PRHA 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]

Thursday, February 19, 1998

• 1106

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, if we could begin, our main topic today has to do with the taking of divisions by electronic means in the House. Before we get to that, I would just mention something about the schedule of meetings, which we produced at the request of members of the committee.

For your information, the seminar on the calendar of the House of Commons, scheduled for last evening and sponsored by the Parliamentary Centre, has been postponed. My understanding is that it's postponed until March 11, but we have a meeting scheduled for that evening. It's our round table meeting on the Canada Elections Act. So we'll get back to you about that. Of course that was not a meeting of our committee, but it's one that is very relevant to our subcommittee on the schedule of the House.

I'm just looking at the calendar, and if you don't have it before you I'll try to go through it. Today of course our witness is the Clerk of the House, and we're very pleased to see him here.

Monday evening is our reception with the parliamentary delegation from the British House of Commons. I think you have already received the information on the delegation that will be here and you already have some briefing notes on the funding of political parties, which is the topic this delegation is dealing with.

You will recall we're going to have what I hope will be a very nice reception, but it will also be a business meeting. We ask that if you have people in your parties who are not on this committee but who might appropriately be there, people who are interested in the funding of political parties and related matters...I'd be most grateful if you could give the clerk their names as soon as possible so that we have some idea of the numbers that are coming and so on.

Are we reasonably clear on that?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Is that this Monday coming?

The Chairman: That's Monday, February 23, yes. It's at 5 p.m. in 238 South, the Commonwealth Room. I know it's a reception, but it is relatively formal. We're going to try to give them the benefit of our experience on the funding of political parties, so I'd be most grateful if we could get colleagues there who have a particular interest in this matter.

Next Tuesday, February 24, at our regular meeting we were proposing to have the first of the meetings with the members of Parliament who have made submissions to us on the Canada Elections Act. In fact, as you know, with the budget and other things, this room and similar rooms are taken on that day for the lock-up for the budget. I would propose that in order to give our colleagues a fair hearing we postpone that particular meeting until the week after the break.

Marie, you said that's March 10, I think. That would be okay.

• 1110

This would mean, though, that on Thursday, which is the last day of sitting of the House, we would go ahead as planned here. This would now be Thursday, February 26, and we would have the set of MPs who were scheduled to come that day here in this room. So it's still on the schedule.

Going back to the Tuesday meeting, which we've postponed, perhaps I might ask you to keep the time slot pencilled in. In other words, don't simply abandon the idea that we might have a meeting, because it's possible we may have a subject for discussion on that day that would not require witnesses.

Are there any other questions about the schedule?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I have a question with regard to the chief electoral officer's communication to you, where he answers a lot of the questions. For example, he says, “the impact of the 36-day campaign on election expenses”, and so forth.

One that I asked about—and I assume we're going to get an answer to it at some point—is on the recommendations to modify the electoral boundary review process. They go back to Bill C-69.

I wonder if there's any point in putting that back on the agenda some time in the spring, because the last time we were doing it, it didn't get through. It went through the House; it didn't get through the Senate. I'm wondering if we could go back and revisit Bill C-69 at some point. Could we put it on the back burner and look at it again? There were some good recommendations in that.

The Chairman: Unless someone else does, I have no objection to that.

Carolyn, I think it would fit in at the end of the hearings we're going to have, at the round table. At some point, the chief electoral officer comes back; at that stage. We'll make a note of it.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It had all-party agreement.

The Chairman: That will be fine.

Is there anything else on the schedule? Is the schedule okay? Is this the sort of thing the members were looking for?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: With respect to the hearings on the Canada Elections Act, my understanding is that the written responses from the Bloc and the Reform Party will be arriving tomorrow.

André, we are still waiting for the response from the Progressive Conservative Party.

We did have some correspondence with them, and we understand that. I think it's really quite important, because if we are going to invite representatives of the parties to appear, to be fair to those who have made a written submission, we have to wonder, do we ask the parties that have not made a submission?

I would be grateful if you could ask about that again.

[Translation]

All right?

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): I'm going to check that.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

For the other parties, we look forward to the documents coming tomorrow.

We welcome the Clerk of the House of Commons, Mr. Marleau, and Mr. Louis Bard, Chief Information Officer and Executive Director, Information Systems.

Glad to see you here again.

Colleagues, you have the paper on electronic voting. This is the so-called business-end plan on electronic voting.

I wonder, Mr. Clerk, if you could take us briefly through it.

Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always a pleasure to be here.

Just by way of situating the context, when we appeared before the committee last November we gave you a chart of various possible scenarios dealing with electronic voting. What we've done in this particular business plan approach is, first, validate the low-end part of that original submission to you. There are minor changes in terms of “within cost allocations”, but ballpark-figured, the report does validate the figures we gave you in the first report for a low-end cost, stand-alone electronic voting system at roughly $2.2 million, $2.5 million.

Out of your conversations at the last committee meeting when I appeared on this, there seemed to be a desire to look at value-added concepts, which would include electronic voting, by extending the current network of the House to stations at each desk in the House of Commons.

The business plan illustrates that this alternative would cost approximately 30% more. In other words, for 30% more investment, you extend the network to each of the stations and you have the capacity for electronic voting to take place in the House.

We have found no major technological barriers and no major heritage concerns, although there were some expressed, and they can all be met, in terms of the heritage requirements for both members' desks and the Commons itself, which would also include the design of the more modest panels to be hung in the chamber and opting for video displays in the galleries so visitors could follow the vote, rather than a larger panel display, which was also discussed in some of the options.

• 1115

Obviously there are other issues that flow from an extended network, one of which is support personnel. We estimate that would add about $120,000 a year to the human resources component of maintaining and updating such a system.

We tried to give you a couple of scenarios to look at in terms of implementation. Essentially it's whether you decide to go within the 36th Parliament—there is a phased-in approach to that as well, leading to installation sometime in 1999—or whether you opt to delay the installation until the year 2002, as the West Block temporary chamber comes onstream.

By way of quick summary, you will find the comparisons on page 9 of the report, which show that essentially the low-end, stand-alone electronic system, as we have evaluated it, would come in at approximately $2.5 million. A fully extended network would be about another $800,000 on top, with touch screens at every desk.

I think I'd rather take questions than take you through all the body of the report. I've touched on the major points. Perhaps Mr. Bard has a point he would like to add.

You have the infotech technician and the procedural technician at your disposal.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bard.

Mr. Louis Bard (Chief Information Officer and Executive Director, Information Systems, House of Commons): I don't really have anything to add. We validated the proposal again that we had prepared at our last meeting and formally finalized it. We are ready to carry out this project during the current Parliament.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Joe Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for Bob.

You put it into context very well for us, but I'd like to reverse the thing. The whole notion of electronic voting obviously is still under some degree of anxiety. There are some questions and an awful lot of concerns, because there are standing orders that have to be dealt with or present arrangements that seem to make it possible for us as members to vote much more quickly.

Therefore, at the last meeting, the business context was—and I think it was asked in this way—let's forget about electronic voting for a moment and look at what the needs and requirements are for members of Parliament to do their job in the most effective and efficient way.

We presently know that you're undergoing a tremendous amount of updating of our computer network, both in our Ottawa offices and in our constituency offices, and that NT system is going to make it much better for us to do our work.

I understood that there were some previous plans—and forget about the electronic voting for now—to create a virtual office for us at our stations in the House of Commons. So if someone wanted to do some work on behalf of their constituents and wanted to use that time in the House, be it during debates, during Question Period, during voting periods, or whatever, that desk in the House of Commons would essentially be an extension of our Ottawa office and our constituency office, so we could become much more effective and efficient. There were some plans even to do that, irrespective of this whole issue of electronic voting.

So I ask you if that was the plan in order to expand that network capability into the House of Commons. I for one can see where there is some good value added for members of Parliament to be able to work at their stations whenever we're in the House of Commons. We could do a number of things, from going into our caucus Intranet to the Internet to doing e-mail to our offices. The possibilities are unlimited.

• 1120

I understand that system. You said if you look at electronic voting and you want a full system, then add 30%. Well, I'd like to reverse that. Perhaps we ought to make that first decision. Do we really want to become modern members of Parliament with this technology? One only has to look at how many people are now using their laptop computers in the House of Commons when they're there. I'd like to reverse the issue and talk about what kind of a virtual office we want in the House of Commons.

We have a number of other issues to discuss, such as standing orders and technicalities, or whether or not we even want to do electronic voting. I think what your figures show is that if in fact we decide we do want to go to electronic voting, to add that component part on a network system or a computer, it will cost us only $800,000 or $500,000. It would cost $800,000 to put in a program that would allow us to do work with those computers, which are already there. Forget about electronic voting.

I think we should reverse the whole discussion and not get tied up in this electronic voting. I understand all of our caucuses still have a lot of dialogue to have with our own caucus members, but let's talk about the issue.

Bob, you were a member of the subcommittee of this committee in the last Parliament where we did a survey of members and asked them what their needs were. What did they want so they could do their jobs a lot better?

We did a survey that talked about computer equipment in their offices and in their constituencies and a number of things. Have we done a survey of our members to ask them whether or not they would like a virtual office in the House of Commons? Do they see any value to putting a computer right in their desks so they can do a lot of the work we want to do and make that time we spend in the House of Commons that much more productive? That's the first issue.

Mr. Robert Marleau: We haven't done a specific survey on computer applications at the members' desks in the chamber. When you refer to plans for the virtual office in the chamber, it was part of our technology strategy going towards the refurbishment of the west block.

If you're going to start a chamber from absolute scratch...we are developing with the architectural planning team options and proposals, which would have to go to the board for funding and decision issues, and probably to this committee as well for the procedural dimensions of it. That's the opportune time to zero base how a member works in the chamber.

The actual extending of the functionality of the network into the chamber—I'm starting to talk like Louis Bard here—is basically a hardware issue. It's a fairly simple extension. It's all compatible. It's just more of the hardware and the member doing more of the same on a different site. So the value added to that is that you're building on a network, on the investment you've made.

The debate on whether a member wants to do that in the chamber or not is a separate issue, and a survey would probably give you some of that.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I think there was a lot of discussion around this table about looking at the future House of Commons in terms of dealing with paperwork. I don't know about you, but every other industry, every other institution in the world and in the country, is moving to an electronic-based system. It's good for the environment and for all kinds of things.

There are some cost advantages if in fact one really wanted to get with the times and become more technologically advanced. Forget about the electronic voting, which I think is just an adjunct that becomes an added-on piece of software to a computer system. You wouldn't have to have status screens or voting screens in our House of Commons. Obviously the architectural concerns would magnify when you start. Essentially you're working off computers and monitors for the actual system of electronic voting, of that software.

If and when we decided we wanted to put that package in through a standing order, am I correct to assume that to be able to put the infrastructure into the House of Commons and then to add electronic voting would be $800,000?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Approximately, yes.

• 1125

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish, then Randy White.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I happen to agree with Joe about the necessity for a survey of members. I think a survey should ask them, first of all, if they are computer literate so that you can decide what it's going to cost you.

I read through your report. You talked about the cost of training MPs who want to avail themselves of the technology. So I think you have to ask them, first of all, if they want it.

Second, you have to ask if they're computer literate so that you can decide what it's going to cost to train us. Third, a survey I think will probably carefully indicate which way each of the 300 members in the House is leaning.

I read through this rather carefully. I'm concerned about a couple of questions in here. One is damage and replacement. You talked about actually putting a screen in each table. My knowledge of it is very limited, but I know the laptops my husband and my kids have are constantly causing them difficulties. I'm wondering about the plate glass type of surface, if the damage there is going to be extensive, and if you've built in a yearly repair budget to that for replacement and repair.

You also haven't talked in here about hackers. I'm totally “unliterate”, as you can probably tell, when it comes to computers, but could I hack into Mr. White's computer across the chamber from my position on the Liberal side if I chose to and if I became very technologically adept? I want to know if this is possible.

He's sitting there doing secret little things on his desk, and I might just want to sit there and watch what he's doing rather than—

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford): I'll give you my permission.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: That is a question.

The other thing you talked about is print capacity. I don't know about your lobby, but during Question Period it's a major thing to try to get something through on the fax machine. You didn't talk about there being, in this hardware, any kind of print capacity. This sort of stuff at my desk would be useless to me if I couldn't have little reams of paper coming out for Standing Order 31s and corrections and so forth.

As well, unless I've missed it, you haven't given me a costing on the technological backup. You said you were going to need four staff at $120,000 total, but I'm wondering what the technological backup will be, and the training costs.

I think I agree with Joe that we have to do a lot more extensive checking with our members on all sides of the House before we go into something as huge as this.

I'd appreciate answers to those questions.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I'll make a general comment and defer to the technological expert on some of the details in response to Ms. Parrish's question.

First of all, in terms of the security issue and hackers, it is a matter that the board has looked at in terms of the context of the entire network. There are currently five political party servers on the Hill, as well as your own servers. Security is built into the system to protect the network from unauthorized access.

I think you'll hear from Mr. Bard that it is not entirely foolproof, like any system, or any bank, for that matter. If somebody wants to break into something physically, they can and they will. I'll let him explain to you what the levels of security are.

In terms of the plate glass or touch-screen environment, it's not one of those soft screens that you see on a small laptop. It's much thicker glass, heat sensitive for touch-screen technology. It's pretty resistant. Some of these have been used for ATMs and at malls. You might have seen how, in some bars, the waitress goes in...and you can imagine the kind of abuse. You might have seen it at Zellers, where they sometimes use it. So in terms of physical resistance, that technology is quite advanced.

In terms of the training costs, that's an excellent point. We've addressed the training. Until we have the dimensions of how much and how often...

I must say, this group of MPs in the House of Commons is probably the best technologically prepared group of MPs I've seen since I've been in the House. We saw many more members walking onto the Hill with their own laptops than we did in 1993.

So in terms of training costs, I think—and I'll let Mr. Bard contradict me—we could probably absorb that in the overall training budget we now offer both members' staff and members. That would be my guess.

In terms of the printing capacity, we're currently experimenting in the House. You have the two laptops at the table. There's a small printer in the back hallway. We've cabled that. We're doing some printing of stuff in Hansard and whatever we'd need for the chair. We're toying with that now.

• 1130

That's a question of cabling, probably not in the chamber. You wouldn't have a little piece of paper spit out at your desk, but you would have a printer in the lobby that would be coded from your station and the document would be sent there. It could be delivered by a page or you could pick it up yourself.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Wouldn't that be fun in Question Period?

The Chairman: Mr. Bard.

Mr. Louis Bard: What I'm hearing this morning is very enriching, because Mr. Fontana's description of the situation is exactly where we are. It's exactly what has been accomplished.

Adding the infrastructure to the chamber is to give you what you already have in your offices. It's no different.

If you're trained, if you're using it, if you're accessing your political web, connecting with the whip offices, using the resources you have already, it's the same thing. It's like we're just adding that capability to the chamber.

We already have a pilot project with 20 members of Parliament to create that virtual office concept. This was also approved by the boards in the fall. Right now we are going ahead with 20 members of Parliament to test that concept. We are already there with members of Parliament.

The demand was there. The pilot was created, because there was a real demand to have that flexibility.

In terms of security, the full network in the 36th Parliament was totally designed, sold, put in place in terms of the concept of respecting members of Parliament as 301 small businesses. The full concept of party structure among the House officers was put there right from day one.

There's logical security, physical security. We have enterprise tools in place for security measures. We have enterprise anti-virus strategies in place.

Truly in the last four or five years—touch wood—there's been no major incident reported about breach of security on the parliamentary campus. Most of the incidents reported were mainly a problem within members' offices, with staff, or other scenarios of that nature.

Now we give a lot of attention to the security, and the same thing will be applied in the chambers in terms of access capabilities to the information.

I will not give more details globally about the security. If we want it to be secure and want to make sure, I won't give you all the details. But we have done briefings for caucuses, the House officers, or members on many occasions, and this is always available for members of Parliament.

In terms of spare parts, we've added a 3% overhead to guarantee quick replacement—a spare component—and we can act very quickly to make the members operational immediately.

The support infrastructure of staff in the chambers is only to have people there. We've seen in other legislatures that they had people on site to help the members, such as the pages. They can be there to help you when when Parliament is sitting.

But behind the scenes, when we talk about servers, we talk about all the applications, all that technology that's already residing in computer centres. It's really residing on the campus in many other areas, such as Wellington, 119 Queen Street, in the centre block, or very soon in the new underground facility, that is, the new computer centre. These things remain under the control of those operations.

Then in terms of security, backup, the centre, all these things, you're using your computers in your office, in the chambers, in your riding, but all the supports lie in those major computer areas using the current infrastructure.

Training-wise it is no different from what you're using right now in your offices. It's the same interface. We want to keep exactly the same interface you have today. The same training vehicle will be no more different from those you are using currently.

But as Mr. Fontana says, it is very clear that electronic voting in this scenario will be like adding a new application.

You have a mail application. You're accessing the catalogue and the CD-ROM collection from the library. You are accessing your political web site. You will be accessing electronic voting.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bard.

I have Randy White, Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, and Yvon Charbonneau.

• 1135

Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think if we're surveying members, it might be appropriate to ask how often they are actually in the House. If we went up to the House right now, there would be very few people in it.

I think if you're trying to create a virtual office, it's only as good as the office that is being used.

I have some problems. If you're not going to have a House well attended during the day, I don't know what the value is of having a virtual office in it.

I do want to go on record as saying that I have no problems at all with Mrs. Parrish accessing my computer.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I don't even know how to use one.

Mr. Randy White: I do wonder, when I respond, whether I respond and say, “Dear Carolyn” or “Mrs. Parrish”.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Randy White: We can establish that later.

I've been an advocate of electronic voting for years. I believe in cost-benefit analysis, and I think that has sort of been done.

Initially, electronic voting was the motivation for this whole exercise way back when. I presume it is still there and whatever happens after this happens.

In my mind, the question of electronic voting, in and of itself, is starting to get weaker, not stronger, and that is with this issue we now have of applying votes. I keep thinking back. I can remember the days when we did stand on every vote. It was long and arduous, and there was a great argument for electronic voting.

Last Monday night we could have been there, I don't know how many hours, but probably five or six hours, I suppose.

I'd like to ask Mr. Marleau once again... I've asked this almost three times now at these meetings, and I'm sure you're ready for this question. Bob, what would have been the difference between Monday night, as it was, with our applying...and we didn't apply all the votes, and there were a couple...versus electronic voting? I have to get this solidly down in my mind to make sure that if we're going to spend any money at all, we're gaining some time.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I had anticipated this question, Mr. White. I'm not so sure you're anticipating my style of work, or my anticipating your style of work. I suppose being at the board allows me to observe your methodology in a privileged way that others may not.

Mr. Randy White: It's not always predictable.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Robert Marleau: On February 16, 1998, there were potentially 45 divisions. The clerk is passing out copies of these two documents. We started voting at 6.53 p.m. and finished at 8.03 p.m. It was a little more than an hour of actual time spent by members dealing with report stage motions. It should be underlined again that we're dealing with the report stage.

There were actually five roll-calls. If you averaged those at about eight minutes... The fourth and fifth were probably around five or six minutes. It gets a little faster; the clerk has warmed up and has a sense of who is in the House.

There were five roll-calls. There were 45 applications, nine of which resulted from the Speaker's ruling—as part of the ruling, the Speaker decides how many would be applied—and 32 were decided by the House and the whips acting in concert.

So while it took 70 minutes to do 46 divisions, that's approximately one and a half minutes per division. But if you take the roll-call out of that, if you want to isolate the time it took to apply the votes, it's about 45 seconds per vote.

Compared to electronic voting, which is your last question, Mr. White, it's hard for me to tell you what it would take. It depends on what the House would set down as the time for members to absorb the next question, decide and push their buttons, and the announcement of the tally.

So if you allowed two minutes for that process, for the extra 41 divisions, you're well over the hour it took to do all 45 in this context, just to do the balance of those that were applied. It's 90 minutes.

Mr. Randy White: I guess that answers what I've been thinking. I have built data systems for a number of years and always with the intent of saving time and money. I'm not so sure that no longer applies in this exercise.

• 1140

The Chairman: Mr. Fontana, as long as it's short.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I have a supplementary.

I'm happy you asked it, Randy. Again, I'd like to use your question in reverse.

Let me refer to the ones where we in fact had to take five roll-calls and therefore took 40 minutes to do those five. It was a roll-call that you did electronically. If you voted electronically on those five roll-calls, that would have been 10 seconds each times five, or 20 seconds each times five. That's one minute, as compared to the 40 minutes. So I think—

A voice: No, you can't do that.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Let me ask the question. You're saying you're taking 46 and dividing it. I can understand that. But I'm saying that for those five, if you were to eliminate the eight minutes each that it took us to do five, you would save a lot of time.

Mr. Robert Marleau: The actual data processing by the equipment would probably take 10 seconds. I'm not so sure that the actual data processing by members would allow you to go that fast. That's why I said it depends if you put the electronic voting on for those eight. It depends on what you allow procedurally for the member to take cognizance of what he or she is voting on and decide to vote.

The current system of application has a negotiated in-advance process, a chart that everyone amongst the whips and staff has shared to a large degree. There is already a decision made; it's a question of announcing that decision.

The Chairman: Bob Kilger on the same point, and then we'll go back to the list.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): I just want to follow up on Mr. White's point and on Mr. Fontana's intervention.

We talk about five actual roll-calls. The first one, of course, is necessary to establish the presence, the attendance, of members in the House before we can go on to applying votes. I would imagine that if and when—probably more than when—we go to electronic voting, we would probably still want to retain the ability to have recorded divisions.

For instance, on the motions where they were requested the other evening, they probably would still have been requested. Am I assuming something here, or would they actually have been applied electronically?

Rightfully so, a decision was made to bring attention to certain motions on a particular bill. I would think that even if we were voting electronically, probably that same value would have... So we would have still had the roll-calls on those particular motions. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. Randy White: That's fair to say.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I'm of the view of Mr. White and others who share the view that if we're trying to save time we should make it very clear that what we're talking about is very minimal at best.

Mr. Robert Marleau: That's been a debate since 1978. There are cost savings, as alluded to by Mr. White, but most of the cost saving is on the staff side—less time spent by staff doing inputs of this material and data.

I can either say that time saving is very minimal, or significant, as Mr. Fontana has taken as a position. Again, it is coloured by the rule you would have in place in terms of time allowed for members to vote. Assuming there haven't been these negotiations in advance, as occurs now for the application, assuming that's set aside, if that continues and everybody has their chart and you just substitute punching a button for the whips rising, yes, you could say it would be significant. But it is not significant if we continue with a recognition of what is happening on the floor for the House and television purposes.

The Chairman: Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): From listening to the points of view of everyone around the table, it's quite clear that there are quite varying degrees of enthusiasm.

When I became a big girl, I learned that, when I had to make a decision, there were three things I had to ask: is it essential, is it useful and is it pleasant? The more grown-up we are, the less we're inclined to choose things that are just pleasant.

At present, I think that electronic voting as such may be useful, although it doesn't seem to me to be essential.

• 1145

If we think about transforming the House of Commons into an annex to M.P.s' offices, I thing that may be pleasant for some of us. But I can tell you that, during the 1993 convention, if I'd been forced to answer “Am I good on computers and do I like it a lot?” Well, I'd have lost my convention if I'd run against someone who was 25 years old, crazy about computers and really good at it.

If we're thinking about transforming the House of Commons into a huge computer club, that's a problem for me. There's the whole issue of training. You know, during this Parliament, a lot of money has been invested to promote second-language training, and I imagine there are figures to back this up. When the results are evaluated, it's not clear that it paid off all that well. There are still many colleagues who are comfortable in their own language, but much less in the other one. I think it would probably be the same thing for computer training, unless of course we begin with games.

I can tell you that I've seen colleagues play cards in the House. The obvious advantage is that we'd never need to ask for a quorum again. I might be prepared to approve electronic voting as such, but as for the rest, personally, I have a lot of doubts. Don't think it's because I don't like pleasant things. Quite the contrary.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I found Ms. Dalphond-Guiral's comments altogether pleasant.

The Chairman: Mr. Yvon Charbonneau, then John Solomon, Chuck Strahl and Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): I have a technical question. Last night, I was looking through the document and I read that it's been suggested the keyboards be placed under the desks. Could you explain to us how that would work?

Mr. Louis Bard: The arrangements we are proposing for the desks must take into account the current context of the House of Commons, and we must, as far as possible, succeed in minimizing the impact on the infrastructures so as to respect the traditional integrity of the House. This is why we suggested placing the screen on the shelf and the keyboard underneath and to install the computer on the side. That's more or less the design we've looked at.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, this whole question reminds me of someone who goes to the garage to buy a car and comes out with an offer to purchase the whole garage. At first we were talking about electronic voting, but now it's just one option in an office automation system for M.P.s. You're being offered the garage. Maybe you'll also buy a car if you want to. I find things have got carried away.

The main argument was to save time and money. On examination, the question of time is no longer an argument at all. As for money, it remains to be seen. If we don't save the time we expected to by reducing voting time a little and if on top we have to pay the people who are going to maintain the things, give training and all the rest, where are the savings? So I don't know about the money argument anymore. The time argument, we know about that: there isn't one.

The other point is that we're on duty in the House about twice a week. Is it worth transforming our desk into an office where we do our riding work, read documents on the Internet or do office work in the House of Commons? Is the House of Commons made for office work?

Anyway, I find that we've digressed from the original intention. It seems to me that it's not in keeping with the spirit of a parliament, where we're supposed to listen to what others are saying so that we can ask questions or answer. But we're going to do all sorts of other things. We're provided with super-sophisticated equipment so that we can do anything but the business in hand. Is that what we want?

• 1150

My other question concerns the interference which you mention briefly in point 6 on page 8 of the French version of your document. You refer to the problem of external sources. You should look at this problem in particular if ever you go ahead with this option. It seems to me that when the Members hold a several-hour debate on an issue, whatever it may be, private bills or other things, we could, if we were the least bit organized, put out a series of calls and messages by e-mail and summon people here. There are lobbies that can begin massive campaigns in less than two or three hours and try to influence the Members. Pressure groups and political action committees may be mobilized and come to place pressure on Members for two hours to try and influence the debate. This is something that will have to be studied. It could somewhat affect the autonomy of debate normally enjoyed by a parliament.

So, as far as I'm concerned, wait till the third experimental stage before running trials on my desk.

[English]

The Chairman: John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Even though the NDP are viewed as living in the past, we use a lot of modern tools to do our job. In particular, in Saskatchewan we have state-of-the-art computers and—

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Billiard tables.

Mr. John Solomon: Yes, billiard tables, and all sorts of things that are very important. But I'm still not totally convinced about whether we need electronic voting.

I see two issues. First, do we want electronic voting, and if so, should we do it? Second, do we want to modernize MPs' offices and their ability to do their jobs better? If it's one or both, I think there is a distinction.

If it's the latter, then maybe we should be sending out a questionnaire and asking MPs whether they would like a modern photocopier, for example, because the ones we have now are archaic. Maybe we should ask whether they would like to have some modern computers with modern programming and some modern training for their staff, because now they don't have those. We have to buy them out of our members' budgets. Do you want to have Internet in your riding office—which is kind of important—rather than looking at these other things?

If we could do a questionnaire, let's ask MPs and their staff whether they have the tools to do the job they were elected to do. My sense is that most MPs' offices are not equipped to do the job with respect to modern technology, which as you know changes.

The other question you might want to ask is whether MPs are aware that the millennium problem is a problem in their offices. I would like to think it's not, but on my computers I think it is. Maybe we should deal with that, because that's going to be more important than electronic voting.

So I agree with doing a questionnaire, but let's ask MPs whether, if we're going to do electronic mail and advertise their e-mail addresses, they will need two or three more full-time staff to respond to the inquiries.

I did an experiment with e-mail in my riding. We advertised my address and we had more e-mail than I could handle. We had to kill the address. We just can't deal with it with our staff.

It's good for people who want to let you know what's going on, although you don't know where they're coming from. You wake up in the morning and you have 150 messages plus your stack of green books with your mail.

I think I would prefer to have two or three more staff, more modern technology, and more assurances that the Y2K problem has been resolved, and then maybe look at saving four seconds a month on whether we're going to vote.

So I'm still unconvinced, but I support Carolyn's recommendation that we survey members and see whether we can modernize our offices before we start spending millions of dollars on the House of Commons itself, where that gives us an opportunity to sit down and do three things: we go there to speak, to listen, and to learn. I think the latter is underutilized and if we had computers at our desks we'd learn less from our colleagues who are saying certain things about certain issues.

I wouldn't say I'm undecided, but I'm unconvinced about whether we need to get into the modern equipment. If we can do what I think members want in their offices with respect to equipment and staffing, then yes, the logical next step is to try to extend that to other areas, whether to the House of Commons proper, to our automobiles, or to the airplanes we're travelling in.

• 1155

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl and Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have a few comments.

Bob, you can comment on any of this if you want, but if we are to survey our members I think we should do it after implementation of the new computer program. Everyone is being upgraded right now—all the offices, all the software and the training for the staff. It's all being made possible. The survey of the members on the current computer system, if valid, should happen after all that has taken place. It's going to be a big improvement. There are millions of dollars being spent on upgrading offices right now. So that's a timing thing.

I think those who are really keen on using a virtual office, or on packing one with them, already do so in a notebook. Those who are going to use it are already starting to use it. They pack their notebooks and they're faithful to them. The fact that it's there won't make someone use it more often, except to play with it. Those who are serious are already using their laptops effectively.

The other problem I have is that this started as a small project and has turned into a... Every time we have an additional idea it weakens the case for electronic voting. I realize that it's just an add-on cost to the add-on cost, but what started out as a button on the dash—press red for yes and blue for no—has turned into a $3 million monster. I think it's weakening the case.

The total budget for this place has gone down for a couple of years but is going to take a big bump up this year. Every time we talk about another few million dollars for members' office budgets, computers, travel allowances or whatever, the total budget of this place comes under a lot of pressure. I don't think it can sustain unlimited additions, and this is a fairly expensive one.

With regard to the actual use of it, as I mentioned before when it was brought forward—I'm a little nervous that what is working very well right now... The fear that this was going to be a pizza parliament has not happened, because the parties have been forced to work together. One of the ways they work together is on the votes. So Bob, John, and I and everybody get together and work—it's part of the cooperation that makes the rest of the place work.

If it's just another reason not to talk to anybody, then I think the opposition parties and the government will find another way to be at odds with one another, and who knows what that may be? There is a certain usefulness in trying to restrict the time on the votes. It makes the government more cooperative and it gives the opposition parties a tool in their arsenal—and there are not a lot of them—to say we could vote for six hours, or we can cooperate on something here. They can find that there is some value in cooperating.

Finally, I think the changes to the standing orders need to precede the changes to the computer voting. Unless you change report stage and the way it's handled, you can't do it more quickly than what we're doing.

On the other hand, I am reluctant to say let's change the report stage, because it is one of the things opposition parties have in their arsenal to highlight—as we did the other night—certain parts of bills that we don't like. To change the report stage standing orders and the way we handle that as part of an electronic voting thing is not something I am keen on doing as an opposition party member.

That's the wrong way around. I'm going to say I need something that's going to allow all opposition parties to have ways of highlighting and pressuring the government, and although we may not win the day—we haven't won a lot of the votes—it does give us something. I'm not willing to say let's cut the votes down to two and do it another way without seeing some net benefit to this democratic process. That's why I'm not keen on saying let's try to make it quick to vote. My objective is not just quick to vote, it's also the ability of parties to influence the government, to work cooperatively and to pressure the government at times. I don't see any of that happening under this proposal. It's a very expensive proposal that won't make any of that happen.

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan, Bob Kilger, and André Harvey.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 1200

I could easily persuade myself that even a saving of five or ten minutes could be significant, because significance is relative. If I were to miss a plane for a constituency function without the extra ten minutes on a particular voting day, that becomes a significant ten-minute saving. So whether we save five or three minutes all depends on the next function we may have to do.

Having said that, I share a lot of the concerns that have been raised, including the priorization and allocation of the needs we have in front of us and how we address the challenges in front of us.

My questions to our witnesses relate to the operational, procedural, and technological concerns, not prejudging how I will eventually support the need for the system at this point.

If we were unable to solve these technological problems, would you still advise us to proceed with the system? You have identified electronic interference, screen legibility, and interference with television broadcasts. Despite the best efforts, if we were unable to solve it with guaranteed technology problems, would you still recommend that we proceed with the system?

Mr. Louis Bard: The full report confirms that we have the means, the tools, and the technologies to meet the requirements and to offer a very good environment within the chambers.

The concerns I alluded to here are more about having computers in the chambers, about having staff in the chambers, which we walked around, and all of these points. It's more like the kinds of concerns that need to be developed within the chamber's way of doing day-to-day business.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Which of course brings me to my second and last question.

No strangers are allowed in the chamber, at least when it is officially sitting. So we will be modifying the rule of no strangers being allowed. I have a concern about that.

You only have narrow aisles, and if you have so many staff climbing at the same time—I need his help, otherwise I cannot debate—I think that could pose a serious problem. I have raised some concerns and I think it is an issue. I have always argued that we should respond to the current technology challenges, but obviously the committee may need further study.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Bob Kilger and André Harvey.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. Marleau and Mr. Bard have been here on a few occasions, and they are probably wondering how many more times they will have to come before we make a decision on this matter. It appears the subject matter is—

Mr. Robert Marleau: It's the same pay.

Mr. Bob Kilger: It seems as though it is taking on a life of its own. Maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves a little bit. There's been a fair amount of expression from both sides of the table that maybe we should be gathering more information.

As we look to the reconstruction of the west block and the new temporary House after this Parliament, would this issue not be more appropriately dealt with within that context, after an information-gathering period? It might subsequently come back to this committee, and it would have to be dealt with by the Board of Internal Economy.

I'm repeating myself, but I feel we're ahead of ourselves on this one, particularly when you consider, as has already been mentioned by my colleagues, whips, and the House leader from the Reform Party, the progress that's been made in the House through cooperation from all parties in the application of votes.

We talk about the time saving, but I'll speak from exchanges I've had with my own party colleagues. A good number still feel very strongly about their responsibility to stand in their place and vote. We can have a debate just about that, but believe me, a lot of them feel very strongly about that. I won't speak for other parties. I don't sense a great strong consensus on the issue to move away from what sometimes can be frustrating, time consuming, and all those other things.

• 1205

If we want to address the element of time-saving, I think we've had a brief discussion about the subject matter I'm going to raise once again; I don't know whether we want to pursue it a little further. To add to what we're already doing in terms of applying votes, we could make changes to the standing orders that would require more than one person...

As it stands right now, one person can deny consent for the application of votes, notwithstanding that that person still votes individually. Whether I apply the votes for our party and you do subsequently for your party, that person or any one person who would decline that unanimous consent would still be recognized, in the application form we use, as an individual. So it becomes a little bit more of an interference. I'll leave it at that.

I wonder if we shouldn't be putting the electronic voting aside for the time being and just dealing with the issue of whether we want to look at the standing orders to require more than one member to put the House in a position where it has to do an individual roll call.

I'll leave it at that for the time being, but I'll be considering putting forward a motion to put the electronic voting matter aside and subsequently look at the standing orders, if we want to add to the progress we've already made in the application of votes.

The Chairman: If we go to André Harvey, Mac Harb, and John Richardson—those are the people I have on the list at the moment—then perhaps we could come back to this possibility.

[Translation]

André.

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a consensus among the Members about the need to be cautious before transferring our offices to the House of Commons.

I enjoyed the comments made by my colleagues, Chuck Strahl, Yvon Charbonneau and John Solomon of the NDP. Personally, when I go to the House of Commons, either for my duty period in the House or to meet my colleagues who are there, it gives me a chance to stand back and look at a lot of things objectively.

As Members of Parliament, we have a huge responsibility, which is to vote. Our role is not to give our fellow Canadians the impression that on our parliamentary desks, there is excessive activism. We have to look objectively at what is presented every day in the House of Commons. I think we have to resist a little what's being proposed to us. Naturally, the board wishes to make swift technological advances, but I think that, as Members of Parliament, we must maintain our freedom, at least in the House. It's probably the only place where we're not constantly disturbed by all sort of things. We're expected to vote, to think and discuss things with our colleagues. It's probably the only place remaining to us, where we can take an objective look at reality.

So, I tend to be rather cautious, Mr. Chairman, with regard to this issue. It's great for our offices to be well equipped. But at my desk in the House of Commons, I like to be all alone with my friends, the other Members of Parliament, and have my thoughts to myself. I don't want to be disturbed by anyone. There aren't many places like that left, Mr. Chairman.

We mustn't give our fellow Canadians the impression we want to be activists. The best minds I've met have always been those that gave the impression of having all the time in the world. These aren't the people beside me, who seem overloaded, not at all. So, we have to be cautious concerning the matter of electronic voting and the computer invasion of the House.

It's a fine privilege we have at present, as Members of Parliament, to still be somewhat human, if I may say. It's a place where we can meet our colleagues and discuss with them. To vote well, it's important to have the opportunity of discussing things with others.

If I'm beside Stéphane or Yvon and they communicate with me all the time by e-mail, I'll have to apologize for bothering them. That's not what we want. There, we adjust, we listen to what is being presented in the House, we study the bills and read the documentation. It's probably the only place left for us to do so.

When we return to our offices, it doesn't stop. Like all my colleagues, I'm fairly cautious with regard to electronic voting. It doesn't even save time, which was one of the key elements when we began to study this issue.

The Chairman: Thank you, André.

[English]

We'll go to Mac Harb and John Richardson, and then we'll come back to the suggestion we have.

Mac.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am really puzzled, because when this issue came before us, Mr. Epp and I were both very enthusiastic, on behalf of everybody on the committee, to introduce a motion right there and then in order to adopt electronic voting. It seemed to me that it didn't take really much time for this committee to turn full circle, and suddenly we reversed our own consensus that we began with.

• 1210

I'm an engineer, and I came to this place because I wanted to find solutions, but frankly, Mr. Chair, I'm somewhat disappointed that we are not proceeding with this, because I think it's high time for us to come out of the cave age where we have to stand up, each one of us, in order to be accountable to our constituents. I'm not speaking for myself, but I know that many of my colleagues sometimes stand up to vote in the House of Commons and are voting just based on what the whip did when he or she stood up. We don't know, in some cases, on which item we are voting, whether we're voting on part of motion A or part of motion B.

But this is not the issue here. The issue is we are moving to the 21st century and we have an opportunity now, yes, to pay up front some cost for the technology, but I tell you, the benefits are tremendous in the long run, in terms of staff time, our time, and House of Commons time. I would say that at times we have to swallow our pride. Yes, we may not be able to find everyone in our caucuses who might be supportive of the initiative. I bet you anything there's nothing on this planet, not one issue on this planet, that's going to satisfy all of the people of the planet, never mind the caucus of one political party or another. This is very far from reaching that kind of consensus.

Before the staff went and spent a ton-load of time, energy, and resources in order to prepare this report, I wanted to put a motion at the last meeting to approve in principle whether or not we wanted to proceed with this, only to come back now and find it looks as though we are going to kill it. It's my hope, Mr. Chair, that we will not kill it. If we want to take more time, that's fine. I am willing to entertain that. But I think it would be a grave mistake for us to miss an opportunity, yet again another opportunity, to adopt electronic voting.

Come on, guys. We're moving into the next century and we're standing up one by one in the House of Commons, wasting, in some cases, like last week, over one and a half hours on voting. Well, surely the House of Commons staff as well as our staff and we ourselves would have been able to do something a little more productive than standing up.

The Chairman: John Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Throughout the debate we're watching and we're listening. I find there's a certain sense of collegial approach to this. The options vary. Whatever we're talking about, we're always talking about money. In this case we're talking about time. During the period that we've been discussing this, the cooperation among the parties in the House in seeing that we have applied votes has amazed me. The time it takes us to vote has contracted.

I couldn't believe, just setting up for the number of votes, that we would have gone much faster with the electronic system. We probably would have, but in my own mind, I have enough doubt to say I would not want to kill it, but I would certainly like to see it set aside, for the following reason. There has been enough stated on both sides that leaves some small division possibly that could be put together, and then by setting it aside and bringing it back as we stand away from it, we probably would see it a little clearer.

But certainly it is time, and what we're talking about is a small margin of time in the choice between both systems.

That's all I have to say, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Colleagues, we've had a very good discussion, but I have Stéphane Bergeron on the list, and then we can go back.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Chairman, since you asked me—I imagine this is in the wake of what we discussed last week—my comments will be brief and, I imagine, relevant. At the outset, I didn't intend to say anything, since I felt, on listening to the comments around the table, there was a certain consensus. Mac's comments, however, convinced me that I had to say something.

I was also among those, Mr. Chairman, who were very enthusiastic about going ahead with electronic voting. I'm one of those who think that the work done by the House staff, which we have before our eyes and which we have studied in recent weeks, has not been in vain. It's not because we're not moving today or that we're not embarking on that path today that we won't take that path some day. We now have a foundation for our thinking. The work we've done on this issue is part of that foundation. We or other Members who come after us will be able to continue thinking about it. But I feel that at present, in the light of what's been said up to now, we're not ready to embark on that path.

• 1215

We were given the example of the evening when we conducted 46 votes. Whether or not we'd voted electronically on Monday evening, we still would have held 46 votes. In spite of the fact we had to vote more than once, the rest of the time, we applied votes. I'm persuaded and absolutely convinced that it wouldn't have been faster to vote electronically. At least, no one's provided me with formal, concrete, irrefutable evidence that it would have been faster than what we managed to do on Monday, despite the fact we stayed there for an hour and a half. Isn't it the ultimate role of an M.P. to vote on amendments and bills?

We may be surprised to have to spend a lot of time voting on amendments and bills, but I think we should have asked ourselves that question before standing for election, because it's the ultimate role of a Member to declare himself on bills.

I feel therefore that, no matter what they say, the idea of getting up in the House, before the Canadian people and the Quebec people, and clearly expressing my vote in favour or not of an amendment or a bill means something to me. I don't mean by that that electronic voting would prevent me from making my position known.

A worthwhile foundation has been established. It may serve us in our thinking in the future. But, as Chuck pointed out earlier, the House of Commons budgets have been cut very drastically in recent years and if pubic finance now allows us some growth, I'd like it, as John said, if we perhaps considered things other than electronic voting to meet M.P.s' needs.

During the time we had to go through budget restrictions, many services formerly offered to M.P.s were abolished. There are many services in a modern world like ours that must now be given to Members and that we haven't given ourselves in recent years. We should consider that before thinking about installing an electronic voting system. That's what I had to say, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, we've had a number of meetings on this and this has been a very open discussion.

Bob, would you care to rephrase your suggestion?

Mr. Bob Kilger: I'm in the committee's hands. I want to echo part of what Stéphane said. We all share the value of what the clerk, Mr. Bard, and others have contributed to our discussions.

Following greater reflection of this issue and other issues that were raised by Chuck, and now by Stéphane, in terms of the overall financial picture of the chamber and what John and others said about our making some improvements on members' operating budgets, I'm amongst those who view that we still have other issues to look at.

This information has already been valuable, but it will continue to be valuable when this matter finds itself in another, slightly different form at a different time, leading up to the rehabilitation of the west block. So whether the language should be to suspend or whatever, Mr. Chairman, I'm not here to—

The Chairman: My sense is that it's to set the issue aside for the time being, particularly in light of the fact, as you've put it, that there are going to be changes in the House of Commons in the move to the west block in the near future. Whether we need a vote on that, colleagues, I don't know, but that's my sense.

Mac.

Mr. Mac Harb: I am willing to go along with that—if you defer it—with the understanding that it will come back to this committee at a certain time. If you put it aside and we never see it again, I will not have a chance to go on record as being in support of electronic voting. I'll go along with it if there's a timeframe.

The Chairman: So between the two of you, could you come up with a phrasing for that then?

Go ahead, Joe.

• 1220

Mr. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I have the same concern. We're starting to say now that we're not even going to consider it until such time as the move. I mean, you're talking about the next Parliament.

Surely to God, between the 35th Parliament, where we in fact started to talk a little bit about something, and the 36th Parliament, where in fact we were all looking...

Do you know what I heard today? An awful lot of questions. There are a number of questions on these issues. I would agree to set this matter aside, but if it's the view to set this matter aside for the next Parliament, I think that's being unfair to a number of people who would still have a number of questions.

The survey has to be done, so—

The Chairman: Can we come up with a motion on it? Let's have a motion.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I think the tabling motion would probably be—

Mr. Bob Kilger: Let's table a motion, then, that we defer the matter until this time next year. If there's a more suitable suggestion—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: To the call of the chair.

Mr. Bob Kilger: To the call of the chair, then.

The Chairman: Are you suggesting that it be set aside?

Mr. Bob Kilger: Set aside to the call of the chair.

The Chairman: Mac.

Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chairman, in fairness, I think I would be happy if we were to put it until October 1998. It would give us a few months to do some proper consultation, including the survey.

The Chairman: The suggestion is that this matter be set aside to the call of the chair for approximately a year.

Colleagues, is that reasonable?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Joe Fontana: That sounds fair.

An hon. member: Kicking and screaming, yes.

Mr. Randy White: Don't we really mean, Mr. Chairman, that the idea is getting trashed? I mean, what do we establish by deferring this for a year?

The Chairman: Randy, my sense is that we're trying to pick up on the sort of consensus that was developing here. The point's been made. A lot of work's been done. There's interest in it. There are changes facing the House of Commons. What do we do?

My sense is that there is no consensus here to move forward now on this matter, but there is some interest among our colleagues in seeing that it continues to live.

I will go to John Solomon—if we are going back to a list—and then Joe Fontana.

Mr. John Solomon: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I would be interested in seeing a questionnaire developed to members of Parliament, raising this and the other issues both I and other members have referred to, and maybe do a little research on that and ask each member to fill out the questionnaire. Have a questionnaire developed that the committee could look at, and get some research done. I think we should look at all the components of the offices and staffing and so on.

There are two points I want to make. American congressmen have between twenty and thirty-five staff people. We have four in the NDP because of our wage scale, but others may have five or six. As well, in the U.S. Congress and the in Senate, when they vote on an issue, they're given an hour to vote on each issue. They can come and go, and put in their cards and vote. That's an hour per issue. If we had 45 things to vote on, potentially we could be there for 10 or 12 hours, because you have to read these things individually. You have to consult with your whip or your caucus chair or your House leader or whomever.

So we shouldn't drop it. I think we should get some information and put in the research and thank the wonderful folks who did the work. They're doing a great job. I think we should pursue this in terms of getting some research for members to see what they think about this issue and modern technology.

The Chairman: Joe Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I agree. I think that's how we started. In fact, if this committee would bother to look at the survey in the questionnaire that was asked at the last Parliament...and we would do it, because it was mentioned by Chuck and Carolyn and you.

I mean, let's take a year, to the call of the chair, to ascertain this. Chuck indicated that there's an awful lot of transformation going on now within the House of Commons in terms of technology. I think we should develop that questionnaire again, because the last one didn't include some new members of Parliament in terms of where they are coming from on this whole notion of technology. We could gather this information. The pressure is off to make a decision this year or within the next six months or a year.

That's perfectly fine, but I think we ought to continue to survey our members as to what they really believe their real needs are. It may very well be technology or electronic voting or new staff.

That's part of what this committee's about anyway, isn't it?

The Chairman: I'd be glad to take to our steering committee the point John has made in light of the agreement we've just come to. Is that okay?

• 1225

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I think it should be the chair of the subcommittee on members' services.

The Chairman: Colleagues, on your behalf, I'll thank our witnesses, Mr. Marleau and Mr. Bard. We appreciate your time, Mr. Bard, in particular for the technical information you provided, which was wonderful.

Mr. Marleau, briefly.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I would like to very briefly comment on something Mr. Solomon mentioned. I would feel uncomfortable if this was unanswered in your record. This concerns the Y2K, year 2000, problem that he raised.

The House will be ready for the year 2000. The board has been briefed. Mr. Bard's team has been working at it for more than a year and a half. You will be receiving very shortly a document that you will be able to use, as members as well, to answer constituents or businesses as to whether the House will be ready in the year 2000.

The Chairman: We appreciate that comment.

Colleagues, before we finish, I remind you of Monday evening at 5 p.m. This is a meeting with the delegation from Britain. Please give us the names of guests you'd like to bring.

The Tuesday meeting, the one we had scheduled with our colleagues, is postponed, but I would be grateful if you would keep the Tuesday time slot available. We'll have to schedule it somewhere else, but it might be possible to have a more straightforward meeting at that time.

The meeting is adjourned.