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, April 30, 1998

• 1107

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, could we begin?

Before we introduce our witnesses, in terms of the schedule for the committee, next Tuesday there will be a steering committee meeting. The purpose of the steering committee meeting is mainly to discuss the way in which we're going to continue to deal with the Canada Elections Act material. Secondly, the meeting is to map out the time left and the general pattern for the committee. So that's for the steering committee only.

Depending on the outcome of that, we will know what we will be doing a week today, but at the moment my intention is to have a regular committee meeting at the usual time next Thursday.

Are there any questions on the schedule?

By the way, for the members of the steering committee, the material in connection with our meeting will reach our offices this afternoon, or something of that sort. Is that okay?

Our orders of the day are the orders of reference from the House of Commons of Thursday, February 26, 1998, the main estimates 1998-99, vote 5 under Parliament (House of Commons), and of March 25, 1998, report on plans and priorities, sessional paper number 8520-361-165.

Appearing before us today—and we are pleased to welcome him—is the Speaker, the Honourable Gilbert Parent.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome you on behalf of the committee.

We have as witnesses Robert Marleau, Clerk of the House; William Corbett, Clerk Assistant for Corporate Resources; and Major-General Clouthier, the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Gentlemen, we welcome you all.

Mr. Speaker, we are in your hands.

The Honourable Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons): Well, I do thank you, Peter.

I was looking at the material I'm going to be reading to you. I see you all have it in front of you. I'm going to put myself in your hands. Every year I come and I read my statement. I love reading to you, but you can read quite well.

When did you get this statement? Was it just this morning?

A voice: Now.

A voice: Yes, just now.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: May I suggest, so that you can have time to ask us questions—we always run out—why don't you take five minutes, and read it over. I'll just pick out four or five highlights, and we'll go from there.

How's that, Peter?

The Chairman: I look around and I see nods. We'd be glad to do that. Then, Mr. Speaker, we could take it as read, and then it would be in the record.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Yes, all of it should be put in there.

The Chairman: So, colleagues, if we—

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: But I'll hit on the highlights—

The Chairman: Quite.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: —and then you can get into it. You can ask us questions.

The Chairman: Now, I see agreement, and we appreciate the suggestion. Colleagues, let's take a moment.

Statement by the Honourable Gilbert Parent: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Committee for your invitation to be here today. I am pleased to present two important items: the 1998-99 Main Estimates for the House of Commons and the House's Report on Plans and Priorities.

With your permission, I would like to make a brief presentation in order to give you an overview of where we've been and where we're going. Then the Clerk will run through some slides that go into a bit more detail. Following this we will answer any questions that members of the Committee may have.

In April 1997 I appeared before this Committee to discuss the House of Commons' equivalent of the Main Estimates, Part III, for 1997-98. As you know, over the past two years there have been some significant changes underway in the planning and reporting cycle of the federal government. These changes were the subject of considerable study by your Sub-Committee on the Business of Supply.

[Translation]

Under this new system, the previous Parts III of the Main Estimates have effectively been split into two separate documents that are tabled at different times of the year. In the spring, when the financial requirements of the government are presented in the House, the Treasury Board President tables the Reports on Plans and Priorities for each government department. These documents set out the commitments being made, the performance targets being set, as well as the strategies and priorities being used to meet them.

In the fall, departments then prepare performance reports which state what has been accomplished and provide the data and information that demonstrates the extent to which their performance targets have been met.

[English]

The House of Commons, under the guidance of the Board of Internal Economy, has implemented a similar cycle for its own planning and reporting.

Last fall, as Chair of the Board of Internal Economy, I tabled the first-ever Annual Report for the House of Commons Administration. Since this was a first and since our activities are very much driven by the electoral cycle, the Annual Report covered the entire 35th Parliament; from January 1994 to June 1997. You have previously received this report but I would like to spend a few moments highlighting some of the achievements and progress that we have made.

Beginning with the Gagliano plan in January 1994 and under the guidance of the Board of Internal Economy, the House Administration has carried out a program of renewal and restructuring. This not only saw significant downsizing and cost savings; it also refocused service delivery squarely on Members of Parliament in their four lines of business. [Note: Constituencies, Chamber proceedings, Committees & Caucuses].

It is worth noting here the dramatic changes that have occurred in our operating environment since 1994, including the unprecedented number of new MPs that arrived after the 1994 election, and the six new ridings and two new parties that became a reality in 1997. Despite these challenges, we have continued to meet the multi-year reduction targets laid out by the Board, including those in the 1996 Outlook on Program Priorities and Expenditures.

On the information technology front, we have taken tremendous strides forward in the services and equipment that are offered to Members and their staff. The network infrastructure in the Precinct has been upgraded and become more stable, allowing Members to utilize such services as e-mail. Members can seamlessly communicate via e-mail with others on the Hill, with their constituency offices, with other federal departments, and with their constituency offices, with other federal departments, and with anyone in the world via the Internet. In fact, your office received the notice of today's meeting via e-mail, thanks to a system that manages committee information. It's not all that long ago when those notices were hand-delivered to each office by messengers.

[Translation]

We've provided Members with access to the vast resources of the World Wide Web, and in turn, we've developed a Parliamentary Web site in co-operation with the Senate and the Library. This brave new world puts each day's Hansard in the hands of people around the globe before most of us are even awake the next morning. Not to mention that electronic document delivery has enabled considerable savings in paper and printing. We've reduced the number of printing impressions by an incredible 100 million, or the equivalent of 3,864 trees. These measures go a long way to “Greening the Hill”, and are complemented by the recycling and waste reduction programs that have been expanded over the past few years.

There have been some notable improvements in the delivery of other services around the Hill as well. We've introduced “one-stop ”shopping for postal, distribution and stationery stores in each building. Transportation and delivery services have been improved by reengineering the schedules and routes. We've continued to meet client needs while reducing the size of the vehicle fleet.

[English]

There have also been some real success stories thanks to the partnerships that have been forged in recent years. Security services at the House and the Senate have worked in cooperation to upgrade the photograph badge system. We've worked closely with the Library of Parliament to allow Members access to an impressive collection of CD ROM reference resources via the network. Beyond Parliament, we've joined with Veterans Affairs and Industry Canada to provide visitors to the Memorial Chapel electronic access to the Books of Remembrance. And thanks to a unique arrangement with the Public Service Commission and the Corporation du Fort-Saint-Jean, Members, their staff and House personnel receive language training in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu at no direct cost to the House.

Our ongoing partnership with CPAC, the Cable Public Affairs Channel, has resulted in savings of $2 million. The interests of both parties and the Canadian public have been well served by this arrangement - which was enabled by CPAC's licence from the CRTC. For your information, that licence will likely come up for renewal sometime during this Parliament.

Reaching beyond government, we have worked with the Library of Parliament and the Senate to introduce an annual program called the Teacher's Institute, of which I am particularly proud. This four-day program brings 80 elementary and high school teachers to Ottawa from across Canada to learn about democracy and the Canadian Parliament first-hand, from parliamentarians themselves and the people who work with them.

[Translation]

Those are a few of the accomplishments of the recent past. They are important and deserve to be recognized. However, I am here with you today not only to speak about what has gone before, but to also share with you the plans for the future—plans that will ensure that we continue to meet the evolving needs of Members of Parliament well into the new millennium.

The Board of Internal Economy approved the Report on Plans and Priorities, or “RPP” which defines the key results the Administration must achieve in order to serve Members in their four lines of business and to sustain the Institution from one parliament to the next. These are the basics, if you will; the facilities, advice, information, services and resources that Members need to serve Canadians.

[English]

The RPP sets out six priorities for 1998-99 and beyond. These are the areas where we need to focus our attention and efforts, in order to ensure that the basics will still be there next year, in ten years and for the Members who will arrive in this place long after we're gone. I'll run through the six of them very quickly and let you follow up with any specific questions after.

“Improving Information Resources for Members” is an important priority and one on which we've already made some significant progress. The Year 2000 problem is well in hand at the House of Commons, as evidenced in the report that was distributed to all Members recently. We're also working on systems that will give Members on-line access to information about their financial, human and materiel resources, and offer them electronic forms to transact much of their administrative business. Members will begin to see some of these services as early as June this year. There are also new systems that will continue to improve the quality and timeliness of information about activities in the Chamber and in committees.

[Translation]

The renovations we've seen going on for the past few years will be ongoing well into the next century and will therefore continue to have a huge impact on our work. The House Administration is closely involved in the renovation projects to ensure that the new facilities will meet Member's needs into the 21st century and that office space will be functional, secure and distributed equitably. And all this while preserving the heritage and beauty of our parliament buildings for future generations.

An important component of the long-term architectural plan is integrating an upgraded security infrastructure and taking advantage of new security technologies. Enhancing security is also an important priority when it comes to protecting information and assets in an electronic world, and in increasing our emergency preparedness at the House or Commons. Events like the ice storm earlier this year serve to remind us all that we need to make sure that the House is able to function during whatever type of crisis might arise.

[English]

A fourth priority for the House Administration is continuing to invest in the people who keep this place running each and every day. This means offering training and learning resources to Members and their staff, as well as administrative personnel, particularly in relation to using the new information technologies. It also means retaining some of the very unique skills and knowledge that the workforce here provides for Members.

Also related to the importance of investing in people is the need to continuously improve our communications infrastructure. The House of Commons is an environment that relies heavily on the smooth flow of information. Improving communications will ensure that the organization acts as an integrated, unified whole in responding to the needs of their clients, the Members of Parliament.

Finally, the sixth priority is to continue the work of improving the Administration's accountability mechanisms. The Report on Plans and Priorities before you today gives you the framework. As I mentioned earlier, the Board will table a performance report this fall that accounts to Members for the results achieved by the Administration and for the resources it employs.

Before I finish here and hand over to the Clerk, I would like to turn your attention for a moment to the Main Estimates themselves. As I explained at the beginning of my presentation, the Estimates this year are really just the numbers. It's the information in the RPP that tells you what we're going to do with those dollars.

You know that Canadians everywhere have experienced the impacts of the program to reduce and finally eliminate the deficit. The House of Commons cut its budget significantly over the past four years, and quite frankly, it wasn't always easy. In 1994-95 the House Estimates stood at $238.5 million. Over four years, we reduced those to $213.6 million in 1997-98. In terms of person-years, the Administration reduced its workforce by 25% over that period. Among the management ranks, we have reduced the number of senior executives by almost 40% and the number of other managers by close to 30%.

[Translation]

Coming into the current fiscal year we are able to address some of the requirements that have had to wait until the deficit situation was under control.

Our Estimates this year have been increased by 10.1% over last year, bringing us to approximately $235 million for 1998-99. I might just point out, however, that when you adjust that figure for inflation, it brings us back to the levels we were seeing in the Estimates from 1987-88, over ten years ago.

[English]

A significant portion of the increase does nothing more than meet the needs of the six new ridings that resulted from the changes to the electoral boundaries and the two new recognized parties that emerged from the 1997 election. Another share of the new funds goes towards paying the Treasury Board-directed increases to employer contributions to benefit plans. Of course, as you know, we were able to increase Members' Operating Budgets this year for the first time since April 1993, and the Board of Internal Economy has also authorized funding for the new resource management system and other improvements to our technology infrastructure.

These are important investments that will serve us well, long into the future.

The Clerk has a presentation that will show you the numbers in more detail. Once he's done that, we will be happy to respond to any questions you may have.

• 1110

• 1113

The Chairman: Mr. Speaker, it seems to be very clear, and I assume now that before questions we'll go to the slides, the clerk's slides.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: If you want me to highlight, I can speak—it's four or five minutes—

The Chairman: By all means.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Then I want the clerk to show us the slides, and then...whatever you're interested in. That's what we're here for.

The Chairman: Mr. Speaker, if you could proceed and do that, it would be fine with us.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: All right.

Now, there were some changes. The changes were the subject of considerable study by the subcommittee on business and supply.

[Translation]

Under this new system, the previous Parts III of the Main Estimates have been split into two separate documents that are tabled at different times of the year. In the spring, when the financial requirements of the government are presented in the House, the Treasury Board President tables the Reports on Plans and Priorities for each government department. These documents now focus on the future and set out the commitments being made, the performance targets as well as the strategies and priorities being used to meet them.

In the fall, each department prepares a performance report which states what has been accomplished and provides the data and information that demonstrates the extent to which their performance targets have been met.

[English]

Many of you who sit on the Board of Internal Economy will know that last fall we tabled the first-ever annual report for the House on the House of Commons administration. Since this was a first, and since our activities are very much driven by the electoral cycle, the annual report covered the entire 35th Parliament. You received this report previously, but here are just a few things that I want to point out.

Since the Gagliano plan, there has been significant downsizing and cost savings, and we've refocused service delivery squarely on members of Parliament in their four lines of business—that is, their constituencies, the chamber proceedings, the committees, and the caucuses.

It's worth noting that the dramatic change that occurred in the operating environments since 1994 was the unprecedented number of new MPs that arrived after the 1993 election, and the six new ridings.

So despite all the challenges, we've continued to meet the multi-year reduction targets laid out by the board, including those in the 1996 outlook on program priorities and expenditures, which you all have.

• 1115

The network infrastructure of the precinct has been upgraded and has become more stable, allowing members to utilize services such as e-mail. In fact, all of you got the information for this meeting on that particular e-mail; that's how much we can use it now.

[Translation]

Besides giving Members access to the vast resources of the Internet, we have developed a parliamentary Web site in co- operation with the Senate and the Library. So the three organizations are together on one site. This new tool allows us to communicate each day's Hansard around the globe before most of us are even awake in the morning, unless we have to get up at 3 A.M.

[English]

The rest of it is pretty self-explanatory, except that I want to underscore something about CPAC, the cable public affairs channel. We realized savings of $2 million. It goes without saying that the interests of both parties and the Canadian public have been well served by this arrangement.

Here in Parliament I instituted the Teachers' Institute, which we're organizing again for next year. It seems that the teachers we bring in are having a significant impact in the areas they come from.

[Translation]

The Board of Internal Economy approved the Report on Plans and Priorities, or RPP, which defines the key results the Administration must achieve in order to serve Members in those four lines of business we already discussed and to sustain the Institution from one parliament to the next.

[English]

The RPP sets out six priorities for 1999 and beyond. For example, the year 2000 problem is well in hand for us in the House of Commons, and this should be evidenced in the report that was distributed to all of the members recently.

[Translation]

The renovations we have seen going on for the past few years will be ongoing well into the next century and will therefore continue to have a huge impact on our work. You can see construction going on all over the Hill. An important component of the long-term architectural plan is integrating an up-graded security infrastructure and taking advantage of new security technologies. Gus will deal with this part later on.

[English]

The fourth priority of the House administration is to continue to invest in people. We have to upgrade the talents of our people, and we have to do so in hiring the new people to replace those who have left. Where we're going to do that they should be people who are conversant with our culture and able to fit in with us quite well. So we're going to be investing in people in the months and years ahead.

Finally, the sixth priority is to continue the work of improving the administration's accountability mechanisms. The report on plans and priorities before you today gives you the framework.

I would underscore.... I'm trying to anticipate one of the questions you have. But you know, with all the downsizing and everything, in 1994 the House estimates had $238.5 million, and over four years we have reduced those to $213.6 million in 1998-99.

In terms of person-years, the administration has reduced its workforce here on the Hill by 25%. Among the management ranks—this is a question we have a lot—we've reduced the number of senior executives by almost 40%, and the number of other managers by close to 40%. That's to underscore that it's not just the little people who have been involved in this thing. Our managers have been involved even more than the people who do not have their types of responsibilities.

By and large, you have all this information in front of you. I trust that you'll take time to digest it a little more. It could be that by reading it all, some of the questions that could come up might be answered. But I leave that to your discretion.

I'm going to turn this over to Bob now. He can give you an overview in his own terms of what all this paper deals with.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Marleau.

Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and I prefer to deal with your questions, as well.

• 1120

Picking up from where the Speaker just left off on the multi-year trends in House administration person-years, I should say that the Speaker is quite right. Since the program began, we've reduced our.... When we appeared before you last year, we were forecasting an approximate reduction to 1,400 from where we began at 1,712 person-years for the House administration.

The downsizing program closed on March 31 of this year, for the early retirement incentive as well as the early departure incentive. In all, 431 people have opted for the two programs. It represents almost 25% of the workforce. We are now down to 1,340 for the current fiscal year. The last time the House had that number of people working in House administration was 1973-74. So we have gone back to a level of staffing that takes us back to 25 years in the past in terms of numbers.

The next slide outlines the distribution of the main estimates by line of business. You remember that a couple of years ago, in its first outlook document, the board adopted the new model of the four lines of business plus the institution. This was done to try to profile the estimates against the investment that is directly related to the work our clients—the members—do; that is, committees, chamber, caucuses, and the constituency work.

This year the institutional part is still roughly 15%, and continues to carry the remnants of the downsizing and restructuring to the tune of about $2 million. That should disappear in the next fiscal year.

A summary on the next slide of the increases and decreases of the 1998-99 main estimates is fairly straightforward. The increase of some $21 million is broken down into five parts. The first increase was directly attributed to costs for members, mainly due to the six new constituencies, as well as the two new official parties at $12.8 million.

The $6.3 million is related to an approval by the board of the integrated resources management system and systems network enhancements for members. That's information technology, replacing four out-of-date systems for human resources financial management. That will also address the issue of the year 2000, which I can speak to a little later. That is the Y2K problem.

The $4.7 million is the increase directly related to the employee benefits plan that is set by the Treasury Board. That component of the pay packet has gone from 17% to 21%, and there is a $0.6 million increase in the members' pension plan, which is also a statutory item.

On the decreases side, 1998-99 saw the return of the investment in the downsizing exercise to the tune of $2.7 million.

[Translation]

Finally, if we look at the 1998-99 Main Estimates compared to previous years, the red line shows current dollars and the blue line shows dollars adjusted for inflation as was requested last year.

Mr. Speaker told you that the Estimates of the House went down from close to $240 million in 1994 to close to $213,6 million dollars last year but they have now increased by $21 million dollars to pay for those aspects I just highlighted.

It should be noted that, for the first time, Internal Economy has set very precise priorities for the administration of the House.

[English]

Following on the work that had been done by the supply subcommittee, led by Ms. Catterall, the board received the report from House administration that would focus it on specific items of priorities and a performance plan that will be submitted to the board in the fall. No doubt it will be submitted to this committee by the board as well, as to how well we are doing. This is year one.

• 1125

The six priorities are likely to be priorities you will see again next year. They were carefully selected through a planning network of managers at the House. Some 80 or 90 employees were involved in the development of these priorities and measurement approaches. We're now looking at what indicators we'll be taking to the board by the fall in terms of showing some progress on each of these priorities.

From our perspective, I think the two major ones from the House administration are investing in people and improving communications. We now have 1,340 employees. We have far fewer people to do the job, and we have to make sure the core competencies are there at the succession planning, because we have the same problem in the House of Commons of the baby boomers moving very fast, working through to retirement. We have to ensure the succession planning is there for the future, both in terms of training and core competencies.

Improving communications was also an important priority, because beyond this link with the members of the procedure committee on an annual basis, there haven't been a lot of communications to members on how the administration is doing, or on some of the issues we're facing under the authority of the board.

By way of example, you've just received in your offices recently a report on fixing the year 2000 problems in the House of Commons. Knowing that many of you are getting questions from your constituents about this issue, it was felt by the board that you should get a progress report on the year 2000 problem and how well we are doing at the House.

I should also say we're trying to improve communications with the employees. If you're going to have six priorities and you're going to report performance measurement to our masters, the Board of Internal Economy, then every employee has to know those priorities are in place. They also have to know how well they're doing in their own performances.

The RPP was tabled in the House, and during the Easter break we called in some 700 employees, almost better than half of our current workforce, for a half-day workshop on the priorities set by the board. We also held an open house in 253-D for the major components that touch on those priorities. It was a very successful day. It was a first in my 28 years at the House of Commons, and it was well received by the employees.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Marleau and Mr. Speaker.

I have a long list, so on the first time around try to keep things moving. I have Mac Harb, Chuck Strahl, Randy White, Carolyn Parrish, John Solomon, André Harvey, and Stéphane Bergeron.

Mac Harb.

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

I have a question to ask, with a comment. What is the budget of the Senate compared to that of the House of Commons?

Mr. Robert Marleau: We prepare for a lot of questions, Mr. Harb, but we didn't prepare for the Senate. But I think I can get that for you in a moment.

Do you have another one?

Mr. Mac Harb: I think what I'm trying to say is has there been any discussion about trying to streamline, for example, some of the services that are provided in the House of Commons with those provided by the Senate?

I understand there's a little bit of sensitivity to the institution, but somebody looking from the outside in only sees one structure. One would think it's only fair for us to set up a model and try to streamline some of the services. Is there any activity there?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: There's actually ongoing activity and there has been for some four years.

In our discussions with the Senate, we're having our security services work much more closely, as well as our computer services and many of the things we jointly—I hate to use the word—control. That's coming out of the library that both the Senate and the House are working on. We've made quite a few cost reductions in that particular area.

There's always a heck of a lot more room for improvement. We've even done some work on the buses, and we're always looking for ways to improve.

I'll be having a meeting at noon when I leave here with Mr. Speaker Molgat and his clerk and my clerk. We're looking at it on an ongoing basis.

But you wanted the information about the Senate.

• 1130

Mr. Robert Marleau: The amount in the 1998-99 estimates for the Senate of Canada is $44 million, compared to our $235 million.

We have memorandums of understanding with the Senate on information technology. The Senate did go along our platform, and we're providing services to the Senate in terms of maintenance of that as well.

The Chairman: Okay, it's Chuck Strahl, then Randy White and Carolyn Parrish.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Thanks.

A recent editorial described the document on plans and priorities and said it's

...sketchy and deeply lacking in details...condescending in tone, short on facts and intentionally sneaky in how it buries House money. It's a flimsy failure of a document.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: That sounds complimentary.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't know.

That was one obvious response a researcher picked up. Have you had other responses to the document itself? Have people written or made presentations to you on the format and style of the document itself?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: If we had any, they wouldn't be along that line. Most of the stuff we get is very complimentary about what we're doing. I'm sure you can appreciate that.

I will let my clerk address that directly.

Mr. Robert Marleau: We haven't had a whole lot of response yet from members of the House about the plans and priorities document, although it was circulated Commonwealth-wide.

I have received correspondence from clerk colleagues in the Commonwealth, particularly Kenya, which is looking to adopt the same model. They were quite impressed by it. Several other legislatures were keen on following up on some of the information in there.

That editorial, I'm afraid, will probably have to apply to every government department that filed reports and priorities pursuant to the new direction the Treasury Board has asked for.

I think the spirit of these documents is a departure from part III in terms of not just listing cold numbers, but trying to identify to the House, since it's the accountability machine, the main objectives of an institution, and report back to it mid-year on the progress toward those objectives—in other words, progress measurement on the investment that is being made by the taxpayers. I think you'll find that report more interesting.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Right. It may take some time, as you say, to work that through, because it's a new system.

I don't think I share that comment. I guess the new format has me a little concerned. I've gone through the numbers, as you know, in the boards, so I'm quite familiar with the numbers. We've gone through them line by line.

The problem with the document, as I see it, and I understand you're just following orders from the Treasury Board, is that the format doesn't lend itself to a.... There's $235 million being spent, and because there are no part IIIs.... I like the document, but I'm not convinced we should totally divorce the numbers from the plans and priorities. I think the numbers could be in there as well, maybe as an appendix or something else. My feeling is it's very difficult to do the analysis unless you get both books side by side. So it makes that part of it difficult.

On my other comments, in your foreword by the Speaker you state this document is consistent with the demands of parliamentarians, including the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, for accountability practices. I assume you're referring to the business of supply—

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: —which was the work that was done by a subcommittee in the last Parliament.

I'm not convinced it is consistent with the demands of parliamentarians. In the business of supply there are some specific requests of the documents and of the estimates process that would allow committees such as ours to have more of an input at this stage.

• 1135

I'd like your comment on it. I know you've said that. I'd like to know why you think that is so. I'm not blaming you, but my feeling is the whole process has missed the essence of that subcommittee's report, which was to demand that ordinary, regular parliamentarians have more of a kick at the cat earlier on in this process, and this is not going to let us do that. I'm not blaming you. You're following Treasury Board guidelines. But I'm interested in why you think this follows the spirit of that.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: As I understand, at this point it's one that has not been adopted by the House as yet. But what we're trying to get into here more and more is the accountability factor. We're trying to set up objectives and report them back. We are accountable for doing what we do in our particular bailiwick here, and we're saying we want to have some way to measure it so that all of us can have a look at it.

You say you don't have much impact or input on it. I suggest to you, with all respect, that everything that is said here, these questions that are forthcoming to us, are going to impact on the way we're going to be dealing with, for example, the report when we come back to you.

When we do come back to you, witness today, I thought instead of reading for 20 minutes we would let you get the questions that are on, but basically what we're trying to do is to get you enough information so that we become more and more accountable. If we're a little bit short of it right now, we're going to keep hanging in there until we get it done.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm thinking specifically about changing any of the estimates. The problem in committee—and this committee is no different from others—is that by the time the estimates come here.... I'm in a little different position, because I sit on the board, but for most committees, including this one, when they come in and say—and I'll just throw this example out—well, you know, I don't like the fact that we spend money on a barber shop and a hairdresser in this place; it's a problem and I'd like to change it.... On the business of supply, the subcommittee said we should be allowed to report to the House proposing a reallocation of up to 5% of these funds. This process doesn't allow us to do that.

It's frustrating for ordinary parliamentarians. It's kind of presented like take it or leave it. That's frustrating when you'd like to say “I like your general thrust, but I'd sure like to be able to say there are a few areas I could adjust”.

I wonder if you would be receptive to that idea, that the committee could take that recommendation from the parliamentary subcommittee and allow us to re-jig the numbers a little and send it back.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I'm always receptive to considering suggestions. But if I might make a suggestion, with all with respect to you, Chuck, and to the other members who sit on the board, it's the responsibility of the people who sit on the board to communicate this information to their caucuses. So it's a two-way street.

You ask would I be receptive. Of course I'm receptive to suggestions, and it's something we could consider, if it could be done.

The other side of the coin is that the people who sit on the Board of Internal Economy should be explaining this information as best they can to their caucuses.

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish, then John Solomon, then André Harvey.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I'm going to ask a series of questions, then make one comment.

In the last Parliament you complimented us, and I think we made a bit of an impact on members' travel budgets because of the committee.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Absolutely.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: We don't hear much about it. The new MPs haven't been sort of indoctrinated into it, and I wonder if we're still maintaining those savings. And further, I wonder if the flat-rate payment to Rider is saving us a lot of money, rather than a percentage of the tickets.

My second one is a comment, and I'm following up on what Mac Harb said. When I go to meetings over on the Senate side, there are wonderful little waiters and waitresses who stand there in white gloves, and if anybody just looks dry, they bring you a cup of coffee. They have the most lordly attitude over there, and I find that absolutely unacceptable. I'd love to know where they're getting the money to have servants, which I find appalling.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: That's a comment, right? That's not a question.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: That's a comment, because I know you don't control that budget. I'd love to know who does.

As for my third comment and question, I was having dinner with the Forum of Young Canadians, and they informed me that the House, when it moves over to West Block, is going to be wired for electronic voting. When I last checked, this committee said no and shelved it for a year. So I'm curious as to whether the wiring is going ahead.

It's almost like when my kids were little. If I said no, they went about their business and came back an hour later and said but of course you said yes. So that's a question.

• 1140

Finally, I'm a little concerned.... I don't know whether you've passed on an instruction to the Board of Internal Economy to save money on parliamentary associations, but they're taking a hell of a beating right now. On NATO, the team that went over with me to Romania—we've done a lot on anti-personnel landmines. We got five or six countries to sign on. I think these associations are not going on junkets, but on verifiable trips. Is the instruction through this to cut back in the Board of Internal Economy on the travel budgets for parliamentary associations?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Let me deal with those that I can deal with directly.

If it's from the Forum for Young Canadians, they probably got that impression from me. I explained to them we were going to have a second House. You all know that. I told them that when we're dealing with what we're going to put in there, we must have things that are electronically up to date. I was referring to computers at the desks and stuff. We already have computers that the members bring in. The question was whether we build them in.

About the electronic voting, I can assure you that no decision is going to be made on electronic voting unless and until that's passed and we go into it. The question I posed to them was a rhetorical one—you have to decide whether a member votes in the House of Commons because he or she is there, or because he or she is a member of Parliament. It was in that context that I was talking about the electronic voting.

With regard to the Senate, I wouldn't make any comment on that. They have their traditions over there. You can see that in here the only ones who are dressed like waiters are the three of us up here, and we of course are the servants of the members of the House of Commons. We'll get some gloves for the next meeting.

Robert, do you want to take the first part?

Mr. Robert Marleau: To respond to specifics on the travel, the main estimates have a slight increase in travel this year, but that's to account for the six new members that have been added to the House. The same trend has been maintained since 1994-95. It's down about $1 million, and through Rider and our own staff we're trying to get members on the most economical ticket by being proactive.

We don't pay Rider a flat rate. The government does that at the present time, but they're just about to go to tender again for a new relationship. We're waiting to see where that's going to go before we start drafting our own RFP. So we're continuing with Rider in the same way we did before.

In the design work that's being done for the West Block and the Justice Building, when we're talking about wiring infrastructure for electronic voting, our ISD people are looking at putting in the largest pipe possible, the most up-to-date cabling that will serve those buildings well into the future. So yes, the intention is to wire it for a capacity for electronic voting, but whether you do it or not, that wiring will be multi-purpose service in terms of carrying data, sound, electricity, and those sorts of things.

So there is a wiring that will be available if the House should choose to go to electronic voting, but it's not an extra cost and it's not one that is attendant to a decision being made on electronic voting. The infrastructure capacity will be there and waiting, if ever.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: The last question was on parliamentary association budgets.

Mr. Robert Marleau: The funding for parliamentary associations this year is the same as for last year, but the Joint Interparliamentary Council is now re-examining the whole context of the parliamentary associations and the international membership fees you pay for NATO, IPU, CPA, and AIPLF. In some cases the international membership fee is now greater than what we have to spend to send members to attend these meetings. So that issue is being looked at by the Joint Interparliamentary Council as well.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: If the fees have gone up and you want to maintain the same level of participation, obviously your budget for that particular area will have to go up next year.

Mr. Robert Marleau: That is likely.

The Chairman: John Solomon, André Harvey, Stéphane Bergeron, Rey Pagtakhan, and Randy White.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1145

I have three issues I want to deal with. They relate to three of your six priorities. Priority one is improving information resources for members, and number five is improving communication. Two of my issues relate to that. I will deal with the Board of Internal Economy, which I believe is one of the bigger issues that I have picked up with respect to democratic reform. Many jurisdictions are now going to public meetings of their boards of internal economy—public in the sense that elected officials in those jurisdictions are allowed to attend. In camera sessions are held for personnel or legal matters. Those would be dealt with by the board purely in camera.

The Speaker has indicated that everything we say will impact on accountability. I guess the biggest impact with respect to accountability and responsibility would be to have the board be open, as opposed to having secretive meetings all the time. We in the NDP believe very strongly that this should happen. As a government we have undertaken this at the provincial level in Saskatchewan. Is the Speaker thinking about this? Do you have an opinion on whether the board should be open or continue in its secretive way?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We are governed by the Parliament of Canada Act on the whole thing. Your party has a member who sits on the board. This has not come up for discussion, and up to now I haven't given it great consideration. The board seems to be working reasonably well outside of what you bring up, which is that you would like the meetings to become more public. If this were brought up as a matter of discussion by your member on the board, I am sure the board would consider it in due course, as we do everything else.

Mr. John Solomon: Okay.

The second issue with respect to information, and again there are priorities with respect to improving communication—you make reference to getting Hansard on-line, and you are on the World Wide Web. Is there any possibility or consideration, either in these priorities in the budget or in the future, to have constituency offices be provided with the same sort of information technology that we have in the House of Commons? For example, would there be access to the World Wide Web or other Internet programs? I think it is very important to communicate. We don't have Hansard in print any more. Would this be a consideration?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: You probably didn't get a chance to read it all, John, because we mentioned that in there. Just by being able to extend most of the services we have here to many of the constituencies, we have cut down on the paper by 100 million.

Mr. John Solomon: I understand. The e-mail works fine, but I am wondering about Internet access for constituency offices.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We will deal with it directly here.

Mr. Robert Marleau: There is currently a pilot project of 15 members who are connected directly to the House on an exchange and the Internet browser interface. It is as transparent as we can make it, so that from the constituency office you can access and share your folders—those that you allow your staff to share. You can transfer data back and forth, do your e-mail and access the Internet. There are 15 now. The pilot was completed in March and the results are being tabulated for a recommendation to the board. If the board approves its extension, that service would be made available to all members over the course of the summer of 1998.

It will not satisfy all of your demands, but the data tell us that about 85% of members' communication needs from the constituency office would be satisfied by this approach. That is using a carrier called GENet. It is a little bit slower than when you are on-line in your own office, but it is a bridge to some of the newer technologies coming out now, such as cable modems and those sorts of things. When those are available, it won't change the interface. You will not see the difference, but it will be a little faster. So for us to go from one pipe to the next pipe will not be a problem.

Mr. John Solomon: The final issue is with regard to enhancing security. My constituency office was broken into, as was Chris Axworthy's in Saskatoon, but there's no real consideration in budgets with respect to establishing security systems. I raised this with the board through a letter, but the board rejected it. My request was that members have access to security systems provided at the expense of the House, as opposed to their own budgets.

• 1150

Having said that, although we as members are told when we're elected that the RCMP are there to protect us in our riding offices, when I contacted the RCMP they said we have absolutely no intention of protecting your office or your staff, but if you personally are threatened we'll kind of look into that. Either there's security or there's not. In my view, outside of Ottawa there's no security. It is not that we require it in a general sense, but some individual offices continue to be broken into.

Will the board revisit this decision and look at some sort of security enhancement at the constituency office level, and for the staff as well?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: With respect, I would point out that members' budgets were increased substantially this year, and perhaps members could find that.... Many members have security—I do in my constituency office. I would guess that many of the members sitting around this table have security in their offices, and that's paid for by the rent itself. It's all part of it. We don't own the building; it's owned by other people. Perhaps with the increase in members' salaries, that could be a possibility.

Gus just mentioned something to me that he might want to pass on.

Major-General Gus Cloutier (Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, we're just completing a survey on security with the RCMP. It took about a year to do. One of the items raised was exactly that type of security for members in their ridings.

You're quite correct in stating that the RCMP will look after your personal security and your staff, but it depends on who is looking after security provincially. In some provinces, such as Ontario and Quebec, the municipal and provincial police will assist you in bringing the security standard of your office to the norm you want. But in terms of expanding it through our own budgets and so on, that will still have to be looked at. I know that it's on the table.

The Chairman: Colleagues, I still have four names on the list for the first round. It's André Harvey and then Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): I wanted to ask you how much the move of the House into West Block and the renovation work of the Justice Building and of the other buildings will cost.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Only the moving costs?

Mr. André Harvey: The moving and renovation costs.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: And renovation. Do you have those numbers?

MGen Gus Cloutier: First of all, I must tell you that all of the renovation costs for the Justice Building, West Block and Centre Block will be paid for by Public Works and not by the House. I also negotiated an agreement with Public Works whereby all of the expenditures relating to furniture, such as the purchase of new furniture for the Justice Building, will also be paid for by Public Works. That is where we are at in the negotiations.

So far, everything is going fine for the House, but there will certainly be moving and refitting costs. We are presently studying the way in which to organize the structure so as to be able to receive information on the services we will be needing, not just in the immediate future, but also 20, 30 and 40 years down the road. We are just beginning. We are in the Justice Building and I will be able to supply you with further information at a later date. For now, everything is pretty much covered by Public Works.

Mr. André Harvey: You must certainly have a budget.

MGen Gus Cloutier: Absolutely. I believe that at the present time, the total cost for all of the buildings, including the one that will house committees, is approximately $1,2 billion.

• 1155

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, in your document, you mention among other success stories the Teachers' Institute. I am convinced that this is an issue that my colleague from Bourassa will be interested in. How long has this program been in existence for?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Three years.

Mr. André Harvey: I had the opportunity, during the last forum of the institute, to speak with people who participated in their own region. Even if those people did not share my political views, I can tell you that the results of the Teachers' Institute are very important.

How much is the budget? I will not relay to you the personal and confidential comments that were made to me by people who did not share my views, but it was very interesting. How much does it cost to organize a forum for 80 people?

I will come back with a small supplementary, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: The number we have is $86,000, and this is a number given by the Senate, the Library and the House of Commons.

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you. Personally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see this forum broadened so that a greater number of teachers share in the experience. You cannot imagine the ramifications that could have. One must not forget that those people have a very important and very special vocation involving young Canadians, young Quebeckers. I can assure you that it is very worthwhile, at least in my opinion.

If it were possible to broaden this forum so as to reach a greater number of these people, whose work is extremely important to the future of our young people as well as of our entire community, it would really be worthwhile. Perhaps that instead of having 80 people, it could be organized to involve 120 or 160 people. It seems to me that it is important. I simply wanted to give you my opinion on the institute.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Thank you. We had in fact thought about 120 people, but we decided that 80 would be a more reasonable number that would also facilitate interaction between participants.

It might be possible to hold two per year instead of just one, but that would bring about additional costs. Thank you for your comments, which will be useful in our work.

Mr. André Harvey: Consider it as an investment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Thank you. That is indeed the way I see it.

The Chairman: Very well. Is that all, André?

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron, followed by Rey Pagtakhan and Randy White.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): I would first of all like to make a very brief comment regarding the issue that my colleague from Chicoutimi just brought up. I believe that it is not necessary to share the same constitutional and political views to be able to judge the value of a program such as that one. Quebec and Canada share the same democratic and parliamentary institutions and, whatever the future has in store for Quebec and for Canada, I believe that we will always share this democratic and parliamentary heritage. Furthermore, it is a heritage that we must cherish at the youngest age possible because democracy is not a given forever. It must be nurtured and it must therefore be instilled into our young people. In that sense, I share the opinions expressed by my colleague from Chicoutimi.

Coming back now to the main purpose of today's meeting, I must say that it is always a little embarrassing to ask questions to the Speaker of the House on the administration of the House when one is a member of the Board of Internal Economy. I find the exercise we have lent ourselves to this morning a little incestuous.

That being said, I would nevertheless like to ask two small questions. In the document we have been given, but also in the orientations chosen by Administration over the last few years, we see a will to improve the computer infrastructure that is at the disposal not only of Administration but also of House staff and of MPs themselves.

This improvement of the computer infrastructure in the House is perhaps easier in Ottawa given that there is a certain degree of uniformity on the Hill, but it is not the case as far as riding offices are concerned.

• 1200

Certain constituency offices place tremendous emphasis, via the MPs' administration budgets, on computer equipment. Others do not to the same extent. Some offices lean towards a certain type of equipment with certain types of software, and others lean towards other choices.

How are we going to go about improving computer resources? How are we going to go about one day standardizing all of this so that the computer equipment in riding offices and that on the Hill are to some extent compatible?

Now for my other question. In the document, on page 2, we are told that we must:

... find innovative means to supply services through partnerships, joint enterprises and other methods...

I would first of all like to know what these partnerships and joint enterprises you mention are more precisely, and, secondly, coming back to Mac Harb's question, would it not be possible to increase and to further foster partnerships with the other House so as to streamline operational costs?

I am thinking, for example, of security. I am thinking, for example, of the print shop, of distribution, of messenger services. Why support two distinct entities since taxpayers are paying for an institution called Parliament? When they come here, they do not get the impression that they are entering into an institution that is separated into two distinct administrations. They see Parliament. They are always very surprised to see, on one side, little men in one uniform and, on the other side, other little men in another uniform. The ask themselves why there is this duplication. That is a question we are constantly being asked. Could we not establish some sort of partnership so as to streamline these expenditures?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I will first answer your second question. It is an issue we have been reflecting upon over the last three or four years, as I explained. These discussions are ongoing, but, as you know, it takes time to make changes on Parliament Hill. One must be patient. These questions are nevertheless being asked by us. People ask us the very same questions.

That is what co-operation is all about. You talked about co- operation between the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library. It is obvious that we can share services to better serve not only MPs, but also Canadians across the country.

What was your first question?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Well, Mr. Speaker, I also asked a supplementary question about this issue: what is meant by partnerships and joint enterprises? Is this just with the other House or with the private sector? What exactly is the vision underlining this statement?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Allow me to begin with what exists today, which is our partnership with CPAC, the Parliamentary channel. We have been saving $2 million a year since CPAC was granted its licence five years ago.

Before that, the House had to spend $2 million to have access to the satellite with two transponders. We now have a single transponder. Under the agreement negotiated at the time between Internal Economy and CPAC, we were guaranteed the same service and the same air time, but the down time was available to CPAC for programming dictated by the requirements of the licence granted to it by the CRTC. This is a partnership that has worked very well and that is ongoing. It is an example of the type of thing we should be striving for.

We have partnerships with the Library of Parliament for computer infrastructure support. A few years ago, the Library of Parliament had its own computer support staff. Those resources were transferred to our computer service under an agreement between the Library of Parliament and myself, with the approval of Internal Economy. We supply it with all of the services it requires for strategic planning, the maintenance of its system, the Internet, Intranet, etc. That is another example. There was perhaps some duplication and we have tried, together, to reduce that and to offer improved service.

We also supply computer infrastructure support to the Senate. That took a little bit longer to develop. They adopted our platform and our approach and therefore, today, the Parliamentary campus has a single computer network. For now, we are supplying the Senate free-of-charge maintenance support, but we this year advised the Senate that this will not last forever. It will have to take over at least the network maintenance costs relating to use by the Senate.

• 1205

As far as Internal Economy is concerned, we asked the administrators to study the possibility of establishing outside partnerships in other areas. For example, we have already evaluated the situation with regard to the printing of various mailings, and an outside expert found that it was more advantageous for the House of Commons to keep its printing service if the nature of the mailings and of the choices available to MPs remain the same. If there were to be changes, the situation would have to be reevaluated. That was perhaps an opportunity for a partnership with the private sector, but we decided that it would not be advantageous for the time being.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: To be more precise, would it be possible to eventually have a partnership with the Senate's printing services?

Mr. Robert Marleau: We have approached the Senate several times on the printing issue as well as on that of parliamentary publications. We have an unbeatable parliamentary publication service, as far as both its output capability and its deadline commitments are concerned. We have not yet been able to get anywhere with the Senate regarding this matter. There would be important savings for the Senate if we were able to negotiate an agreement.

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane, could we move on, if you don't mind?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: And on the matter of harmonization with the riding offices?

Mr. Robert Marleau: You are perfectly right in having certain concerns about these two levels of service in the ridings. When we evaluated MPs' equipment, especially in their riding offices, in preparation for our study of the Y2K problem, we discovered all sorts of things: old 286s that do not even belong to us, that were gifts from a local library or school or that staff members had themselves bought and were using. There was a whole gamut of equipment that did not meet the requirements of our central system, of the platform we have on Parliament Hill.

We therefore undertook, under a pilot project, to sensitize riding offices to the need to ensure compatibility between their equipment and that used on Parliament Hill. The pilot project supplied us with the information we needed so as to be able to report to Internal Economy. You remember that during the preparation of these estimates, we put to Internal Economy the possibility of purchasing a third PC for the riding office that would be paid for by the House rather than by MPs' operating budgets, this with a view to ensuring standardization as quickly as possible.

The Board of Internal Economy decided to wait for the outcome of the pilot project. MPs, in their ridings, can purchase a third PC and we offer them free-of-charge Windows NT, 4.0, if they wish. Unfortunately, and this was foreseeable, not everyone ran out to buy a third PC for their constituency office. The more compatible PCs there are, the more there will be transparency between riding offices and...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: When will this matter come before the Board of Internal Economy again?

Mr. Robert Marleau: It will be in the report that we will be tabling on the pilot project.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Rey Pagtakhan, and then Randy White.

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

I'd just like to say that it is always fascinating to ask a question of why it's separate, when in fact a federated united system is better. Certainly coming from my colleague from the Reform, I find it a fascinating question.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, it would be, except it was the Bloc.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'm sorry, from the Bloc. I stand corrected.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: All our questions are fascinating.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I stand corrected.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): When you wake up, it will get a little better.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'm very much awake.

In fact, from the Reform question, Mr. Chair, making a prejudgment of the process that the House is not open, and then at the same time asking the question whether you will consider this—and in fact the Speaker said it is open—is an example of prejudgment on the part of the Reform.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): No, it's the Bloc.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: My question, Mr. Speaker, is when, in terms of partnership, etc., has the House considered complete privatization of some of its operations?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Like what?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Like any.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Complete privatization?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes, of certain segments of the operations.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We had looked at privatizing the food services, and we made some strides in that in years gone by. We have tried it in some instances and it's something we are keeping our eye on, because although the food services are acceptable, there are some members who might say they are not as good as they would want them to be. So yes, that was one area we looked at.

• 1210

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In terms of the reality that the House sits for about 37 weeks in a given year, has thought been given to flexibility in the employment practices for House members and staff?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: With respect to the House members and staff, we've just negotiated with most of our employees that instead of overtime they will have time off in lieu, and this would occur, of course, when the House is not sitting. We have made some progress in that area in the latest round of negotiations.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: You're ahead of my question, Mr. Speaker. Excellent.

In terms of the replacement of the three systems—materiel management, finance, and human resources—by one integrated system at a cost of about $8,215,817, first, when you change to this expensive system, what will you do with the old systems? Are they still useable? By whom? Second, have we ensured that this is Y2K compliant?

Mr. Robert Marleau: The brief answer is that likely most of the equipment that would be discarded for sure will not be year 2000 compliant, so it will have its own difficulty in terms of being marketed or used for other purposes or by another owner if we tried to sell it.

Part of the strategy of spending the money on IRMS was to be year 2000 compliant. The older equipment had been patched for some time and had really reached the end of its useable life, if I can put it that way.

And in 1998 we hope to roll out electronic forms to members through this system, which will be transparent on your PCs. In 1999 we hope to roll out your expense management—in other words, filing your office expenses and your travel expenses electronically, with a secure electronic signature.

And by year 2000 we hope to be fully operational so that you get the entire budget management of your MOB transparent on the screen, accessible by you with user tools with “what if” components: “What if I spend $2,000 on the PC in October? Where does that leave me in February?” or “What if I give my staff 2.5% but cut back on my lease, which is about to be renewed?”

So members will have a capacity to do those kinds of transactions on-line and on-screen.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: So we will be made instant accountants.

A voice: That's right.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I have one last question, Mr. Speaker. In light of some of the spectacles that have happened in the House—without naming names, I think you appreciate the incident I am alluding to—is that within the system of security within the Chamber and immediately in the precincts of the Hill? And if that is so, will you need more associates for security in that sense, and therefore will you need more resources from government?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I'm going to turn this over to Gus, but in my view the security that we have in the House of Commons for our members and for the spectators is more than adequate right now.

MGen Gus Clouthier: Yes. I concur with Mr. Speaker. There is no problem. We have the staff to handle such situations professionally and I think they've done a pretty good job over the years.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Chairman: Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions, but I'd first like to table a motion, and I'm having a little difficulty with the numbers because the numbers aren't provided to us. There's no program indication of how much the barbering or the hairdressing costs are, but I would like to move that vote 5 be reduced by an amount of $50,000, representing those costs for hairdressing and barber services.

• 1215

The Chairman: You've heard the motion. Randy, would you care to repeat it, please?

Mr. Randy White: I move that vote 5 be reduced by an amount of $50,000, representing the approximate expenditures for hairdressing and barber services.

The Chairman: Those in favour of this motion?

We have a discussion, excuse me.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, it is incumbent on a mover of a motion to provide a substantive basis for such a motion. So my question is this. He said it was for $50,000. I would like him to show me, for us to intelligently vote on such a motion, where the $50,000 came from. Is it from a reduction in the estimates? We cannot just be guessing from the air. It's irresponsible for us to do that, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Anyway, let's move on the motion anyhow.

Mr. Mac Harb: Let's kill it, and get on with the work.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, with respect to my colleague, I think this is a very serious committee, and I think we have to examine every particular proposal with seriousness.

The Chairman: If I might, Mr. Pagtakhan has made a point. I'd be glad for any clarification, by the way, either from the poser or from our witnesses.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Net operating costs are $65,582.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker—

The Chairman: If I might, I'll go to Randy, if he wishes, then I'll go back to Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Randy White: I was giving the benefit of an approximate guess, because the numbers weren't available to me here. If you wish, $65,582 is the specific cost of that program.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Rey Pagtakhan, speaking to the motion.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, this is to the motion indeed. As for the $65,000 operating costs, what exactly are those activities and the breakdown of the costs, to the best of your ability?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It has to do with the hair.

Mr. Randy White: Being hair-impaired, I have no bias whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: For the salary question, here's Bill Corbett.

Mr. William Corbett (Clerk Assistant, Corporate Resources, House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Chairman.

There are two items. There's the barbershop. The operating costs on the list that I have here before me are for 1996-97. It's a rough estimate, but the operating cost is $36,283. There's revenue against that operating cost that gives a revenue of $5,800, giving approximately a net operating cost for the barbershop of $30,400.

The hairdresser is an operating cost that's basically a salary of $35,900 against a revenue of $1,654, leaving a net operating cost of $34,340.

The Chairman: Colleagues, you've heard the information.

Mr. William Corbett: The supplier is required to operate these two facilities.

The Chairman: Randy, would you repeat the motion with the new figures in, please?

Mr. Randy White: I move that vote 5 be reduced by an amount of $65,582.

(Motion negatived)

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, are all the members we see here duly substituted in?

The Chairman: They are.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to ask Mr. Marleau about the budget in here for travel for a significant other. How many significant others are there? These are non-married people, I guess, who are using this. What's the budget, and how many people are there?

The Chairman: Let's proceed with another question while they're looking that up.

Randy.

• 1220

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, there is a liquor store in the West Block. I'd like to know the cost of that operation and therefore the subsidy involved.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Marleau.

Mr. Robert Marleau: We can't give you a specific answer to your first question about the designated traveller formula. We don't have that data yet because some of it's still coming in from the members. We have increased the base travel budget by $100,000 in these estimates to cover that.

Mr. Randy White: So that would be for non-married individuals, right?

Mr. Robert Marleau: They may be married but have designated someone else. It's a designated traveller formula.

As far as the liquor store is concerned, it's a turnkey operation, in that other than the resources we devote to it in terms of bringing in the stock and getting it out, there's a $5 charge per purchase. So I can get you the specific figures of what our estimated costs are and the revenue as a consequence.

Mr. Randy White: Further, how much has been added to vote 5 in terms of the government costs for the MP pension plan?

Mr. Robert Marleau: It is $0.6 million.

Mr. Randy White: And the total budget for that plan added to that in previous years...?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I believe it's $6.8 million.

Mr. Randy White: Finally, what is the ratio of government costs to employee costs on that plan?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Do you mean the ratio of the employer contribution for employees versus the employer contribution for members?

Mr. Randy White: Yes.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I'll have to get back to you on that specific question.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

The Chairman: Before I go on the second round to Chuck Strahl, for the record, Mr. Speaker, I think you know that the chair of the Senate committee on industry has asked all the committee chairs to respond to the Y2K question in their area. We did so by saying that you were responsible for that kind of thing and we've received the report and it's very interesting. In that context, do you envisage that before the change in date occurs we will be in a position of saying we're absolutely secure and ready for it?

Mr. Robert Marleau: The last migration of Windows NT 4.0 to members cured a multitude of problems. There are two pieces of software accessed that remain to be tested with members, depending on what versions they have, but we are 90% complete as far as members are concerned.

The ARMS program will cover the other part. We are now working with outside partners to establish where we are vulnerable by means of someone who is supplying us with data, products, or services. It might not be a year 2000 compliant organization and it might leave us vulnerable, the biggest being the Government of Canada, of course, and we're working closely with Public Works on that one.

Furthermore, for the multitude of suppliers we do have, as the contracts are renewed with them there's a liability clause being included in the contract to our advantage. It's a harmless clause, but to our advantage in that the supplier must guarantee that his service is year 2000 compliant.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

You have a graph on the multi-year trends in the main estimates. Do you have another graph available on the actual expenditures? The main estimates are plus supplementaries, equal, actual. Can you make another graph available on the actual expenditures?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, we can make one available to you, actually: the multi-year trends of the main estimates and supplementaries versus actual expenditures.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I've seen that document in the board, but perhaps the rest of the committee may like to see that as well. Could we circulate that?

• 1225

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We'll make it available to the committee.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Can we circulate it?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: It will be made available.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The last question I had was this. The Auditor General made some comments about the cost of the EDI and the ERI programs. He suggested the other day that the government as a whole is not going to actually realize any savings on those programs until after 1999. They've been very expensive programs.

You mentioned earlier, I think, Bob, that we should see net savings this year.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Why is it happening more quickly here than in the government as a whole? Is there a reason for it?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We moved more quickly, and we're a small group.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: We were into it sooner, so the savings happened.

Mr. Robert Marleau: We began in 1994. In October 1994 the board opened the first early departure window from mid-October to December of that year, and we had over 200 departures. We're now into the return on that investment.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, so hope springs eternal that the federal government will actually one day realize it too. It's just that they're a little behind. Thank you.

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan, briefly.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I have two questions, Mr. Chairman.

As the answers to the questions posed by Mr. White are being prepared, could you also include in that analysis how much it would cost if we were to pursue the alternative approach; that is, increasing the salary of members of Parliament to about $120,000 to $140,000? That is the position of the Reform, and I would like to see a more intelligent comparison of the two.

The $600,000 increase in the pension benefit is, I understand from the graph, statutory, so it exists in law. Therefore, no change could be made unless the law itself is changed.

I just point this out so the House executive may be well advised. Thank you.

The Chairman: Is the committee ready for the question?

Mr. Randy White: On a point of privilege, did I just understand my colleague over there to indicate that the Reform Party proposed that the salaries be raised?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes, Mr. Chairman, indeed I said that. It was in the debate in the House of Commons during the last Parliament, and to my knowledge it has not been changed.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, that's absolute rubbish. On a point of privilege, I'd like the member to take it back. It's absolutely not fact.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, I stand corrected if Hansard and documents of the House will prove it otherwise.

The Chairman: Can we leave this?

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, I'm not prepared to leave this. This is absolutely not fact. It's a lie.

The Chairman: Let's use parliamentary language in committee.

Mr. Randy White: Well, let's have this fellow speak the truth.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I always speak the truth, in contrast to the person, perhaps, because he who says he is pure may not be pure at all. That's a point.

Perhaps I should end at that point, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Randy White: We need—

The Chairman: Can we leave it?

Mr. Randy White: No, I'm not going to leave it. Where are you going to take it?

The Chairman: Can you leave it for now?

Mr. Randy White: I'm challenging this individual, because—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I said—

The Chairman: You've had a response.

Shall vote 5 under Parliament carry?

Mr. Randy White: No. We'll take this up in the House.

PARLIAMENT

House of Commons

Vote5—Program expenditures $l235,261,000

(Vote 5 agreed to)

The Chairman: Shall I report vote 5 to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: I'd like to thank the Speaker for appearing before us today. I'd like to thank the other witnesses. We appreciate it.

It's obvious, and you can see from the interest, it's been a very useful discussion, Mr. Speaker.

Colleagues, on Tuesday there is a steering committee meeting and there will almost certainly be a meeting at this time next week.

The meeting is adjourned.