THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 1, 2022
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met with videoconference this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for the consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Lucie Moncion. I am a senator from Ontario and I have the privilege of chairing the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
I would like to introduce the senators who are participating in this meeting: Senator Patricia Bovey, Manitoba; Senator Yvonne Boyer, Ontario; Senator Claude Carignan, P.C., Quebec; Senator Dennis Dawson, Quebec; Senator Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia; Senator Tony Dean, Ontario; Senator Raymonde Gagné, Manitoba; Senator Tony Loffreda, Quebec; Senator Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Rosemary Moodie, Ontario; Senator Donald Plett, Manitoba; Senator Jim Quinn, New Brunswick; Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec; Senator Judith Seidman, Quebec; Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta.
I welcome everyone across the country who is watching our proceedings, as well as all the staff members who are here, in the room, and those who are participating in the meeting virtually.
We will begin the meeting with the first item on the agenda, the adoption of the minutes of proceedings of November 17, 2022.
Honourable senators, the minutes of proceedings are in your document bundle. Are there any questions or changes to be made?
Could someone move the following motion?
That the minutes of proceedings of Thursday, November 17, 2022, be adopted.
Senator Plett, I believe you want to move the motion to adopt the minutes of proceedings? Senator Plett moves the motion to adopt the minutes of November 17, 2022.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you. The motion is adopted.
[English]
Item 2 is an update from the Advisory Working Group on Environment and Sustainability, or AWG. Welcome, Senator Deacon. I understand you will make opening remarks as chair of the Advisory Working Group.
Hon. Colin Deacon: Thank you, chair. Colleagues, I’m introducing a motion regarding the extension of the mandate of the Advisory Working Group on Environment and Sustainability to March 31, 2024.
The current advisory working group’s mandate concludes on December 31, 2022 — the end of this month. The purpose of the extension is for the group to act as project authority to oversee the request for proposals process for an external expert on the Senate’s Net Zero 2030 Project. This is as per recommendation 9 in the prior AWG’s final report dated November 2021.
The RFP is to select an external expert, and it was issued since my last appearance here at CIBA on this matter in October. Interested parties have until December 16, 2022, to submit their applications. The proposals will then be reviewed, and we’ll be coming back to CIBA for final approval as discussed.
The scope of the work is planned for up to 12 months and therefore an extension to March 31, 2024, would be appropriate.
The working group will remain composed of the current members: Senator Margaret Dawn Anderson, Senator Rob Black, Senator Patti LaBoucane-Benson and myself. The composition of the group may be changed over time with CIBA’s approval.
I would like to take this opportunity to state that senators from outside the working group are very much welcome to join our team in reviewing the RFP bids. If they would like to contribute with their time and expertise, that would be gratefully received.
Thank you, and I’m available for any comments or questions.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much for that, Senator Deacon. I can appreciate why the extension is needed because it is a big undertaking. Do you plan to bring in interim reports? It’s a long way to 2024. Will there be some interim reporting so we can see how much progress you’re making?
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much, Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: And how often would those interim reports be?
Senator C. Deacon: I will gladly be reporting on behalf of our collective work, and I will do so at a pace that is deemed to be most appropriate. Perhaps steering can provide me with some advice in that regard.
As you mentioned last time, we had a 113-page package; you mentioned that several times in your comments. I think that perhaps CIBA has a lot of reporting already happening, and I don’t want to make that challenge greater for members. We’ll find a pace that fits, and I agree with the intention of your question.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much.
Senator Plett: I have a brief question, Senator Deacon. There is no money attached to this, is there?
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Senator Plett, for clarifying that. All that’s attached is responsibility and effort at this point in time.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments? If not, I would like to have a senator move:
That notwithstanding the decision of CIBA adopted on Thursday, April 28, 2022, the date for the final report of the Advisory Working Group on Environment and Sustainability be extended from December 31, 2022 to March 31, 2024.
It was moved by Senator Bovey. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Motion carried.
[Translation]
The third point concerns amendments to the Senate Administrative Rules related to the Committee on Audit and Oversight.
I would like to invite Anne Burgess, Senior Parliamentary Counsel, as well as Shaila Anwar, Clerk Assistant, to take the floor.
I would like to note that Till Heyde will be replacing Shaila Anwar this morning. The floor is yours. At the end of your presentation, we’ll go to questions.
[English]
Anne Burgess, Senior Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel: Good morning, senators. I don’t have anything significant to add to the briefing note that you have in your packages this morning. This item is essentially housekeeping resulting from the creation of the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight and that committee’s mandate to oversee the Senate’s internal and external audits.
I will offer one update to the members of CIBA. The briefing note does refer to amendments to the Senate Administrative Rules, or SARs, that were consequential to the adoption of the Senate Audit and Oversight Charter. Those amendments to the Senate Administrative Rules were made in June 2022, following the adoption by the Senate of the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight. So these SARs amendments will basically complete the project of aligning the SARs to the Standing Senate Committee on Audit and Oversight’s mandate and the new Senate Audit and Oversight Charter.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: My question is probably for the members of SEBS, the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates. I have read the amendments and, as far as I am concerned, this seems complementary. There doesn’t seem to be any duplication between the role of the Committee on Internal Economy and the Committee on Audit and Oversight. I would like to know if that is how you see this.
The Chair: I will answer. Yes, there is duplication, and we need to meet with the Committee on Audit and Oversight to eliminate the duplication of work by staff who present reports to SEBS and then present the same reports to AOVS. We want to be able to eliminate all of this duplication of work in the same year that may not be necessary. We want to realign the workload.
Senator Saint-Germain: Is there no conflict if we change the policy now?
The Chair: In my opinion, that is what is being presented this morning, so no.
Senator Saint-Germain: Great. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Quinn: I have a question on page 1 of 2 at the end, where it talks about the change. It says that “all leave must be entered prior to the end of the fiscal year.”
One of the problems that you may encounter is that people will often lose track of when they were actually off. I’m wondering why you didn’t think about having a limit of within either two weeks or within one month of their return to work they fill the leave in at that time so they don’t get into a panic at the end of the year trying to remember when they were off.
Second is the idea of being able to book your leave a year in advance, sitting down with your supervisor and saying, “I want to take these periods off.” There’s nothing wrong with that except when they change that plan —
The Chair: I’m not sure we’re on the same report. Are we on the report on the changes to SARs?
Senator Quinn: I misnumbered my pages; I apologize.
The Chair: Do you have comments on the SARs changes?
Senator Quinn: No, I don’t.
The Chair: Thank you. That’s an honest mistake.
Is there anything else, colleagues?
Senator C. Deacon: I commend this change. I often have trouble fully interpreting the Rules of the Senate and the distinctions. I’ve asked questions when I was filling in at SEBS. I have asked questions at CIBA and got answers I really appreciate, which is if key performance indicators are introduced as something that’s to measure our productivity in individual divisions of the Senate, whose responsibility is that? The answer I get back is very much that AOVS would be monitoring it. I think that’s an appropriate place for it because it’s external. We have external members of that committee. The other important element is we do much of the work of helping the rules to be set and how the organization is run. I think the results of that should be evaluated separately.
Is that part of the thinking as we move down the road, namely, that this would fall under the auspices of AOVS, the accountability measure?
Till Heyde, Clerk Assistant, Chamber Operations and Procedure Office: That is my understanding, Senator Deacon. It respects the general division where the Senate is setting the rules and CIBA is doing the administration and the secondary, more distant oversight, somewhat buffered, is with AOVS.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. I have a question about the accountability portion. CIBA is accountable to the Senate for certain items that are associated with the functioning of the Senate. AOVS is accountable for reporting on what they see. There are two levels. That’s why I’m a bit concerned about accountability.
Senator C. Deacon: The word “accountability” very much exists in the terms of reference of AOVS. Perhaps what it’s looking at is the collective consequence of all the individual decisions made that CIBA is accountable for and if we are getting the overall results. That’s the way I’m seeing it, but I want to check that I’m seeing this accurately.
I think that’s an important element about what we need to do as an organization, namely, make sure that we are delivering value for money in our collective actions.
The Chair: Any other comments or questions, colleagues?
Senator Loffreda: In a corporation, we usually have the internal audit department and then we have external auditors. If I understand this correctly, AOVS would be the internal audit department. Was that function carried out previously by CIBA itself? Maybe we could clarify that.
The Chair: You have to look at the mandates. The mandates are different. AOVS will be overlooking and they will have an internal auditor position. That person will be overlooking things that are being done at different departments in the Senate Administration, and they will be reporting back to the Senate.
Senator Loffreda: So it is somewhat of an internal audit function.
The Chair: It is. Are there any other questions or comments?
[Translation]
Here is a proposal:
That the proposed amendments to the Senate Administrative Rules in Annex A be approved;
That the draft report attached at Annex B be adopted.
That the chair be instructed to report on it with the proposed amendments to the Senate.
Could someone move the motion? Senator Deacon so moves.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is adopted. Thank you very much, Anne and Till.
[English]
The next item concerns the implementation of the electronic leave management and compensatory time system roll out for senators’ staff. Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, Human Resources Directorate and Monique Daigle, Director, HR Operations, Human Resources Directorate will now join us as witnesses.
As usual, this presentation will be followed by questions. So Toni and Monique, the floor is yours.
Monique Daigle, Director, HR Operations, Human Resources Directorate, Senate of Canada: Good morning, senators.
[Translation]
We are here this morning to seek CIBA’s approval to implement the electronic leave management functionality that is part of the Unit4 system and to make the necessary amendments to the Senators’ Office Management Policy.
The Senate Administration has been using the electronic leave module of the Unit4 system since 2019. The module works very well and without any problems.
[English]
While presenting the view-only of the HR module to senators’ staff last year, staff members expressed great interest in entering their leave — be it their annual leave, sick leave, bereavement leave, compensatory leave, and so on — in real time.
Currently, in compliance with SOMP, each staff member must submit an application for leave form each month even if no leave is taken. With the electronic leave system, HR is recommending a change to SOMP that will result in staff members entering leave only when leave is taken. With this system, leave can also be entered in advance. It can also be entered after the leave is taken.
Once the staff member enters their leave, there is a workflow that will send an email to the senator to inform them that there is leave for their approval.
As there is mention of the application for leave form in SOMP, SOMP will need to be amended to reflect the automation of leave tracking and, if approved, the proposed process for change leave approval.
[Translation]
The system functionality can be in place for the start of the new fiscal year, April 1, 2023, when new leave entitlements are awarded.
Senators and their staff members will receive training sessions prior to the launch of the new functionality. Training material will also be made available on IntraSEN and will include short how-to videos and user guides.
[English]
As we leverage the available technology, we will also add efficiencies in the leave management process for senators’ staff. It is recommended that CIBA approve the electronic leave roll-out for senators’ offices and the necessary changes to SOMP.
Thank you for your time this morning. I am happy to answer any questions.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?
Senator Quinn: Thank you for that excellent presentation. It helps to clarify. I’ll come back to the questions that you likely heard before. I have two questions, actually.
On the whole idea of leave being entered prior to the end of the fiscal year, I think you heard my comment about that causing some problems for employees as they try to remember. I’m wondering why that change wouldn’t say within a certain period of time, say, two weeks, one month, at the completion of a leave.
Ms. Daigle: We are encouraging staff to enter their leave in advance. Hopefully, if they have planned any vacation time in the summertime, they can enter it right away whenever the leave is advanced in April. But we do need all of the leave to be entered by the end of the exercise. Good management will be that as soon as leave is taken, it is entered right away.
Senator Quinn: Again, I’ll underscore that I agree that good management will achieve that, but the reality is that people get very busy. They come back from leave, stuff is on the desk, things are going on, they get back into the routine and they forget to put it in. Then at the end of the year, as a supervisor, I am in a position of saying, “Have you put in all your leave?” And then we have to sit down and figure out when we took it.
For practical purposes, I would suggest that there be a time limit so that when I come back from leave, I have to put that in. Some organizations say that upon completion of leave, you must put it in. That could be onerous too, but within a certain period I would say it would be fair that the person has to put in their leave.
I propose that for your consideration. Perhaps others can comment.
Second, I think it’s great that you can put in your planned leave for the year, but where it says, “All leave must be entered prior to the end of the fiscal year,” subject to any changes that folks may want to consider, all leave or amendments to leave need to be put in place when that change occurs, so within a time period.
I’ve worked in the system that you’re doing — which is excellent and will make things a lot easier — and those were two irritants that we actually went back and fixed. I propose that from past experience.
Ms. Daigle: Thank you, senator.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Welcome back, Toni and Monique, and thank you for your excellent work. My comments are somewhat along the lines of Senator Quinn’s, and I humbly rely on my previous experience.
My concern with the new wording is that employees must record any compensatory time off as soon as possible or do so by the end of the fiscal year, so this would be consistent. An employee never enters their leave during the year. That is done only at the end of the fiscal year and, at that point, the senator may be in for a surprise.
Personally, I would not be so permissive and would instead recommend that employees be required to enter their leave at the end of each month. It would have to be a monthly exercise.
I have a sub-question. I apologize for not having had time to reread the entire policy. Is the time allowed for compensatory leave also regulated in the policy?
Ms. Daigle: I would have to check the policy; I think it’s mentioned, but I’ll get back to you on that.
Senator Saint-Germain: My question was not directly related to the amendment, but I had that in mind. That’s another issue; we’ll talk about it later.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Thank you for your presentation. I agree with Senator Quinn and Senator Saint-Germain. I don’t support doing it annually. I think we should continue monthly. In our office, we pay a lot of attention to our leave records, and leaving it until the end of the year, I think that it’s too late. We emphasize the point in our office: Right after the end of the month, we make sure the leave slips are done. I would prefer that it be maintained at a monthly level rather than annually.
Ms. Daigle: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Thank you both very much for your presentation. I have another issue to ask you about, but I would like to add my agreement. In my office as well, it is critical on a monthly basis at the end of the month. I think it’s very helpful for everybody. I don’t think it’s worth leaving it to remembering at the end of the year, so I would add my voice to that request.
I have another question to ask you. When I read your background note, I’m happy to see that it says senators’ staff members follow the SOMP, particularly section 3.7.
I have a certain degree of concern about the leave form confusion that seems to be out there, particularly around coding on leave. We had at least a two-week period of confusion around coding a leave. The reason for that was because staff were referred to 15.12 in defining leave with pay for family‑related responsibilities.
Ms. Daigle: I’m aware of that error.
Senator Seidman: I think it’s important to put on the record that, in fact, senators’ staff were referred to the “Guide of Terms and Conditions of Employment of Unrepresented Employees Within the Senate Administration.” The definitions around family-related responsibilities are quite different in that guide compared with the SOMP. It took me and my staff’s detective work to find out that our staff was being referred to the administration’s guide instead of SOMP.
I’m putting that on the record because I think it’s a huge issue. We need to be very clear about the differences between senators’ staff and the SOMP, and that is where they go for the definition of family leave.
Ms. Daigle: Yes. There is room for improvement. I have been made aware of that situation. We will bring clarity to the paid and unpaid leave document so that it’s very clear that it refers back to SOMP for those definitions.
Senator Seidman: So there won’t be confusion in the forms when people go in electronically to try to look for definitions.
Ms. Daigle: Yes. They will not be using the form. It will all be in the system. It will be roll-down menus. They will be able to choose the leave that they will be taking and that will send a workflow directly to you, senator, for your approval. We will be working on that document in order to make it clear, because we did realize that the definition of family was not indicated — I think was under family-related — so we will be making that clearer.
Senator Seidman: That’s great. I’m happy to hear that. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
The Chair: Any other questions or comments? If not, could I have a mover for the following motion:
That the system for the electronic leave and compensatory time be implemented by April 1, 2023 for senators’ offices;
That Section 3.7.3 of SOMP also be amended as of April 1, 2023 as follows:
“When practicable, regular employees shall enter all requests for paid leave, in the approved electronic leave management system, in advance for their senator’s or chief of staff’s approval. All leave must to be entered prior to the end of each month.
When practicable, regular employees shall indicate all unpaid leave taken on the paper form Application for Leave and/or Monthly Report in advance and submit it to the Human Resources Directorate. This form must be signed by their senator or chief of staff. All leave without pay must be submitted prior to the end of the fiscal year.” and
That Section 3.9.1 of SOMP be amended as follows:
“At the senator’s discretion, regular employees may be assigned or granted time off equivalent to the number of hours worked outside of their regular working hours. The additional hours must be entered in the approved electronic leave management system in order to be used at a later date. Regular employees shall enter any compensatory leave taken as soon as practicable, prior to the end of the fiscal year, in the approved electronic leave management system, for their senator’s approval. Regular employees cannot earn overtime pay for extra hours worked;”.
Could I have a mover for this very long change? Are there any questions or comments?
Senator Quinn: I just have one question on the comp leave side of the house. This is a very active place. Some days our staff are here 16 or 18 hours; some days it’s not quite so. As you’re in the fray, the challenge will become to have the discussion about, “I did an extra 12 hours,” and having the supervisor say, “I don’t think it was 12 hours.” There is that give and take.
Have you folks ever thought about the concept that overtime should be approved in advance of the event? In other words, if the day is going to be a busy day, should the employee not say to the senator, “This is going to be a busy day. I think I need to be here until ten o’clock tonight.” That gives the senator the option to say, “No. I’m good. I’m at a committee. I’m in good stead right now. There’s no need to be here. Go home.” If there’s not that kind of condition there, it opens the door for a potential debate between the employee and the supervisor. If they just put it in the system, then it’s in the system and nobody knows what it’s all about. It can become a controversial issue in a large organization that’s extremely busy at times and maybe not so much at other times.
Ms. Daigle: Different offices manage in different ways. Senators do have the flexibility to put in place rules and regulations regarding additional hours with their staff. It’s not written in the document in order to allow for that flexibility, so each office can manage their own way.
Senator Quinn: I agree that each office should be an individual responsibility centre, but my suggestion is to ensure there’s equity. If I do something for my staff and my colleague does something different, and the staff is comparing notes, that creates tension and problems too.
I’m suggesting that it may be better to have the guideline in the rules so that everybody is clear on what that is. Approval in advance takes away the disagreement between staff members on how my boss is doing it and how your boss is doing it. That can become the root of a big problem for HR.
Toni Francis, Chief Human Resources Officer, Human Resources Directorate: We can provide recommendations to senators’ offices based on their needs for advice around how to handle that, having conversations with your staff to set out expectations always helps to make things a bit more seamless because you’re not trying to calculate it afterwards. Our advice would be to have an understanding at the outset and to try to establish consistency, but senators do have the ability to structure their offices.
Senator Quinn: I agree with that. My comments stand, but you’re the experts here in the Senate.
The Chair: Senator Quinn, we verified rule 3.9. It is not approved prior to, so it is left to the senator’s offices.
Senator Quinn: That’s the point I was making. That can become problematic.
The Chair: Indeed.
Senator Plett: Well, I know I’m one of these old-timers that say if something isn’t broken it, let’s not fix it. I don’t think we need to make one change. I do not want any administrative people telling me when my staff should be here, when they shouldn’t be here and what I need to do in order to have them here. This is a place that is fluid. We don’t know from one day to the next how long we’ll be sitting. My staff know very well when they are needed. When I come up to my office from the chamber, even if it is at ten o’clock at night, I expect that certain members of my staff will be in the office. For us to start policing that, we are going to be in a lot of trouble. Quite frankly, if one senator wants to let his or her staff go home at four o’clock in the afternoon, that’s their business. I don’t think we should be even beginning to put rules in place for that. Please, let’s not touch that.
The Chair: Thank you. Colleagues, are there any other questions or comments before we go to the vote?
Senator Bovey: I agree with Senator Plett.
The Chair: Any other comments? So we won’t touch rule 3.9?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed? Thank you. The motion is carried.
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Toni and Monique.
Item 5 concerns a sole-source contract for Unit4 software support and maintenance.
I invite Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, and Jennifer Forsyth, Director, Resource Management System and Processes, to come to the witness table.
Ms. Forsyth, the floor is yours.
As usual, we will listen to the presentation.
[English]
Just a moment. We have a point of order.
Senator Plett: I’m not sure what our rules are. I thought — and I may be entirely wrong — that we had discussed that when staff here, in Ottawa, are witnesses, they are to be in this room and not on video and that it is for people who can’t come to Ottawa that we do this via video. We no longer have hybrid; we no longer have Zoom meetings. For the record, I think we can all be in this room; most of the staff we see can be in this room. I thought this had been discussed prior. If I’m wrong with that, I apologize, but I want to state for the record that I believe that staff who come before us as witnesses should be here in person.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett. That decision hasn’t been made official. I think it was more of a general comment. If my memory serves me right, we haven’t done anything about this. However, it’s a request that can be brought forward.
Senator Plett: Thank you. Obviously, things are going to go the way they are today, but I would request that be put on an agenda for discussion.
The Chair: We will, today.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
The Chair: Pascale, do you want to add to the comment?
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration: I want to provide some context to the senator. Thank you for that comment.
We have all staff who can be physically present for the meeting attend CIBA meetings in person. However, we remain flexible with the current situation when certain staff — and I don’t want to discuss this specific personal situation — are telling us that their kids have symptoms; or if they have a medical appointment at ten o’clock, but they could attend virtually, then we accommodate participation virtually since the system is available. I’m not discussing this specific situation, but everyone is making an effort to be here in person. The vast majority are, but we do provide flexibility when it’s necessary.
Senator Plett: My comments stand.
The Chair: Again, we will discuss it. Thank you. Pierre and Jennifer, the floor is yours.
Jennifer Forsyth, Director Resource Management System and Processes, Finance and Procurement Directorate: Good morning. Honourable senators, we’re seeking your approval to extend the contract for the Senate’s resource management system, or RMS. The current seven-year contract ends on March 31, 2023. The sole-source contract renewal will be for support and maintenance services for a period of five years with annual renewals.
The Senate has been using the RMS since 2016 for finance procurement and human resource functions, and will be extending its use to include expense claim management in February 2023.
We currently have 870 user licences for the system. We also host an additional 180 user licences for Parliamentary Protective Services users for which the support and maintenance costs are reimbursed annually by PPS.
The RMS system is used by senators, senators’ staff and the Senate Administration. The system meets the Senate’s current and future resource management technology needs, and I recommend the sole-source contract renewal.
As is the normal practice, we can discuss the financial and other specific contractual details during the in camera session. This concludes my comments. I would be pleased to answer your questions and I welcome your comments.
The Chair: Thank you, Jennifer. Are there any comments?
Senator Quinn: I’m on the right number.
The Chair: That’s fine. You have the documents?
Senator Quinn: I’ve read it, and I’ve got it numbered correctly.
On pages 16 to 28, which is page 2 of 2 in print there, the increase over the current support and maintenance annual fees is calculated on CPI. What was the rationale for 11.1% if we’re using CPI?
Ms. Forsyth: The 11.1% was an estimate provided to us initially by the current supplier. It’s actually a combination of CPI plus a 2% increase over our current costs.
Senator Quinn: CPI of 9% and a 2% —
Ms. Forsyth: That’s right.
Senator Quinn: I just ask that question. I guess that rolls over to in camera.
The Chair: Do you have any other questions, Senator Quinn?
Senator Quinn: No.
Senator Marshall: I will have some questions on the money when we go in camera, but was this a sole-source contract? Just refresh my memory.
Ms. Forsyth: Yes.
Senator Marshall: It was a sole-source contract. Was it back in 2016?
Ms. Forsyth: That’s right.
Senator Marshall: We must have gone through some process to make sure there was only one supplier.
Ms. Forsyth: Yes. We had actually adopted the resource management system on the recommendation of our partners at the House of Commons who are also using the same system and who had gone through a process on it.
Senator Marshall: I’ll ask my questions on the money when we go in camera.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments?
[Translation]
So we will resume this discussion in camera, as planned.
[English]
Item 6 is the report from the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. It is my honour to table the tenth report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure concerning decisions taken by steering, on behalf of CIBA, since our last meeting. This report is placed before you for information.
Are there any questions or comments on the report?
Senator Marshall: I just want a confirmation. Did the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons approve their $350,000?
The Chair: They did. We have confirmation.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
The Chair: All right. Are there any other questions or comments on the report? If not, thank you.
We move on to item 7.
[Translation]
Colleagues, are there any further questions or comments with respect to the public meeting? If not, we’ll suspend for a few minutes and resume the meeting in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)