THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 16, 2026
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:03 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(1), for consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Tony Loffreda (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Tony Loffreda, a senator from Quebec. I have the privilege of chairing the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, or CIBA.
Before we begin, to support the smooth operation of committee proceedings, the following guidelines must be observed by all participants to help prevent audio feedback: Consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents; always keep your earpiece away from all microphones; microphones must not be touched — the activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator; avoid handling your earpieces while the microphone is active; and earpieces should either remain on the ear or be placed on the designated sticker at each seat. Thank you all for your cooperation.
I would like to acknowledge that the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples from across Turtle Island.
I’d now like to go around the table and ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Mohamed: Farah Mohamed, Ontario.
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Good morning. Éric Forest from the Gulf region of Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Osler: Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn from New Brunswick.
Senator Henkel: Danièle Henkel from the Alma region of Quebec.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario, sitting in for Brian Francis.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome all. I would also like to welcome all those who follow our deliberations across the country.
Colleagues, I would like to inform you the third item on our agenda has been postponed until our next meeting. After consultations, it was strongly suggested that we take some additional time to review the material. However, I want to thank Senator Forest and the members of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets for their comprehensive and detailed report. I look forward to our forthcoming discussion. I hope this outcome is acceptable to the committee, and I do apologize for the last-minute change of plan.
[Translation]
Colleagues, our first item for the public portion of the meeting is the consent agenda for approval. Just a reminder that the consent agenda items aren’t controversial, but require our approval. For these items, a briefing note, form or other document is submitted ahead of time, but no presentation is needed.
For today’s meeting, the consent agenda contains the following two items: the Minutes of Proceedings for the meeting of March 16, 2026, which was held in public and in camera.
Honourable senators, do you have any questions or concerns regarding this item? Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That the consent agenda be approved.
Senator Boyer moves the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Since I don’t see any objections, I declare the motion adopted. Thank you.
[English]
Honourable senators, the next item concerns a letter we received from the Joint Interparliamentary Council regarding the travel points system for travel to the United States.
The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain will join us as a witness. Jeremy LeBlanc, Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs, is also in the room and will be available to answer any technical questions.
Good morning, Senator Saint-Germain. You may begin your presentation, and, as usual, this presentation will be followed by time for questions.
[Translation]
The Honourable Raymonde Saint-Germain: Colleagues, as co-chair of the Joint Interparliamentary Council, I’m pleased to be here today. I’m joined by Jeremy LeBlanc, the clerk of the council. In recent meetings, the council members have reviewed the use of the travel points system for trips to the United States. They’re respectfully asking you to consider amending the current policies that apply to senators.
Please note that the co-chair of the council, MP Tom Kmiec, will take the same step with the House of Commons’ Board of Internal Economy.
In the current geopolitical and economic environment, parliamentarians play an important role — as we all know — in ongoing dialogue with American elected officials. This work is vital to promoting the interests of Canada, its businesses and its citizens.
[English]
The council is asking you to consider the following two recommendations.
The first is to authorize the use of special travel points to the United States for parliamentary association activities, which is not currently permitted, as well as for senators’ and members’ parliamentary functions, including participation in regional meetings. In this context, it should be noted that the use of special travel points for association activities would be permitted only where a senator is a member of the association undertaking the travel and is part of the official delegation duly approved by the leaders, facilitators and the whips.
A senator wishing to join an official delegation as an observer would first be required to obtain the approval of the executive committee of the association concerned. This approach would ensure the continued application of the principle of proportionality within official delegations, while also respecting the maximum number of participants set by the international secretariats of certain parliamentary associations.
The recommendation also provides for expanding the use of special travel points in the context of parliamentary functions that are not related to association activities. However, it should be noted that this aspect of the recommendation does not fall under the mandate of the Joint Interparliamentary Council. Consequently, it would be up to the members of this committee to examine this matter in greater depth to establish appropriate guidelines.
[Translation]
The second recommendation is to expand the use of points to include travel to the 11 American cities home to a Canadian consulate general, besides New York and Washington. These cities are Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, San Francisco and Seattle.
The Senate already recognizes the unique nature of the Canadian-American relationship. Washington and New York are the only international destinations where senators can use their travel points.
Canadian federal parliamentarians’ efforts to engage with American legislators are certainly vital, and even more so in the current environment.
In proposing this expansion, the council members maintain that Canada’s efforts to engage must extend beyond the federal level to include state legislators. These legislators hold key competencies in trade, energy, the environment and public procurement. This type of cooperation not only helps to ensure coordination on cross-border issues, but also helps to build sustainable networks that play a key role in mutual understanding and the ability to overcome shared challenges.
At a recent meeting in Washington attended by Canada’s heads of mission and consuls general in the United States and Mexico, the need for the support of parliamentarians was emphasized. These diplomats focused on the exceptional ability of senators and members of Parliament to “open doors” during strategic events. In the current environment, this recommendation is particularly significant.
Expanding the use of special travel points to include the activities of parliamentary associations — and in particular the activities of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group — would provide greater operational flexibility. By making it easier for parliamentarians to participate in delegations, this measure would strengthen Canada’s influence with key American legislators and decision makers.
[English]
With your approval and that of the members of the Board of Internal Economy, the finance services of the Senate and the House of Commons could conduct a cost analysis of the proposed changes, as well as a review of the current policies, to identify the necessary amendments and ensure alignment between those that apply to senators and those that apply to members of Parliament.
I would also state that there is no need for an additional budget with either one of these recommendations. However, there might be an increase in expenses because if those recommendations are adopted, most parliamentarians will probably travel to the U.S.
Thank you. Mr. LeBlanc and I are ready to answer your questions.
The Chair: We have questions from senators.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: In the current environment, I consider this measure highly relevant. However, I would like to ask a question to make sure that I understand. If a parliamentary association organizes a trip to one of these consular cities and a number of senators would like to participate, does the association determine the final composition of the group?
Senator Saint-Germain: The answer is yes. However, in practice, the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group will probably take most of these types of trips. Perhaps ParlAmericas falls into this category, although its activities are quite specific and they usually take place in New York. I’ll now ask Jeremy to chime in.
The Inter-Parliamentary Union may also organize trips, but these trips are always limited to New York. In this case, observers — and in the case of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, observers — aren’t allowed and the number of delegates is strictly limited. The international association sets the numbers. To be honest, I think that it would be quite difficult to obtain an extension with the Inter-Parliamentary Union. We could try to negotiate, but the process looks complex.
When it comes to associations, the answer is that the decision lies with their executives. The Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group accepts observers, since the association retains control over the number of delegates. There isn’t any American counterpart that would impose a limit of, for example, five delegates.
In some cases, we could form a total delegation of eight representatives from both chambers and make the trip.
You spoke about cities, but it’s actually the area covered by the consulates located in these cities. So, if a consulate general organizes an activity in another location in its area, this would also be included. Once again, decisions on these criteria fall under the jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy, not the Joint Interparliamentary Council. This activity would be more in keeping with Canadian diplomacy in the United States than with a parliamentary association. Jeremy, would you like to chime in?
Jeremy LeBlanc, Clerk Assistant and Director General of International and Interparliamentary Affairs, Senate of Canada: Your answer was quite comprehensive. I would perhaps add to your list of associations the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, which sometimes also takes part in activities in Washington or other American cities.
Senator Saint-Germain explained quite clearly that, in the case of multilateral associations, the number of delegates is often restricted. However, in the case of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group, particularly during visits to Congress or certain regional conferences, the goal is to increase the number of parliamentarians in attendance in order to maximize contact with the American counterpart.
Senator Forest: Could the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, an international parliamentary organization, potentially be included in this framework?
With our current guidelines, are these the four points? After having used up my four points —
Senator Saint-Germain: It’s done.
Senator Forest: It’s done.
Senator Saint-Germain: This doesn’t affect the value of the four points. That’s why I explained that we don’t need an additional budget. That said, more parliamentarians are likely to travel. This will contribute to an increase in spending, but within the already authorized budgets.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain and Mr. LeBlanc.
I think this is a worthwhile initiative. I certainly support it, but I think we also need to look at it in a broader context as we move forward, particularly with our trade policy. What do I mean by that? Mexico is our third-largest merchandise trade partner. The Canada-Mexico parliamentary group is not a funded group. Would it make more sense — let’s speculate — to go to Monterrey, if you are a parliamentarian, than to Dallas, which is nearby, as we move forward on CUSMA, the North American trade agreement, in whatever form it will take? This is an important litmus test in terms of how we can expand, recognizing that we will still have a very integrated North American economy.
I was invited to Mexico last year, and this committee agreed to take one of my points to facilitate the travel to Mexico City. I think we need to keep an open mind. The U.S. is important, very much so, but it is not the only game, and there are others that are connected to this. Thanks.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for raising this. I have to say that the Canada-U.S. association has this in mind. It has a very broad view of the North American contemporary context, especially with regard to CUSMA or USMCA. Was it in December — we travelled to Mexico, the Canada-U.S. Inter‑Parliamentary Group did with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Chamber of International Commerce. This is a possibility, and it is related only to Mexico but in the context of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.
Senator Tannas: I support this wonderful initiative, and thank you very much, Senator Saint-Germain, for your efforts here.
I do have a question, and it is around what Mr. LeBlanc just referred to as the congressional visits because I very much hope that this will allow more of us to participate in those important meetings. I just want to get clarity around your comments, Senator Saint-Germain, around observer status. Hopefully, that doesn’t mean that people would join and make the delegation larger but then be told they can’t attend any meetings, can’t speak at a meeting or whatever. What are your thoughts on this little nuance? I think this is really important.
The other question that goes to this is that, hopefully, this won’t be some way in which the actual delegation that’s established with a budget and so on is shrunk and potentially — unless we get the observer status correct — create two classes of people attending the same event.
Can you comment on those two issues?
Senator Saint-Germain: To your first point, senator, you can both be a full-status member — with full rights — of the Canada-U.S. delegation and go to Washington to visit a congressperson. At the same time, you can currently go using one of your points and have appointments with a few members of Congress, be it the Senate or the House of Representatives. So, it is already allowed for one senator. The Canada-U.S. group never has a limit of members in the delegation — there is a budget limit, but there is no limit for the members.
Recently — if I may, Senator Cardozo, give your example — Senator Cardozo joined the Canadian-U.S. delegation in Washington. Were you a member or an observer at the time? Were you a member of the delegation when you came to —
Senator Cardozo: No, I wasn’t. I guess I was an observer.
Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Cardozo was with us every time, did a great job and was considered a formal, official member of the delegation.
It is important. The answer is really “yes.”
Senator Tannas: Great, thank you.
With respect to the other piece, is the intention here to shift dollars from — shrinking the delegation that’s paid for by the association?
Senator Saint-Germain: No, there is no such intention. Canada-U.S. is a priority when we discuss the budget at the Joint Interparliamentary Council. The intention is to enlarge the delegations in order to be even more impactful and to protect the current budget of the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: Just on that, as Senator Saint-Germain mentioned, I joined a delegation and used a travel point to Washington. I was fortunate to have the approval of Senator MacDonald as the Senate co-chair and his House counterpart to have me be part of the delegation. I did partake because I am supportive of more parliamentarians going on these visits.
So, I agree very much with this process. I think it is really important for us to be more flexible in this time, given the kinds of issues we are dealing with between Canada and the U.S. At the same time, you put some guidelines down. You are not increasing the number of points, which was one of the ideas that was floated, but I think you have some clear guidelines. You have associated with consulates.
The few times I have met consuls general, they have been very appreciative of us coming and have asked us to come more often — to come, as you note, to conferences that take place. That’s useful.
One point I suggest, and this is not related to the letter so much, but when we do go to a meeting — Senator Quinn, another senator and I went to a meeting last year in New Orleans with representatives from state governments across the U.S. There were about 1,000 people there, and there were three of us. I think if three of us go there, meeting 1,000 people, perhaps we should plan it a little ahead of time and plan a few bilaterals ahead of time so that when we are little fish in a big pond, we have something set up so we accomplish something more definitive. It was still useful to be there. The consul general was very appreciative of us being there.
Finally, one of the points made to us — certainly that I have heard — is that when we travel, we also meet congresspeople in their home territories. It is one thing to go to Washington and meet them at Congress — and I still find it quite exciting to go to Congress and really go through the halls of power — but the point has been made to us that if we have points to make on trade with various regions of America, it is useful to meet some of these folks in their home regions, which can be combined with some of this travel. If it is done through the consulate, then it is legitimate and can be managed in a useful way.
Senator MacDonald: Yes, I think I can add some clarity to this because I have had a lot of experience with this over the years. Of course, what any of the associations do is they put together a program, a group of people, according to the system that we have in place. If somebody else wants to go, they have to come to the executive and get approval to go and join. Of course, we have never denied approval. The only caveat is that if you go on your own, you have to use your own points; it can’t come out of the budget of the association. That’s really the only difference in the way we administer it.
It has worked well. We had a good meeting in Washington, and I know you enjoyed it, Senator Cardozo, and I want to encourage people to come down. This way we can work around the limitations put on us by the budget of the association. It is a very valuable tool.
The Chair: Any other questions? I see no other questions. Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That CIBA approve this recommendation to move forward;
That the administration prepare a proposal to reflect the changes proposed for consideration;
That the travel budget requirement be estimated for a process for 2027-28 also for consideration for CIBA at a future meeting.
It is moved by Senator Henkel. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried.
Senator Cardozo: Can I have a question?
The Chair: Sorry, there is one question.
Senator Cardozo: I think I heard that the House Board of Internal Economy may not approve this. If they don’t, do we still go ahead with this?
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for raising this question. It is a very good one.
On this decision, both chambers are independent and autonomous. It is linked to our own budgets. We have the money, so we can make a decision that is different from the one of the House. I’m not assuming that the House will say yes or no, but our decision may be different.
The Chair: Thank you. We will know at the next meeting what the position of the House will be, hopefully.
Senator Moodie: I would just add that this does help on the Senate side because the proportionality frequently limits senators travelling compared to MPs. So we should go ahead, even if they decide not to.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain, and thank you, Mr. LeBlanc.
[English]
Item 4 is next. Senators, the next item concerns the sixth report from the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure regarding decisions taken on behalf of the committee on March 26, 2026.
Two decisions are included in this report. The first one relates to the use of expected surpluses from the overall senators’ office budget funding envelope to cover the cost of separation, severance and vacation payouts resulting from the changes in leadership in early January 2026; and the second decision relates to the impact of the pay equity review on senators’ office budgets.
Before I open the floor to comments, I want to take a moment and express that your steering committee did not take the impact of the pay equity review lightly. We analyzed various options, considered pros and cons, and what ultimately guided our decision were principles. We needed to continue to be fiscally responsible and demonstrate diligence in managing Senate resources.
Consider this: The most impacted senator might have a $24,000 shortfall. If we had increased the office budgets for all senators by that amount, the overall Senate budget would have increased by $2.4 million. We therefore decided to maintain current budgets and monitor the situation in 2026-27. This means there is no immediate adjustment to senators’ office budgets. Senators must try to manage the impact of pay equity within their current budget envelope.
If pay equity pressures cannot be absorbed by current budgets, the deficit will be covered centrally. This approach takes into consideration the fact that the average actual use of the office budget is 82%. It will allow us to obtain further information and to develop a longer-term permanent solution for 2027-28.
Colleagues, any questions or comments?
Senator Moodie: The question I have is around the six or nine people who are encountering this issue. Is it okay for you to share with us whether these senators have three staff or are working with two staff? Most of us work within an envelope of two staff because that’s what we can afford. Is there something distinctly different about these senators in terms of the number of people — and this is important because if all of us were to go to three staff, there may be a much larger group of us facing this issue.
The Chair: That’s a good question. It all depends on the salary you pay your staff. You can have as many as you want as long as the budget is respected and depending on the people you do hire. But the budget is there. It’s not by number, but rather by the nominal budget amount that has to be respected.
Senator Moodie: And it’s about the senators who are now requiring the additional amount. Can you give us some information about the numbers of staff that they have? Is there something —
The Chair: There are a few senators. We can circulate that information. I’ll have Ms. Legault circulate that information. If everyone would like to have it, it’s available. Thank you. For the sake of time, we won’t do it this morning. There are a few senators on that list.
Senator MacAdam: I’m wondering if an analysis has been completed on the financial impact to the Senate as a whole for pay equity for 2026-27.
The Chair: Yes, we do have a number of senators who are impacted. Nine senators are impacted. Has there been an analysis? We do have an analysis, yes.
Senator MacAdam: I was talking about the Senate as a whole, not just senators’ offices.
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, Senate of Canada: The purpose of this specific decision was related to senators’ offices, but the analysis is continuing on the administration, so it is not complete yet. There is no number for the entire Senate yet. On the senators’ offices side, there are 132 employees that are affected, some in a minimal amount, others in a larger amount, but, overall, 132 employees are impacted by this review.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
The Chair: Isabelle Ricard is in the room in case there are any questions, but it is important to note that the decisions about staffing were already made before the outcome of pay equity was known, so were likely made beforehand.
We are in a time where fiscal responsibility is important. The steering committee did not feel comfortable in just allowing every senator to have the additional $20,000, and we are promoting fiscal responsibility, and senators do manage their budgets. But we won’t penalize anyone for the pay equity outcome. As I mentioned, the senators’ budgets are not fully used, so we’ll use that surplus centrally to cover the pay equity requirements.
I think it’s a good solution before we determine a structure that’s permanent. This definitely will not be a permanent structure because we do have to have a structure that is sustainable over time and that we can live with.
Senator Tannas: I wanted to pick up on what Senator Moodie’s point was, and I agree with the approach that you’re taking. It’s the only way to do it. If someone has hired, as you said, as many people as they could under that budget, but they’ve underpaid them all, and now that’s coming home to roost, I assume that senator is going to have to face the fact that they can’t have that many people being paid fairly just because they used to be able to do that but were, as it turns out, underpaying them. So you’ll be managing that piece as well with individual senators, I assume?
The Chair: This is exactly why we’re taking this decision, Senator Tannas. Obviously, there will be discussion. There will be some senators who’ll say, “Hey, I’m impacted.” We want to promote fiscal responsibility and we want to promote exactly what you’re referring to. Yes, it will be managed.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Quinn: Senator Oudar and I were members of the committee.
[English]
There was a detailed analysis for the Senate. The Senate side of the house has been completed. I don’t have the bottom-line number in my head, but the impact overall is known. There are situations that our chair has pointed out that we’re going to take the next period of time to figure out, together with the things my colleague on my right has mentioned.
[Translation]
Our administration carried out a comprehensive analysis, but only for the Senate — on our end, not the Senate Administration. Our clerk said this.
Senator Forest: We all have a responsibility to manage our own budgets properly and to stick to them. We have a responsibility to study appropriation bills amounting to billions of dollars. This means that we have an individual responsibility to stick to our modest budget.
Clearly, internal factors may come into play, such as pay equity adjustments. However, I expect that we’ll make the necessary adjustments in the current fiscal year. That way, next year, in the following budget, everything will be incorporated into the administration of each of our offices. We must personally take action, if pay equity affects the situation, to get back within the budget. I think that we have this individual responsibility. As the chair of the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, I strongly encourage you to do this.
The Chair: Thank you. As usual, you do this quite well, so thank you for the comment.
[English]
Any other questions on that? We’ll move to the next item, given that I see no hands. Thank you for that.
Honourable senators, the next item concerns a request from senators for exceptions to the Senators’ Office Management Policy. I recommend that we defer this item at this time, pending further discussion with the senators to ensure clarity and alignment. There have been a few questions around the room. The senators are not here this morning, and I recommend that we defer this item.
The next item is item number 6. Colleagues, the next item this morning concerns the migration to the Microsoft Teams telephony system in senators’ offices and all Senate-occupied spaces. David Vatcher, Chief Information Officer, is with us today as a witness.
Welcome, David. How are you this morning?
David Vatcher, Chief Information Officer, Senate of Canada: I’m fine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Good. You may begin your presentation. Thank you.
Mr. Vatcher: Good morning, senators. I’m here to recommend that the Senate migrate from our legacy phone system to the Microsoft Teams telephony system. The proposed system offers increased flexibility, reduces operating costs and eliminates service disruptions when a senator’s office relocates. Importantly, office phone numbers will not change.
The system is already being rolled out within the administration and, in some cases, in senators’ offices that have moved recently. Where it has been implemented, it has proven highly reliable and well received. This migration is particularly timely, as many offices are expected to relocate over the next several years. Offices scheduled to move will be prioritized.
In addition, new Senate office spaces will no longer require the specialized cabling used for the legacy phone system, resulting in further cost efficiencies. We estimate approximately $80,000 in total annual savings once the migration is completed, and these savings will be presented as part of our program review. The migration will be flexible, allowing offices that are ready to adopt a new technology to transition sooner, while providing additional time, support and training to others over the coming year.
Thank you very much for your attention. I’d be happy to take any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, David.
Colleagues, do you have any questions or comments for David?
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much. Not a lengthy presentation, but it’s all here.
I have one question related to whether the system can be overloaded or not. I recall back in 2014 when the attack occurred on Parliament Hill — I was in another life at that point, but certainly down here in Ottawa — the VoIP system collapsed completely because there was so much demand. Everyone at our operations centre at Global Affairs Canada relied on land lines. I’m wondering whether that is built in — a possible surge in demand because of an emergency — and whether the new system could handle that.
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for your question, senator. It’s a very important question. Specifically, since the COVID pandemic, we have had to strengthen our networks so that they could respond to outside people or employees working from the exterior. Over the past years, we have strengthened our networks.
There are functions of our networks where we reserve bandwidth specifically for voice. Over the past seven years — and we’ve looked into this — there have been no instances where the network and cellphones were down at the same time.
We feel that we have a sturdier, more robust network going forward. We’ve also added, starting last year, electrical redundancies to our network, or more of it. We feel that the system is robust enough going forward to guarantee service to senators and their offices.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: I’d like to carry this question into the arena of emergency preparedness because one thing that concerns me about the potential surge is an overload scenario. You’ve described one. The other would be if there were some sort of multi-site emergency that developed in the city of Ottawa or the region and we lost platforms and internet supply. These platforms are based on bandwidth. If we were to lose that, what backup systems do we have to be able to pick up a phone and call for help? Because our cellphones may go down at the same time. This is not isolated to just internet supply.
I live in an area in Toronto where frequently my telephone, my internet and everything goes down at once. Bell loses all supply. When I raised this question on this change, the response was, “You can use your cellphones.” Well, in an emergency scenario, we may lose all of those platforms. We would have land lines as our backup, traditionally. What would we have now? What is your thinking on that?
Mr. Vatcher: As I mentioned in my previous response, we have a network that is growing in robustness and in reliability. So what should be understood is that within our network, which is robust, we feel safe here. When we leave the network, we join the Bell Canada or whichever telephone company network, so the same thing as a land line.
What we’re cutting or replacing, actually, is from our front door to your office, because if you call somebody externally, of course, it’s the same thing as calling a land line. That would still be available.
Senator Boehm: I have one more question, and that’s with respect to mass campaigns; we’re seeing them come into emails. But our phones could also be inundated and transferred to laptops or iPads.
Are there some safeguards being built in, in terms of how to handle a mass campaign when it occurs, whether it’s on a bill or another issue?
Mr. Vatcher: We have not received any denial-of-service-type attacks on the phone systems, whether they’re land-line based or not, in the past years.
Currently, if your phone line is busy, it’s busy for anybody, so there’s not much advantage to someone in trying to do that, since publicly known phone numbers are only part of the available phone numbers that are available to senators and staff.
Using the internal network to communicate through Microsoft Teams actually offers a way around an eventual attack of this sort.
Senator Boehm: What about text messages that are coming in? I get text messages that are part of campaigns. I don’t know how people get my cellphone number.
The Chair: Mr. Vatcher, it’s business continuity and vulnerability with respect to the Senate. I think we should take that and have a witness, an expert on business continuity, and probably do it in camera at this point in time. If we do talk about the Senate vulnerabilities, I’m not too comfortable doing it in public.
Mr. Vatcher: No worries.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Boehm: Fair enough.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vatcher.
May I have a mover for the following motion:
That the MS Teams Telephony be deployed throughout the Senate occupied spaces;
That the Information Services Directorate expand the deployment of the new system before the end of fiscal year 2026-27, by prioritizing and allowing faster or slower transitions, as requested by users;
That the Senate Administration leverages the current telephony contract with Shared Services Canada to progressively transition from Bell Centrex to the MS Teams Telephony system;
That the Senate Administration proceed with the purchase of physical desktop telephones; and
That the following operational and security requirements assessment, transition the appropriate number of other operational lines (currently 100) to other platforms such as MS Teams.
Senator Forest: So moved.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Forest that this motion be adopted.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Vatcher. We will have a business continuity discussion in camera. I am more comfortable because of vulnerabilities. We all know we live in a cybersecurity environment and it’s extremely important to protect that for the Senate. Thank you for your understanding.
Item 7: Senators, the next item relates to items that were sent for information purposes only. This week, three documents were sent for information purposes, and they are the following: a report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets — quarterly financial report for Q3 2025-26; update on the modernization of the pay system for active and retired senators; and the 2025 senators’ services survey.
Colleagues, I would like to note that, for future surveys, the Senate Administration has committed to considering including external services in its data capture, following a recommendation that was made by the steering committee.
Senators, do you have any comments on these documents?
As is the usual practice, the CIBA secretariat will share the report from the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates relating to the quarterly financial report, Q3, with the Audit and Oversight Committee. Thank you for that.
Senator Quinn: I just have an observation that the information items, I think we’re going to talk about things later.
The Chair: Yes, go ahead. The floor is yours.
Senator Quinn: The finance section is well done, but, I tell you, it was voluminous in terms of having it late in the day to go through.
I feel that when something comes in for information, it’s not just not to be looked at but that we go through it. That’s something I think we should consider in another discussion about how this happens.
The Chair: Yes, I agree.
Senator Quinn: Okay.
The Chair: The sooner we get the documents, the better sober thought we can give it, exactly. At the Senate, we always need more time. On every bill and legislation, we’d like to have more time. So it’s no exception on anything we receive. Thank you for that comment.
Any other comments?
Thank you. I will move on.
Colleagues, are there any other items we need to discuss in public?
Senator Moodie: Honourable senators, I wish to advise all CIBA members of my intention to move a motion at the April 30 meeting with the objective of re-establishing the Subcommittee on Diversity. The motion will be circulated in advance by the CIBA secretariat so that you all have an opportunity to review it prior to the meeting.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Moodie.
[Translation]
We’ll now suspend the meeting briefly so that the clerk can ensure that we’re in camera. However, before doing so, I would like to remind everyone that Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration meetings are, for the most part, public.
The committee only goes in camera to discuss sensitive matters, such as salaries, contracts, contract negotiations, labour relations, personnel and security matters, as we saw earlier. The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration also wishes to be as transparent as possible in the important work that it does.
I would like to ask the clerk to inform the committee members when we’re in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)
[English]
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: We are back in public. I apologize to Senator Boehm; you will have the room a little later today. Sorry for that, Senator Boehm, but I think it is important what we want to say in public this morning.
First of all, given the fact that we are in public, I will cede the floor to Senator Henkel. But before doing so, I want to recognize Senator Larry Smith. This is his last meeting at CIBA. He has been here for more than seven years. He was a deputy chair. He is a widely recognized and respected figure across Canada. He was a running back for the Montreal Alouettes, the CFL Commissioner, the CEO of Montreal Alouettes and the president of The Montreal Gazette. He is a true legend in Montreal and in Canada. He has a few Grey Cups, I think. Larry, how many of those?
Senator Smith: I only have four.
The Chair: Only four. That’s it.
I remember a fifth one you should have gotten when Don Sweet missed that field goal. I still cry over that one. So you see I am a fan. I had the parade ready.
Four Grey Cups, then what do you do after that? So many other things and coming to the Senate of Canada. Larry, you will be truly missed. You are a true legend, and, on behalf of all Canadians and on behalf of our committee, I thank you for your service, engagement, commitment and inspiration for our youth. You are a model to follow. Thank you, Larry.
[Translation]
On that note, I’ll give the floor to Senator Henkel. Thank you for coming back in public. It gave me the opportunity to thank Senator Smith.
Senator Henkel: Colleagues, please join the staff and me in making a short announcement that means a great deal. I believe that it will also mean a great deal to you. Yesterday was a great day for me, but also for a member of my staff, Dimitri Bandini, who became a Canadian. I would like us to acknowledge him. Congratulations, Dimitri!
I told him that he had gone from being a “bloody Frenchman” to a magnificent Canadian.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Forest: Mr. Chair, with regard to Senator Smith, I suggest that we turn your remarks into a resolution to formally show all our gratitude and appreciation for the senator.
The Chair: Absolutely. It will be done. Thank you for the suggestion.
[English]
Any other matters in public? Seeing none, I declare the meeting adjourned. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)