HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 15, 2001

• 1104

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I'll call the meeting to order, colleagues.

We have a quorum for a meeting. We especially want to welcome Monsieur Godin.

• 1105

Colleagues, today we're reviewing the estimates referred to us from the House. We're delighted to have with us the Speaker, the Clerk of the House, and the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Welcome, all of you. We're delighted to have you here at the committee

Mr. Speaker, I understand you have some opening remarks.

The Honourable Peter Milliken (Speaker of the House of Commons): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I must say what a pleasure it is to appear before this committee. I enjoyed sitting on it for many years, before I become a chair occupant and had to get off.

As you mentioned, I'm pleased to have with me the Clerk of the House, Mr. Corbett; and the Sergeant-at-Arms, Major-General Gus Cloutier. I also have with me the deputy clerk, Audrey O'Brien; and Luc Desroches, the director general of corporate resources of the House. They may assist me in answering some of your more technical questions about these estimates, as I don't pretend to be a financial expert.

[Translation]

First and foremost, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present the Main Estimates for the year 2001-2002 to my colleagues today. This is the first time that I have had the occasion to outline the predicted expenditures of the House Administration to you, and I believe that the upcoming year is a very promising one for Members.

[English]

This year's main estimates have been set at $274,926,833. These main estimates fulfil the administrative goals of the House of Commons, while keeping in mind its ultimate responsibility toward the Canadian taxpayer.

Throughout the next fiscal year, the House of Commons will be implementing a number of worthwhile initiatives that balance the House's determination to remain dynamic and innovative with its need to maintain a careful planning strategy for its administrative services.

[Translation]

The upcoming projects outlined in the Main Estimates are as varied as the activities that take place on Parliament Hill. The 2001-2002 fiscal year will include the official opening of the Justice Building, the implementation of PRISM, an aggressive succession strategy and much more.

The renovation of the Justice Building is a long-term project that will offer new facilities for 85 Members during the course of the 37^th Parliament. The Justice Building, which has been under renovation for the past six years, will be ready for occupancy by Members this summer. While the renovation have taken a long time, the impressive technological infrastructure and modern design that were incorporated into the edifice were well worth the wait. The Justice Building is the first building within the Parliamentary Precinct to integrate cutting edge security systems and information technology.

[English]

Another interesting project is PRISM, a program designed to renew the technological infrastructure, operational environment, and services framework for the publishing and archival activities of the House of Commons and its committees, integrating nine technical environments into one central system. This initiative will help to simplify the extremely daunting task members face when attempting to extract relevant information from a vast amount of data.

As a result of a high number of retiring employees, the House of Commons will be making a substantial investment in recruiting and retaining highly qualified and professional staff. There is already a new team of procedural clerks in place to advise members on procedural questions. As well, in the next five years the House will be staffing 17 procedural clerk positions to meet the needs of members and of the House administration.

[Translation]

The Main Estimates provide a detailed look into the financial planning of the House of Commons. The above are but a few of the initiatives brought forward to support the Members in their day-to-day responsibilities.

I urge all Members to study the Main Estimates to familiarize themselves with the initiatives to be undertaken in the next fiscal year. The months ahead promise to be both challenging and promising, and I am confident that the House of Commons will meet and surpass its goals for 2001-2002.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Colleagues, we'll now go to questions. We'll have seven-minute rounds, give or take.

• 1110

Monsieur Godin, did you wish to begin?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Yes, I'd be happy to begin.

In your presentation, Mr. Speaker, you spoke of the Justice Building that MPs will be moving into in mid-June.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Or so we assume.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Is this just an assumption? No. We need to be optimistic. The weather is beautiful outside. Let's be optimistic. Everything is great.

Parliament may want all MPs to be on one side of the street, but I know there is currently a problem with asbestos. That's one of the main issues. What plan do you have with respect to employees working for the Government who would have to stay where they are. When you see a sign at the entrance to a building that says: 'Do not open this door because of asbestos', then you obviously have a problem. What do you plan to do in future about the Wellington Building?

Speaker Peter Milliken: I am aware of the fact that a protocol is currently in place to protect employees working in buildings where there are problems, and particularly the Wellington Building, which is experiencing the minor problem you referred to. That protocol is now in place. Whenever work has to be carried out, the terms of that protocol are always followed. We believe that it will fully protect all employees working in the building.

Perhaps the Sergeant-at-Arms could add something.

Major-General G. Cloutier (Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons): If we do make renovations after moving into the Justice Building, that protocol will still be in place, as the Speaker has pointed out. At the present time, under Public Works scenario 1, which I believe was presented here last week by the Minister of Public Works, there are plans to renovate the Wellington Building in 4 years, starting in 2005. So, when the time comes, all the people currently in the Wellington Building, the entire administration, will have to be moved elsewhere, to another building.

In answer to your first question, I am able to confirm that we are ready to move. In fact, the security people are already in place at the Justice Building. We plan to begin the move on June 18. We have already met with the whips of all the parties. We all got together to discuss it. I already have the information with respect to the number of rooms allocated to you. So, we will be ready, barring any serious unforeseen incident. I see Mr. Bergeron smiling. We have run into a number of problems over the last 8 or 9 months, but I don't expect there to be anymore. The situation seems to be well in hand now. So, we will be in there by the summer.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There is a rumour going around that the main door of the Justice Building will not be open. That means that visitors coming to see us will not be able to use that wonderful entrance to the building. It's like inviting somebody over and asking them to come in through the back door.

MGen G. Cloutier: Mr. Chairman, that rumour started, if I'm not mistaken, while the work was underway and is still circulating nowadays, when only administrative staff are in the building. As soon as MPs have moved into the building, by June 15, 18 or 22, the two main doors will be open. Also, security staff will be in place there, at both doors. Right now, only the north entrance is being used because we don't want to put security staff at both entrances and have to pay them for all three shifts, just so that the building can be accessible from all sides.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Well, so much for the rumour that the door will remain closed even once MPs have moved in.

MGen G. Cloutier: No, the door will not be closed.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You are telling me it will not be closed.

MGen G. Cloutier: No, absolutely not.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It will be open. That clarifies matters. I will pass now, so that others have a chance. I will have other questions later.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Monsieur Bergeron, then Mr. Jordan.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I first want to convey my greetings to the Speaker of the House, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Clerk and the senior staff of the House of Commons, and thank them for being with us today. I also want to take this opportunity, before going any further, to thank the staff of the House of Commons and commend them for the excellent work they carry out on behalf of all parliamentarians and, ultimately, the people we represent across Canada and Quebec.

• 1115

Earlier, the Sergeant-at-Arms referred to problems that have been occurring over the last 9 months. The least one could say is that this will have been a rather difficult birth. Let's just hope that the baby actually comes to term, in mid-June—something we may still have reason to doubt.

I would like to come back to a specific matter. The Sergeant- at-Arms was present during our review of the estimates last year, the previous year and the year before that. I come back to this every year. We often talk about potential decisions that could have a positive impact, in both budgetary and operational terms.

We are all aware that in the wake of the Gagliano Plan and the efforts made by the House of Commons to bring spending down and use public funds more wisely, a number of decisions were made in the past. However, there are still a number of things on the Hill that I see as anachronisms and which are causing some problems.

I would again raise the matter of two sets of security staff on the Hill. This really does cause problems. For example, when we go over to the other side, often security guards there don't know us—or at least, not very well—and stop us. I don't know weather the reverse is also true. I'm certain that security guards working on the House of Commons side are more observant and are able to recognize senators. However, it would probably be a lot more effective to have a single security service, thereby creating potential economies of scale.

Of course, there's the matter of security, but there are also other areas we have talked about in the past. So, I will put the same question I do every year to the Speaker of the House: what is the status of that particular file?

Speaker Peter Milliken: Mr. Bergeron, that is an excellent question.

Following my election to the position of Speaker, my first meeting with the Speaker of the Senate dealt primarily with that specific matter. I asked the Speaker of the Senate whether we could do something to create a more...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: 'Integrated', I guess.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Yes, that's right—an integrated security system, particularly on Parliament Hill. He is very interested in the idea. He is currently discussing this at the Committee level—although I'm not sure which Committees—on the Senate side. I will continue to work with him to try and find solution to the problem.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We also talked about printing services. Did anything come of that or is this also still under negotiation?

Mr. William Corbett (Clerk of the House of Commons): With respect to the printing service, I don't think so. We still have two separate services.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So, for the time being, they are still separate.

Mr. William Corbett: As regards the informatics infrastructure, the House of Commons, through Mr. Louis Bard's department, provides integrated services on the Hill. This is a kind of sub-contract for the Senate and the Library of Parliament.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Of course, as far as the other House is concerned, I could certainly make recommendations that would result in significant savings for Canadians, but that is not the object of our discussion today.

An honorable member: Including abolition...

Speaker Peter Milliken: Yes, that's right.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jordan and then Mr. Saada.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Speaker, you started off by minimizing your fiscal abilities, but in a former life you were the treasurer of the eastern Ontario caucus, and I must say that your fiscal stewardship of that organization—

Speaker Peter Milliken: We never spent a cent.

Mr. Joe Jordan: That $160 was well taken care of.

• 1120

Mr. Speaker, the estimates are prepared based on a number of assumptions, one of which is that we have five parties in the House. In light of the events of the last couple of weeks, there is a potential for a sixth party to be formed. So I wonder if you could just go over that process. There seems to be a lot of fuss in the media about the fact that if they get 12 seats, they automatically get research moneys. I want to know whether that is the case or not.

In terms of the impact on the estimates, does that research money and any other expense associated with a new party come at the expense of the Alliance's research budget? It started off as a pro-rated process. I think they're going to have a whip, and there has to be an increased salary associated with that. Perhaps you could talk a little about the process and what the potential impact on the estimates might be if in fact a breakaway group of 12 proposed to start a new party.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Well, it's a very hypothetical question, Mr. Jordan, as you know. I'd be reluctant to speculate on anything that might happen in the future.

Of course the potential for new parties is always there. We've witnessed that in the course of the years I've been here. You came here in 1997, but your father remembers other parties having been formed in his time. That can happen.

Achieving recognition will be a matter for possible discussion, should it arise. Of course there might be a ruling on it, so I wouldn't want to predetermine what factors I might take into consideration in making a decision.

However, it's fair to say that if a new party were formed, there is a question of research moneys. That's a pot, a fixed amount that's divided between the parties in the House—usually by agreement among the House leaders and the party whips. I understand they sit down and negotiate, but I'm not privy to those discussions. Then there's a ratification process by the Board of Internal Economy.

So I guess the pot would be redivided. Whether it would all come from one group or from contributions by a number of groups is really a matter for the House leaders and whips to decide—since they constitute a persuasive majority of the board, I must say. In my experience, if they all agree on something, it's unusual for the board not to go along with their recommendations and suggestions. I suppose it's possible, but I'd certainly be a reluctant chair of such a meeting.

Then we have the question of additional salaries for party leaders, whips, and House leaders. That would be an extra cost to the House, and I guess we would submit supplementary estimates for any such expenditures that arise. As well, of course, there would then be the question of accommodating the additional space for the researchers within the precinct. We all know there can be difficulties in allocating offices among parties and leaders of parties, but I wouldn't want to speculate on that.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you. That was very helpful.

The Chair: I have a couple of quick questions, if there aren't any here.

Apparently the statute law has taken us into another redistribution, and with some increase in population one would anticipate having more members of Parliament in the House. Have you or the clerk scoped out the House capacity? Can we hold a few more members? If we don't put a constitutional cap on the numbers, they will continue to grow.

Speaker Peter Milliken: We're told we can accommodate a few more. I don't think it's a big issue.

The Chair: Okay.

Colleagues, the Speaker has corresponded with the committee about redefining the legal definition of parliamentary precincts. For the public record, I just want to clarify who's doing the drafting, and who will be introducing the bill. Would it be a government bill, or some other...? I assume it involves an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act.

• 1125

Speaker Peter Milliken: The lawyers for the House of Commons are drafting right now. They're working on that problem. After approval by the Privy Council Office and so on, I suspect the government House leader is the one who would normally introduce this kind of bill.

The Chair: So procedurally, it would be a government bill rather than one generated by the House itself?

Speaker Peter Milliken: That has been the past practice.

The Chair: We have a full team here now.

I'll go to Mr. Saada, because he was next on the list.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I want to apologize for arriving late. As a whip, my duties sometimes prevent me from doing exactly what I like.

I have two questions.

First of all, if we move into the Justice Building, will that result in a longer bus route? If so, are we talking about increasing the number of buses or simply lengthening the route?

MGen G. Cloutier: Well, there is no doubt that the distance between Parliament Hill and the Justice Building is greater. What route will the buses follow? Well, they will go around the small white building next to the Justice Building, turn there and stop at the north entrance to the building, before turning around and coming back here.

For example, the bus that currently travels on Wellington Street will no longer do so. That will be discontinued. Those buses are for MPs. That's why this Committee set up the bus system. Members will take that bus and it will follow a different route.

Mr. Jacques Saada: So, the longer route will be offset by an extra bus.

MGen G. Cloutier: Yes, exactly.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Good. Now, dos the fact that MPs will no longer be housed in the building on Wellington, across the street, mean that we will no longer need security people over there, or will we need even more security staff, given that we will now have an additional building?

MGen G. Cloutier: We have additional security staff. There are 41 additional guards at the Justice Building. No, I'm sorry. We have a total of 41 staff, 21 of whom are security staff. At the Justice Building, security staff work three separate shifts.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Parrish, and Monsieur Godin.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I didn't really have a question, actually. But very rarely do we have such an illustrious gathering at this table, so I would like to pass on my compliments. We have a very large staff serving us on the Hill: legal services, bus drivers, guards, couriers, and so on. In my eight years here, I have yet to find one who's surly, tired, or cranky. Even in the middle of negotiations with your union, they've always been excellent.

I remember coming into the House at 11:30 one night, and one of the guards flipped on all the lights and took me and my guest up to the Peace Tower. I have never seen anything so spectacular in my life as the view from the Peace Tower at night. He was so accommodating—but unfortunately I didn't get his name.

So I just want you to know that the fleet of human beings you're in charge of here is absolutely incredible. They are just the finest people, good representatives. And whatever you're paying them, it's not enough.

The Chair: That's a tough question, right there.

Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions, the first of which relates to services for members.

What is being done now to ensure that we have access to the same services in our riding as we do in Ottawa? For example, here in Ottawa, we use the Intraparl program, but when we're in our riding, we have to use Extraparl through GENet and we're having a lot a problems with it. It is proving impossible to integrate programs and information.

What can be done to improve the technology, so that we have access to the same services in our ridings and on the Hill?

• 1130

Speaker Peter Milliken: Mr. Godin, the same thing happened to me in my own riding office, so I am well aware of the problem that you have described. At the present time, the House of Commons is using GENet, a Government service. Because of the security problems, inherent in that system, in order to protect the security of MPs computer systems here on Parliament Hill, we have to put in place what are called fire walls.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, I know what you're talking about.

Speaker Peter Milliken: They are responsible for the interface problems MPs are experiencing with their riding office computer systems. The fact is that these services are quite different and are not well integrated.

We are still trying to integrate the two systems and find some way of achieving the desired result, without compromising our fire walls. We will continue our efforts in that regard. I believe there have been some improvements over the last three years, but things are not perfect yet. I am certainly aware of your concerns, and we will continue our efforts to improve the system.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I just want to make one comment. When people working for GM or the Royal Bank are working from their terminal in Halifax, it's as though they were in Toronto and Vancouver. On Parliament Hill, however, we seem incapable of achieving this. Surely there is some way of insuring that we all have access to the same system from each of our individual offices.

Mr. Jordan has already raised what was going to be my second question. It is an interesting situation. I believe it has only happened once before—with the Bloc Québécois—that a political party was created between elections, but during that period between elections, the party was not able to be officially recognized, with seats for the leader, the whip, 12 members, and so on.

In that regard, there is one decision that you or someone else will eventually have to make: does such a group automatically become a new party? That is something that we will have to give some thought to. I think it's important that I make these comments, Mr. Chairman. When someone is elected, it is on the basis of a political platform. A member of Parliament runs on his party's platform. When he leaves that party, he may choose to join another party, become an independent member or go back home. You might end up with a party that has not been elected on any political platform that was presented to Canadians. We should think twice before allowing such a thing.

Secondly, that would mean that when the party in power has a majority of 15, for example, those 15 people could force the Government to do their bidding. Those 15 people might end up running the country. They could say: 'Either do exactly what we say, or we're going to make sure you become a minority government. And of top of that, we will have the resources we need to fight you, because we will be a party officially recognized by the House.'

Those are the comments I wanted to make. I think we need to give this matter some thought because a decision will have to be made. I believe I'm right when I say that you have not yet made any decision. What would happen if there were 12 or more members? Those are things we have to start thinking about.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Yes, I appreciate that.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Saada has a short follow-up to the issue raised by Mr. Godin, if that's all right.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I think Mr. Godin has raised a very important point. Of course, it is a little difficult to talk about this under the current circumstances, but I think that it's an important point. The primary responsibility for recognizing the existence of a party rests with the citizens. I don't think the House has any right to act before the people have spoken.

• 1135

Speaker Peter Milliken: As I pointed out in my answer to Mr. Jordan, there will surely be some discussion of this if such a problem arises through the creation of a new group. At this time, no such group exists.

[English]

so the question is entirely hypothetical. But I appreciate the comment.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Gallant, would you like to take a round now?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Sure.

Mr. Cloutier, a veteran in my riding gave his medal from the Gulf War to his member of Parliament in the last session. He gave it to the member to forward to the Minister of Defence as a protest against the way the people were being treated in the Gulf War.

After this election, and in lieu of the way the veterans are now being treated, he has requested that his medal be returned, and now the member, who is now working in the PMO, refuses to take any action. In fact, since the election, all the files in the constituency office have disappeared.

Is there any way we can get this veteran his medal back?

MGen G. Cloutier: I'm sure it's a very real—

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): On a point of order, as chief government whip, I will be happy to take this up with the PMO. I don't think it has anything to do with the responsibility of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

The Chair: It certainly doesn't involve a sitting member. In any event, this might not be the best forum. I'm sure the Sergeant-at-Arms wouldn't have an immediate solution at hand.

It doesn't have a whole lot to do with the estimates, but the question has been noted by the chief government whip.

Mr. Saada, on a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

When we are sitting at this table, it seems to me that common courtesy requires that someone who is being attacked be given an opportunity to defend himself in the same forum.

Making gratuitous accusations against someone who is not present is something I consider to be unacceptable and a breach of common courtesy.

[English]

The Chair: All right, well, there may be further discussions about that outside the confines of this meeting, and hopefully there will be a resolution. I'm sure there will be.

Do you have another question, Ms. Gallant?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Would the witnesses briefly summarize the procurement policy for the proposed improvements that are outlined in here. Is that a question that should be posed?

The Chair: Is this the major Parliament Hill renovation project?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: No, it's the interesting project PRISM. Is this infrastructure?

MGen G. Cloutier: Yes.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Yes.

Mr. William Corbett: Yes.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: So would there actually be a policy, or will they be choosing the contractors from the list of the Minister of Public Works' campaign contributors?

Speaker Peter Milliken: The clerk will answer this question.

Mr. William Corbett: PRISM is an informatics infrastructure project to bring up to date the software that allows the publishing of Hansard, the journals, and the Order Paper and Notice Paper of the House. This is a project that was put together by House staff.

Yes, indeed, there have been software integrators who have been hired, but under the usual terms and conditions of our tendering policies, I'm certain. The deputy clerk, Audrey O'Brien, is more familiar with the project and can give you further details if you wish.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien (Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Clerk, Mr. Chairman, and Ms. Gallant.

One of the interesting things about PRISM is that its breadth and the vision it represents required an actual consortium of different companies to come together in order to be able to bid on the project as a whole.

• 1140

The project was tendered in the usual manner through the Department of Public Works system on the Internet, on the national system. There were not only the tenders invited in this invitation to tender, but there were also individual invitations that were sent to information technology companies that had already expressed interest and with which we at the House had already been dealing.

What has happened, then, is that people have put forward submissions for the different aspects of the project, different contracts have been let, and there have been standing offers that have been created for particular projects. This is the same way that would be used if one were constructing a very large building, where there would be all kinds of individual suppliers for different portions, such as the plumbing, the electrical, and the air conditioning. It's the same kind of process that goes on with the consultants we've hired on this. There isn't just one big contract that is let for the whole thing, but in fact there are individual contracts that are let for individual portions of the project as the work continues.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you.

The Chair: Okay.

We'll have Mr. Regan and then Ms. Catterall.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, we've been hearing over the past number of months, especially earlier this year, quite a few explanations or stories and rumours about the renovations at the Justice Building, and I haven't really gotten a full explanation of what caused the delays. I heard we were going to be in there in January or February, and in fact it didn't happen. One story I heard was that it was supposed to be wired for card access, and that didn't happen; therefore, everything had to be redone or rewired.

It concerns me, because sometimes people get the impression that whenever government oversees a contract there seem to be problems. There are delays, and there are things done wrong. You get anxious to know whether this is costing us more money, how much delay this costs, what error there is, and what accountability there is. Obviously this session today is all about accountability, so I'd like you to explain to us what happened.

Speaker Peter Milliken: I won't go into detail. I'll perhaps let the Sergeant-at-Arms give you more information on that score. But it's safe to say that the completion of the building was the responsibility of the Department of Public Works. The House of Commons simply takes it over at a certain point when it's finished. As Mr. Bergeron smilingly knows, there have been some difficulties because of broken pipes, water gushing where it shouldn't and causing difficulties, and there having to be more repairs in areas that had previously been fixed. The Sergeant-at-Arms will perhaps want to go into some of those difficulties. That has delayed the building being turned over to the House of Commons on a couple of occasions. However, that delay has not cost the House additional expense. The estimates we've submitted are for furnishing and equipping the building and for additional costs of maintenance and security, basically. Those only started once we took the building over, which happened, I believe, on April 24.

MGen G. Cloutier: It hasn't been taken over.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Oh, we haven't taken it over yet, but we're on the verge of doing so. A lot of the furniture is already in there, so that has happened in some cases. The Sergeant-at-Arms perhaps can explain other reasons for the delay, but the expense for the House has been not significantly increased as a result. The expense has been borne by the Department of Public Works, who are the contractors, the people looking after getting the building ready for us.

MGen G. Cloutier: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Basically, we were supposed to take over the building on July 1 last year. At that time I did a final inspection, and to my dismay I found that we had asbestos in some areas of the building. I had been informed that there was no asbestos, and that if any had been found the contractor had a mandate to clean it out. A survey was done to establish where the asbestos was and to rectify the situation—to take the asbestos out, in other words—or to at least give me very accurate information as to the precise location of the asbestos. That took a while.

Once this was completed, in the process of inspecting the building before taking it over I also discovered that the sound security did not meet the standard we had set out. We had specified a coefficient of sound security of 52, which is your normal security coefficient for commercial buildings to ensure the people next door won't hear. What happened was that we were standing in one room and while I was talking to someone I could hear what was going on in the next suite just the way you hear me talking to you today. For that we took the Public Works engineer to task.

• 1145

They tried to resolve it in many ways, by adding more gyproc and that type of thing. It didn't work, so I called in the RCMP security experts. We finally realized that we needed more help, so we went to NRC and brought in the scientists. They determined after a while that, yes, there was a solution, but we would have to redo 47 walls. That took time, and it brought us to mid-December.

At that time we stated that we were not fully confident in the heating system of the building—it's an old building—and we thought it perhaps ought to be looked at a bit more closely. It wasn't enough to just say it's hot water; hot water, as you know, can be at 212 degrees when it comes to your rads. Sure enough, it was the third week of December when I found that we had about twelve radiators leaking. I brought this up with the authorities, and they said they could repair them. So they went at it and repaired them.

We came back in January after the recess and we had two major floods. One was really major, where the pipe just burst. As they put the pressure up in the hot water system, the link at the rad blew, and we had a major flood that took four suites out—six, five, four, and three; or five, four, three, and two. This happened twice. Now they've been replaced, yet we had been told that the valves had been replaced. There are 550 values in that building, and yes, they were right, they had been replaced. I don't blame Public Works at all for that; it was a manufacturer's defect. They replaced the 550 valves again in February.

We had a slight problem about three or four weeks ago. They're very proud now—that contractor, that is—of being able to state that the heating system is all right, but at some point somebody left a valve open on one of the rads. When they put the pressure on, needless to say, we had another leak. However, this is all resolved now.

Members of the board who are here today know how frustrated I became at one stage. I have not yet taken over the building, but I anticipate that I will do this as we bring in the members in June.

Right at this moment I'm satisfied, although we still have a few problems with furniture. They've purchased the furniture from three different firms, and sometimes when you try to match the colour of the veneer from one firm's product to another's, it might not be an exact, 100% match. There are minor things like this, but I can guarantee you that in June we're moving in.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Perfect.

I just want to say that I'm sorry I wasn't asking the right department the question, but I do appreciate the response. I think members would certainly appreciate, Mr. Cloutier, your diligence and tenacity in following this project through. Thank you.

MGen G. Cloutier: I need to write a book on it.

The Chair: Before going to Ms. Catterall, I just wanted to say something like “a justice building delayed is a justice building denied”.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It's cheaper to move in the summer than in the winter.

The Chair: That's two out of ten, okay.

We'll have Ms. Catterall, and then Mr. Saada and Monsieur Bergeron.

• 1150

Ms. Marlene Catterall: After having reheard that recitation, I hope the House is demanding a certification from Public Works before it assumes the building, and in case that certification is not accurate, that we will be able to have Public Works go back to the contractor to correct any deficiencies.

This committee—as a bit by way of early warning—has spent numerous meetings discussing increasing the televising of committee proceedings at the House, and at the conclusion of our last discussion and report to Parliament we raised the issue of how quickly we could double our current capacity by simply using the equipment that's already available and having it permanently set up in another committee room, probably the Reading Room. Is there sufficient money in your budget to provide for that if the committee should decide to recommend to Parliament that we proceed?

Speaker Peter Milliken: The answer is no.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: What would we have to cancel to make sure we could?

Speaker Peter Milliken: I'm sure we'd just come back with a supplementary estimate for you, unless you want to cut some other service somewhere else. But you could let us know.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I trust that answer means you'll find a way of accommodating the wishes of Parliament. Is that what it means?

Speaker Peter Milliken: Naturally. The Board of Internal Economy is very responsive to the wishes of members. I know that, and I'm sure you, Ms. Catterall, as a member, are particularly aware of it. I'm sure the board will work diligently to ensure that the additional funds were found either through a supplementary estimate, which I consider most likely—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Or through reallocation.

Speaker Peter Milliken: —or through the elimination of some valued member service, which....

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I heard you make your case.

In regard to the second question I had, Mr. Paré is not here, but I wonder if the three of you can respond on an issue relating to the Library of Parliament with respect to information services.

Can you tell me how much is provided in the budget for information services to the general public, such as the information phone lines, tours—which I think would come under that—publications for the general public, for students, and so on?

Speaker Peter Milliken: Ms. Catterall, you've asked a very difficult question at the moment, because the estimates of the Library of Parliament are separate from those of the House, and I haven't come prepared to answer questions in respect of those estimates. I don't have them with me.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you. We'll hold those questions for the chief librarian.

Speaker Peter Milliken: We can get the information for you and provide it to the chair.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Are we having the chief librarian here, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: No, at this point we're not planning to, but if it's the will of members, we certainly can invite the chief librarian.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Has the House done an evaluation of the services or their appropriateness, their usefulness to the public, and so on?

Speaker Peter Milliken: Of the information services of the library?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Not that I'm aware of.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Since it is information services for the House, not the library....

Speaker Peter Milliken: No, I don't believe the House has done that. The library reports to the two speakers and to the joint committee on the library, where I presume there's a detailed study of those estimates ongoing at the moment.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It seems to me that certainly in the years that I have been here, substantial efforts have been made to improve public information about the House, not totally about Parliament, and we have used the Library of Parliament as the vehicle for doing that. At some point in time we should be assessing the value for money that we're getting from whatever we're investing, whether it's adequate, whether it's appropriate, and so on. I don't know if there are any plans to do that.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Unless we hired somebody to do that kind of assessment, it would be difficult for the House to do it. Certainly the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament could do such an assessment from the point of view of both the Senate and the House.

I have various initiatives that I've urged the information services part of the library to pursue. Some members may have seen a brochure, a householder I've printed. Some other members have used it, or one similar to it, in describing the activities of the House of Commons, and I've suggested that it would be appropriate to prepare such a document for use by members if they wish to use a basic document and then add a cover.

• 1155

That is in the process of preparation. I hope that will be available to members this summer, if they wish to use it for the production of a householder on their own or for material for distribution to schools. It would also be made available through the library without personal material on it for members to distribute to schools without using up one of their householder provisions. I'm working on that for the benefit of members.

I'm not evaluating their services generally, either through the guide program on the Hill or through the material that's made available to the public in the area near the gift shop. Of course the gift shop is also run by the Library of Parliament. There is an advisory body that advises the people running the gift shop on the kinds of items that might be useful there, and members' suggestions are always appreciated by that group.

The Chair: Mr. Clerk.

Mr. William Corbett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll just add to the words of the Speaker.

In the recent past the library itself did commission an outside third party to examine their public programs and the information they provide on behalf of both houses. The group that undertook that study did indeed report back to the library. The library has sent that to the administration of both houses in order for us, on behalf of the speakers of the two houses, to examine their suggestions and recommendations in terms of responsiveness to the needs of the two houses.

I might also add that there is a parliamentary Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament. I have even suggested to the library that they might use that as a channel to get better feedback in terms of the acceptance of their services to the public by creating some kind of subcommittee that vets their plans and assures a responsiveness to members of both houses.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: So each of us might want to speak to our party representative on the Library of Parliament committee and suggest we would like to have a look at that report.

Mr. William Corbett: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Saada and Monsieur Bergeron.

Mr. Jacques Saada: No.

The Chair: Monsieur Bergeron and then Ms. Gallant.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment in relation to the presentation made by the Sergeant-at- Arms regarding the problems experienced with the Justice Building, and I would be very pleased to have him respond afterword.

There is currently a debate raging in Quebec, and particularly in the Asbestos region, regarding the work underway on Parliament Hill, where asbestos in the walls of some buildings on Parliament Hill—the West Block, Wellington Building or, as we discussed earlier, the Justice Building—is now being removed.

I think it is important to clearly make the point, for the benefit of Asbestos producers in Canada and Quebec, that the reason asbestos is being removed from buildings on Parliament Hill is not that the product is now considered dangerous or harmful to health, but because at the time when these buildings were put up, little or nothing was known about the harmful health effects of this product, and the fact is that the asbestos used in buildings on the Hill at the time was the friable type that has now been reduced to powder, you could say, inside the walls and ceilings of these buildings. Those products are no longer used.

So, I think it's important to make that clarification for the benefit of the public and especially people abroad, because I believe that both Quebec and Canadian asbestos producers are concerned about the fact that the Parliament of Canada is removing asbestos from the walls of its buildings, when they are fighting hard to have there product except abroad. At the very time that they are waging that battle, the Parliament of Canada is removing asbestos from the walls and ceilings of its building.

So, I thought it was important to clearly establish the fact that the product being removed from the walls and ceilings of buildings on Parliament Hill is a friable product and that, in terms of the more modern product, they have found a way to solidify it so that the fibres do not detach themselves from the board, thereby avoiding harmful health effects.

MGen G. Cloutier: Yes, I completely agree. The asbestos in these buildings goes back 40 years in certain areas. But now, I think we also have to recognize that we need to protect people. That's the reason we put Protocol 2 in place at the Justice Building. In the West Block, the situation is the same. We will not start any work before that protocol has been tested, and we have to continue to do that until all of our buildings have been renovated. But I certainly agree with you on the point.

• 1200

[English]

Mr. Chairman, you were talking about the Justice Building and asking when the bill would come through the House and all that.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee for your support through that letter you gave me last year. Not only did I get the extension of Bank Street, but also I used your authority to get the extension of Kent Street without having to consult you. As a result of the survey, the House of Commons now owns those two streets. The RCMP has been advised of this, and they are already policing that area. I want to say thank you to everyone.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cloutier.

Next is Ms. Gallant, followed by Monsieur Godin.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: I have two questions, one each for the Speaker and the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech referred to more money for research as part of parliamentary reform. I was wondering if you could give a progress report on whether or not that increase in the funds for party research has come to pass.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Ms. Gallant, that money was given to the Library of Parliament for its research branch, and I understand they have allocated additional funds there. I've seen figures go by that were approved by me and by the Speaker of the Senate in respect of the library for the hiring of additional staff. Whether they've actually completed the hiring at this point, I do not know. Again, I think you would find answers to those questions in the study of the Library of Parliament's estimates by the committee on the Library of Parliament. As far as I know, that's where the money that was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne went.

If it went to the parties, I'm unaware of that. The Board of Internal Economy controls the research budgets of the parties, and I don't believe there was an increase there. There was some increase, but I don't believe it was as a result of the Speech from the Throne. I think it was the standard increase that would happen at the beginning of each Parliament.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My second question pertains to security in the House of Commons. Over the past couple of weeks there have been full CBC English crews going through the halls of the fourth floor in the Centre Block. What are the rules regarding the media wandering through the halls where the members' offices are located?

MGen G. Cloutier: The media is restricted to some areas. In the Centre Block, as you say, you have the first floor, Room 130-S, and you have the scrum area next to the chamber. If a member invites the media, then we are notified and they are allowed to go in.

I'll make a little bit of a sidebar to that statement. If members do not invite the members of the press, the press has no business walking through the halls. It's against the regulations we've established between the press gallery and ourselves, and they're not to wander through the various halls.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: If the people wandering the halls on those particular days were there because a member had invited them, would there be a record?

MGen G. Cloutier: I would suspect that some members on the fourth floor invited them, but I also must tell you that I was asked to ask the gentlemen of the press to leave the area at a certain point because they were not invited.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you.

The Chair: So scavenging is not allowed.

Monsieur Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Sometimes we have to be careful. The press may say they want to see us, but they don't really want to see us. They just want to be in that hall.

[Translation]

My question is this: the Canadian Human Rights Commission has ruled that employees working on Parliament Hill deserve the same protection as people in other workplaces. What I want to know is why the Canadian Human Rights Act does not protect House of Commons employees against sexual and racial harassment? Why should there be two sets of regulations in Canada? Whether we're talking about the House of Commons... I am having trouble understanding why we have two sets of rules. A human being is a human being, and Canada is Canada. Whether you work on Parliament Hill or somewhere else, you should be treated the same way as everyone else. We have no more privileges than other people do, in my opinion, and our employees should be treated exactly the same way.

• 1205

Speaker Peter Milliken: Mr. Godin, I think the matter you are raising is related to an article that appeared in the newspaper. It may be what you quoted; I don't really know.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It must be from the report; it's on page 33.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Page 33, of... You're not talking about...

Mr. Yvon Godin: What rules apply to the House of Commons? Are you treated differently depending on whether you work for the House, wether you're a member of the public or you work somewhere else? Are there two sets of rules in Canada under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Speaker Peter Milliken: There are clearly different rules in place across Canada, but the article refers to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and in one case, the House argued that it has certain privileges as regards that legislation. In the view of the House of Commons, the legislation does not apply to it because there is no section in that Act stating that the House of Commons is covered. It applies to government. The House of Commons is not part of the Government of Canada. So, this is something that concerns the privileges of the House of Commons. It does not necessarily have to do with different rights for people who work here, and I believe people working on Parliament Hill are protected, although not necessarily under the Canadian Human Rights Act that you mentioned and that was referred to in the article.

Mr. Yvon Godin: But are there any standards or regulations in place that provide equal protection to people?

[English]

Speaker Peter Milliken: The Parliamentary Employees Staff Relations Act deals with this issue, and specifies certain grounds of discrimination that are prohibited.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Is that parallel legislation...?

Speaker Peter Milliken: Yes, it is.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I see. I just wanted to be sure that everything was OK.

Speaker Peter Milliken: It's simply a matter of jurisdiction.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I know that it has to do with jurisdiction, but we are still in Canada here. We have not yet joined the United States, even though they are still trying.

Speaker Peter Milliken: It's like the Access to Information Act; it does not apply to the House of Commons. It applies to the Government of Canada, but not to the House of Commons. It has to do with the privileges enjoyed by the House of Commons. An Act passed by the Parliament of Canada does not actually apply to Parliament unless that Act so provides. In this case, we have a problem, but we do want to protect our privileges as part of the Parliament of Canada.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, I understand that there is a desire to protect our privileges, but when we're talking about harassment and that kind of thing, there shouldn't be any privileges, as far as I'm concerned. That certainly isn't a privilege.

Speaker Peter Milliken: They are other types of recourse.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, I see. I would like to know whether they are comparable to and as fair as those provided for under the Act. I don't think there should be any privileges in that area.

[English]

The Chair: All right. Thank you. If there are no further members indicating, I have two very short questions.

Major-General Cloutier, can I confirm that over the summer there will be some rewiring of the House to update the sound system? Is that going to go ahead, or is it only a maybe?

MGen G. Cloutier: For the House, in the chamber? Yes, there will be.

The Chair: All right. Secondly, in my walking around various parts of the Hill, I've noticed an awful lot of crumbling mortar. Those stone walls are quite old. And although I know they've been maintained over the years, it looks like it's a perpetual requirement if we're going to keep our heritage.

• 1210

I'm not suggesting there's any kind of danger, but certainly there's a requirement for repointing a lot of the mortar. Is there an ongoing program now, with one or two permanent stonemasons on staff who work throughout the year—or do we just contract the work out from time to time, as the need arises?

Speaker Peter Milliken: Public Works does almost all the work—not on our behalf, but on their own initiative. They maintain the walls. I understand there will be quite a lot of work done out front this summer—starting in mid-August, I believe.

MGen G. Cloutier: It's started now.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Some of it has started now. You can see the work that's ongoing there. But I think the staircase and the main wall are going to be disrupted late this summer with some major work. That's not on one of the buildings.

The exterior of the Centre Block itself was completed a year or so ago, I believe, just before the millennium year. Other buildings are being worked on. It's a continuous process—you were quite right to point this out.

I believe the Sergeant-at-Arms has a five-year plan. The chapel up in the Peace Tower is being repaired as well. In fact, they're redoing the windows as we speak. They're going to be removing the books of remembrance from there, and working on that area.

The Chair: Let's wish us all good luck with that, then.

Colleagues, I have to put the motion on the vote. I'd like to have someone move that vote 5 under Parliament carry.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I so move.

PARLIAMENT

House of Commons

Vote 5—Program expenditures $182,882,000

(Vote 5 agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. And thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Clerk, and Mr. Sergeant-at-Arms, for attending today.

Excuse me, colleagues—we haven't adjourned yet. Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, we haven't adjourned yet.

Speaker Peter Milliken: Excuse me. I thought he had said “Thank you”.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We were about to adjourn when I spoke up.

I am somehow troubled by Mr. Godin's comment. I stand to be corrected, Mr. Chairman, but am I wrong in thinking that, first of all, parliamentary privilege, unlike a law passed by Parliament, is enshrined in the Constitution of Canada and, secondly, that what ever occurred between the former Speaker and his employee may not have been a matter of racial discrimination. It has been suggested that that was what was involved, and that it was a case of racial discrimination. Am I wrong when I say the House is asserting its privileges simply to avoid having to explain before a court the reasons for dismissing this employee. I believe that the current interpretation is that he was dismissed because of racial discrimination, so I think it's important to clarify this.

Speaker Peter Milliken: I believe that parliamentary privilege was invoqued to prevent the Commission from ruling on this matter. That is not the appropriate forum for ruling on a case such as this, because the House of Commons is not subject to any ruling by the Commission. For our employees, we have a separate commission that makes such decisions, and it is not up to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to do so. Is that clear now?

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, I neglected to ask if I should report the vote to the House.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes.

The Chair: Colleagues indicated yes. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much again, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Clerk, and Mr. Sergeant-at-Arms.

We're now adjourned.