HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Á

1110

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. William Corbett (Clerk of the House of Commons)

The Chair

Mr. William Corbett

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC)

Mr. William Corbett

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Louis Bard (Chief Information Officer, House of Commons)

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Á

1130

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

Mr. William Corbett

Ms. Audrey O'Brien (Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons)

The Chair

Mr. William Corbett

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, CPC)

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Á

1135

Mr. William Corbett

The Chair

Mr. William Corbett

Á

1140

The Chair

Mr. William Corbett

The Chair

Mr. William Corbett

Ms. Audrey O'Brien

Á

1145

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Louis Bard

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. William Corbett

Á

1150

Mr. Louis Bard

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Michel Guimond

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. Louis Bard

The Chair

Mr. William Corbett

Ms. Audrey O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Ms. Audrey O'Brien

Mr. Yvon Godin

Â

1200

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Louis Bard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Â

1205

Mr. William Corbett

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. William Corbett

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. William Corbett

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

Mr. William Corbett

Â

1210

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Claude Duplain

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

Mr. Louis Bard

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 010

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, I'm going to begin. Before I introduce our guests, I will summarize where we are.

    First of all, we now have a draft of the summary of our round table on committee consideration of appointments--a short covering report and then a summary of the content of that meeting. It is my intention to circulate this relatively soon, when it has been translated.

    Judi Longfield.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Chair, as a chair of a committee who has now been sent the letter requesting that we look at review of appointments, I'm a little concerned that we've sort of set a process in place in which we're really not sure what we want to accomplish. There is the idea, do we want to do this in the first place? There should be some discussion about whether we think this is appropriate, and then we should talk about how we're going to do it and which ones we're going to do. If we're going to try to get information from all the committee chairs and all the people who are involved in it, shouldn't there be some strategic questions that we want to ask, so that when we get the results back, we don't have...?

    I just have a feeling that we're going to have 301 views and reports in terms of how we get this done. If the idea is that we think it's appropriate that there be some government oversight, that there be some mechanism by which parliamentarians are able to assist in this process, I think we need some basic framework here to be pursuing this.

    I'm just afraid that what we're going to get is not anything that we are able to use and we're just going to spin our wheels for the next six weeks, eight weeks, ten weeks, or whatever.

    The Chair: If I can comment on that--because I see that we do have ministerial staff here--obviously I'm in the committee's hands, but I'm not convinced that this is a matter for this committee. For example, for us to be able to comment or even do a list of criteria on the appointments for the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, it is very difficult for a committee like this to know what's going on there, and to know what's going on in the other 17 or 18 committees in their spheres of interest.

    As Judi Longfield has raised this and it is now on the record, I hope this will be transmitted to the minister.

    This sort of topic did actually come up in the round table as well. There is a matter of how we rank these, which are the important ones, and how the committee's time can be used, and all that kind of thing. That is dealt with in the summary report that we have, but it's not dealt with in the way that Judi is suggesting, which really is that committees should each have some direction so they can start the consideration of what they consider to be their important or immediate appointments, and so on.

    Judi, are you okay with that? We will pass that information on.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: I just wanted to raise the issue of the frustration that chairs are feeling in terms of this thing.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Colleagues, our meeting on Thursday is on estimates, and it's with Mr. Kingsley. We did everything we could to get one of the two TV rooms, but we can't. The public accounts committee is in one, and I believe the transport committee has a longstanding appointment in the other. So thanks to Louis Bard, who is here, we're going to be televised in our regular committee room.

    We'll be in Room 112 North on Thursday with the portable television equipment. These events don't go out live anyway, even when the House is sitting in the TV room, so it will be taped in the usual way except that we'll be in our committee. If that's agreeable, that's how we'll proceed.

    I'd now like to turn to the order of the day, which is continuing our consideration of democratic reform. I think of this as looking at the more technical--if that's the right way to put it--aspects of democratic reform. It was suggested by the committee that a briefing as to where the House of Commons stood on things like webcasting and that sort of thing would be very useful.

    Our witnesses today are Bill Corbett, the Clerk of the House of Commons--Bill, we welcome you; and Audrey O'Brien, the deputy clerk--Audrey, we welcome you very much. We also have Louis Bard, the chief information officer--and Louis, we welcome you to our committee again and we thank you for so promptly providing the portable cameras for our meeting on Thursday.

    Mr. Corbett, we're in your hands.

    Mr. William Corbett (Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    We provided a document to your clerk yesterday, and I understand it is in the hands of members.

    The Chair: Yes. Everyone has it.

    Mr. William Corbett: I have a few opening remarks, just to do a sort of mise en contexte, if I'm permitted to do so, Mr. Chairman.

    I'm pleased to be here this morning to table with you a document that provides an overview of the current situation with regard to the use of technology in support of the work of the House of Commons and of members of Parliament.

    In asking for this report on February 26, the committee no doubt considered this information to be an essential element for its study of the action plan for democratic reform, tabled in the House of Commons on February 4, 2004, by the government House leader.

    What the overview document provides is a status report on where we are today, so in my remarks this morning I would like to place that status report within a broader historical context, and let the committee draw its own conclusions about technology as an instrument of democratic reform.

[Translation]

    It is worth pointing out that the decision made in 1977 to televise the proceedings in the House of Commons was a milestone in the modern efforts to engage dialogue with Canadians and keep them informed of the work being done in the House. There are many opinions about the impact that television has had on proceedings in the House—in particular, of course, on the dynamics in question period—but whether we highlight the positive or the negative effects, there is no doubt that this direct public access is not only appreciated, but is now expected.

[English]

    Indeed, this committee recently recognized the nature of these changed expectations when it recommended in its second report, tabled last February 13 and concurred in on February 16, the extension of permission for the electronic media to videotape any and all public meetings held within the parliamentary precincts in Ottawa, subject to certain guidelines.

    This trial has been in place since May 16, 2001, and while the take-up rate may have been somewhat disappointing, the House has decided nonetheless to continue with the arrangements in the hope of furthering the original objectives; namely, to provide Canadians with a fuller picture of Parliament, to give them the opportunity to see MPs at work and to see what committees are doing, and to promote coverage of less high-profile hearings and committees, including those of particular interest to certain particular regions of the country or interest groups.

[Translation]

    The House is nevertheless limited by the fact that only two committee rooms are equipped for full broadcasting and the fact that it is perhaps difficult to interest the electronic media in this. But we are confident that web casting of the audio of all committee meetings will greatly contribute to making committee proceedings more accessible in real time, particularly for stakeholders and ordinary citizens who are interested in lower-profile committees.

[English]

    The report “Building the Future, House of Commons Requirements for the Parliamentary Precincts”, outlines the House's need for modern committee rooms fully equipped with a full array of technological tools to support their work. Until a decision is made on the possibility of expanding the parliamentary precinct, that vision of committee work remains largely unattainable, and the interim arrangements we have described will have to suffice.

    This is not to say that there has not been impressive progress in information technology at the House. A quick review of the performance reports of the last few years shows how far we have come since the 1981 installation of the first personal computers and the 1985 introduction of the first OASIS network.

    The first focus for the development of applications and information technology has been on the member of Parliament, in the work of representing his or her constituency, and on their work as members of a political party. This has resulted in enhanced means of communication between Hill and constituency offices, and between those offices and the various party research bureaus.

    Parallel to those developments have been the efforts to provide the House--that is, the House as an institution and Parliament Hill as a partnership of the Senate, House of Commons, and the Library of Parliament--with the tools necessary to a modern administrative enterprise. There are two major examples: IRMS, the Integrated Resource Management System, designed to provide fast and easy access to financial and human resource information; and PRISM, a single integrated application, which is so-called to evoke an image of text and data refracted through a prism into a spectrum of information. Replacing nine outdated, stand-alone legacy systems, this initiative was designed to renew the technology infrastructure, operational business environment, and service delivery framework, supporting the publishing and record-keeping activities related to the chamber and to committees.

[Translation]

    Integration is the key word in all these initiatives. The goal of integration is to promote efficiency and effectiveness, eliminate overlap, provide quality control and ensure seamless teamwork for each operation. That long-term objective underlies our approach to technological development in the House of Commons.

    Although we have taken every opportunity to benefit from technology, we have proceeded carefully. We regularly use the House of Commons' network, Intraparl, to send information internally to members of Parliament and employees, and we have created a partnership with the Senate and the Library of Parliament to develop the public Internet site of the Parliament of Canada.

    A pilot project being carried out by the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities has enabled us to learn a great deal about electronic consultation. We have taken what we have learned and applied it to reorganizing the websites of all our committees.

[English]

    This may be a propitious time to revisit our use of the Internet and to enhance that means of reaching out to Canadians, making more information more easily accessible to them.

    The Internet has profoundly changed the landscape of the modern world. Political institutions all over the world are adapting to this new means of communicating with citizens, even as citizens themselves question, perhaps as never before, the role they play in the evolution in their own parliamentary institutions.

    At this stage, our experience tells us two things. First, we know that technology can be a great enabler in addressing issues and can offer an impressive range of possibilities in reaching out to Canadians. Secondly, we have learned that we must adequately define our goals before deciding if technology offers the best means of achieving that goal. Only then, having decided that technology offers the best solution, can we go on to set the objectives and articulate the scope of each project. To proceed otherwise is to run the risk of dedicating time and energy and very important resources, both human and financial, only to have to settle for disappointing results.

    In its June 2001 report, concurred in on October 4, 2001, the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Proceduresof the House of Commons recommended, in recommendation 24, that “the administration of the House of Commons proceed with plans for enhanced use of technology for the House, its committees and its Members”. As the overview that we have furnished to you demonstrates, we have not hesitated in proceeding with the plans recommended by the modernization committee.

    As your committee in turn continues its study of democratic reform, you may be assured that we stand ready to offer whatever assistance we can in analyzing the problems you identify and developing viable solutions to them.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We'd be pleased to take questions at this time.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: Mr. Corbett, thank you very much.

    Chuck Strahl.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC): Thank you for that.

    This is one of those esoteric subjects where we hope that Louis knows what he's doing, basically. That's what it comes down to, as near as I can tell.

    I have a couple of questions. One is on the installation of the infrastructure to meet possible future needs, which is part A of your support document.

    Last weekend they were stringing some cables in the opposition lobby. We ended up with water everywhere from drilling into a pipe that was in the wrong place when people were trying to string cable and stuff. What's being done to make sure that, at least when we're doing these infrastructure improvements, we're mapping it properly and keeping track of it to minimize that for the future?

    It does seem to me that we're not going to get around, in my lifetime, to rebuilding the House of Commons, which was planned a hundred years ago. It does seem to me that we should be doing the best we can to minimize those kinds of problems. It was an expensive and annoying kind of thing that happened the other day.

    Mr. William Corbett: Thank you.

    To Mr. Strahl, through you, Mr. Chairman, I only became aware of what happened in the opposition lobby in the last few days a few minutes before coming over here today.

    The Chair: Could you describe it to us?

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: They were stringing some cables for infrastructure purposes and ended up drilling into or breaking a pipe. There was water everywhere, and they had to take the computers and everything else out and clean up. By Monday it still wasn't ready, although everybody had done their yeoman's service.

    I am just suggesting that in the old building we need to keep track as we put in new infrastructure to make sure we minimize the chances of that happening in the future.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Corbett.

    Mr. William Corbett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'm going to ask Louis to give the specifics of what happened the other day, but I'll tell you, Mr. Strahl, through you, Mr. Chairman, that in the work we did last summer and in the work we intend to do this summer every possible effort was and will be made to map, track, and know what we are doing such that it didn't and won't put at risk the basic infrastructure of the House. We also try to schedule things early on in the break periods so there is some recovery time if by chance we do.... You have to understand that the basic infrastructure of a building this age is not well mapped, and we never do know, when we go behind the walls, what we're going to find in most cases.

    I'll turn it over to Louis Bard to give you a more detailed answer.

    Mr. Louis Bard (Chief Information Officer, House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Corbett and Monsieur le Président.

    As you know, last summer there was a lot of activity around the chambers to wire the members' desks in the chambers and to put in place a new infrastructure. There is no doubt that when you go into a place like the chambers.... There was almost a year and a half of preplanning, and there were many layers of engineers and architects. We went back in history to make sure we got the initial design of the chambers because we were going to drill close to 800 holes last summer in the chambers.

    In order to put in place this new environment, we have at the same time taken advantage of the opportunity to fix any electrical problems, to put in place a wireless audio system for special events, and to do a lot of renovation. There will be a phase two going on next summer to replace the audio systems and also to upgrade the equipment in a lot of the galleries. There is no doubt that everything that is being planned is being structured, and we are also working very carefully to make sure we have structured cabling environments. The fact is that we have met all the RCMP and CSIS security standards that go with the House environment.

    What happened last week was that we didn't have enough time to do all the drilling in the lobby, which we did because we want to modernize the infrastructure. We want to remove a lot of the old cabling in the lobbies and make sure we give you the same quality of service and access you have in the chamber and in your offices. There were a few little holes to be done, some core drilling. We didn't disconnect any equipment but just pulled out some desks and drilled some holes.

    Again, even with all the best planning, with the ultrasounds and the X-rays we have of the chambers, someone hit a pipe hit in trying to drill a hole. Everything was recovered and put in place by four o'clock Friday, but I know that for some reason in your area there was some connectivity issue yesterday morning, which we fixed. This has nothing to do with the work that was done in the previous week.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I only bring it up because none of us live forever, and the reconstruction of the House is going to take forever, so that mapping needs to be passed on.

    I have two other quick questions. One had to do with Marleau and Montpetit online, including the search engine that will make it an even better document. It's a great document. The search engine, hopefully, will be like the index it always needed.

    Second, is there some plan to incorporate new rulings or new changes, updating the work somehow or putting an appendix onto it so when the Speaker or when the House decides something new, it gets added to Marleau and Montpetit? Otherwise, it won't be as useful as possible.

    The last thing I have is, are there plans for all this online stuff? It's all good, all improvement, and I assume the Board of Internal Economy and you are including it in the update for new members of Parliament for their briefing when they come into the House whenever the next election is. There is a lot of new stuff, and actually even grizzled veterans like Dale Johnston could do with an update following the next election and be brought up to date on all the new stuff.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): We must wait for the Corbett-O'Brien edition. Next year we'll have the Corbett-O'Brien—

    Mr. William Corbett: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I'm going to follow up on that last bit, at some risk.

    One of the essential elements of every online application of something such as Marleau and Montpetit is the crucial point of making sure there is continuous upgrade and modernization of it, such that it is a living document in the sense that it reflects the latest information. Certainly that's the intention. At least, those were my instructions to the deputy clerk; now she can follow up as to whether those instructions have or have not been heard.

    On your second point, yes, we're in the preparation right now of the modules for orientation of new members, and certainly it would be our intention to give members a briefing on the various electronic tools available to them.

    Audrey, do you want to just follow up on “M & M online”?

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

    Mr. Chairman, yes, one of the things we have been tracking very carefully from the day Marleau and Montpetit was launched is any additional rulings or changes or events in the House or in committees that might have an effect on the way the text is written. That's something we have for purposes of our research.

    Where we run into a difficulty is in the whole question of how it gets presented online in such a way that it isn't given unusual weight because of being new. The subtleties of that problem are difficult, and we're still wrestling with the question, truth be told. Along with the directives concerning the importance of keeping Marleau and Montpetit up to date, one of the projects we're working on furiously right now concerns the annotated Standing Orders, which is a rather dusty tome by now that nonetheless forms quite a backbone to our research. I think for purposes of keeping up to date with what's happening in the House, and particularly with the feverish activity of this committee in changing standing orders and putting in provisional standing orders and so forth, it's annotated Standing Orders that are more helpful. That wouldn't necessarily mean a change to practice and therefore a change to Marleau and Montpetit.

    The evolution of the Standing Orders through something like the annotated Standing Orders is really quite essential—that's what we're working on now—and it becomes much easier. It's more important to track and it's also, I think, a very valuable instrument as a legacy between one Parliament and another, so that the next committee in the next Parliament doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. It can trace where things went and how decisions were made and it may decide to revisit them in that way.

    The Chair: Mr. Corbett.

    Mr. William Corbett: If I can add one final comment, it was also our intention, Mr. Strahl, to make that an online instrument as well. There was considerable debate when Marleau and Montpetit was first issued as to whether we should abandon the annotated Standing Orders and not even bother to keep it up or go to an electronic version. My sense of it was that in the same way that when you went to a library in the old days there was a subject catalogue and an author catalogue, sometimes the easiest way to get at information is to use the Standing Orders. You know what standing order number you're referring to; you can't find it in Marleau and Montpetit through the index, but you can penetrate to it right away with an online instrument and you'd be able to get there in seconds. That was part of our decision.

    The Chair: I have the chair, then Michel Guimond, then Yvon Godin.

    I have a couple of things. First of all, the internal broadcasting is obviously getting much better, because we had the first live broadcast of the Ontario caucus quite recently.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: I understand it was very clear and the sound was of excellent quality.

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, CPC): We had trouble picking it up.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Lately it's been a little fuzzier—but don't worry about that.

    The Chair: Is that right?

    The other thing is this business of the new building, Bill, that you mention, and the changes to the House of Commons itself. It seems to me you have this very difficult task of adapting and trying to keep pace with these incredible changes in technology while these things are somewhere on the horizon. But surely now—I think it was Chuck who said it—they seem to be so far away that it might be better to proceed with technological changes as though they weren't going to occur.

    Obviously, if you could create a new committee building and redesign it, you could put everything in it, but would you not agree that it is so far in the future you might as well go ahead and convert the existing facility?

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. William Corbett: Well, Mr. Chairman, about four or five months ago I'd have said it was a lot closer than that. We had in essence cabinet approval for an envelope of funds, we had a preliminary architectural concept competition, there were submissions, and then it kind of disappeared from the horizon and nobody has been able to find out where it's gone. But in essence, we thought we were three or four or five years away at the max.

    Now we're not sure where we are, in the sense that it's a decision that's out of our hands. It's in the hands of the Department of Public Works, and you'd be best off asking them where it's gone. But our sense was that we were on the cusp of actually constructing something right there in the parking lot 362 in the next four to five years.

    We had worked long and hard with the liaison committee with a mock-up committee room, testing concepts on various technologies that could indeed be used. The liaison committee worked with us on that, the requirements were all blessed by the liaison committee, and then they were incorporated in the requirements that were given to the architects for their concept planning. But now it's out of our hands, and in a sense we will have to get some direction, I think, from the Board of Internal Economy as to where this goes and whether we should not be doing plan B at the present time.

    The Chair: I attended some of those briefings, and it really was quite exciting. But Bill, at the present time with the rate of change in technology, it's such an incredible time that if you wait and you say it might be five or six years, by then you're into a new technology anyway, it seems to me. We've heard nothing of that.

    You mentioned our efforts to get committees on television more, and you are aware, because you've said so, that the results haven't been so positive and this kind of thing. We really, as I think you know, went to a fair amount of trouble. We not only contacted committee chairs and urged them to invite media in, but we contacted the media; I talked to the media, we sent letters and flyers and various things to the media, and they still didn't come. You hear different stories; they didn't want to leave a camera there all day for a few seconds of news and this sort of thing.

    Have you any thoughts on that? Do you know of any jurisdictions where the media as a matter of course are lined up outside committee rooms or where they have floating cameras that go around committee rooms during a working day?

    Mr. William Corbett: I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that imposes the same set of rules of engagement, if I can use that term, where the media enthusiastically buy in. I know in the province of Ontario they've basically set no rules at all, and the media just wander about as they please. I recall that this committee, a number of years ago when this was originally being conceived, travelled to Queen's Park, and everyone there said, whatever you do, don't let them do what they do to us. So I think the problem is with the rules of engagement.

    But I can tell you that we're headed in essence around the problem in another direction through the use of the Internet and streaming, and we're now up and running with a streaming on the Internet of the broadcast of the House. We'll shortly be able to do streaming from the two committee rooms that exist. We're doing that already; we're streaming on the Internet from the two so you get immediate access to that via the Internet and a computer, whereas CPAC won't run it until late at night or Saturday, so it's available in real time.

    The other one that is really potentially of great interest to committees is the audio, the streaming of the audio we currently do only on the internal network here on the Hill. It's our intention that this will go out on the net. That means, for instance, that all the constituencies across the country of the various committees.... For example, the Sierra Club in Vancouver will be able to listen in via the Internet to hearings taking place in the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in real time as they are happening. This will be a significant improvement in terms of interaction between the interest groups, the stakeholders, and the various parliamentary committees.

    The future we're headed toward will potentially see streaming of all committees.

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. William Corbett: That would simply bypass the network and the journalistic community completely and go straight to Canadians via their computers.

    The Chair: If I may, you mentioned in your remarks the pilot of the subcommittee on persons with disabilities. Would you care to comment on that experience? Was it a videoconferencing experience?

    Mr. William Corbett: No. It was, in essence, Mr. Adams, an electronic consultation, the use of the Internet to solicit feedback from Canadians to the committee. I'll ask Audrey, who is more familiar with that pilot project, to give you a bit more of a description of it.

    Ms. Audrey O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

    Mr. Chairman, in regard to the electronic consultation that the subcommittee on persons with disabilities undertook, we were very eager to take that up as a pilot project because there has been a lot of talk about e-consultation, and dare we say, it was talk that really had us concerned, partly because we had no experience with that type of work, and we wanted to see.... It's in the nature of these things that they tend to be icebergs, that you see only what's above the waterline, and there is an enormous amount underneath that you don't see.

    Indeed, our experience with the subcommittee on persons with disabilities bore that out. Dr. Bennett, who was the chair of the subcommittee at the time, might be in a position to report to you if you wanted to follow up more closely. I think it was generally felt that this was a very successful consultation effort, but there were a variety of lessons we learned from this. On the one hand, it was terrifically important that there be a definite objective for the consultation. That may sound like motherhood, it might sound obvious, but in fact it's not obvious necessarily. If an e-consultation is undertaken on a subject of such breadth that it becomes unwieldy, then the results are not very reliable and the exercise is hugely costly. Certainly in terms of value for money, you really would have to question it.

    The thing we learned there was that on the one hand, the people who wanted to engage with the committee needed to have more information about it--what it was doing, who it was, what its history was, exactly what study was being undertaken, and exactly what kind of participation they were being asked for. Because this was basically a study of CPP benefits--and I hope the members of the subcommittee will forgive me if I don't get this entirely precisely--it was basically a study of whether the CPP benefits and the process whereby persons with disabilities got to be eligible for those benefits was adequate, where the lacks in the process were, and what things needed correction.

    What the committee was doing was appealing to a fairly small client group with very specific questions. It was the kind of exercise where anecdotal evidence from people was also quite compelling. It was the kind of thing that gave the committee a sort of textured context in which to view those questions.

    The worry, really, that I have with electronic consultation is that if it is undertaken as a kind of panacea and as a way of reaching out to more people on a very broad subject--one thinks, for example, of the Standing Committee on Justice, which was looking at the whole question of same-sex relationships--I think that kind of thing would generate an avalanche of responses, none of which would be particularly helpful in terms of actually giving more information. All you'd get is a tsunami of opinions from people, and you'd be no further ahead.

Á  (1145)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Audrey.

    Michel Guimond, then Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    To begin, I simply want to point out that parliamentary law is built on a large number of precedents. I see that you are very lax when it comes to the allocation of time. You ask very long questions, Mr. Chairman, and you let the witnesses ask very long questions. I hope that when Mr. Kingsley or other people come here, you will be just as tolerant. As you know, I like to ask long questions.

[English]

    The Chair: Michel, I've been given all the Liberal time.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Oh, yes?

    The Chair: Yes. There you go.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: You're not supposed to be a Liberal. You're supposed to be a chair.

    The Chair: They gave me their time. I didn't say I was a Liberal.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: You're supposed to be neutral, like Peter. All Peters are neutral.

    The Chair: I'm not going to go there either.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I am becoming bilingual: I can make jokes now in English. I surprise myself. It seems that Canadian federalism is going to make me bilingual free of charge!

    Following up on what Mr. Strahl said earlier, I would like to tell Mr. Bard that my assistant's House of Commons computer crashed and burned yesterday. I am not using a figure of speech here: it literally melted. My assistant did not melt into tears, because he was trained as a volunteer firefighter and was able to say calm, but I just want to tell you that we are worried by this.

    We are also worried about when we are getting another computer. I hope that it will be as quickly as possible: it is a very important work tool.

    Mr. Louis Bard: Mr. Guimond, we were informed immediately and we worked with your team all day yesterday, and I believe that you have a new computer.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you.

    My question is for the clerk. In your presentations and in the various systems that you presented to us, how many things are actually new? From what I understand, having attentively followed and read the reports of the modernization committees as well... How many new initiatives are there? What is new? It seems to me that most of the things in there are initiatives that had already been launched. Am I wrong?

    I would like you to identify the elements that are actually new, that are getting underway. We see throughout the document that the first phase was completed in the summer of 2003. So we expect that there will be a second phase in the summer of 2004. Most of these things are already underway.

    Am I wrong?

    Mr. William Corbett: Mr. Chairman, and through you to Mr. Guimond, some of these things are the continuation of initiatives already underway. Broadcasting of the House proceedings on the public site is totally new; it started two or three months ago. Even the web casting of committee proceedings on the website is new. It began on—

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Louis Bard: When the House came back on February 2^nd.

    Mr. William Corbett: It started on February 2^nd, and we expect the audio of all public committee sittings to be available on the Internet by September of this year. That is new as well.

    There are also committee Internet sites. We have just received a budget from internal economy for next year. I believe that there was $300,000 for the last two or three months of this year and $700,000, I believe, for next year that is to be used to modernize committee websites. These websites are not very interactive right now; they have been up and running for a few years, but we really have not done anything with them. Yet they are indispensable.

    The pilot project with the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities has shown us that our committee websites, as they stand, are inadequate for this type of consultation with the public. So we have received money to modernize them in cooperation with the Library of Parliament.

    Moreover, the second step in the modernization of the House of Commons infrastructure is planned for this summer. The audio system in the House and the galleries will be renovated completely, and electronic voting will be made possible, that is, the basic infrastructure at least will be installed in case the House decides to adopt electronic voting. So everything will be in place.

    We have also done research to be able to publish notices electronically, and we are just about to make recommendations in that regard, something that should happen in June. We are also doing research to come up with recommendations on options for consideration by this committee regarding the possibility for the House to receive electronic petitions. So some things are the continuation of existing initiatives, while others are completely new.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you.

    I would just like to let you know, Mr. Chairman, that I have almost finished. I would like to close with a comment, to show you how disciplined I can be when I want to. My comment is to Mr. Bard and to the people who are listening to us today.

    We should not forget that technological change can have an impact on human beings. You know that the 800 holes that were drilled in the ceiling of the House last summer resulted in the security officers being moved. They were relocated to four rooms, one of which was 122-B, which had been for the interpreters. Now there are 15 of them located in a small office that Ms. O'Brien lent them. I want to tell you that I am raising this point on my own initiative; the interpreters did not ask me to do so. I can think for myself, and I would like to tell Mr. Bard that I am still waiting for a call from Mr. Arthur St-Louis, who promised to give me some more news and to show me the office where the interpreters will be relocated. This matter has still not been settled.

    As members of Parliament, I would also like us to remember that technology is all well and good, but that we must remember that it can have an impact on human beings. Let us not think just about cables, computers, and screens—let us think about human beings as well.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Louis Bard.

    Mr. Louis Bard: I will make a very brief comment. Mr. Guimond, I play a very small role in managing space within the parliamentary precinct. This is really the responsibility of Major-General Cloutier, with whom Mr. St-Louis works. I can assure you that I have asked him to call you several times. I will look into this myself, and I will be present to show you the office space planned for the interpreters.

    As you say, it is true that technology requires some adaptation, but I can tell you that part of the planning process involves consultations to ensure that everyone gets appropriate office space. It is a huge task. Unfortunately, the Centre Block is a building in which it is very difficult to make accommodations. We have many limitations because of the physical infrastructure. Nevertheless, this remains a major priority. I very much appreciate your comments and your support, as well as your interest in what we are trying to do in the Centre Block. I promise you that I will follow up on this.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay.

    I have Yvon Godin, then Claude Duplain, and then I'm going to wind it up.

    In your notes regarding e-petitions, which Michel mentioned, it said “A detailed submission will be presented to the Standing Committee on Procedureand House Affairs in the coming weeks”. Does that mean that there's soon going to be a report on the e-petitions?

    Mr. William Corbett: I'll ask Audrey, Mr. Chairman, to give you an update on that.

    Ms. Audrey O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

    Through you, Mr. Chairman, yes, the whole question of electronic petitions first arose when the special committee on modernization visited the Scottish Parliament.

    Again, adjustments need to be made from what works in a regional parliament, like the Parliament of Scotland, and what would work in a federal parliament in a federation like Canada. But what we're hoping to do is to have a proposal to you, I would think, by your return after Easter.

    The Chair: Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Still on the subject of interpreters, I would like to join with Mr. Guimond in saying that I too find that what happened is not right. We have to show some consideration for these people who do good work for us. I am one of those who use their services a great deal. The subject was also raised at the House leaders meeting. I would also like to congratulate Michel on the work he has done on this matter. Mr. Corbett may perhaps think sometimes that there are 301 bosses of the Hill employees. However, I think that Parliament would be nothing without these men and women who help us and work for us.

    I would like to talk about another issue raised by Michel regarding some of the initiatives that have been undertaken. You said that this was done when the House was not sitting, in December and January. The work was done in December and January during the adjournment, but the decision was made before the House prorogued. All of these programs had been put in place before, and we agreed that they would be carried out during the adjournment. That is nothing new. The implication is that this is something new, which happened in January; however, that is not the case. This was something that was discussed last year and implemented in January.

    Ms. Audrey O'Brien: Yes. The decision regarding infrastructures was made by the Board of Internal Economy and the work was carried out during the periods of adjournment.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Perhaps you could give me some clarifications as well. There are two points I would like to touch on, Mr. Chairman. The first is that I am worried when I see changes being made in the House of Commons on a piecemeal basis. What became of the overall idea that the House of Commons should be closed down? Before preparing the West Block to make it into another House of Commons, are we duplicating work by making all these repairs now? We are talking about taxpayers' money here. It seems as though we are introducing all these technological innovations, and then deciding at some point to make changes to the House, thereby nullifying the expenditures already incurred to put these technological innovations in place.

    I remember that when I arrived here, I found it strange that one whole side of the road in front of the West Block and Centre Block had been opened up to replace an underground pipe and that this later had to be removed again. Wellington Street has been redone about 15 times. I have never seen anything like it. We talk about work projects, well that was a major one! They put on a certain thickness of asphalt and it goes on and on. Now, I'm afraid that we may be doing the same thing here in the House of Commons. Work is being done to accommodate technological change, and then you are going to come along with a major project to redo the entire House of Commons.

    That is my first question. I will have another one later, but with your permission I would like to hear the answer to this question first.

  (1200)  

    Mr. William Corbett: Mr. Chairman, I would say to Mr. Godin that we all agree. That is why we hesitated for some time, for a number of years, before we renewed the House of Commons' infrastructure. That was because there was a specific plan to construct another House of Commons in the courtyard of the West Block and to completely redo the Centre Block. However, over the years, while this project has not completely disappeared, it has gone on the back burner. Since we had an obligation and responsibility to guarantee service to members of Parliament, we decided to submit the infrastructure renewal project to the Board of Internal Economy.

    Perhaps Louis could add something to that.

    Mr. Louis Bard: That is exactly correct. There was a long-term plan that was delayed for several years. At that time, we had started noticing a number of defects in the House of Commons. The Speaker and the clerk were very concerned about the many problems caused by the poor audio system in the House, and the related technical problems. Consequently, we had to speed up the renovation work in the House. However, as regards all of the decisions made about the Centre Block, much of the equipment and technology can be used elsewhere. So we took the portable equipment, not the equipment that must be there permanently, in case we had to relocate the House. This was really a necessity, not a luxury. We took advantage of last year's modernization report which seemed to recommend, among other things, rewiring of the House, to do this work at the same time. The fact that we had the modernization report in June really gave us an opportunity. Since we had the work done during the summer, we were able to wire the members' desks as well by September. We may never have such an opportunity again. I was very proud to have received an order in June and been able to deliver everything by September. It was really a unique opportunity that may never happen again.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I have one last question, Mr. Chairman.

    We hear about the electronic highway, the Internet, but, we have still not found a solution to the CPAC problem. What does Parliament intend to do as result of the decision handed down by Justice O'Keefe, I believe, in the Quigley case in Moncton? Why does the Official Languages Committee have to fight Parliament to have CPAC broadcast in some regions in both official languages? For example, I will have to recommend to some anglophones in Bathurst to take the matter to court, as this gentleman from Moncton did, because in Bathurst, CPAC broadcasts in French only. It is possible to use the SAP system, but it is not available on all television sets. I know that Mr. Milliken appealed the court's decision and lost. I am told that he apparently went to court and lost.

  (1205)  

    Mr. William Corbett: No, he did not lose. The court of appeal refused to hear the case. A solution was found through the CRTC, which instructed the cable companies—

[English]

    The Chair: Perhaps we could be provided with that information.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, he is giving us information that we do not have. I think he is telling us that the court ordered the cable companies to provide bilingual service.

    Mr. William Corbett: It was the CRTC.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: That is a service we do not have.

    Mr. William Corbett: The CRTC ordered that bilingual service be offered.

    There are three levels of companies. Level 1 and 2 companies have many customers. They are large companies with significant resources. The CRTC has instructed the level 1 and level 2 companies to provide bilingual service.

[English]

    The Chair: If I can, Yvon--

    Mr. Yvon Godin: We want a response. I want to know the answer on this.

    The Chair: I understand this is new information to you. We'll get the detailed information for you. I understand the point.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: We asked the cable television to come to our committee this week, and they said they didn't have time to come to the official languages committee this week.

    In Bathurst, they're giving it in French only and the anglophones are not getting the House of Commons. I ask why all this new technology when you cannot do the one we have now?

    The Chair: I understand your point and the way you've tied it into what we're doing. We will get the information.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: In the first part of the report they talk about having a camera in our room. Having a camera is not for England or the United States; it is for the Canadians of our country. Having a camera and not hearing what's happening in the House of Commons is not good.

    I come from a riding, Mr. Chair, where we need it. I've been at this now for over six months. I was very sad when the Speaker wanted to appeal the court decision. He has been refused, and they say they've got orders to give it. I want to know what's the procedure to get it done.

    The Chair: My suggestion is that we get it in writing...that we get it all for you. We'll get it.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I would really appreciate that.

    The Chair: Mr. Clerk, is that okay?

    Mr. William Corbett: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to furnish a complete report on this particular question to your committee.

    The Chair: And now, Claude Duplain and Marcel Proulx, very briefly.

    Claude.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): I would like to talk about video conferences.

    I have seen how video conferences work at committee meetings. I found them terrific. I think we can save a lot of money in this way and moreover, we can hear from far more people.

    Why do we not use this more? Is it because we are investing less in video conferences? I know that some equipment is required, but why not invest? What are the future plans of the House of Commons in this regard?

    Mr. William Corbett: Mr. Duplain, this kind of decision is always taken by the individual standing committee. We do provide technical supports but it is up to the committee to decide. There are various options open to committees in carrying out their work: they may choose to travel to a particular place, they may invite witnesses to come to Ottawa, there is the possibility of a video conference and perhaps in the future it will be possible to consult through Internet. Committees have always been able to choose their particular approach.

    I do have a personal opinion. I was a committee clerk and I was also a manager responsible for all the services provided to standing committees. It is my view that certain witnesses may find the video conference format intimidating. It works well when the witness is an expert or when he is accustomed to using this kind of technology but it doesn't work for everyone. If you want to talk to fishers or to forestry workers, that will not be the right approach, it's too difficult for them, they can find it intimidating.

    It's only a personal opinion. The decision is up to the committee.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Claude Duplain: So it is the committees who decide whether to use it or not.

    Mr. William Corbett: Yes.

    Mr. Claude Duplain: That was my only question.

    The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I think that my question is for Mr. Bard. You talked about replacing the sound systems during the summer of 2004, that is the system for listening in the House.

    Am I to assume that we will then have the best systems available at the present time? With our present system it is very difficult. Of course, I am sitting in front of representatives of the Bloc Québécois who are very enthusiastic supporters of federalism and who demonstrate this in the House quite readily, but do you think that we will have a more efficient system so that we can, first of all, hear better?

    Secondly, will it be a system where we can use our own earphones or earpieces according to our personal preferences?

    Mr. Louis Bard: Certainly, Mr. Proulx. We are replacing a system that was installed about 30 years ago. There's been about two years of research with specialized companies to ensure that we have the most efficient type of system for this kind of set-up. It really is a system designed for the House of Commons, taking into account the dimensions of the Chamber, the kind of furniture, the volume, the space, etc.

    Of course it is a high tech system. It is the most recent one on the market. It is a high performance system offering a great deal of flexibility. When it's a matter of meeting the requirements of members of Parliament, we are particularly attentive. If there is a particular problem requiring a different kind of headphone or earpiece for a member of Parliament, then we always do whatever is necessary. The system that was chosen is now being assembled in Montreal. There was a national bidding process won by AVW-TELAV. We want to have a three-month period for simulation exercises of the House of Commons system in order to minimize the impact of its installation on the proceedings of the House.

    At the same time, we are paying particular attention to the galleries. At the present time people are using telephones and once again, we are looking at different options for a more individualized, hygienic system.

    We'll also be making changes to the members' desks. The little console on these desks will be replaced and you will soon be able to find in the Centre Block, probably in Audrey or Mr. Corbett's office, prototypes of these desks. You can see and touch the equipment.

    We'd also like to have your opinion on the equipment for the galleries.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Very good.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: Colleagues, I'd like to thank our witnesses, Bill Corbett, the Clerk of the House of Commons; Audrey O'Brien, the Deputy Clerk; and Louis Bard, the Chief Information Officer.

    We thank you all for being here. Thank you for your patience. You're very well informed.

    Our next meeting is at 11 o'clock in our regular committee room on Thursday, when we'll be doing the estimates of Elections Canada, and it will be televised.

    I would suggest that a week from today we have a meeting that is more generally about where we're at with the democratic reform, including the sorts of questions that Judi raised today.

    The meeting is adjourned.