[English]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 11, 2000
• 1107
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): Colleagues, I call the meeting to order. For the purposes of hearing witnesses, we have sufficient quorum.
We have with us today the Speaker of the House, the Clerk of the House, the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the Assistant Clerk of the House.
Mr. Godin, do you have a question?
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): You said we have a quorum. We don't have a quorum. I don't mind starting, but I don't think it's right to have the Speaker make a speech with nobody around the table. I'm okay to raise questions, but for him to make his presentation, I think it's important that we have enough people in.
Now they're coming in.
The Chair: I'm sure the Speaker holds you in very high regard, Mr. Godin, and—
Mr. Yvon Godin: I'll always want him on my side.
The Chair: That's right.
So not wanting to keep the Speaker waiting—this committee would never intentionally show any disrespect of any nature to our Speaker, and my words were chosen carefully—I did see a quorum sufficient for the purposes of hearing witnesses, and the committee will govern itself accordingly.
Welcome, Mr. Speaker, and other officers of the House. You may have an opening statement as we consider the issue of the estimates.
Hon. Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always good to be with you.
Today I want to discuss the fiscal year 2000-2001 by examining two separate but related issues: the main estimates for the House of Commons, and the report on plans and priorities.
As you're aware, the reports on plans and priorities, in conjunction with the performance reports tabled in the fall, form the cornerstone of the results-based management that the Board of Internal Economy opted for in 1996. Together, the estimates and the report on plans and priorities provide detailed information on what amount of money will be required to keep this institution running smoothly, and perhaps more importantly, on how and why the money will be spent.
[Translation]
The Report on Plans and Priorities lays out the strategic direction that the Board has set for the organization. It defines the key rules and priorities that the Administration will work towards in the coming months.
• 1110
The report again bears witness to the spirit of initiative that drive
the House of Commons Administration. Over the past year, our staff has
met the often heavy demands that have been placed on them. This year's
RPP offers a guarantee that you as members of Parliament can continue
to count on a dedicated workforce that is continuously adapting itself
to emerging needs here at the House.
[English]
First I'd like to highlight some of the specifics of the main estimates. In this year's estimates, the House has asked for $249.5 million, and this represents an increase of 3% or $7.2 million required to cover the following items: an increase of $2.8 million to the 64 travel point system; $2.7 million to cover salary increases related to newly ratified collective agreements; an allotment of $678,000 to expand the work of the long-term architectural planning office; the implementation of the new government-wide financial information system at a cost this year of $336,900 and annual costs in the future of $296,200; and an increase of $342,000 for parliamentary associations to offset the costs of increasing demands for participation and higher travel costs.
[Translation]
The Main Estimates for 2000-2001 also reflect some cost reductions. These are related to the removal of one-time budgets approved in previous years. Last year, we had budgeted for a $250,000 fund in the event of an emergency related to the transition to the year 2000. In addition, there is a $911,700 saving as a result of the implementation of the Integrated Resources Management System and the elimination of $207,200 related to the cost last year of the conference of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie. Finally, there is a net 1.6- million-dollar reduction in contributions to the MPs' retirement pension fund.
[English]
You're also likely aware that the House did request supplementary estimates in the amount of $3.4 million to cover the following items: $2.3 million required to meet the obligations of newly ratified collective agreements and corresponding salary increases for non-represented employees; increases to the annual budgets of the Association of Former Parliamentarians and the Parliamentary Spouses Association; new printing equipment; and changes in the electoral and geographic supplements allocated to members, accounting for $447,800 of the 3% total increase.
[Translation]
I'll turn now to the Report on Plans and Priorities and give you a quick overview of what lies ahead in the coming year.
The House Administration will, as always, focus first and foremost on providing members of Parliament with the high-quality services and products they need in order to serve the Canadians they represent.
[English]
This year the House is committed to upgrading the technology infrastructure and developing an integrated systems approach to the creation, publication, use, and archival storage of procedural information. In the year ahead, this program, entitled PRISM, will lay the groundwork necessary to meet the evolving demands of all those who rely on the information produced by the House and its committees.
[Translation]
In addition, we will continue the fine work undertaken last year with the Integrated Resources Management System by implementing a single-window environment that will allow members to access financial, personnel and leave information using Web-enabled applications.
[English]
Our network people have also recommended commencing work to find solutions to the massive quantities of e-mail that members, their staff, and employees of the House administration receive on a daily basis. Network management and operations is currently evaluating some tools for the exchange server that would help to screen junk mail and manage other incoming e-mail.
• 1115
[Translation]
On the subject of renovations to the Parliamentary Precinct, the House last year completed a comprehensive report entitled Building the Future, which sets out the House of Commons' objectives and requirements to be included in the long-term renovation and development plan being prepared by Public Works. Implementation of that plan is expected to begin this year. It is expected that the Justice Building will be ready for occupancy following the next general election.
[English]
whenever they are called.
As part of the long-term renovation plan, the House continues to renew the existing network environment. Implementation of the parliamentary precinct network upgrade, the PPNU, began in April 1999 and will be completed by March 2001.
An important priority will be to continue the work begun by the business continuity management program in preparation for the transition to the year 2000. The program must now address a full range of potential threats and provide plans and procedures that will adequately ensure the uninterrupted delivery of essential business functions for the House.
[Translation]
As well, to ensure MPs that their electronic environment is secure and that communications will be kept confidential, implementation of the Integrated Security System will commence. This system will integrate the electronic security measures of the Parliamentary Precinct campus within one system. The priorities for the coming year will include the installation of the security infrastructure and related systems in the Justice Building, the Centre Block Underground Services (CBUS) and the upgrading of the security infrastructure in the remainder of the Precinct to meet new standards.
[English]
At this point, I think I'll stop and accept any questions you may have.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.
As usual, I'll start with the official opposition. Mr. Hill.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and other members of the delegation, for appearing today.
I have a couple of questions. The first has to do with the Justice Building. You mentioned it in your remarks, and I'll be referring to the report on plans and priorities during the questions and comments.
I kind of remember, I think it was back in 1997, we were told that the Justice Building would be ready to accept members and the offices would be ready for occupancy by 1999. Now, from this document and your remarks, my understanding is that it should be ready following the next election, whether it's this fall, next spring, or the following fall. I wonder if you could briefly bring us up to speed as to why that delay. I know it certainly governed some members' decisions on which offices they would take a while back when it was said they were going to have to be moved out of the West Block, when we were allocating offices and we were told that.
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: The first thing is that we wanted to put in all the state-of-the-art equipment we could get, because these members—all members—should have the very best equipment they have in there. So these systems had to be put in.
Notwithstanding the fact that it is possible that we could be finished and move in a little bit earlier and work around these things, we have information, for example—and I use this only as an example—that in some buildings that the people have been moved into before the work was done, they have had to work around the work, and that is not a very good environment.
So we are very confident that we will be ready for the opening of the Justice Building after the next election. I don't know when the election is going to be, Jay, any more than you do, but we're confident that should there be an earlier election rather than later, we will still be able to meet our requirements by moving our new members in there at the end of the next election.
However, right now we're looking at a normal cycle, which would probably be in June 2001. We simply want to make sure that everything is ready for our members when they go in so that they don't have to have people working around them. But I'm very confident we'll be ready.
• 1120
Mr. Jay Hill: I'm gathering from that, Mr. Speaker, that the two-year delay was primarily because the construction people ran into some problems there that they weren't expecting in bringing that building up to the necessary technological age or whatever.
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Yes, and not only those. Some small problems were those that they hadn't thought they would encounter, but also there were some contractual problems getting the contractors in there.
Finally, there were the demands, the requests, if you will, by members of Parliament that these offices be upgraded so that they were at least as good as the other members of Parliament had elsewhere on the Hill. And that's why this was slowed down quite a bit.
Mr. Jay Hill: An issue that's come to light in the last little while, and which I've been pursuing, is the issue of the allocation of the committee rooms here in Centre Block. As you're well aware, Room 253-D is the only one that's really set up for properly televising committee meetings.
It's been my point of view since assuming the whip's role—it's been my view all along, but especially since assuming the whip's role—that especially when ministers are appearing before committees they should be given a high priority to have those particular committee meetings, especially if they're defending the estimates, as you are today, televised whenever possible.
I understand there's quite often a conflict with outside forces that are given those rooms for receptions, etc. I wonder if you or your staff have given any thought to how to address that problem in both the short term and long term.
I know there's supposedly a system in place for priorities, but it seems to me that despite the general agreement by this committee and the House of Commons in its entirety that whenever possible committee meetings should be televised, quite often we run into this conflict. I wonder if we can work together to figure out some suggestions of how to overcome that so that more committee meetings, especially when ministers are appearing, can be televised.
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I think that's a reasonable request. I'll deal with the long term, about what we're hoping to do.
As you know, in the report for the renovations of Parliament there is a very strong suggestion that we have a building dedicated, a legislative building—this is my word—for the committee rooms and that all of these committee rooms be supplied with the most modern equipment we can get, so that, yes, each and every one of these rooms could be televised, whether ministers are appearing or not. All witnesses could be televised at some future time.
On the short term, we seem always to be pressed for space within the committees, and specifically, space within the committees where we can televise the whole thing.
Gus, do you have any information, or Bob?
Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): That's the long-term situation with the broadcast of committees. If we do get a new committee building, in time those will be multimedia, fully equipped rooms, and will be in less competition with the various other functions that take place in Centre Block and West Block, when we return to it.
In the short term the House has approved the report of this committee to make available mobile equipment that can be moved to several rooms, given enough notice, for the televising of a second committee while Room 253-D is being utilized by a committee that's been allocated priority. I don't have figures on how much of that's been used—not a lot since Christmas, or at least since the beginning of this year.
I am concerned about your statement, Mr. Hill, that a social function may have prevented a committee from meeting in a televised room. I'm not naive to the point of saying that there isn't a ranking of priorities from to time about a particular event, but it should be a very rare occasion that a committee cannot meet in a designated committee room. The Standing Orders do allow priority to committees, particularly those considering legislation. There are often discussions among those who are hosting an event and a committee chair, and I know that there can be some discomfort about what the outcome might be. But that should be a rare occasion rather than the rule.
• 1125
Mr. Jay Hill: But it does happen.
I have one suggestion, and I don't know whether it can be pursued. I'll just throw it on the table for future digestion. My understanding is that the American embassy across the street has reverted, or been turned over or whatever, for the use of the Canadian government. I wonder if anybody's considered at least turning one floor of that building, because of its close proximity to Parliament Hill, into the types of committee rooms we would be seeking and whether it would be possible to renovate or whether the cost would be prohibitive and whether any study has been done for something like that.
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I'll let Gus answer that more specifically, but you will recall that it was decided that insofar as it was possible, the precincts of Parliament will be north of Wellington Street. This is just on the other side. Notwithstanding that, it is a suggestion, and it's surely not one we're going to turn a blind eye to right off the bat.
Gus.
Major General G. Cloutier (Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, no, they have not looked at that building in that perspective. However, as you know, we will be requiring eight committee rooms somewhere within the precinct or very adjacent to the precinct while they develop or renovate the West Block.
Now they're considering places such as the top floor of the East Block and the Wellington Building, but no decision has yet been made. So I might just bring this up to them, because if we go to the Wellington Building, we're now south of Wellington. Whether we like it or not, they're going to say that's the only place we have for you, members, and you're going to have to go there.
This committee room building I anticipate will take five to six years to build. That's the next big block for us on Parliament Hill before we do anything else. We have to have a safety valve, an escape valve. After all, the committee work is the lifeline of the Parliament.
So I'll bring this up, because for a period of four or five years the walking distance from Centre Block to the American Embassy is what, about five minutes. So I'll take this up.
Mr. Jay Hill: It would be handier actually than Wellington Building, for example, or La Promenade.
MGen G. Cloutier: Yes, absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hill.
Madame Dalphond-Guiral for ten minutes.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I have three questions. You have a choice: either I can ask you all three at once or I can ask one, let you answer and then ask the others. Which would you like? Would you like all three at once?
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: As you wish.
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: All right. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see in your presentation that the budget for inter- parliamentary associations had been increased by $342,000. I would like to know what this amount of $342,000 was based on. That is my first question.
Here is my second question. In what you have presented I did not see any increase in the committees' budget. I would like to know if I am mistaken, since everyone knows that the committees' budget may be very large, but it does not meet the needs. By way of example, I could mention the pre-budget consultations every autumn, which in themselves account for an unacceptable proportion of the committees' budget and almost put us in the red by the time in comes to plan the budget. It seems to me—and I am not the only one that feels this way—that this should be tightened up a bit.
My third question arises primarily out of curiosity. I see a net decrease of $1.6 million in deductions. Is that because there are huge surpluses in the MPs' pension fund budget?
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: May be I should start with your last question.
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I thought I would ask you all three questions. In that way, you have time to answer them properly.
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Yes, that gives me enough time.
• 1130
Mr. Robert Marleau: The answer to your third question is simply that the actuaries do calculations every year based on information or demographics concerning parliamentarians and former parliamentarians. For this year, they have forecast a reduction of $1.6 million.
As you know, actuarial calculations are more complex than my area of expertise, parliamentary procedure. The way they calculate things does not produce trends from one year to another.
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Regarding the budget for inter- parliamentary associations, we have always had enough money in past years. I think we had a budget of around $2 million and we spent a little less than that each year. Now, given that costs are going up every year, we have been asked for a little more money.
You are absolutely right. The committee that travels the most is the Finance Committee because it does public consultations every year.
We felt it necessary to increase the inter-parliamentary associations' budget because this money is requested every year, even though not all the money budgeted is used. This year, the budget was exceeded by a few thousand dollars. That is why we increased the budget for the next year.
Bob, could you answer with respect to the committees' budget?
Mr. Robert Marleau: As the Speaker has said, the increase for the parliamentary associations is mainly due to increases in international dues that the associations have to pay to the umbrella organizations in Geneva, Paris, Brussels, etc.
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: They are exorbitant.
Mr. Robert Marleau: They are increasingly....
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Impressive.
Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, they are impressive.
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Let us put it that way.
Mr. Robert Marleau: Very well said.
In the case of parliamentary committees, the $2 million envelope of the Liaison Committee, as you pointed out, has not changed since 1994. However, when we do the math at the end of the year, it turns out that actual committee expenditures come in at around $2 million.
The Speaker has mentioned that at bit more than that was spent last year. The amount spent was $2.3 million, I believe, and the Board of Internal Economy authorized the Liaison Committee to go over budget and spend up to $2.5 million. So there is a flexibility of around $500,000 to spread around.
What you say is true. This is the first part of the fiscal year. The committees' work plans are on the table. When the projected costs are calculated, it is clear that they are well over the budgeted amount.
However, the reality is that in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year, the projections are often very different from the actual expenditures, and the $2 to $2.2 million seems to be adequate.
The Liaison Committee did ask for a slight increase in the basic budget this year and the Board of Internal Economy said no, but the $500,000 flexibility for planning purposes has been renewed.
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That is almost an official commitment. I see it that way.
Mr. Robert Marleau: When the committees went over budget and spent $2.3 million, the Board of Internal Economy absorbed those extra costs of $300,000 through the House budget.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
I had allowed ten minutes for each of the parties. There are a little less than four minutes remaining, Monsieur Bergeron, if you would care to pick up three and a half minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be quick.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, thank you for appearing here with the senior House officials. We are always very pleased to have you come here.
I will start with a comment on what Mr. Hill has said about the former American Embassy. Although the idea might seem like a good one, it can only be a short-term solution. That needs to be said not only here, but also to those who would like to find short- term solutions and long-term solutions. That could not be a viable long-term solution for the parliamentary institution in which we are working.
• 1135
That said, Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back to an issue I
raise every year. Anyone who knows me knows that I have a long memory.
Mr. Speaker, we are obviously interested in the House of Commons'
budget, but as parliamentarians, we are also interested in the use of
public money in general. As a member of a bicameral institution, the
Parliament of Canada, I am clearly interested in the costly and
useless duplications that are still happening on Parliament Hill.
I know that since the present government decided to put its financial house in order, there have been some improvements in certain areas, but some costly and useless duplications persist. They are useless and make the system dysfunctional. Negotiations with the other institutions should be speeded up to ensure that we put an end to these things. I am thinking especially about security.
As you know, I have already asked this question many times. I am asking you once again: where are negotiations at with the Senate on the security issue, in particular, and on all the other services that are still duplicated in a costly and useless way and often lead to problems?
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Stéphane, like last year, your question is very interesting and the answer is still the same. We are still hoping that one day we will be able to combine the two security services. Since I have been Speaker—which is six years now—we have been trying to do this and we are still hoping to, but there are no negotiations underway at the present time. This is still something that I would like to see done and I would really like to find a way to bring the two security services together.
That does not mean that we are not working together, but the services are not under the authority of a single person. The Sergeant-at-Arms may have other information, but as far as I know, we are not talking about co-operation right now. I would like to start again soon.
MGen G. Cloutier: Mr. Chairman, there are certain projects on which we co-operate very well with the Senate, but there are no negotiations underway.
What we have instead is a parallel system developing. In other words, our work regulations are copied, and people try to identify themselves with the House rather than working together and becoming integrated. In the past, the Auditor General reviewed this whole process and recommended better integration, but not a merger. I would say that it is very difficult right now to begin negotiations with the Senate in the hope of achieving a short-term solution. I do not see any possibility of that.
But what is very important is for the security system on Parliament Hill, whether it comes under the Senate or the House Commons, to be very active and very professional. I can assure you that we are continuing to pay close attention to that.
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Nonetheless, we have reached some quite productive agreements over the past year. Bob, can you speak to that?
Mr. Robert Marleau: To answer you in a positive way or give you positive indications, I would say that where we are developing new activities or new initiatives, there is progress in co- operation among the three institutions: the Library of Parliament, the Senate and the House of Commons. This co-operation even extends to Public Works.
• 1140
On the computer network and support for information technologies, the
House Commons Information Services Branch has taken the initiative of
negotiating an agreement for a charter to be adopted jointly by all
three institutions. All three share the same network, which means that
there is no duplication and the system is more secure than if we had
three portals or entry points. We maintain very good relations with
our colleagues in the Senate and at the Library. Moreover, the whole
infrastructure of the Library of Parliament is supported by the House
of Commons Information Services Branch, which is provided for in a
written contract. The Library pays part of the costs for that support.
It has set its own standards in keeping with its specific needs and we
provide it with the necessary support.
The House of Commons has also formed a partnership with the Department of Public Works, particularly for the planning of renovations. We have both signed a charter that will apply to the entire parliamentary infrastructure. In other words, we have negotiated certain standards that have been accepted by the Department of Public Works and that we will not have to renegotiate at various points under a new contract. They have been established and put in writing.
A similar charter for technology was adopted two years ago and was commented on very positively by the Auditor General. The agreement between the House of Commons and Public Works has been cited as an example for other departments that have to work together as partners and that might be able to use this charter as a starting point.
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: So there are indeed... [Editor's note: technical difficulties]... story.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Godin, for ten minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to begin by thanking you for the new computer equipment you delivered to our offices and that is greatly appreciated by our employees. However, we would have appreciated having 17-inch screens so that we could take full advantage of the new technologies. We only received what is called the tower, or the hard drive, and it seems to me that part of the equipment is missing.
I would like to raise the same question as my colleague from the Reform Party about the Wellington Building. I set up a meeting with Mr. Cloutier to discuss that, but other engagements prevented me from attending. I would like to make a few suggestions for consideration. There have never been renovations, as there have been in the other buildings, to the wing where the NDP offices and room 264 are located. I would like to briefly describe the working conditions in the offices in that part of the building. I was very disappointed to find out that these problems may not be resolved before the next election. As you know, some employees have had to leave these offices because of asbestos, and Pat Martin even had to close his office and move to the West Block.
I could give you an example of the terrible working conditions. One of my staff has to wrap herself in a blanket for the whole winter. Imagine, this type of thing happening in Parliament. There is no justification for such conditions. This employee can take advantage of my absence from the office to adjust the thermostat to its highest level so some of the heat can reach her office. When I return, I have to put down the temperature. Those are the conditions we live under. My legislative assistant's office is on the other side of the corridor and he doesn't see the light of day because there aren't any windows. These are the terrible conditions we have in the Wellington Building. You can understand that I'm very disappointed that we have to wait for the elections to solve these problems.
I am not talking about whether we will be re-elected or not in the next election but rather the fact that it is unacceptable for human beings to have to work in such terrible conditions. When I say that the administrative assistant works with a blanket wrapped around her all day in the winter, I am telling the truth. Just come to my office and you will see that her blanket is still draped on the back of her chair.
• 1145
I wanted to make a proposal with respect to the Department of Justice
Building. One of my colleagues from the government told me that this
building would be the first to be ready. I realize that government
members will have the first choice of offices but I was wondering
whether, in view of the serious problems being experienced by people
with offices in this wing of the Wellington Building, a number of
offices could be set aside for us to move to as quickly as possible.
We've already been told that we cannot expect to have offices on the
first floor but perhaps seven or eight offices could be reserved on
another floor and given priority for renovation so that we don't have
to put up with the present inconveniences any longer than necessary.
As you know, my predecessor, John Solomon, worked a lot on this issue. Last year, employees even walked off the job and refused to work for weeks because they did not want to stay any longer in these unrenovated offices. That is one of the solutions I can foresee.
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: First of all, let me say that we want to go into the Justice Building as soon as possible but we do not want to do the work bit by bit. In my opinion, it is better to wait until the renovations have been completed and occupy the building only when everything is in a state of readiness for members. That being said, I can understand your point of view. I suppose, Yvon, that you will be discussing the distribution of offices with the leaders and whips. I think that we could work together and once the offices in the Justice Building are ready, the whips will have been able to come to a favourable decision for you.
Gus would perhaps like to add a few comments.
MGen G. Cloutier: First of all let me say that I am aware of the difficulties since we already discussed them. This wing of the Wellington Building is the oldest one. The reason why the neighbouring offices are more modern than the others is because they were installed later.
As for the Justice Building, we have already established the procedure we intend to follow. We will be calling all the whips who will determine how much space is to be devoted to each party and then they will distribute the offices to their respective members. You must not imagine that we would acquire a building and then the government would be allowed to grab the offices of its choice with the remaining ones handed over to the opposition. We intend to call in the five whips and discuss the matter at the appropriate time. There will be no under-the-table agreement. Things don't work that way.
Right now we are putting the wiring in the Justice Building. I remember the Minister of Public Works stating in the House that this wiring was proceeding on schedule and I am in a position to confirm what he said. I have here a list of the shortcomings that were identified in the building, and approximately 60% of them have been dealt with so far. The renovations, including the wiring, will not be completed before the end of the present year. The Justice Building does not yet belong to the House of Commons, it is still the property of the Department of Public Works that will probably make the transfer to us at the end of the year. I will take possession of it only when the flaws that were identified have been corrected. At that point I will need about three months. I don't want to have to shake down the building or find myself facing the same situation as the American Embassy. We have the same contractor here on Parliament Hill. The Americans made their move too quickly. They arrived on Sussex Avenue when the building was only half completed. It was a real shambles. You would not be happy to do your work as MPs in the middle of workmen doing electrical work and other jobs.
• 1150
I'll try to give them a push to hurry up a bit and we'll see what
happens. In the meantime, I can assure you that we will have a meeting
to establish an occupation plan for this building.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Yvon Godin: I have a second question. I don't know whether you remember motion 300 presented by Pat Martin and myself. I will read it again:
This motion was adopted and I was simply wondering whether something was going to be implemented here in Ottawa.
Mr. Robert Marleau: We have not yet developed an action plan directly related to this motion adopted by the House. It applies specifically to the government. Of course, if a government action plan were issued for all departments, we would go along with it.
I can however tell you that the "Greening the Hill" program was renewed last year. As a matter a fact, it is mentioned in the Report on Plans and Priorities. This "Greening the Hill" program was aimed mainly at environmental issues relating to the recycling of paper and such things but there was also an energy audit relating to waste water on Parliament Hill. There are already a number of reports on the results of this program over the past four or five years.
The renewal of "Greening the Hill" is aimed at including in each of the action plans for the various units in the House of Commons the underlying principles of this program. In other words, the acquisition of supplies, the way in which they are used and the use of the various resources must be part of a strategic plan of each manager and each manager is expected to produce results.
As for the Sergeant-at-Arms and this motion, there is a need to have some control of certain elements and we do have this control. We do not have full control over the entire infrastructure of Parliament Hill since a large part is managed by Public Works but we have already undertaken negotiations with Public Works to influence the use of such elements.
We also proposed as an objective.... I will say it in English because it rhymes.
[English]
We have set a standard to conform to the ISO 14001 standards by 2001 for all managers at the House of Commons. We intend to help everyone design, operate, and audit management systems against the standards of IS0 14001, which is an international standard, so right across the organization we'll be reporting results against standards everyone has to meet. It is one of the prime priorities in the report on plans and priorities for 2000-2001 for House managers.
[Translation]
We have not forgotten the environment. That is what I am trying to tell you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Godin.
Mr. Knutson.
• 1155
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I have just a brief comment for the Speaker and his staff.
I think there's probably no more difficult a client base to try to serve than members of Parliament. Given the pressures we're under and our ability to complain—I speak for myself as much as anyone else—I just want to congratulate you on the high level of professionalism of your staff. In the six-plus years I've been here, the service I've received from the Speaker's office and all of the people who report up through the Speaker has just been first-rate. I want to commend you on that.
I don't have any difficulty with the 3% increase. I think it's quite reasonable. And the other numbers you've talked about, in terms of increased travel costs, are by and large out of your control. I know you're trying to manage some very difficult changes by being respectful of the institution and the people who work in here, and I want to commend you on that.
Having said that, I'd like to move adoption of the estimates.
The Chair: All right.
Mr. Knutson has moved that vote 5, under Parliament, less the amount voted in interim supply, be carried. That's moved by Mr. Knutson. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Jay Hill: Does this mean it's the end of questioning of the witnesses?
The Chair: Yes. If there's further questioning—
Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes.
The Chair: —we do have time.
Mr. Jay Hill: I indicated quite some time ago that if there were a second round, I wouldn't mind an additional question.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Gar Knutson: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't attempting to cut off questioning.
The Chair: No. Mr. Knutson has moved the motion, but I won't put it. We'll go to Mr. Hill and any other members.
You have five minutes, Mr. Hill.
Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure it will take five minutes.
I just want to raise a point of concern that has been raised in our caucus by a number of my colleagues in the Alliance on the computer upgrading. Mr. Godin referred to it very briefly in his comments.
I notice on page 16 of the report on plans and priorities there is the section on improving communications. A number of my colleagues indicated to me their displeasure at the fact that they had only recently upgraded their computers, at considerable expense to their members' operating budgets, only to find that the House moved quite expeditiously—and I'm sure it was welcome news by all of us—to upgrade two computers in each office to the Pentium III capability. In many cases they questioned the wisdom of spending this money, because they needed to have them improved, only to find out a few months later that the money had in effect been wasted. In came the government and basically took the computers and put in new ones, or upgraded the existing ones.
So I just raise that as a concern. Perhaps you have a comment. I'm sure it goes across party boundaries too. I'm sure other whips and House leaders have received similar complaints or concerns from members from all sides of the House.
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I think you are aware, as a member of the Board of Internal Economy, that we usually deal with matters as they are brought up to us. I believe the decision to go ahead and do everyone was discussed in that context. It shows in our minutes that we discussed it.
I think it was a good idea for some members to go ahead. When you need something, if you have the wherewithal and money, you go ahead and do it because it's a priority for you.
On the other hand, I am well aware that some of our members were caught in just the situation you described. In other words, they bought computers and then we improved them for everybody and they were—I hate to use the word—caught having to pay for what we were going to do for everyone right across the board.
It's one of those things, I guess, Jay. When you make a decision you make it in the best of faith, as all of the honourable members do. I don't know what the solution might be to that whole thing.
If you're suggesting—and I don't know this is what you're suggesting—that the people who did this should be reimbursed, you're going to run into other things. What would the cut-off be? If you had it three months before we made the decision, should you be reimbursed? If you made it six months....
• 1200
Mr. Jay Hill: I wasn't suggesting anything like that. I was merely raising it as a point, partly because I notice in the booklet this section on improving communication. If there's some way in the future that the board could communicate on an earlier basis to all members and bring it to their attention, hopefully they'll read their mail and be aware of it, and perhaps they would put off that type of expense knowing that it's coming within the next few months. If they still decided to go ahead and do it when they know it's going to probably be done within the next six months, for example, that would be their choice.
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Your point is well taken and it is noted. We try to make the decisions, as you know, as expeditiously as possible, but they do have to come to the board.
Maybe Bob has something to add to that.
Mr. Robert Marleau: I will verify, Mr. Hill, that there is a bulletin that is put out by our IT people to all members and staff on a regular basis. The latest one is the spring 2000 one that talks about the Desktop 2000 project that was approved by the board. It went out at the same time as the memo from the Speaker on April 4. I believe last fall's bulletin—but I don't have it with me so I can't say—had a short paragraph forecasting an upgrade project to Desktop 2000 in the new year. It may not have been as informative as it might have been, so I'll have a look at that in that context. But I think I will talk to the CIO and see if we can't develop even a page of this bulletin, which would be “Future Planned Upgrades”, always with the asterisk, “pending approval of the Board of Internal Economy”, of course, to try to give members a sense of where some of that is going. I realize that for some members who are à la fine pointe de la technologie they want to be upgraded as quickly as possible, but I think it's a question of communications, really, in a sense.
However, I must say there will be members who won't want to wait. We have some very capable staff in members' offices, and capable members as well, who really would like to be leaders in their own right.
Mr. Jay Hill: And have the latest technology.
Mr. Robert Marleau: That's right.
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: If you're wondering about the latest technology, I might mention one member of Parliament who is always pushing the envelope, in a good sense, and that's Reg Alcock. If you want to see what he's doing, in my view, it's excellent. I guess he's our cutting edge there. He is doing many things, and yes, at his own expense many times. But I think he's showing us what can be done for the members and by the members to serve their constituents better. I just add that on the end.
The Chair: Just a comment from the chair on that. It is always a challenge for the Speaker and the House administration to give us all the flexibility and operational support we need, which we're entitled to constitutionally and which we all should have, the freedom and flexibility to have and select, but at the same time to provide the benefits of a centralized administration. We can't have both—maybe we do have both operating in tandem, and so some members will demand the independence and flexibility to go their own way, whereas the House administration has an obligation to all of us to provide a collective approach to that. We're constantly looking for balance in that.
Mr. Godin had indicated another question. Was there anyone else who wished to...? No.
Mr. Godin, go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: I do not know whether my question is appropriate, but there was a problem which you might be aware of. I think that it involved Canada Post, but it does not matter. In rural areas, all postal codes and all addresses have been changed. That was the case in Caraquet, Paquetville and Petit-Rocher. Everything was changed. So, we lost our database.
Now, to find an export who could merge the Canada Post database with ours, we have to pay from our own budget. I do not know whether we could discuss this matter.
A member: This is the first time I hear of this.
• 1205
Mr. Yvon Godin: I had to pay. And again, the other day, I paid $1,200 or $1,400 to bring someone in to do the database.
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent, Speaker: We will study this matter. We will give you an answer as soon as possible, we will do it quickly.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. O'Brien.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to take advantage of pinch-hitting here to raise a concern that follows on my colleague's comment.
I've had a consistent problem with constituents living in high-rise apartments, certain high-rise apartments in my riding, not receiving my householders. Given the unfair perception we have I think as a society—some of us—that people in high-rise apartments don't want to participate in the political process.... I'm sure you've heard that. I've certainly heard that—tactics on where one campaigns and when and so on, whatever your party. I think it's absolutely unacceptable, for whatever reasons, and I have my suspicions—they may be political preferences of some of the people responsible for making sure these constituents have these householders available. I don't know. It's a consistent problem. We have tackled it individually, written to various superintendents of buildings, and written to the post office. I'm not the only member who's experiencing this. I don't know how to goodness we stop it, but I think it's extremely unfair to our constituents living in high-rise apartments that some of them are denied mail from their member of Parliament. It happens throughout the country, and I'd like to put it on the table as a concern I have that is shared by other members.
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Before you go into it, I've heard about your householders, and those people in those high-rises don't know what they're missing.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Very kind, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Again, this is like the point Yvon brought up. I hadn't heard about that before, but maybe my clerk has information on that.
Mr. Robert Marleau: It's not a new issue. We've had complaints from members before on this. It's a Canada Post issue and we have to raise it with them again. It's important for members to bring it to me or to the Sergeant-at-Arms any time you experience a specific incident like this.
I'll relate a very personal one. I live in a high-rise building, on the 21st floor, and I'm not involved in the political process, but for different reasons.... It's much more convenient for the postman to plunk Mr. Manley's—my MP—stack of householders on the counter where residents can take it and where, at the end of the day, if they're not taken, they're put in a garbage can by the superintendent. I've had to intervene myself with Canada Post and say these items require that they be put in each individual mailbox.
All I can offer is it's not an item we can control, but the Sergeant-at-Arms does follow up through our own postal services with Canada Post every time we get a specific complaint. There's a human factor here, and I can't impute motive, political or non-political. Sometimes it's just plain laziness on the part of individuals, but if you do so in a timely fashion as well, sometimes it's recoverable. It can be altered right away.
That's all I think I can offer on that point.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if it does any good to do a general letter. I certainly will contact, or my staff will, the clerk in every instance.
To finish my point and not belabour it, I had a town hall meeting recently. I had a constituent who had always received my householders in his former home and he said he'd seen nothing for two years because he had moved to a high-rise. I was very upset to hear that.
Mr. Robert Marleau: If it's helpful, our Sergeant-at-Arms is feared across the country. We could equip you with a standard memorandum that you could hand to superintendents from time to time that just says....
Mr. Jay Hill: That's only a problem Liberals have with their householders being confused with junk mail.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Pat O'Brien: I want to bet you on how your candidate does against me in most polls next time.
The Chair: I was afraid the clerk was going to offer to have the Sergeant-at-Arms accompany Canada Post, along with the mace.
• 1210
Have colleagues completed their questions? That's fine. All right,
that being the case, I'll put Mr. Knutson's motion, as I read it
earlier.
PARLIAMENT
(Vote 5 agreed to)
The Chair: There's one other item of business. It's relatively important.
Mr. Speaker, I should say thank you, of course, to Mr. Marleau, Mr. Cloutier, and Ms. O'Brien. And you may leave now. Thank you.
This is an important question, colleagues. I wish to address the matter of the report that was prepared for introduction into the House on the two standing order items. We are at liberty to go in camera if you wish. I wish to make a strong statement. Some of you might wish us to be in camera. If there is not a desire to go in camera, we can remain in public session. That's okay with me.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): I prefer in camera.
The Chair: All right. Is it the wish of members to go in camera for this purpose?
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No.
The Chair: All right. The chair's somewhat ambivalent about whether or not we should go in camera, but if there is not a strong consensus to go in camera, we won't.
It is not on the agenda, but I wish to point out that this morning the clerk of this committee provided me with the final copy of our 30th report. That is the report we just completed on the two standing order changes.
It was not until this morning that I had an opportunity to read the dissenting report. You'll recall that two of the opposition parties wished to provide and to append dissenting reports. I perused them just prior to my intention of tabling, and I was disappointed in the content of those minority reports. It's not my job at all to censor them. However, given the purpose of our report—that is, to bring about a change in the Standing Orders; given the content of one of the minority reports; given a clear indication in those minority reports that there was an intention to not support the change; given that this committee has always operated with strong consensus in making changes to the Standing Orders; given that there is obviously not such a strong consensus; and, let me read the words, given that one of the minority reports indicates that the 30th report “represents an unprecedented attack on parliamentary democracy and amounts to a hijacking of parliamentary democracy”, it would not be in the spirit of either the House or the traditions of this committee to introduce to the House that kind of a report.
I'm personally very disappointed that we have gone through a process and having got to the end of it have found the process is not viable. This may indicate that the current process of looking at the Standing Orders may itself be non-viable. So I'm going to take that issue under advisement, the general one.
Subject to further instructions from committee members—I am, of course, your servant—I would not be promptly tabling the 30th report. The committee has adopted an order that requires it to be tabled, but it has not indicated when. I believe that the content of the report as it's now drafted is disrespectful to the committee and to members who participated in the process. I encourage all members to read the full report, the minority reports, and to speak with me. Feel free to take it up at a future meeting.
Now, if there's any comment around the table, I've had my few minutes.
Mr. Jay Hill: Can we have copies distributed?
The Chair: Sure. I've had my own few minutes. If there are members who wish to speak to it, I'll hear them, but it's probably something we could take up among ourselves around the House. If there are any comments that members feel should be made now, I'll certainly recognize them.
Mr. Knutson.
• 1215
Mr. Gar Knutson: I haven't read the report, and I don't want to comment on the substance of anything you've said. I have a sense, though, that it might be helpful if the opposition knew that you're speaking as the chair; you're not speaking for the Liberals or.... This is your.... I don't want to undermine anything you've said; that's not my intent. I haven't read the report, so I can't comment. I don't know if anybody on the government side has read the report.
Our concern is that we get the changes to the rules without taking up additional House time. We'll have to consult and get back to you on what this side thinks.
The Chair: I always stand prepared to do what the committee wants. I just believe that in this particular case the committee may not fully grasp the content of the final report. For that reason, I would like members to read it and get back to me.
Mr. Hill.
Mr. Jay Hill: I'm more than willing to read the entire report and the dissenting reports.
I guess my concern, Mr. Chairman, is that as I understand the process we just went through, the committee directed you to table that report. I thought we had a commitment that you would do that today. In effect, in some way, whether I agree or disagree with the comments you've just made in reference to one of the dissenting reports, I don't believe—and I can be corrected, obviously, as I'm relatively new to this place—I don't believe that's within your purview to basically attempt to censor a dissenting report.
I may not agree with that report, but it's a dissenting report. If what you're suggesting to me is that any time one of the opposition parties is willing to put forward a dissenting point of view and attach it to a report from any committee, the chairman of that committee has the wherewithal to just say he's not going to table it because he doesn't like what it says and he believes it's an insult to the committee....
You're welcome to your opinion. There's no doubt about that, Mr. Chairman, as we all are as individual members of Parliament. But it was my understanding—and as I say, I can be corrected if I'm wrong—that you were going to table that report and that the commitment was made and the direction was received from the committee. I think everyone who was present will remember that I and my colleague Chuck Strahl, even though we didn't believe that the final report was what we would have liked to have seen, supported it, because it's better than the status quo and it's a short-term thing between now and the end of the calendar year. We said it's better than nothing, so let's go forward with it. We supported it for that reason—not that we didn't believe it couldn't be improved upon. That's why we decided to put in our dissenting report on that basis. But I still support the report and support it going ahead. I think it should have been tabled today.
The Chair: I don't disagree with much of what you've said, Mr. Hill. It's clear that the committee wanted the report tabled. But it is also clear that the committee members have not seen the final copy of the report. In my view, the final report derogates so much from the intent you've expressed that it would be not just pointless to introduce it at this point, but.... Well, I've made my view clear.
However, if having read the report members are of the view that it should be tabled anyway for whatever reasons they have, I'm certainly going to do that. I'm still obligated to table it anyway. Even though they haven't read it, committee members had made the decision to introduce it, and that would be normal practice in any event. I'm essentially allowing colleagues an opportunity to read the whole thing.
Ms. Catterall.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): While this has been distributed to us, it hasn't been tabled in the House yet, so I assume it's still a confidential document, although it is not marked as such. I ask that we all treat it that way.
• 1220
The Chair: If I could just correct you, in the process of developing this report, it was the view of the members that we not be in camera, and it was done openly.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Perfect. Thank you.
The Chair: Normally the staff treat it as confidential. I'm not too sure where it stands technically.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: We developed it and wrote it in public, so it is a public document. I agree with the action you've taken. I think our process through all of this was to try to come up with something we all could live with, not something that from my point of view is a perfect solution or from the opposition's point of view is a perfect solution.
I think that when the committee finalized its report and directed you to table it, it obviously wasn't aware that there would a minority report or what the content would be. Therefore, I think it's only fair that the committee have an opportunity to read it and to consider whether that changes its views on the report it wishes to have presented in the House. I would ask for at least the courtesy of having the chance to read this and to see if there's some other action the committee wants to take. This is a new development. It wasn't on the table when we finalized the report and gave you the instruction to table it, so I think it's only fair that we all have an opportunity to consider that.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Robertson reminds me that the minority reports have not been made public because they were not generated at committee.
Mr. Bergeron.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I cannot comment on the dissident opinion of the Canadian Alliance because I have not yet had an opportunity to read it. Therefore, I cannot judge to what extent the statements you just made concern their dissident opinion or ours.
However, regarding ours, let me say that I have some difficulty with accepting the comments you made, namely that this shows a lack of respect for the committee and the committee members. In no way did we want to draft our dissident opinion in a way that would be disrespectful to the committee or its members. Let me explain, Mr. Chairman.
We took great care to divide our dissident opinion into two parts. The first part deals with vote applications and the second with time allotment motions. We expressed our thoughts and our dissident opinions on the report where it concerns time allotment.
Regarding both applications, Mr. Chairman, we were clear right from the start. We never swerved from this point of view, and that is why we stated our position for the record at the time of the vote. We are totally against what the government is trying to do with motion M-9. We have always been against this, we still are and we always will be because we consider that this is an attack against the role of parliamentarians.
We stated this yesterday, during the seminar organized by the Parliamentary Centre. While the Parliamentary Centre was organizing a seminar intended to enhance the roles of parliamentarians, the government was showing its will to trivialize the role of parliamentarians even further. It is in this respect, Mr. Chairman, that we said that this report containing motion M-9 was an unprecedented attack. I first said motion M-8. That was a slip of the tongue due to recent bad memories.
Lets come back to motion M-9. The report containing motion M-9 constitutes an unprecedented attack against parliamentary democracy. It seeks to limit parliamentarians' self-expression and to oblige them to express themselves through the voice of their whip. I am a whip myself, I am convinced that parliamentarians are happy with their whip, but despite that, the free expression of parliamentarians is being repressed.
This is a concern that I raised from the outset. I even had the opportunity to raise it in private with Mr. Knutson when we discussed the reform of the Standing Orders. I told him that we were ready to negotiate so as to establish a serene working environment in this committee, a serene environment that you insisted upon and because of which this dissident report seems to surprise so greatly. We tried to cause as little damage as possible with our report, but it will do some damage nonetheless. Therefore, in any case, we will vote against this report.
• 1225
Your party knew very well that we were going to vote against the
report, that we were going to table a dissident opinion and that we
were against what you were about to do. There is no surprise there,
Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: I accept that you're surprised, and I apologize, because it's not my intention to offend any member or any party.
Since we know we're talking here about your party's minority report, if it is your party's view that what members around this table have done constitutes an unprecedented attack on parliamentary democracy, I presume it is the view of your party that you will not be supporting the changes in the House. If that is the case, then we do not have sufficient consensus to proceed in the House. Since this committee by its very nature is very connected to the House, it would be pointless to proceed to recommend to members a change in the rules that did not have reasonable or substantial consensus.
As a result, aside from your view of the nature of the recommendations, procedurally it would simply not be useful to carry on any further and to in a sense waste the time of members of the committee, of your own party, of the table officers, and of the Order Paper in raising expectations that we might have some useful changes to the Standing Orders. As I read the minority report in question, there is no intention of support.
It calls into question the integrity that members applied to the process. We all realize that there are differences around the table a lot of the time. But we're here working for all of our colleagues in the House.
It is apparent to me as chair that the report as now constituted just doesn't have enough consensus to warrant proceeding. I think all members should read it and share their views with each other. Clearly, it's something the House leaders and whips can do informally, as they normally do. Maybe we will have a resolution. But right now I'm suggesting to members that we pause and, with the utmost in mutual respect, share views that might lead to getting us to a light at the end of the tunnel.
Thank you for sharing your views, and thank you for letting me express mine at great length.
If there are any other necessary comments, I'll recognize the member. Otherwise, we can adjourn. Okay. That's great. Thank you, colleagues.
We'll adjourn until Tuesday at 11 a.m.