 other devices on to this contract, we would have substantially higher costs than the Bell 2017 contract.
Senator Marshall: So all the costs have been factored in? I think you just answered my question from the previous chart, where you’re talking about the list prices for Bell. Rogers is saying $50. Bell has 425, 435. You factored in all of those costs, have you?
Mr. Vatcher: Yes, we have.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: I am going to continue in exactly the same vein. I don’t have the skills to do the calculations you have done, but when I see the enormous price difference between the two proposals, I wonder if that difference is simply due to the fact that the Rogers 2016 contract was a contract for the Senate, and the Bell 2017 contract was a contract for the entire Government of Canada. The price difference may simply be due to the number of devices involved. One contract covers 240,000 devices and the other covers Senators’ devices and the major Senate users. Is that correct?
Mr. Vatcher: Exactly.
Senator Pratte: It’s just a matter of volume.
Mr. Vatcher: That’s exactly right, senator.
Senator Pratte: We are not getting taken here because there’s something somewhere in the contract that is of much less value than in the other?
Mr. Vatcher: No, not at all. In fact, we will have access to more data and better devices. We think that there really are important advantages to going forward with this contract.
Senator Pratte: What was the main difference between the Rogers 2010 contract and the Rogers 2016 contract?
Mr. Vatcher: The main difference is that with Rogers 2016 we could acquire iPhones, as requested by the senators, and we had much lower roaming fees than with the Rogers 2010 contract. Since senators travel a lot within the country, roaming fees were very high in certain cases and even higher internationally. With the new contract, the roaming fees are even lower than under the Rogers 2016 contract. A tiered approach was used, which means that roaming fees, in the United States for instance, are much lower than if you went to certain countries in Africa or Eastern Europe.
Senator Pratte: I’m going to conclude on the service issue which was raised by several colleagues. The Bell 2017 contract is already in effect within the Government of Canada.
Mr. Vatcher: Since October 2017.
Senator Pratte: With regard to service, is the Government of Canada already in a position to assess the service received from Bell?
Mr. Vatcher: Some members of our teams are in contact with the third party to see how things are going. No one has said that it was hell, that things don’t work and that there is no service.
Senator Pratte: So, for the time being, it seems that people are satisfied.
Mr. Vatcher: Exactly, senator.
Senator Pratte: Thank you.
Senator Verner: I will follow up in the same vein as several of my colleagues. I’m worried about the service to be provided by Bell. We hear things and we know that they have major service issues with the residential sector. I understand that we are looking for lower costs, but I don’t want us to wind up having problems simply because we wanted to save some money. You say that there seem to have been no problems since October 2017. So we are going to take that statement at face value.
Mr. Vatcher: In addition, senator, I’d like to go back to the fact that there will be an interface between Bell and the senators, Senate employees, and the members of our team who use devices with very similar configurations. This facilitates technical support for us enormously and allows us to solve a lot of issues for which an individual would go to his provider directly. We hope that we can intercept a good number of service calls and solve device configuration issues in order to facilitate and increase the quality of support. In a lot of cases, senators will not have to call Bell; our team will be able to provide the service.
Senator Verner: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Batters: I wanted to provide a different perspective on the service issue that we’ve heard now from a few of our colleagues around the table from Quebec. In Saskatchewan, I use SaskTel, a Bell-affiliated network, and they are by far the preferred cellular service because when you use Rogers in rural Saskatchewan, the service can be poor which can lead to safety issues when you are travelling on rural highways in the middle of winter.
I’m not sure if this has been completely pointed out but I wanted to assure our colleagues that when we were looking at this issue at the steering committee, we thought it was important, as is one of recommendations here that senators will have the option to stay with their current service provider if they wish to, and to take into account those types of service issues that might be particular to their regions.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Senator Pratte asked precisely the question I wanted to ask.
[English]
Senator Mitchell: Thank you for this presentation. In some senses, none of these contracts can be definitively predicted because it is cost-per-minute; is that right? If we speak more it costs more?
Mr. Vatcher: Correct, senator, but we have based our estimates on past usage and past billing.
Senator Mitchell: Thanks.
Senator Tkachuk: Yours must be high.
The Chair: Let’s not go there, Senator Tkachuk.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Once again, in order to understand correctly, to do your calculations and comparisons, you based your numbers on the use of Rogers in 2016 and the Bell 2017 proposal? Did Rogers not have an opportunity to bid for the 2017-22 period?
Mr. Vatcher: Since the 2016 contract with Rogers is active until 2021, the enterprise does not have to bid again. It already has an active contract with us and in light of the figures presented by Bell Mobility for the entire government, we saw that costs were clearly lower.
Senator Saint-Germain: There’s an issue with fairness to suppliers, as you certainly know. I would react the same way if we were talking about Bell Mobility. Did Rogers have an opportunity to say —
Mr. Vatcher: Absolutely.
Senator Saint-Germain: Fine. It had the opportunity to say that it would maintain its prices.
Mr. Vatcher: Rogers is the secondary service provider in the same contract. All of the cell contracts with governments include a primary provider and a secondary provider. In this case, the primary provider is Bell and the secondary provider is Rogers.
Senator Saint-Germain: That answers my question. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Did I just hear you say Rogers didn’t bid?
Mr. Vatcher: No, I’m sorry. I’m saying that for the Bell 2017 contract, Rogers is a secondary provider on the same contract. So there was no question of asking them to bid on a new contract for the Senate since they were already included in the contract we’re going to and also because they already have a current contract with the Senate ending in 2021. They are not being left out.
Senator Marshall: That sounds peculiar to me. That sounds odd to me that they weren’t given the chance to bid.
Mr. Vatcher: They did bid on the 2017 contract.
Senator Marshall: I know you’re saying they already had an existing contract, so you went out to see if you could better the existing contract but never gave them an opportunity to better their own contract. If that’s what happened, that’s quite peculiar to me.
Mr. Vatcher: I’ll defer to my colleague.
Mathieu Beauregard, Manager, Applications Development and Systems Integration, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: The 2017 contract was won by Bell but Rogers also bid on that contract with the government. They came in second, so that’s why they are the secondary provider.
We did have discussions with Rogers regarding the existing 2016 contract to see if they would lower their prices. They came back with a proposal to lower some of the components of the contract but at the same time they removed some lower-end options so we were forced to go with more data and pay $30 for the data instead of $25. On the flip side, they lowered the cost of the voice from $10 to $6.
In the end, when we look at the numbers and run them through our scenarios, the difference is negligible with the new numbers they proposed to us.
Senator Marshall: I’m not intimately familiar with the procurement policies of the Senate, but I would think that everybody would be given a fair opportunity to bid. I would like some assurances that was done before we make a decision on this.
The Chair: It’s my understanding that was done and that Bell and Rogers bid on the overall Government of Canada contract, and that Rogers came in second. Rogers is still in the ballgame because Rogers signed a contract in 2016 that goes to 2021. They lost the overall contract but we still have a contract with them within the Senate.
I think the issue here is that nothing changes unless the senator wishes to change, so it’s not like we are limiting options. I think that Senator Batters made a good point and we find the same thing in British Columbia: different providers provide different services and different levels of service depending on where you are. It’s not uniform across the country and so this is why the decision was made that senators can stay where they are.
But from a procurement point of view it’s my understanding that anybody who wanted to bid on the Canada contract did, and Rogers did bid and came second on the overall one. I don’t think this was sole-sourced, for instance.
Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the committee approve the adoption of the new Government Cellular Services (Bell 2017) contract for all Senate staff mobile devices and that senators have the option to stay with their current service provider should they wish to do so; that the existing plans be transitioned to the new contract progressively starting immediately; that the existing information technology guidelines be updated to identify a set of pre-approved medium range devices averaging $500 as the standard mobile devices for Senate employees and high-end devices averaging $1,000 as the standard mobile devices for senators and approved power users; and that the information technology guidelines be updated to specify a device life cycle of 30 months.
Moved by Senator Pratte, seconded by Senator Batters.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Anyone opposed? Carried, thank you.
Thank you very much for coming today.
(The committee continued in camera.)