THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 9, 2023
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) of the Rules, to consider financial and administrative matters, and in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1) of the Rules, to consider financial and administrative matters.
Senator Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning to all those who braved the storm to be here today. My name is Lucie Moncion, and I am a senator from Ontario. I have the privilege of chairing the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. I will now ask my fellow senators to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I am Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
Senator Forest: I am Éric Forest, and I represent the Gulf senatorial division, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Montreal.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would also like to welcome all those who are following our proceedings across the country.
Honourable senators, the first item on our agenda is approving the Minutes of Proceedings from October 26, 2023, which are in your package. Does anyone have any questions or amendments to the minutes?
Can I have a mover for the following motion?
That the Minutes of Proceedings of Thursday, October 26, 2023 be adopted.
Senator Quinn so moves.
Shall the motion carry, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
[English]
The next item is a report from the Subcommittee on Human Resources regarding regional offices. Élise Hurtubise-Loranger, Senior Parliamentary Counsel and David Plotkin, Parliamentary Counsel will now join us as witnesses. As usual, this presentation will be followed by time for questions.
It is my understanding that Senator Saint-Germain will make opening remarks and that Élise and David will assist in answering questions.
[Translation]
Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Welcome, Élise and David.
I am pleased to present the Twelfth Report of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, which deals with the Senate’s obligations under the Canada Labour Code and the Accessible Canada Act in relation to regional offices. Under the Senators’ Office Management Policy, SOMP, senators may establish one additional office, also known as a regional office, outside the Parliamentary Precinct.
As explained in the report, we have concluded from our study of the issue that regional offices, which can be located anywhere, geographically and physically, including rented commercial premises or a senator’s residence, present several challenges with respect to compliance with occupational health and safety requirements and compliance with the Senate Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy. As an employer, the Senate must meet its legal obligations under the Canada Labour Code in all its workplaces, including ensuring that buildings and facilities are safe, that fire prevention and emergency measures standards are met, and that workplaces and workspaces comply with ergonomic standards. As an employer, the Senate must also ensure that all its workplaces comply with the obligations of the Accessible Canada Act with regard to the built environment. Finally, regional offices in residential and commercial spaces pose difficulties in terms of preventing and resolving cases of harassment in the workplace. These isolated spaces, where a small number of employees work in enclosed, soundproof and low-traffic premises, can pose increased risks of harassment in the workplace.
The SOMP provisions authorizing the establishment of regional offices were adopted before the Senate became subject to the occupational health and safety provisions of the Canada Labour Code and the accessibility requirements of the Accessible Canada Act.
It is for these reasons, which are described in more detail in the report, that the subcommittee unanimously recommends that CIBA take the following actions: investigate whether the practice of maintaining senators’ regional offices is appropriate; until the committee makes a decision on this matter, impose a moratorium on the opening of additional regional offices, with a grandparent clause for the four current senators with a regional office in a commercial space; amend the SOMP to eliminate the possibility of a regional office in a residential space; and, if applicable, direct the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to draft the amendments to the SOMP and present them to the committee for approval. I respectfully submit the report on behalf of the subcommittee members.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain. Does anyone have any questions or comments?
[English]
Senator Quinn: I just have a quick question. I’m wondering what the other house of Parliament does in this case, because each member has, I believe, a regional office. How do they deal with it? It should be no different than our chamber.
Senator Saint-Germain: We have discussed this — as you know, Senator Quinn — at the committee. I will defer to Élise and David for additional information.
We also agreed that the system in place in the House of Commons with the elected parliamentarians — the members of Parliament — is really different and managed on another basis. To that end, the MPs have specific budgets for the offices they have to open and maintain in their constituencies.
Senator Quinn: I understand all that. My question was really around the Canada Labour Code. They have the same requirement as a senator would have in their regional office — so it’s from that perspective, not the budgetary matter.
Élise Hurtubise-Loranger, Senior Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: I can add to that. They do have the same obligations under the Canada Labour Code. They are structured a bit differently, as individual MPs are employers of their own staff versus the Senate, where the Senate is the employer of all Senate staff. So it is structured a little bit differently because each MP will have its own staff members. That is usually fewer than 20 staff members, so, based on that, the obligations are slightly different. Their requirements are not as strenuous, I would say.
I would also add from the perspective of the constituency or riding office that those cannot be located in a personal residence. That’s a key difference between the House and Senate as well.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Senator Plett: Some of the comments I was going to make were already made right now. However, I at least want to repeat them in part.
When I first got here, I did have a regional office in Winnipeg. I rented some commercial space. I had a part-time staffer there. I believed at that point I did get a lot of mileage out of it, but as far as the office itself is concerned, I haven’t had it for years already. I have an office in my home with no staff.
I don’t think we can compare ourselves to the House here at all. There are too many differences. I guess if we wanted to compare ourselves to the House, then we would be able to have a much larger office because we’re actually representing an entire province and not just one riding, even though we may be from a region — certainly outside of Quebec. I’m a senator from Manitoba, not a senator from one part of Manitoba. So we can’t use those comparisons.
First of all, I support the concept of us stopping having regional offices, number one. I support that part of the report. I do not support having a moratorium until a decision gets made. If four senators have regional offices, then I should be entitled to have a regional office as well until a final decision gets made. I have no intention of opening one, let me tell you; I’m quite happy with the one I have in my home. I don’t need to drive anywhere. I can walk from my living room into my office, and that’s very handy and appropriate.
I don’t think we can have a moratorium and say a certain number of senators are allowed to have this until we make a decision.
I’m saying this only in discussion; it’s not a formal amendment. I would suggest we do one of two things. We either have these four senators close their offices until we make a decision, or we allow anyone who wants a regional office to have one until we make a decision. I don’t think we can differentiate.
I’m sorry, Senator Saint-Germain. That’s the only part of the report that I disagree with.
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes, that’s a very good point. We recommend a moratorium because these four senators — one of whom, by the way, will be retiring in a few months — have leases in commercial spaces. One of our options was to recommend we have this moratorium until the end of their specific leases. At the same time, your comment would urge us to make a decision. Perhaps we need to discuss it further before making a decision, but I believe this decision has to be made in a timely way. Otherwise, we cannot authorize senators to open offices when we know that we may decide in a few months that it will no longer be possible to do so.
Senator Plett: I would be happy, Senator Saint-Germain, to vote on something like this today. I would support that. I would even support a clause in there saying we have decided — if you have a lease, whatever the lease is, you clearly have an obligation — that no other offices can be opened when these leases expire.
As I understood your report, the moratorium would be there until we made a decision. That’s the part I don’t like. I do not think we should be breaking leases and having penalties, but if that was the decision — that these offices can stay until the leases have expired but the leases can’t be renewed — I’d be happy to support you.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain, for your presentation, and to the officials for being here.
Just to clarify something you said in your opening remarks, did you say that the recommendations were unanimous?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Senator Marshall: I support the recommendations that you’ve made there, but I was surprised that we have regional offices. How many regional offices do we have? That’s my first question. I have three more after that.
Senator Saint-Germain: We have four.
Senator Marshall: I was surprised, because I was on CIBA for 13 years, and I was only aware of one regional office. Is that information publicly disclosed anywhere on our website? We provide a lot of information on our website.
Senator Saint-Germain: These offices are paid for by each senator from his or her budget. I don’t know if the breakdown of the budget regarding the offices is available publicly. I don’t know.
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, Senate of Canada: Yes. The expenses related to the regional offices are paid from the office budgets. All expenses from the office budgets are disclosed —
Senator Marshall: If I look down to the information that’s publicly disclosed, will I be able to identify the four senators who have regional offices?
Ms. Legault: I don’t know if it would be easy to identify this. I can look to see how it’s being disclosed. We can come back with this information, senator.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Well, that answers my question. Thank you.
Senator Quinn: I appreciate all the comments that have been made. My last question is, whatever avenue we choose, is there a current liability with the offices open, given that we’re supposed to be following the Canada Labour Code? Is there a liability in the current situation?
The Chair: Is there a liability, Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger or Mr. Plotkin?
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: Liability in what sense?
Senator Quinn: In the information note, it says we have an obligation to follow the Canada Labour Code. The question is whether these regional offices are following the Labour Code. If they are not and if we are talking about it and if we are aware, then what liability does the Senate have in allowing them to continue today?
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: Yes. They are Senate workplaces where staff work day to day carrying out their duties. Our obligations under the Canada Labour Code apply to those workplaces. That’s the challenge. They are in different provinces. We can’t inspect those workplaces. If there were workplace injuries, there is a certain amount of liability because we don’t have access to those spaces.
Senator Quinn: Are we willing to accept the liability while we make a decision, I guess?
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: Yes.
The Chair: Any other questions on the matter?
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I have a question just for my own information. The briefing note says that senators can rent a commercial office space after consulting with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. Does that mean the lease is with the Senate or with the senator? The way the note is written makes me think that it’s with the senator.
The Chair: Does anyone know the answer?
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: I haven’t looked into that myself because, for commercial office space leases, we hire outside legal counsel in the province in question. I can check, but I believe the contract is with the senator directly. I believe that’s how it works.
Philippe Hallée, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: I can confirm that. The lease is with the senator. We check that the Senator has legal support and everything is acceptable. When there is any doubt regarding the applicable law in the province — because it does fall under provincial law — we make sure to bring in local legal counsel in certain cases. They can review the lease and make sure everything is in order. It’s usually pretty simple, but that’s what we do.
Yes, the lease is with the senator, and the rent comes out of the senator’s budget.
Senator Dalphond: What’s the duration of the leases signed directly with senators? One year, two years, five years? Do we know?
Mr. Hallée: We can check, but I’ve noticed that they tend to be for a year. They can be renewed most of the time, but they can vary from case to case. The senator is free to choose in every case, but that is usually what I’ve seen so far. I’ve seen two one‑year leases, I believe.
Senator Dalphond: I have absolutely no reservations about changing the policy. However, imagine a scenario where a senator signed a personal lease under which they were personally responsible, knowing that they were allowed to do so under the policy, and they had to pay $1,000 or $2,000 a month and $10,000 out of their own pocket to the landlord. That’s something I would want to be cautious about.
Senator Saint-Germain: That is why we’re recommending a grandparent clause. Generally, my understanding is that it’s a one-year lease that can be renewed.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Perhaps to solve the issue or the uncertainty in that particular clause in our recommendations, until CIBA makes a decision on this matter, I would impose a moratorium on the opening of additional regional offices with a grandparent clause for the current four senators with regional offices in commercial spaces until their leases expire. That would clarify that the grandfather clause is only there until their leases expire. That might satisfy the comments around the table. I’m not sure, but I propose that.
Senator Plett: I would support that.
Senator Saint-Germain: It’s logical.
Senator Tannas: I support what Senator Plett said, but there’s a certain amount of sensitivity amongst senators for increasing amounts of dictation from this place on how they can spend their own budgets. Therefore, before we make a fast decision that we might be forced to climb down from, we should consult with our respective groups and then make a fast decision.
I’d love to see this come back at the next meeting, having had members go back to their groups and ask the question, debate it and then be prepared to make a decision. That would be my suggestion. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tannas.
Senator Saint-Germain: First, it’s not their own budgets; it’s taxpayer money. We have consulted with three, I think, out of four, and it won’t be a problem for them if we have this grandparent clause until the end of their commercial lease. There’s still one, though, to be consulted with.
The Chair: Are there any other comments or questions? I’ll add my two cents.
[Translation]
I think the committee’s recommendation is excellent. As for the moratorium, I think we’ll need to look at the rules. If a senator wants to keep their regional office, we’ll have to put rules in place to oversee responsibility for workplace health and safety and harassment issues in regional offices.
A much fuller commitment will be necessary. The senator will have to commit to abiding by the rules for health and safety, harassment and the disclosure of information to the Senate. That way, the Senate will have the information regarding the duration of the lease, so the information we need for public reporting purposes. The senator would have to undertake to abide by the rules, inspections and anything else associated with the ability or the right to have a regional office.
A senator wouldn’t be prevented from having a regional office, but if they are allowed to do so, they would have to follow a set of rules to make sure that everything was in order.
Senator Forest: I’m a bit confused after what you just said. I thought there was a consensus not to allow regional offices. Your comments make it seem as though we are allowing regional offices but with additional conditions. Is that correct?
The Chair: No. What I’m saying is that we are respecting the moratorium. During the moratorium, we should explore putting rules in place if we want to keep allowing regional offices. I accept the grandparent clause, but I can’t make the decision right now and say that we are stopping senators from having regional offices. What I’m saying is that the moratorium is in place and we are going to examine all the rules. If we continue to allow regional offices, senators should have to sign an agreement to set up a regional office, follow certain rules and operate within a certain framework.
Senator Forest: It seems to me that the first decision we should be making is whether or not to allow regional offices. If we decide to allow them, then I see the merit in what you’re saying. I don’t think this discussion is really relevant until that decision is made. I say that with all due respect, of course.
The Chair: I know. Thank you. It’s fine.
Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Plett has some information to add further to your comment, about senators with regional offices committing to respect the law in force. I think it’s very important information.
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: As of now, a health and safety representative has been designated for each regional office, which is legally required under the Canada Labour Code for workplaces with fewer than 20 employees. Measures have already been put in place in an effort to manage the health and safety challenges associated with the offices. Those measures are in place.
The regional offices are in contact with our health and safety officers at the Human Resources Directorate, so actions have been taken in an effort to manage the risk.
[English]
Senator Plett: First of all, as I said, I would be willing to support the proposal with the amendment that Senator Seidman suggested. I’m also happy to accept what Senator Tannas suggested, because I don’t know that this is so time sensitive that it can’t wait for two weeks.
Nevertheless, I’m fine with either of those, but I do have one further question. We’re doing this because of the Labour Code and so on. I do not have an employee, but are we also saying that if you have an office in your basement or in your house somewhere that you cannot hire somebody to work in that office? Does the same thing apply? We’re talking about renting office space, and if it’s about the Labour Code, that same Labour Code would apply if I have somebody coming into my house to work in my office.
If that is the case, then I would get my back up a little more. I don’t have one, but I really believe that some senators might find a good benefit to having a part-time staffer coming into their home to do this.
I think perhaps Senator Quinn said this. Is this about cost savings or the Labour Code; what is it? Are we suggesting that I’m not allowed to hire somebody to bring them into my home?
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: Yes.
Senator Plett: So this is not just renting office space; this is not having anybody work. Then, chair, I think this needs a lot more discussion, if that’s the case.
The Chair: Thank you. From where we are at now, if I understood correctly from your last comment and also with the comments that came before, I would ask Senator Saint-Germain to bring forward the amended motion that she would be presenting. From there, we can discuss maybe changing the motion a little bit, if you are comfortable with that, and then we’ll see where we land.
Senator Saint-Germain: I propose:
That CIBA amend the SOMP to eliminate the possibility of a regional office in a residential space;
Agree to a grandparent clause for the four current senators with a regional office in a commercial space until the leases expire; and
Direct the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to draft the amendments to the SOMP and present them to CIBA for approval.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments on the motion that has been brought forward?
Senator Quinn: I move the motion.
The Chair: Senator Saint-Germain moved the motion, but thank you.
Senator Plett: I would simply ask, in light of what I just heard at the end and in light of what Senator Tannas said, that we defer this to at least the next meet to go let us go back to our caucuses and discuss this further. Somebody saying that I can’t even hire somebody puts a different light on the motion entirely. I’m asking that we at least defer until the next committee meeting.
The Chair: Colleagues, are we comfortable with deferring, or would you like to have a vote right now?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: If I understand correctly, the motion on the table is in keeping with Senator Tannas’s desire to take the time to consider whether we are going to allow regional offices or not. That’s my understanding of the motion.
The Chair: Can you confirm that part of the motion, Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Actually, the motion, as I proposed it, would eliminate that possibility, but if the committee so wishes, I could add that part at the beginning and then read the whole thing over.
[English]
I would say something like:
That CIBA investigate whether the practice of maintaining senators’ regional offices is appropriate and may make its decision before the end of November or December 2023.
We will add a limit to make this decision. We have a time frame.
Senator Quinn: I think we’re getting somewhat semantic here in the sense that we’ve talked about offices in our homes.
I have an office in my home. Also, the moment I hire somebody, to me it then becomes a Senate office, which is defeating the purpose of respecting the Canada Labour Code. We are playing around.
While I respect going back and consulting with people, I believe we are making a simple matter into something more complicated than it ought to be.
I don’t know, looking around this room, if my colleagues have an office in their homes; if they do, perhaps they have somebody hired to work in their office. They would then be subject to the Canada Labour Code. They would then be subject to incurring all the expenses associated with making sure that their office is covered and respectful of the Canada Labour Code. It would have nothing to do with the Senate. They could take it out of their office budget. That would be prohibitive, in many cases, in a private home especially where you have many other factors.
I think we should vote on this.
Senator Plett: The fact is, as Senator Quinn said, there are many factors, but let’s throw the factors out the window now and vote on it. I can’t understand that logic at all. The fact that there are many factors should give us pause to at least think this through a little more carefully, because we have before us a proposal that says there are four senators who have regional offices.
Clearly, from the discussion, 80 senators have not been asked — 82, 85, however many senators we have now — do you have a staffer in your home office? Why would we not at least ask that as well? Maybe this isn’t an issue. Maybe nobody has a staffer.
If somebody does, we are not just taking those four people who are renting office space; we’re also telling the other 3, 4, 5, 10 who have a staffer without even asking them.
Senator Quinn: Senator Plett, I understand the discussion is to do with regional offices and they were going to grandfather those four who have a regional office now, and then, at the end of that, they are no longer able to renew it.
The moment you say we want to have an office, or anybody has an office in their home with a staff employee, that becomes a regional office.
Senator Plett: Yes.
Senator Quinn: We have agreed we should eliminate them.
Senator Plett: That is why I support that we do not rent an office space. Now we are asking another question.
You’re correct, Senator Quinn. It becomes a regional office. That gives me pause to at least think this through more carefully than voting on something that has been presented to us and just willy-nilly say, “Okay, this sounds like a good idea. I don’t have anybody. Let’s just vote on it.”
What is the harm in waiting two weeks? We have a CIBA meeting every two weeks. For 165 years, we have been able to do this. Now, in one meeting, let’s just get rid of it, instead of waiting two weeks. That is sober second thinking, Senator Quinn?
Senator Quinn: It is as much sober second thought as we have given to other issues in this room.
If you want to, and if my leader wants to have more time to go back to the groups, fine.
Senator Plett: He asked for it.
Senator Quinn: I will go back and say be aware of the liability in the interim. Be aware of the liability that you would assume in your home.
Senator Saint-Germain: I will make an important clarification. It is in the report. As for offices in senators’ homes, I want to remind you that a senator’s personal home office or personal telework location is not considered a regional office, neither are any locations at which senators’ staff may conduct their telework.
You may have a staffer in your home province working from their place and this is not a regional office. This is a senator’s home office, or you have a teleworking employee. It’s not the same requirement from the Labour Code. This is different.
My understanding is that all senators have offices in their home. When we were in hybrid mode, we had to have offices. Some expenses are paid for our home offices. This is a very different question.
If I may, you can have a meeting in your home office with one of your staffers. It would not be normal that one of your staffers works, generally, in your home. This is also a question that we have.
Senator Plett: Thank you for that explanation, Senator Saint‑Germain. That is not what Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger said. She said it was the same, if we had one in our home, as if we rented one. That was my question. Now you are saying something different.
I would ask again, Senator Saint-Germain, is this so time sensitive that we can’t do more investigation on that issue, talk to our colleagues in our caucuses and bring this back to the agenda two weeks from now?
Senator Saint-Germain: It is reasonable that we do this in two weeks, you’re right.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: The issue is whether we go back to the broader community of senators and ask them. As Senator Tannas has raised — and I have heard Senator Plett address it — it’s reasonable for us to delay this vote for two weeks.
We should be consulting our colleagues on this, at least to warm them of an impending change. That’s a reasonable approach.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Moodie. Ms. Legault will bring clarification to Senator Marshall’s question on the proactive disclosure.
Ms. Legault: Yes. On proactive disclosure, I can confirm that we do have commercial office space lease disclosed in the contract awards category. All the expenses related to that contract is also disclosed within the senators’ office budget.
Senator Marshall: If you have it in your home, it’s just in with all of your other expenses, is it?
Ms. Legault: It would be, yes.
Senator Marshall: How many have commercial and how many have offices in their homes? There are four offices. We’re talking about four; is it split, two in commercial spaces and two —
Ms. Legault: No. We have four commercial leases currently. Senators having offices in their homes, I don’t have information about that.
Senator Marshall: That’s helpful. Thank you.
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: We did ask that question of our Finance colleagues. There are no designated regional offices in a senator’s home, as far as we know. They need a designation.
As Senator Saint-Germain pointed out, there is a difference between teleworking in your home versus having a designated regional office in your home.
Senator Marshall: Yes, okay.
Ms. Hurtubise-Loranger: As far as we know, there are none.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Senator Saint-Germain, are you comfortable withdrawing your motion from the floor and coming back at the next CIBA meeting with more information?
Senator Saint-Germain: At the next meeting, yes. It’s reasonable.
The Chair: Are we all in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, the next item is the communication protocol for significant cyberattacks. David and Élise, thank you for your work.
You will recall that when the committee met on September 28, we decided that the Information Services Directorate would consult our partners to develop a communication plan to make senators aware of cybersecurity attacks against the Senate. In your package, you’ll find a briefing note on the proposed communication protocol.
David Vatcher, Director of the Information Services Directorate, is going to join us as a witness. As usual, senators will be able to ask questions after his presentation.
David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, honourable senators. As you know, I appeared before the committee a few weeks ago, and further to your request at that time, I am back this morning to seek your approval of a proposed communication plan for significant cyberattacks launched against the Senate.
We consulted our House of Commons colleagues, and we plan to coordinate our communications going forward.
When an attack occurs, we will advise CIBA’s steering committee as well as the executive committee. We will then promptly send more information on the attack to all senators. Senate staff will also be notified if they are impacted by the attack.
Lastly, we will keep the steering committee and the executive committee abreast of any developments regarding the attack.
If approved, this change will mean that senators are informed before they hear about an attack in the news, as was the case in September. I believe this addition addresses your initial request. I will be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, David.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you, Mr. Vatcher, for submitting this briefing note to us so quickly following our last meeting; I appreciate that, and the response.
I just have one question for you. In the briefing note, in the proposed communication plan, there are five steps. Indeed, it says that as soon as a significant cyberattack is identified, a summary of the situation is sent to the senators. However, in the follow up — in steps 4 and 5 — when there is a notable change in the cyberattack and the end of the cyberattack, I do not see the senators being notified — at least not in this briefing note. There is no notification.
If senators are notified of the cyberattack, and if everyone else — steering, executive, Director of Corporate security, issues management and Director of Communications — is notified of a change or the end, why wouldn’t senators also be notified of a change or the end?
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for your question, senator. The goal is not to exclude senators per se. As a good practice in IT incident escalation, the goal is to really escalate changes and status of an incident going on. Of course, if there is a significant change in the situation — let’s say senators could not do their work before and now they can — we would send that information out. However, as a standard best practice in escalations, we escalate changes and end of incident to whom we report.
Senator Seidman: If I understand what you’re saying, there is nothing in this proposed policy, which you’re asking us to approve, saying that at the end of a cyberattack or a change, senators are informed. At least that’s not how I read it here.
Mr. Vatcher: Correct. That is how we have written it so far. Of course, if you wish for us to send an email to all senators saying the incident or the cyberattack is over, we can do that, if it’s your wish.
Senator Seidman: I only ask the question. I find it strange that we would be notified of an attack but not notified if there is a change or if it’s over. Again, I think that’s important information. I just leave it on the table for my colleagues to consider.
Senator Boehm: Thank you, Mr. Vatcher, for being with us today. I agree with what Senator Seidman just raised. I think it is important we know the duration of an attack. If an attack is sustained over a period of time, we should probably know when it’s over as well, since these attacks appear to be increasing.
I have a couple of questions. They relate to questions I asked the last time we looked at this subject. In the definition of a “significant cyberattack,” do you define a “significant cyberattack” as something that is broad? Can it be focused and still be significant?
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for your question. It really depends on the specifics of the attack. Of course, a broad attack — as you mentioned — would be communicated. However, there have been significant attacks on individual senators in the past, and we have not shared that information broadly because only that senator was impacted. There is a need to restrain ourselves in the sharing of certain information to not make matters worse, basically.
Of course, this is different from the actual treating or facing the attack. That’s a different process. Our teams are always working to resolve each issue we meet. However, we do limit the information that is broadcast or shared with senators and Senate staff.
Senator Boehm: My point was more definitional. If one individual senator is attacked in a cyber way, this would obviously be very significant for the individual. I’m assuming it would fall into your category of a significant attack. It would not necessarily be broadcast to everyone that Senator X or a committee chair is being targeted. That was my question, which you answered.
The other question is around the fact that often the House of Commons could be attacked simultaneously or maybe not, or maybe in sequence. It could be government departments. I would like to know to what extent you have a network or some protocols in place where you could all notify each other or be in touch. I think you partially answered that the last time I asked.
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for your question once again. We do consult with our colleagues from the House of Commons, which is why I say we would harmonize our communications as much as possible. Of course, some attacks could only be against the Senate or only against the House, and, of course, communications would be different then.
We do have strong partnerships with Canadian entities and have steady communications regarding different attacks or potential attacks against senators and the Senate. We do speak with colleagues in government and on the Hill concerning potential and ongoing attacks.
Senator Boehm: Would you say that best practices are also evolving? Because the number of attacks is increasing — different malign actors, some of them international and some of them within Canada.
Mr. Vatcher: Yes, everything is evolving in this matter. I would agree with you, senator. Our practices, tools and levels of awareness — everything — are forever evolving to face these growing attacks, both in number and sophistication.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much.
Senator Moodie: I have two things I would like to raise. One is some concerns about the communication plan. I would like it follow up on the previous speaker’s comment about focused attacks. Do you take into account the potential for the spread of that focused attack? I come from a health care background. You could have one really bad bacteria hitting one person, but if it’s around, the rest of us need to know. That’s the best analogy I can give you.
Is there a plan to share that information from a focused attack if there is significant potential for the rest of us to be affected in a similar way? That’s the first question.
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for your question, senator. Had you asked that question in French, I would have answered, “C. difficile.” I’m sorry.
Whenever any senator is attacked or targeted, we do make sure that whichever — I don’t want to say weakness — facet through which that senator was attacked is not made available for the attackers with other senators. As I was mentioning to Senator Boehm, things are forever evolving and sometimes new vector attacks appear, and we always make sure that if something concerning one of your tools, practices or behaviours is at risk, we will spread that new way or new best practice to other senators and Senate staff accordingly.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
The concerns that I mentioned before are that in previous discussions, I made w the recommendation that CIBA as a whole committee had the responsibility to be informed and not just steering. I note that’s not there in section 1. I would recommend that not just CIBA steering but CIBA members be informed as well.
The second point was to support Senator Seidman’s point about ending the attack formally with senators. It’s closing the loop.
Mr. Vatcher: Understood.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
Senator Plett: David, when we have a security threat —
The Chair: Sorry, may I ask that you be cautious on the kinds of questions you’re asking about security? The reason is because we are in an open system. I’m not prevailing or thinking that you’re not going to ask a proper question. I’m just asking our colleagues to be cautious.
Senator Plett: Would you like me to send you a note and tell you what my question is so you can approve?
The Chair: It’s just a word of caution because we can go in camera for this discussion also, if we want to do a deeper dive.
Senator Plett: Let me tiptoe through this carefully.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. It should have been said at the beginning. I’m sorry.
Senator Plett: Yes, I agree that it should have been said at the beginning.
David, we have had security threats here. I don’t think there’s any secret that we’ve had security threats. I don’t think we need to go in camera to tell you we’ve had security threats here.
When we have had them and they are over, we get a note or an email saying the security threat is over. Why can’t we have the same thing from you? Julie Lacroix, or whoever, sends us a note saying the security threat is over. Quite simple. Why couldn’t you do the same thing with your type of threat?
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for your question, senator. I’m open to sending an email saying that a cyberattack is complete or that the brunt of it has been dealt with. I have no issue with that. I can easily add that to our communication plan.
Senator Plett: I think you should, but you are in charge. I’m not sure why you would need to get our approval to do the right thing. You’re not asking us to send around a memo saying that there is a threat; you do that on your own. You send a memo around — rightfully so, thank you — telling us there is a cybersecurity threat. But do you need our approval to tell us it’s over? I’m sorry. Fair enough. I would ask that, unless somebody here objects, in the future you tell us it’s over.
The Chair: Duly noted, senator. Thank you for your question.
Senator Marshall: David, is there a downside to all of this communication? Your communication on this now is broadening, right? You’re including more people. There’s no downside, is there?
Mr. Vatcher: There are potential downsides in that if I send out an email to 105 senators, it will take me a little longer because I want to make sure the email is bilingual, that it’s nicely formulated. I’ll be very careful in what I say, of course. I will most likely get more questions — which is fine. I don’t mind answering questions. That will not distract the team from resolving the issue. Otherwise, I don’t see —
Senator Marshall: You’ll get more questions, but I’m okay with that. At times, when we have had a security breach, we find out about it a week later, and I think, “Well, why didn’t we know earlier? Why didn’t somebody tell us?” But that’s fine. That’s the downside?
Mr. Vatcher: Correct. I would like to add that, to my knowledge, we have not had any information breaches.
Senator Marshall: That’s great. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Can I have a mover for the following motion?
That the communication protocol for significant cyberattacks be approved.
In addition, as proposed by Senator Moodie, we would add CIBA members in step 1, and that the information is to be sent to all stakeholders or system users in step 5.
Can I have a mover for that motion?
[English]
Senator Plett: I would like somewhere in there a notation or at least a promise that when a cybersecurity threat is over, that we have something coming out to us.
The Chair: Yes. That’s item 5.
Senator Plett: I apologize. Thank you.
The Chair: Okay. Is everyone comfortable with the information?
[Translation]
Is everyone in favour? Shall the motion carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. Thank you.
[English]
Item 4 is a letter from the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan. Senators, it is my understanding that Senator Tannas will make opening remarks, and Josée Labelle, Director General, Property and Services Directorate, will assist with questions.
Senator Tannas, you may begin your presentation.
Hon. Scott Tannas: As I mentioned in the letter that was in your package, which I sent to the chair of CIBA, we have run into a little bit of a road block — a disagreement — between Parliament and the National Capital Commission as it relates to parking spaces around the Centre Block as part of the redevelopment.
The position that has been put forward by PSPC, Public Services and Procurement Canada, based on resolutions at our subcommittee and, I presume, at the corresponding committee in the House of Commons, was that we needed the same number of parking spots that we had before, that we did not envision that people were going to somehow get to Parliament in a different way in the future than they have in the past. They might be using different engines in their cars to get here, but a number of people would still arrive here in cars. So we would need the same amount of parking that was there before.
That has been the position presented to the National Capital Commission, and they have rejected that. They would like us to take a little less than half of the parking stalls that were on Parliament Hill before and move the rest to a to-be-constructed underground parkade. The cost is outrageous and just not defendable.
PSPC has come back to say that they are at a bit of an impasse, and they want to double-check with us to make sure that we’re firm on the fact that we need parking spaces the same as we had before.
We will go ahead and write that letter, but we wanted to come here and make sure that nobody here had any ideas about where we might park if the National Capital Commission insisted.
We are recommending — and I know that my counterpart over in the House of Commons will be working to get a similar letter from there — to say, “No, we need what we had before. Thank you very much.”
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Tannas. It’s a very important question. Could you tell us the difference between the proposal that we want to refuse and the cost of what we are supporting?
Senator Tannas: The numbers presented to us showed it would be a minimum of $1 million per parking space to do anything that would be in the parking structure. That was a couple of years ago, so there would be inflation, and that was really a rough estimate.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you very much.
Senator Quinn: I agree 100% with what you’re saying. I just have a question for clarity. Will they still build a parkade underground?
Senator Tannas: No, there were no plans to do that. It was simply that we would restore parking, and the issue now is that we need to draw up landscaping plans now, and PSPC needs to know what the —
Senator Quinn: I agree. I was worried they would still build a parkade anyway.
Senator Boehm: Thank you, Senator Tannas. I have a question for you. I would like to know where this proposed parkade would be because it seems to me that all of Parliament Hill is bedrock. When we see the big dig going on in front of the Centre Block, so we know that would require a lot of blasting. Of course, the environs would be affected as well. Was there any sense of where this would be located? To my way of thinking, it would really delay the completion of the entire project.
Senator Tannas: I’m not sure that the NCC gave us any advice on where they would like to see an underground parkade. This was simply their response to us.
Senator Plett: Thank you, Senator Tannas. First of all, I agree with you entirely. Let’s be absolutely clear further to what Senator Boehm said — $1 million dollars a spot would not even touch it. If this is Rob Wright’s estimate, then we know it would be $3 million per a spot, not $1 million. Nevertheless, I really shouldn’t have used a name, but Public Works and whoever is in charge. But maybe NCC should give us all of their parking spots if they do that.
What is their reason? They must have a reason. We’ve always had the parking spots. Why are they opposed to having parking spots, certainly as Senator Boehm said, for the environment. There’s nothing better than to leave it the way it is. We need parking. What are they suggesting, other than an underground parking spot?
Senator Tannas: We heard something about we should take more public transit, et cetera.
Senator Plett: From Winnipeg?
Senator Tannas: I’m not 100% sure we’ve got a more fulsome explanation.
Senator Plett: I would take it to Ottawa.
Senator Tannas: We best know what parliamentarians need on the Hill. We’ll get there. We simply need to confirm that this is important to us, then we’ll go to work with the people at NCC to convince them as to why we need it.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
The Chair: Any other comments or questions on this?
Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the chair of the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan be authorized to respond on behalf of the Senate to the Public Services and Procurement Canada to reconfirm the Senate requirements related to parking.
Senator Plett: I would like to move that, please.
The Chair: Senator Plett moves the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried, thank you.
The next item is concerning membership of the Advisory Working Group on Environment and Sustainability. Senators, with the departure of Senator Black from the working group, there is a vacancy. As such, I understand Senator Saint-Germain would like to move a motion.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I nominate Senator Rosa Galvez to join the working group.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[Translation]
That brings us to “other matters” on the agenda. As you recall, honourable senators, at our last meeting, we deferred the decision on temporarily increasing funding for parliamentary associations to see whether the House of Commons would support the request.
I want to let you know that the House of Commons turned down the request, which makes this a moot point.
Senator Saint-Germain, do you have anything to add?
Senator Saint-Germain: No. As you said, it’s a moot point.
The Chair: Are there any other issues we should deal with in public?
[English]
Senator Plett: I’m sorry; I’m monopolizing the conversation here today.
We’re not going to discuss this today, because we need Julie Lacroix here for that. I want to briefly relay an incident about what happened to me yesterday. I’ve already reported it to Julie. It’s not her responsibility. I would like to hear from her how we go about protecting ourselves here. We are getting less and less protection. In the 13 years that I have been here —
The Chair: Senator Plett, I just ask that this be dealt with in a closed session. Do you mind?
Senator Plett: Actually, yes, I do mind.
The Chair: It’s up to you. Go ahead.
Senator Plett: Actually, I do, because I think the public should be aware of this particular issue, I’m sorry.
The Chair: Okay, then go ahead.
Senator Plett: We don’t need to discuss it at length. We can do it at a later date, and that can be in camera.
Yesterday, I drove to my Manitoba caucus meeting that I attend every Wednesday. I’m part of a national caucus. I went to the Manitoba caucus meeting. They meet at the Justice Building. I drove down Wellington. When I got to the entrance, turning onto Parliament Hill, there was a group of protesters already waving and going out onto Wellington blocking traffic but didn’t really bother me. They wanted to give me a pamphlet. I just said “no” and kept going.
Then I turned onto the street that goes to the Supreme Court. I don’t know the name of the streets, but it is the street that goes to the Supreme Court. As I get to the stop sign, there’s a car in front of me that is stopped and probably 30 or 40 protesters around that car, not letting the car move.
I found out later on that they insisted the driver take a pamphlet. Once the driver would take the pamphlet, they let the car go. They were stopped there. The driver had his or her window open. I pulled out in the left lane to pass, to go and park. As soon as I pulled in the left lane, they thought I was now trying to circumvent them. They left the car they were trying to block and all moved over to my car.
I very slowly kept on driving. They actually jumped onto my car. They were banging on my windows. They were lying on the hood of the car. They were trying to prevent me from moving. Of course, there were all kinds of cameras going off. I’m sure I’m on many pictures now in the Gaza Strip or wherever. Nevertheless, I just slowly kept on going. There was no security around to help me. I felt very, very unsafe.
I then went into my Manitoba meeting. Marty Morantz, who is of Jewish descent, had been walking there. Of course, he felt more unsafe than I had.
Later on, we heard further at our meetings that there were probably a dozen members of the House that had also been under attack. When they had asked PPS over at the House why they weren’t being given any help, the answer was, “We don’t have enough staff.”
They seem to have enough staff to stop all hot tub parties and barbecues when we had some friendly protesters here. Now, they don’t have enough staff when many of us feel very unsafe. I raise that here, chair.
If we want to have the discussion at some other point in camera, that’s fine. I don’t think this is an issue that should be in camera. The public should know what is happening here and how unsafe we, in fact, feel. I did raise it, as I say, with Julie Lacroix. She’s in charge over here.
Sorry, Julie, I didn’t know you were sitting behind me. She is looking into it. I appreciate that.
I’m happy for her to report at a different meeting, or later in camera. I did want to raise it in public, chair. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett.
First, I would like to thank you for having raised this in “Other Matters.” I would like to ask all senators that when you have items you want to be looked at under “Other Matters,” that’s where it should go first. Thank you for doing it now.
The other thing is, when we do get these items, we bring them back to another meeting where we would have the proper people here to provide the information and decide, at that time, whether this information needs to be dealt with in public or in camera.
If you are comfortable with this, colleagues, we will take this —
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Anything else under “Other Matters”?
[Translation]
We are going to suspend briefly so the clerk can make sure we transition to in camera proceedings. We’ll be discussing a request for proposals to purchase toner and contracts for signage in Senate buildings.
Before we go in camera, I want to point out that, most of the time, CIBA meets in public. We meet in camera only to discuss sensitive matters such as salaries, contracts and contract negotiations, labour relations, personal issues and security. The committee strives to be as transparent as possible about the important work it does.
I will ask the clerk to let the committee members know once we are in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)