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, November 19, 1998

• 1042

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, could we begin? The principal items on our agenda today, as you know, are the estimates and the performance report of the administration of the House of Commons for the period of April 1997 to September 1998.

Before we welcome our guests, I would like to introduce Miriam Burke, who is our temporary—I assume—clerk.

Miriam, thank you very much for being here.

And I would also like to congratulate Lynn Myers and our Sub-committee on Private Members' Business for what I thought was a very useful round table on private members' business.

As it turned out, it was also very timely, Lynn. We congratulate you on that.

In addition to the two items I have mentioned, you will notice that we do have as item 3 the consideration of the second report of the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure, which is our steering committee. You have copies of that. I think it's a very straightforward document, which is simply saying what we agreed on at the steering committee.

After today's meeting on the estimates and the performance report, next week we devote two meetings to the matter of televising Standing Committee meetings in the House of Commons. That is the following week, the week of December 1. The meetings at the moment are open because it may well be that we will be drawing together the results of the meetings on televising committee meetings. Failing that, we would bring forward some business we have.

On December 8 at the latest, we will begin consideration of the business of supply. John Williams and Marlene Catterall will be briefing us on that matter. At the moment, we have designated one day. It may well be that more than one day is required for that. That, by the way, is the content of our second report.

Mr. Speaker, welcome. It's a privilege to have you here.

Mr. Marleau, the Clerk of the House, thank you for coming.

Bill Corbett and General Cloutier, thank you for being here, and thanks to your colleagues who are with us here in the room.

My thought, although for a while we're in your hands, is that we could perhaps deal with these two items together. I don't know if you want to do the estimates first and then have questions or do the two and then have questions.

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons): Why don't we do the two? I'll make a very brief statement and then we'll do the two of them and you can address your questions to me or I'll give them to my staff and we'll go from there.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's fine with me.

I think it's page 114 of our estimates, if you have the document.

• 1045

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Peter, as you mentioned in your talk, there are two items that you want to discuss with us today: the supplementary estimates for the House of Commons, which were approved by the Board of Internal Economy on October 6 and tabled October 29, and second, the House administration's 1997-98 performance report, which was tabled in the House just yesterday.

[Translation]

With your permission, I will make some very brief remarks on the Supplementary Estimates, and after that, the Clerk and his officials will make a presentation on the Performance Report. That should leave us lots of time to respond to any questions you may have.

The House is asking for a total of $8.5 million through these Supplementary Estimates. This will bring our total budget for 1998- 99 up to $244 million, from the $235 million that was provided through the Main Estimates.

These Supplementary Estimates are required to cover a number of expenses which the Board was not in a position to anticipate last year when it submitted the Main Estimates for 1998-99. Most of these items will be quite familiar to you and so I will run through them very quickly.

Of the $8.5 million, $2 million is required to cover the changes made to the Parliament of Canada Act by Bill C-47, which received Royal Assent last June. As you all know, that bill responded to the report and recommendations of the Blais Commission, which were studied by this committee. Bill C-47 provided for a 2% increase in remuneration for Members of Parliament, their first salary increase since 1991.

[English]

Another $1.8 million is required to fund last spring's board decision to increase the allowance members draw on to defray their accommodation expenses when they're in Ottawa. The maximum allowance went from $6,000 to $12,000 a year, again, the first increase that they've had since 1990.

The supplementary estimates also include provisions to cover the cost of collective bargaining with employees in the House administration, for a total of $1.4 million. Like the public servants, these employees were granted no salary increases in the past five years. Over the past few months, we have resumed collective bargaining and successfully negotiated new contracts. Salary increases for all groups have been 2.5% for 1998-99 and 2% in the 1999-2000 year.

The board has also requested $2 million in the supplementary estimates to allow work on the new integrated resource management system, known also as IRMS. They want the money because they want to proceed more quickly than was originally anticipated. This is simply an advance. The same amount will be subtracted from the project's funding for next year, so we're just moving it up one year.

IRMS, by the way, is the new year 2000-compliant computer system for handling budgets, procurement and management of human resources for both the members of Parliament and the House administration. We've already seen the introduction of electronic forms in our offices to help with things like travel claims and requisitions for supplies and I'm sure more improvements will be coming in the years ahead.

[Translation]

The balance of the $8.5 million—about $1.45 million dollars—will go to a number of smaller items including funding for the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody, changes in Food Services, costs associated with two new Parliamentary Associations, modifications to the rules on Members' travel and the final costs related to winding up the activities of those Members of the 35th Parliament who did not return after the election in June 1997.

• 1050

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I look forward to answering any questions you may have on these Supplementary Estimates. First, however, I suggest that we turn things over to our Clerk, Robert Marleau, and his officials. The Clerk will speak on the slides that I believe have been distributed to you. I think you'll be impressed at what you see here—the House has made real progress in a number of areas.

[English]

The House is also moving rapidly towards achieving our goals on results-based management, and this report identifies a number of performance indicators that will be used in the years to come to demonstrate to members and to others that we are consistently meeting our objectives and finding new ways to improve the services we provide.

As members of Parliament, my colleagues, I think we're all very appreciative of the tremendous effort, and, yes, the dedication, that goes into keeping this place running so we can do our work. There have been some real challenges over the past few years, not the least of which has been the significant downsizing that took place here at the House. And yet, as this report will demonstrate, the administration has continued to make improvements and move ahead.

I'll let these gentlemen elaborate and then we'll turn this back to you for questions. Okay, Mr. Chairman?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[English]

Does everyone have Mr. Marleau's presentation, the green and yellow document?

Mr. Marleau.

Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll try to be brief and take us through these five or six slides we had planned to show you. I'll take them one at a time, in the order that you have them.

Essentially, you may recall that we had the question last year from Ms. Catterall as to whether the House administration would be tabling a performance report like all other government departments, and the response was, yes, that it was in the works, following the board's planning and priority documents, which were tabled with the main estimates last year.

I have to give this a little bit of context as well as content. Because the performance report of the House really flows from the priorities and planning report of last March, we haven't had a whole lot of time to be able to report real, substantive, results-based data to you.

However, the report does cover a longer period. We attempted to pick up from April, 1997, through to early fall in order to give a context, so it is a performance report “in refinement”, if I can put it that way, and what we've tried to do is announce some vital signs in that report. This time next year when we come back to you, we should have more substantive data. We're also working on our measurement systems so that they may be more meaningful to you, the client.

[Translation]

The key accomplishments—which are on the second page of the document you have received—are very concrete, and flow from Board decisions or initiatives by the administration to improve conditions for Members.

If you remember, last year, we set up an internal web site for the House of Commons—the Parliamentary Internet, which to date has clocked up over half a million hits.

[English]

We're talking about a service that has now become, within the parliamentary campus, almost indispensable to the party research caucus bureaus as well your own offices in terms of the numbers of hits and references made to it. As well, some of the work stations now offer direct access to the Library of Parliament CD-ROM material, which is a ParlCD program, and which was brought forward at the same time.

In the same kind of context, we had a pilot project to link constituency offices to the network. Ten MPs were in that initially, and we went up to 21 in the pilot project.

And the board has just approved, as of last Tuesday night, the rollout of this program of constituency access to the network for all constituency offices, so that now, when you log on in your own offices in the riding, you will in fact be logging on directly into your own server in your office.

• 1055

The transfer of e-mail, the transfer of files and the access to folders will all be as if you were on Parliament Hill, albeit slightly slower than if you were on the Hill through the GENet system, because you'll be working through a 56K modem, but nevertheless much better than the e-mail access that you've had in the immediate past. And we expect that over time, speed will be an issue that will be addressed. It's not just a question of our system; transmission over the GENet is something that will take a little while in regard to the technology really catching on.

We're also had the Y2K problem, which we have addressed through that kind of context of our performance report. You've had updates as well as inventories and requests for the equipment that's in your offices. We're about 80% complete and intend to finish that by Christmas in terms of ensuring that not just the equipment of the Hill that's available to you is up to date, but the equipment in your offices as well. And we have a document which we'll leave with you, Mr. Chairman, which is an update as of October in fixing the year 2000 problem at the House of Commons.

[Translation]

One priority identified by the Board was the availability of administrative staff who could provide impartial, timely advice to Members. This is by way of being background to the Performance Report.

Since September 1997, there have been 221 sitting days, 51 bills have been passed in the Chamber, 227 private members' bills have been introduced, 36 government bills have received Royal Assent, and 1,768 petitions have been tabled and dealt with. Moreover, ladies and gentlemen, you have spent some 2,200 hours in committee studying 17 government bills and preparing 66 reports, which have been tabled.

Many demands are placed on the staff who support you in your legislative work and in your investigations. You yourselves work in a very demanding environment, as do the employees who assist you.

[English]

The key accomplishments that we look at in this period, really, are the quality of resources; as I was just underlining, 95% of MPs and/or their offices using the information services help desk have responded that they are most pleased with the quality of the assistance.

We've upgraded the software in your offices as well as the photocopiers over this period, and over 900 people from members' offices have received training in the new technology tools that were made available as we rolled it out last year.

In terms of the facilities available for members, of course, we're still working on the enhanced physical security of the parliamentary precincts, following the RCMP audit, and some of that will be rolled out as part of the main estimates next year.

Also by way of note in terms of the information network, it was available to you 98% of the time, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, which is, I think, a very good average of 2% downtime. A very minor part of it was due to breakdown. Most of it was due to maintenance.

The renovations to CBUS have been completed. Renovations have begun in the Justice Building, with an anticipated July 1999 completion date for it to be available to members of Parliament.

Under the priority of a sustained House of Commons for all Canadians, what's been going on there, in fact, is that we have, of course, the usual support to parliamentary delegations. Some 40 delegations visited Canada, either for training in terms of staff or in parliamentarian exchanges.

We've introduced a new program in terms of also sustaining a committed workforce for your four main lines of business, which are committees, constituency, caucuses and the Chamber. We've initiated a program of communication to the employees to keep them informed of their performance in relation to your needs, as well as a training program, “Many Facets of the Hill”.

• 1100

And here I particularly want to thank the MPs and the senators who assisted us in this program by participating. Some 80 employees—now 160, because we've run the program twice—have spent two and a half days focusing on the needs of the member in terms of the four lines of business and exchanging with Library and Senate employees in terms of what goes on on Parliament Hill. They've met with the Speakers, with MPs and senators, and with senior managers. Various components of the activity on the Hill have been brought to them. I think it's the most innovative employee training program I've seen on the Hill since I began here as an employee.

As well, following the launch of the plans and priorities report last year, over 750 employees also attended the workshop that was laid on for one day. The plans and priorities that the Board of Internal Economy had established for the year were all outlined.

Finally, our last last slide is called “Vital Signs”,

[Translation]

or "performance indicators".

[English]

The Chairman: I am pleased to see that there are vital signs in the Houses of Parliament.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We're going to keep ourselves talking about the lower House.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I won't take that bait, Mr. Chairman.

If you're going to have performance indicators, they have to be meaningful, not just to our employees who perform the services for you but to you. We've tried to identify a series of them that would, in the following performance report, bring forward meaningful data for you. They are listed on the chart. We are still developing some of the compliance and service standards. We will also be developing feedback mechanisms from you, because without getting the feedback from the members we can't make the link to what the real pulse of the place is.

Here I want to assure you that we won't be having you filling in all kinds of forms and surveys and that sort of thing. There are many ways of capturing the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of MPs in terms of the performance of our employees, and we intend to try to round all that up and roll it up in the next performance report.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Bob. I thank the Speaker and the Clerk. Unless it gets complicated, members can direct their questions either to the Speaker or the Clerk.

Joe Fontana, then Randy White.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen. Let me first preface some questions with an acknowledgement that while every other government department has had to make do with less, so has the House of Commons, and to tell you the truth, I think we're served very well; it's first class. I think some of your accomplishments and key indicators indicate that we really do have a first-class operation for members of Parliament, and that's not only an acknowledgement to the management, but to those men and women who serve us very well. Accolades to all of your people who serve us.

My questions relate to services for members, obviously, because at the end of the day the service that members require, I believe, refer to our ability to be able to serve Canadians much better. And while over the past four or five years I believe we've done our fair share of perhaps doing with less, especially in the areas of offices and technology and so on, those are the areas that I want to talk about a little.

On the printing side of things, I must tell you that I continue to hear questions from our members, at least on our side. I don't know if it's the same on the other side. There comes a time, I believe, especially around Christmas, when the printing capacity of the House of Commons gets bogged down because we all want to get out our Christmas cards and householders.

I've always been a little troubled by the printing capacity, not by the quality, because in most cases I think we get what we want in a timely fashion. But the fact is, communication is, in essence, everything that we do around this place. Therefore, if one wants to put out a piece of paper to one's constituents, in order to get it into production and essentially out through the post office, in some cases, the system gets backed up.

• 1105

I want to know with regard to printing whether or not there's been any thought about and whether the supplementary estimates reflect perhaps outsourcing at particular times in terms of the ability of the House of Commons to crank out an awful lot of our communication pieces. That's one area you might want to address.

Secondly, with regard to technology, I want to thank you very much with regard to what you just decided, and that is, to connect our Ottawa offices and our constituency offices. I think it has been a long time in coming, and the fact is, I think, that the pilot project has indicated that this is an absolute must, or else our people are doing two times and three times the amount of work because our computers can't speak to one another.

I'd like to know how quickly that full implementation is going to occur. I know that the pipeline had to be built, but how quickly is it in fact operational from that standpoint?

And as it relates to technology—thanks again for computers—I continue to believe that some of our offices are still not up to par with the private sector. Some of the problems relate to the training of personnel and whether or not we have standardized technology software programs. I know we're getting the best available, but there doesn't seem to be a standardization. Sometimes, I think, we're all over the map in terms of what we want to do. I want to talk about technology in the office and the training and where we're going with that.

Lastly, perhaps with regard to performance and the greening of the Hill and technology again, I know that this committee talked about creating the virtual office, not only in the House of Commons or in our offices in Ottawa, but in our constituency offices, perhaps, in the House of Commons, and how that relates to perhaps becoming even more efficient, and that gets into electronic voting and providing an awful lot of that information by virtue of technology rather than in hard copy.

I want to know whether or not the supplementary estimates reflect the enhancement of technology in the House of Commons by virtue of either computer assistance at our desks so that we in fact can get some of the information directly there and/or in terms of perhaps looking at becoming that much more efficient, because there are costs attached to the system of voting we have. It relates to becoming a little more efficient on the technology side.

Could you cover those three areas? Thanks.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: There are three issues you have there, three big issues, and the first is the printing. Every year we come down to this at this time, Joe. Yes, at Christmastime it backs up, for the simple reason that the demand is just so great at this time. I'm going to let Bob give you some particulars on that particular thing in a minute.

With regard to computers, I believe you were asking about the training. You're going to be getting that information in terms of the consultants that we're bringing in for this IRMS. That's going to be used there.

With regard to the computers in the House, many of the members—I see them now—are bringing computers into the House. What we have not done as yet, but what we are looking at for when we go into our House in the West Block—I'm presuming we're still going there—is that we're going to test in there the capability of having computers at the desks for all of the members who want to use them. By that I mean that we'll have all the wires put in so you can just come and plug into that whole thing.

Those are the three specific areas, I believe, that you wanted us to approach. Bob can give you some of the technical information that you need.

Mr. Robert Marleau: On the printing side—and I think you raised this question last year, Mr. Fontana, at this time—we've provided for nothing in supplementary estimates to enhance the printing as such. It's all coming out of the existing main estimates, but we have developed some new strategies and I think you'll find a better result by the end of this Christmas season.

Our printing office developed a marketing strategy in May and June for members who already had knowledge of what they wanted to have in a Christmas householder. Some of you do just the simple calendar and a few pictures and that sort of thing.

I don't have the exact figures here, but, from memory, over 100 of those householders were done in the actual downtime of summer, in June, July and August.

• 1110

I know that there are approximately 215 to 225 householders being processed right now for the holiday season or this particular time of the year. As of yesterday, I was told that they expect to have them all finished by December 8. There might be another 50 or 60 that will roll in, but I doubt it, because we already have some 100 processed through the summer.

I think there's been a co-operation on behalf of the members in providing the material well in advance so that when we have the downtime we can use the presses to their full of capacity in that kind of cycle. So I can report progress, but in the next performance report I will have that specific data.

Mr. Joe Fontana: If I could just give you an example—

The Chairman: Excuse me, Joe. We're close to 10 minutes, and in a five-party Parliament, that's 50 minutes.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I know, but that might be a question that other members are interested in.

The Chairman: They can ask it, then, Joe. Let's finish the others.

Go ahead.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I'll go very quickly, Mr. Chairman.

In terms of computer access and GENet and standardization of software, we have rolled out the Windows NT 4.0—and that's been made available to your constituencies as well—which is now positioning to plug into the GENet. Everyone will be on the same kind of software.

I'm told that in terms of variety of equipment and variety of software, we're having some interesting discoveries in the inventory of constituency offices that's being done. That will be harmonized over the course of the next year, because you've had the ability to buy some of the stuff that you wanted. It maybe not be compatible any more as we roll out GENet.

Your specific question was, when will it be rolled out? We expect to have it pretty well completed by the return to the House in February. We're going to use the down period to try to roll that out.

And finally, in terms of the Greening the Hill approach, you've noticed that there is in the performance report some mention of the revitalizing of the the Greening the Hill program in the recycling of paper, and we will be giving you some specific data on that in the next performance report. We are currently developing performance vital signs and standards around the Greening the Hill program.

But as far as electronic voting goes as a component of that, that matter still lies with this committee. After we presented the business case last year, you said you would revisit it sometime in the fall of 1998. We've done no more than what the Speaker has said in relation to this.

The Chairman: Next are Randy White, Stéphane Bergeron, Gurmant Grewal, and John Solomon.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): We don't have to talk about electronic voting again, do we?

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: That's entirely up to you.

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

My congratulations, Mr. Marleau, on a job well done. It's not just a report, I think, that speaks for a job well done, it's the actions, and I think most members would acknowledge that they have top-notch services.

I'm glad to hear you say that you're looking for perhaps other efficiencies in printing, because I, for one, don't think we should finance or staff for peak periods; we should do it for regular periods.

In a normal performance evaluation, you get what has been presented here in terms of key accomplishments and goals and that sort of thing, but what I notice is not here are improvements required, and I'd like you to identify for me, if you would, the two highest priority areas under your sphere of operation that require improvement and tell me how you're going to approach them and tackle that.

Mr. Robert Marleau: We would hope that next year, when we have a full cycle to report to you, it will be more obvious where the areas of improvement are, because we will have that feedback from you. We'd like to have those areas of improvement basically dictated by the client, rather than those that I might articulate as being necessary. Next year, you'll have those kinds of indicators, as this has been running just since March, since the board, in the last plans and priorities report, set the six priorities that we should address.

If there's an area that I think we need to give serious attention to in the next year or so, it's the area of succession planning, and it's mentioned in the report.

The House of Commons is basically a knowledge-based organization, and I include in that the members; the intellectual capital is about 80% of the assets of this place, starting with the 301 members, and we have to develop strategies and plans.

• 1115

Mr. Joe Fontana: We'll do our part—

Mr. Randy White: —as far as the Liberals go.

We've been waiting for that for the next election.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): All agreed?

The Chairman: Bob, all this talk of succession planning really working—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I wasn't talking in terms of succession planning for the next general election, but speaking of general elections, if you look at the results of the elections from 1993 and 1997, the House lost all of its mentors in terms of experience. And as we go towards the next election, I think we have to develop the capacity to extract from members who are either retiring or not running again some of the knowledge that they've acquired here, so that it can be transmitted to the next generation of MPs coming through.

The same applies to staff. We all have the same baby-boom demographic that we have to deal with as managers in terms of where we're going. Take security, for that matter, which is a knowledge-based organization. Security may be seen quite often as a bricks-and-mortar operation, but it is not. The knowledge that these individuals at the doors have and how they treat people and how they respond to certain situations is, again, knowledge-based.

So I would say the biggest improvement we have to make in the next year and the years to come is a solid strategy on succession planning. And that's not just retirement; that's a question of how we capture this intellectual capital.

For our management forum in January, we will be holding a conference on intellectual capital, on what it means, how to define it, how to measure it, how to quantify it, and how to manage it. So if I have a personal priority that I think has to be addressed, that's the one. But by next year, we'll have, clearly, your areas of improvement in terms of the services.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you. That's all.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I have three questions, one of which is fairly technical. It's about a point on page 2—the second little bullet in the second box, and the second little bullet under the second little bullet under the second box.

Mr. Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons): We seem to have a lot of little bullets, don't we?

Some Hon. Members: Ha, ha!

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's about advance work on business resumption planning, for example after the ice storm.

I don't quite understand what this is referring to, particularly as regards appropriate facilities for members. Goodness knows that all members who were affected by the ice storm really needed their offices on the Hill. They had no access to them for days during the ice storm. That is my first question.

My second question is in the same vein as those Mr. Fontana asked about computer systems in the riding.

As he pointed out, systems in our ridings are still not standardized, and that often causes problems when we attempt to communicate with systems on the Hill. Of course, we are being told that there will soon be a new communications system in place. Of course, we are also told that riding offices have been provided with a range of new, up-to-date software, completely compatible with those used on the Hill. However, the problem some members—including myself—are having is that their computer systems, which are not exactly cheap, do not have the capacity to run the new software. Yet most of us could not even think of replacing our entire computer system with the budgets we now have.

I asked a similar question last year, when we met to talk about standardizing our computer systems. People work on it, and work on it and work on it, yet one year later, the problem is still there. We are now preparing to improve the communications system as a whole, but we still have the problem that computer systems in the ridings are completely unstandardized.

My third question also pertains to a topic I raised last year, merging House of Commons and Senate services both to save money and to improve efficiency. We had considered merging such services as printing, messenger services and security. Occasionally, having two separate security systems can be a problem for the public and sometimes even for us. Members sometimes have a problem when they try to enter the building by a door at the other end. I would like to hear your views on those three questions.

• 1120

Mr. Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons): I will answer your third question. Robert might be in a better position to deal with the others.

Discussions with our colleagues from the Senate are always ongoing. For years now, we have been discussing such issues as security, messenger services, and others. We are still trying to come to some agreement, but to date, talks on integrating the two systems have not been, shall we say, very fruitful. We did succeed with information services, which are now part of the Library of Parliament. We're still trying to improve things, but this is not a new problem and I don't know if it can be settled soon. It will take a little longer, colleagues, but we are having discussions and we are trying to come to some agreement on changes that would be to the benefit of the House of Commons and Senate.

Robert might have more information on computers and other issues.

Mr. Robert Marleau: With respect to your last question, which the Speaker has just answered, we have made a little progress. For example, the Senate is currently negotiating with CPAC to broadcast Senate committee work through them. The House of Commons Broadcasting Directorate has signed an agreement with them to manage broadcast of their debates. So instead of duplicating services, we are extending them.

The Senate has also signed an agreement to manage and maintain the network of the parliamentary precinct. Not very long ago, they were considering installing their own network. But we convinced them that it would be a serious mistake. Now, we are responsible for maintenance.

We also signed an agreement with the Library, which had its own information resources. The Auditor General has just given his opinion on the agreement; we had asked for confirmation. Four Library resources were transferred to the House of Commons so that we could maintain, service and develop the ParlCD computer network and other services available to you. The Auditor General's study showed that the change resulted in a three- to seven-fold increase in efficiency. Let me explain. Four resources were transferred, and the Library gets the benefit of seven person-years. The transfer therefore meant an efficiency increase for both institutions, as well as better services for members.

You will say these are small steps forward, but it is on such small steps that we build the future.

As for standardization of software and hardware in members' offices, last year I mentioned a pilot project. The Board has just confirmed that the pilot project will be extended to all riding offices. So the process has begun, and we hope it can be completed before the House returns in February.

For example, you all have the same 56K modem. The Board has approved their purchase. You are all using the NT 4.0 operating system, which has been approved. It may not have been installed yet, but you do have it. In some cases, staff will have to be trained on-site.

The Board also authorized the purchase of a network-compatible computer from your operating budgets. Some members made the purchase while others did not. In any case, the inventory we prepared for the purposes of Y2K compliance will help us establish what the real problems are and in what ridings they occur. We are in touch with some riding offices individually, and we will contact more of them to ensure that systems are as compatible as possible.

In some cases, the problem is just a question of training staff. This does not mean you have incompetent staff, it just means you have to take the time to have them trained and teach them how to make the best use of the equipment you have.

• 1125

In some cases, staff may complain, but that will be due to a lack of information and a lack of communication. We have improved our communication with your offices so that we can settle these problems as quickly as possible.

The extension of services I was talking about may extend to almost all riding offices by February.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, perhaps, but when computers in the riding offices are not powerful enough to run all the new software you so graciously provide, the entire system has to be changed, and we can't afford to do that.

Mr. Robert Marleau: You can buy a new system out of your budget, or the Board could approve additional funding if you need to buy hardware. But as for software, you have everything you need—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That we do.

Mr. Robert Marleau: —as well as the modem that lets you hook up to the network.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What about my first question?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Well, as to that, during last year's ice storm we understood how ill-prepared we were to respond to that kind of emergency. In co-operation with Public Works, we are in the process of developing the strategies we need. So if we ever had to face a similar situation, not necessarily another ice storm, but perhaps a major fire in one of the buildings, or any problem that could paralyse part of our operations, we would have processes and means in place to respond adequately. We hope to provide more details in the next report.

[English]

The Chairman: Gurmant Grewal and then John Solomon.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I also join my colleagues, particularly as a new member, in appreciation of the quality of services we are receiving in the House. It has really impressed me.

There are two things I want to know. I know that we touched on the technology aspect, with computers and other things, but I would like to know what the usual lead time is for providing the computers for the networking on the desks in the House. Is it in the plan and could it be done only during the breaks? Or can it be done regularly, and if so, what is the lead time?

Second, we were talking about technology, about thinking of linking our constituency offices, probably by February 1999. Are we planning that it should be equipped with video conferencing and electronic voting from the constituency office if those capabilities would be available on the computer?

In regard to the Y2K compliance of our computer system, is there any testing done? I know it is not too serious an issue in the House of Commons, like it is in some other departments. Is there any testing being done? Are we on time in our schedule? Are we on target or not?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Let me take a shot at the first one. You know that right now—

The Chairman: Could we address our remarks through the chair? I've always wanted to say that to you.

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Please continue, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Mr. Chairman—

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: He's annoying, isn't he?

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I'm not going to do that any more.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we do have computers in the House now. I think what the honourable member is asking about—and he'll correct me if I'm wrong—is the wiring; we just don't have the wiring in the House.

The laptop computers are stand-alone right now and are used by a number of members, although you will notice that we do not allow telephones in the House of Commons, for obvious reasons: they would disrupt the debate and the House of Commons is our place for debate. But the computers are so silent, if I can use that word, so quiet, that there's been no objection on the part of anyone, so we're progressing there.

You brought up something quite interesting about the computers when you asked if you would be able to vote from your constituencies. I would imagine that we could set up our computers to do just about anything we wanted, but you've touched on a larger problem, which I think is going to have to be addressed at one time or another by the House itself. The basic question is, does a member of Parliament vote because he or she is in the House or does a member of Parliament vote because he or she is a member of Parliament? That's something the House is going to have to grapple with.

• 1130

But as far as the electronic capability, I'm confident that with the systems we are putting in place and will be in place, we will be able to do whatever the House wants to do with regard to this voting, and from wherever members are, if that's what they want to do.

Again, you're getting into a technical area, and I wish I had more expertise in the systems that we're setting up, but Bob has more specific information on that.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Mr. Chairman, we did present to this committee last session a business case relating to wiring the chamber and in fact having work stations right in your desks, totally connected to the network—and now, to reach out to servers in your ridings—so the technology is not only there, it is proportionately not that expensive. I mean, everything is expensive when you're talking millions of dollars, but in terms of doing it, it is possible if the money is there within reasonable means.

In regard to the lead time, which I think is what your question was about, we require a major downtime period of adjournment, like a July-August period, to do the basic wiring. The wiring is not there in the existing chamber. It's been planned, as alluded to by Mr. Speaker earlier, for the temporary chamber in the West Block, but what is required now is that this committee review that, make a recommendation, have the House adopt it and give the board some direction in terms of the actual system and spending.

In regard to Y2K, since we're on technology, we are, as we report to you in this very short update, on time and on budget. As you know, in the last round of estimates, we had asked for sizeable amounts of money for what we call the IRMS program, the integrated resource management system, which replaces seven existing aging stand-alone systems for materiel management and human resources and which will cure 95% of our Y2K issues on the Hill.

But it will also bring to the members and the members' staff a series of services heretofore not available, like easy on-line tools for budget management and free balance, and access to electronic forms. Some of that was rolled out to you as of last September, and now you can book air and rail ticket requisitions and file travel expenses electronically on your computer.

As of last September, forms—those forms we talked about—have been accessed by members or their staff over 170 times, so as the product is being discovered and being used it is building, and that's saving paper and time and returning services to you much faster.

The other components will roll out. There is a request in these supplementary estimates for the IRMS project to the tune of $1.9 million. It's not a new request. It's an advance on the program. We are now so positioned that we can take the next instalment in this fiscal year rather than wait for the next fiscal year, so it's not an increase in the IRMS budget; it's an earlier advance so we can be even more ready in that context.

In regard to video conferencing, your third point, no, we're not developing any plans at the present time for constituency office capability in video conferencing. We are still looking at what committees do with it. There's not a lot of use of it on the committees side, but we did allude to the virtual office as being a technological possibility in the not so distant future, where you could be in your Ottawa office and interview a constituent from your constituency office through video conferencing.

There is one member who's a technophile, who is, at the present time, that I'm aware of from conversations with him, looking at that on his own in terms of his own constituency profile. He's also a member who we've exploited, if I can put it that way, from a technology standpoint, and we look forward to some of his input on video conferencing.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Very quickly, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: The other aspect is the physical security of members of Parliament. I heard Mr. Speaker addressing that issue. I have seen some members working quite late at night in their offices. I am one of them. Some members leave here at midnight or 11 p.m. for their various respective residences. Last year, one member was attacked. We know that we are close to downtown and the typical downtown symptoms that do exist in our neighbourhood.

• 1135

Is there anything on the streets in regard to the security of members? I know that it is not a serious threat, but I'm looking at the potential, in case there is one. What is being done to address that issue?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Most of our security staff is here on the Hill, but I would hope that members of Parliament would consider taking a cab or something home if they work late and if this seems to be a problem for them. A lot of common-sense measures could be put in place. I don't think what you're suggesting is to have somebody on our security staff take them home. That's not what you're suggesting?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: No, that's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is that in the downtown area there could be more of a police presence, police who recognize the members, in case there is any emergency or an attack on a member. I'm suggesting that there could be a system in place to make sure that something is being addressed.

The Chairman: General Cloutier.

Major-General G. Cloutier (Sergeant-at-Arms, Parliamentary Precinct Services, House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, we have the RCMP response team that is on patrol throughout the night in the core of Ottawa, plus the Ottawa police force. Over the years—I've been here 21 or 22 years now—I think we had one incident with a member.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Right.

MGen G. Cloutier: Really, that has not posed a major problem anywhere.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay.

MGen G. Cloutier: But I think you have enough response available to you quickly. The RCMP is guaranteeing me that they can be on the Hill in two and a half minutes. We tested that, and once it was yes and once it was no, but they were close enough. So I think you have that protection.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, a little question, actually.

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Very quickly, Mr. Chairman.

One of my constituents was killed today because his daughter presented a petition against terrorism and against criminals who are abusing the immigration system. The person was murdered today. I'm concerned that when members strongly speak against an issue, like the underworld or what we call Mafia situations— Do the members also have access to security in their constituencies?

MGen G. Cloutier: Yes, they certainly do, Mr. Chairman.

You have access to your local police force and to the RCMP who will help you and who, particularly in the case you mentioned, would be of great assistance to you. Normally, the best route I would follow if I were you would be to call your police in your riding who in turn will connect you with the RCMP. Or if for some reason you cannot do that, you can always come to us and we can make the contact for you.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you.

The Chairman: So General Cloutier, it's done on on a person-by-person case—

MGen G. Cloutier: Yes.

The Chairman: —and if the person anticipates a problem he or she contacts you?

MGen G. Cloutier: Yes, we certainly can help them, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Okay, Gurmant?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Okay. John Solomon et puis André Harvey.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are a couple of issues I'd like to raise today. First of all, I want to compliment Mr. Speaker and all of the staff on the Hill for really doing a good job over the last five years I've been here. I've seen an increase in services and a higher level of services, in particular among the security, the printing and the maintenance staff. I just want to voice my support for them and congratulate them on their service to all of us.

Last year I raised the issue regarding members' computers. At that time, Mr. Speaker, I believe the response was that members in Ottawa would be provided with state-of-the-art computers by the fall of this year. Maybe I misinterpreted that. We have the software, but we're still having to use our members' budgets to buy computers that can use the software. I'm wondering what's happening with respect to the computers—that would be my first question—and whether or not we're going to have Pentium computers. I think we were given one and the other ones are whatever seems to be in stock from ancient times.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We would hope, Mr. Chairman—

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: —that the—

The Chairman: You're getting paranoid, Gib.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We would hope that the computers the members have in their offices would be capable of handling the new software we have.

• 1140

Of course I have no reason to doubt the member's memory—because mine fails sometimes—but I don't remember that we said we would put all new computers in there. If we did, I would stand to be corrected.

Mr. John Solomon: I think the phrase was “upgrading the technology”, which I thought meant the hard computers as well as the software.

Mr. Robert Marleau: My information, Mr. Chairman, for Mr. Solomon, is that all of the members' offices on the parliamentary campus have been upgraded to Pentium status, as of last summer.

We've even gone back to offices that had been upgraded to Pentium status, as people thought they had not been upgraded because nothing changed on the box. The chips inside were upgraded with little stickers on them that say “Pentium” so that the staff would be aware that these had been upgraded.

If you are still running equipment in your office that is not compatible with the current network and software— I know it's the case in some of the offices that they wanted to keep the machines they had and did not want to upgrade. But every member's office on the campus has been upgraded.

We had a proposal before the board to do the same in constituency offices. The board approved only the rollout of the software and now the modems for connecting to the network and requested members to upgrade those, the hardware-upgradeable side of it, or purchase new from their MOBs.

Mr. John Solomon: Thanks. We did do that in the riding. Maybe I'll just have my staff talk to the people in the computer section. To my knowledge we have one Pentium. I think you need more than one when you have three people working in the office.

The other issue, Mr. Chair and members, that I wanted to apprise you about is something that is happening on the Hill that is very serious. Along with a few of my caucus colleagues, I met this morning with Mr. Speaker and Mr. Cloutier and Mr. Marleau about the Wellington Building. There is a situation that's developed there which, for my party, is extremely difficult.

The situation is that the employees, the staff of the NDP members in the corridor in the second floor, have notified us that they will not return to work because of the illness that they've been experiencing over the last year. We met this morning and I'm hopeful in the sense that the speaker has assured us that there will be an action plan provided to us as soon as possible, with Monday as a sort of deadline.

This is a problem. We occupy the old offices on the second floor corridor that have not been totally renovated. My colleagues fondly refer to it as “the trailer park”—

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. John Solomon: —and it looks like a trailer park. But this is very serious in the sense that there have been some tests done and I was just notified by phone today, just a few moments ago, that although the air quality tests returned this morning show the air to be okay, they have discovered asbestos in the building. This was after a substantial renovation, and I guess the contractor—or somebody, because I don't wish to accuse any body— They have found asbestos still in the building, in the trailer park area that I refer to.

All of the NDP caucus staff have notified the whip's office that they will not return until that's rectified. That's a problem because I have 10 colleagues in there, and if they're not working that's half our caucus gone.

We've met and we had a very good meeting, and I think we can address that, but I want the committee to understand that there are some very serious problems and that we need everyone's co-operation. I'll be meeting with Mr. Gagliano, hopefully, as soon as possible today, to see what the public works department can do.

I just wanted to put that on the table more as a comment than a question.

The Chairman: Comments, gentlemen?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Yes, I just want to confirm that there was a meeting held this morning and that our colleagues put forth the problem to us. We are looking into the situation now and as soon as we get some hard data we will have a plan of action which we will put in front of our colleagues to see what we can do according to the situation.

The Chairman: Mr. Kilger, do you have a point relevant to this?

• 1145

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): It's on the same subject raised by our colleague, Mr. Solomon, to the speaker and the clerk and the others. In the Wellington Building we probably have colleagues from other parties also, so is that being— I would imagine that's still—

Mr. Joe Fontana: Ours are still at work, though.

Mr. John Solomon: We have a collective agreement. They have a health and safety committee.

Mr. Kilger, I'm sorry to interrupt.

The staff have met with the health and safety building people and the inspectors over the last number of weeks. Today the reports have come down, but I'm informed as well that there may be other parties that have similar problems.

The Chairman: I've no doubt this is something the whips should deal with.

Mr. John Solomon: Maybe we should talk after the meeting— Bob, André and so on.

The Chairman: Absolutely.

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Just a short word from Bob Marleau.

Mr. Robert Marleau: It's just a precision. What Mr. Solomon has reported is fact as such. The asbestos has not just been discovered; it was known to be there as pipe insulation. Over the weekend there have been some operations to remove it. There's a removal plan to do that. There may have been some sloppy maintenance on the way out, which has caused some concern, and we're looking at that. We did the test, as you reported, which reported zero particles in the air.

The other dimension that has to be looked at is that we've had complaints over the years about the air quality in the building and the mechanical systems for air circulation. There was an abatement program in that building some time ago, but the pipes in certain parts of the building were asbestos-covered and were untouched, and they're now proceeding with some of those removals.

The Chairman: I'm sure it's something the committee would be glad to return to. I'm not sure we should deal with it in its entirety now, unless committee members wish to do so.

[Translation]

André Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): As my colleagues already have, I want to say how very satisfied our caucus is with House of Commons administrators. I believe it is very important for us to say it. Everyone who works so hard to make our task easier certainly gives the impression of having considerable respect for elected members. To my mind, then, we should occasionally remind members that their respect for others is an integral part of the job.

Mr. Chairman, my question is for the Speaker of the House. A few moments ago, I believe the Speaker was considering electronic voting, and he made a brief remark that interested me: he wondered whether a member was entitled to vote because he was a member of the House, or because he was actually in the House.

I would like to give him an opportunity to elaborate on that thought. Electronic voting may be the most important change the House of Commons sees in the next few years. So I would ask the Speaker to tell us something about the advantages and disadvantages of electronic voting. It may be something the committee will wish to consider in the next few months.

Mr. Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons): I have not really considered this issue in depth, but it is something I have been thinking about for some years now.

If we were to consider introducing such changes in the House of Commons, members would certainly want to discuss them. We are the representatives of Canadians, and should certainly be given an opportunity to express our views not only by speaking in the House of Commons but also by the way we vote. The Procedures and House Affairs Committee will no doubt have an opportunity to consider the issue in the next few months or years. If the House is to introduce changes, a decision on this will have to be made. As far as I am concerned, electronic voting has always been an issue. We should be able to vote from anywhere in the world, if we wanted to. Do we really have to be physically present in the House to vote? Might we end up with a situation where some members never came to the House, not even to hear debate?

• 1150

With our present procedure, we know that members at least have a chance to hear debates taking place in the House. Will there be changes in the next five or ten years? This is an issue which the Procedures and House Affairs Committee should consider. After completing their deliberations, members of this committee might make recommendations to the House, on the course we might take in the future.

Mr. André Harvey: If I understand correctly, at present you believe that a member's physical presence in the House during debates and during votes is important. Of course, this is an initial impression, and you do not want to predict what members will say. But your personal impression is that a member's physical presence in the House during debates and during votes—

Mr. Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned it is preferable to hear debates in the House itself. However, sometimes it is impossible for us to be there, in which case we can hear the debates on television, or the radio. Ideally, we should always be in the House, but we simply can't. We do a lot of work in committee, and we have to be in our ridings as well. These are all aspects that will have to be discussed with other members.

If you're asking me whether I consider it preferable for members to be physically present in the House to hear debate, I would answer unequivocally yes. But when we cannot be present in the House, we use whatever means are available to participate.

[English]

The Chairman: I think it's a very interesting question about whether we're moving towards a virtual House of Commons as well as virtual offices.

Colleagues, I know our guests have to leave very soon.

A very short question from Joe Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I think I'm on the same wavelength as the speaker. I think that in the year 2000 Canada may very well be one of the few countries in the world, developed or undeveloped, that doesn't have a virtual or electronic system of being able to utilize our time, so I'm sure we'll spend a little more time in this committee discussing that.

But I want to talk a little about something that Stéphane and other people talked about. Again, it comes down to this hardware and the offices. I think we can have some of the best software packages available anywhere in the private sector—also on the NT 4.0—but if our computers can't in fact take the capacity, having that software is absolutely useless.

And it comes down to who's going to pay for it, I suppose. If in fact we're totally upgraded on the Hill and now we're going to be totally connected to the constituency, the hardware at the constituency office must be of equal or compatible quality or nothing's going to work. The fact that we would spend $1 million connecting Ottawa and our constituency offices is going to be absolutely redundant if you can't upgrade the hardware at the constituency office.

The problem is, Mr. Speaker and this committee, that an awful lot of our members can't afford to spend $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 out of their MOBs on another two or three computers in the constituency office. Thank God we got a little increase this year, but I want to know within the supplementary plan whether or not and how we're going to upgrade without forcing members to take away from human resources for technical resources. Our MOBs—I don't know about anybody else's—are tapped to the limit and I don't know how we're going to be able to afford this technology if in fact there is no money.

The Chairman: Comments, gentlemen?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: My comment is quite straightforward. If this committee has recommendations to make to the Board of Internal Economy I would hope they would be forthcoming so we could consider them. Is this the way this committee wants to go? Then, I think, that has to be put before the Board of Internal Economy where all of the parties are represented.

The Chairman: Bob Kilger, briefly.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Can I just ask—

The Chairman: We have two minutes, Joe. They have to leave.

Bob Kilger.

[Translation]

Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to join my fellow Whips and the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House to thank and congratulate the Speaker, the Clerk and all those who help us and facilitate our task as much as possible in very demanding circumstances.

• 1155

As for all the construction under way in the parliamentary precinct it's a challenge you have taken up very efficiently, and I congratulate you for that. Members of the Board of Internal Economy do not often have an opportunity to thank and congratulate people, so I'm very happy to have this opportunity today.

[English]

I take the occasion, particularly for the speaker, who presides over the Board of Internal Economy, to thank him and congratulate him for the leadership he gives us at the board, because a lot of the issues that have been reported here today are dealt with by all the parties, and through his leadership and sense of fairness, I think the five parties have done a very laudable job in meeting a lot of the issues that have concerned the members and contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of their work here in this Parliament.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Colleagues, we're dealing with vote 5b, House of Commons, program expenditures. It's page 114 in the supplementary estimates (B) in the English version and page 98 in the French.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

House of Commons

Vote 5b-Program Expenditures ...... $8,490,400

(Vote 5b agreed to)

The Chairman: Shall I report the supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: If we could move to item 3 before I thank our guests, you have before you the second report of the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure. I'm sure you've read it. To remind you again, it simply says that next week we will devote both meetings to the televising of committees in the House. We begin with the media, and on Thursday we go to the Clerk of the House and his officials.

We are reserving the following week for further consideration of that and the report, if any, coming from those meetings. Then on December 8 at the latest, we move to consider the business of supply.

Would someone care to move the motion which is before us?

Lynn Myers, would you care to read it?

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Yes I will, Mr. Chairman.

It is moved by myself that the second report from the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure be adopted as amended.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I'd like to thank Messrs. Corbett, Marleau, Parent and Cloutier.

We do appreciate your taking the time to be with us today. You've heard the remarks from all parties. We're most grateful to you for your work.

That concludes the meeting. We meet again at 11 a.m. next Tuesday.