HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 1, 2004

Á

1105

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

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Á

1110

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC)

Á

1115

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Hon. Peter Milliken (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Á

1120

Á

1125

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC)

Á

1130

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Hon. Peter Milliken

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Á

1135

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Hon. Peter Milliken

The Chair

Hon. Peter Milliken

The Chair

Hon. Peter Milliken

The Chair

Á

1140

Hon. Peter Milliken

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

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Á

1145

The Chair

Hon. Peter Milliken

The Chair

Hon. Peter Milliken

The Chair

Hon. Peter Milliken

The Chair

Hon. Peter Milliken

Á

1150

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

Á

1155

Hon. Peter Milliken

The Chair

Hon. Peter Milliken

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Â

1200

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Â

1205

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. William Corbett

The Chair

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. William Corbett

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Â

1210

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Â

1215

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Hon. Peter Milliken

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Hon. Peter Milliken

Â

1220

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Hon. Peter Milliken

Major-General G. Cloutier (Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons)

The Chair

Hon. Peter Milliken

Â

1225

The Chair

MGen G. Cloutier

The Chair

The Chair

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 013

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 1, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): If we could begin, and with apologies to our guests, we have a couple of items of business, Mr. Clerk, first.

    The first one is not on the order of business, colleagues, but I just want to draw your attention to the fact that Mr. Corbett, the Clerk of the House, as promised, did supply us with additional information on the Quigley matter and access to televised debates in the House in both official languages. You've all received this; it's a letter to me dated March 30.

    The first order of the day is, pursuant to Standing Order 108.3(a)(vi), matters relating to electoral boundaries readjustment.

    I'm very pleased to welcome here Paddy Torsney, who is the chair of our subcommittee on electoral boundaries. Paddy has actually been signed in as a substitute today, so she will be able to move these motions herself. Before she does, though, I think we all know that this subcommittee, over a very considerable period of time, performed a very, very difficult task on our behalf.

    Paddy, I want to thank you.

    I also want to thank our vice-chair, Marcel Proulx; Scott Reid; Michel Guimond, our colleague from the Bloc; Yvon Godin, a member of this committee; Gerald Keddy and Rick Borotsik. I would also mention people who were substituted in at various times: Libby Davies, Svend Robinson, and Peter Adams.

    Paddy, I hope you'll convey our thanks to those members who I mentioned but are not here. We appreciate it.

    Would you please now address item one? Go ahead.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): As everybody on this committee knows, the subcommittee was struck to review objections to the report of Elections Canada on redistribution.

    There was a very condensed timeframe, where we had to listen to some 85 different objections over 30 days or so. It was pretty intense. We had a great staff team that made sure that we got all of the work done. We continued to work in a very collegial fashion; all of our reports were unanimous, except on one small point within the Quebec report. The members really applied themselves diligently.

    Through that process, we determined that there needed to be some changes to the legislation and to the processes that take place within Elections Canada. That's what these two reports address. So I'm very pleased to propose that this committee adopt the subcommittee's report as the committee's report to the House of Commons.

    The Chair: And that the chair present the report to the House.

    Is there any discussion of this motion?

    Benoît Sauvageau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Excuse me, but are we in fact on the 16^th report?

[English]

    The Chair: Yes, it's the sixteenth. That's exactly right. The sixteenth, Benoît, is the more general one.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: As you can see, I have replaced Michel Guimond at the last minute. I'm looking at the recommendations that I have not read all the way through. I'd like to ask you, and I believe in this respect I can ask this question on behalf of Mr. Godin and others, whether or not any mention is made of the Official Languages Act. I'm not saying that the act isn't mentioned anywhere. I'm simply asking the question.

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair: I would comment, by the way, that members have had this report for some time.

    Paddy Torsney.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: Which report have you had for some time? You've only had it since—

    The Chair: This one was circulated electronically.

    Go ahead. So now the question is—

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: It relates to the issue of community. I'm just trying to figure out where community is. I can't remember now.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: The third recommendation reads as follows:

The Committee recommends that:

the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act be amended to provide:

a. a clear definition of the terms "community of interest" and "community of identity"; and

b. more information or guidance by which community representation is assessed.

    I don't know whether it is too late, but I do know that a complaint was filed with the Representation and Electoral District Boundaries Commission of New Brunswick, specifically requesting that consideration be given to official language community ties and the Official Languages Act in the decisions made by the electoral district boundaries commissions.

[English]

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: There are two things.

    The issue of community of interest specific to francophone minorities or majorities came up, both in New Brunswick and in St. Albert, Alberta. So that is where we think the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act has to be amended to better reflect what it means to be a community of interest, and language was clearly a key component of that in terms of people's understanding. This is on page 18 of the second copy.

    So the first one is the recommendation within number three, and Mr. Guimond and Mr. Godin approved of that; and the second thing is paragraph 73. Address those two issues.

    The Chair: Benoît Sauvageau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: According to what Ms. Desjarlais is saying, this is in paragraph 73, but I want to know if this is mentioned, not in the body of the text, but in our recommendations. Perhaps we could add that the Official Languages Act must be taken into account in 3(c) or, again, in (a), we could talk about the communities of interest, official languages and specificity.

[English]

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: Ultimately, that act probably supersedes all of these acts, so it would be taken into consideration.

    The main proponents of this issue you're raising, Mr. Sauvageau, were in fact Mr. Godin and Mr. Guimond, and neither one brought it up at the time. I'm not sure there's a problem with it, but community of interest and community of identity is partly language. It can be more than that too, but language is certainly one of the key issues.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Chair, when this was discussed in relation to recommendation 3, both the representative from the Bloc and the representative from the New Democratic Party were satisfied that these recommendations were aimed at requesting that the regulation be changed, or be updated--updated is a better word--to make sure that these different possibilities be really looked at, or I should say, considered. Official languages was one of those, and both Mr. Guimond and Mr. Godin were satisfied that this was the way for our subcommittee to address this matter.

    The Chair: Are there any other points on this motion?

    Chuck Strahl.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC): Just briefly, congratulations on all the work here.

    I don't think we should start trying to fine-tune the recommendations. I do think the way you've worded it is probably wise, in that there are a bunch of things taken into consideration in a new electoral boundaries adjustment act, or what have you, because, really, some of these things are going to be in conflict.

    You can say, for example, it would take into account topography and geographic anomalies--which is great, and I hope somebody does that in my riding, my perhaps future riding. But on the other hand, it says we should try to be consistent and try to keep ridings the same, election after election. Those things may be incompatible.

    But I think they are general recommendations and they should all be considered, and then someone is going to have to strike the balance or use the wisdom of Solomon to get through it eventually. But I think this is in general, that rather than worry about the Official Languages Act or try to reconcile it all, these are general recommendations that we can leave with the ministers to try to draft an appropriate bill, and we'll debate the clauses of it when it comes to the detail.

Á  (1115)  

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: In response to that, Mr. Strahl, there were some places where we identified what the problem was and what some of the solutions could be, but in some cases it does need more consultation before you actually make the changes to the act. We viewed, as a committee, that this job is up to the government, to do its consultation, to make recommendations that will satisfy the concerns that have been raised by members of this House, from all parties, and from the process as we've experienced it.

    So ultimately there will be some places where people are going to have to choose this or that, but that will be done in a bill once we get it.

    The Chair: I'll now call the vote.

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings].)

    The Chair: Paddy Torsney, the second report.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: The second report addressed the issue that was raised when looking at some of the specific ridings. It seems that Ms. Desjarlais' riding and Manicouagan....

[Translation]

    Mr. Sauvageau, it is east of Quebec.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Manicouagan.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: Manicouagan. There are a few other ridings where it is very difficult for an MP to represent constituents and talk with everybody. It might be better if

[English]

the Board of Internal Economy look at the resources that members of Parliament have. Of course, the committee started to have a debate about whether it was harder to service a big rural riding or, as for me, a downtown urban riding that has a lot of street traffic, which offices probably did not account for in the days of setting up MPs' budgets. But we did appreciate that there needed to be some kind of formula specifically to address the rural and remote ridings. Some MPs have two and three offices and absolutely no budget to run them.

    So that's what this report serves to do.

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings].)

    The Chair: Mr. Speaker and Mr. Corbett, we apologize for that delay. We do appreciate your being here.

    Mr. Speaker, we're in your hands. In the committee, we usually speak through the chair. I just thought that I'd remind you of that.

    I assume that you will introduce your colleagues.

    Hon. Peter Milliken (Speaker of the House of Commons): I'll leave any introductions to the clerk.

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the invitation to appear. It's always a pleasure to appear before this committee.

    I wanted to give you a brief summary of some of the things we think are important, I guess, and then answer some questions, if that's satisfactory to you and the members of the committee.

    We're here to discuss the report on plans and priorities for the year 2004-2005. It describes the continuing efforts of the House of Commons administration to improve services in order to meet the ever-changing needs of all members of the House, particularly the members of this committee. In addition to pursuing initiatives that are already underway, the administration has set out many new projects for the coming year, and has planned many improvements to existing programs. I'm happy to present some of those today.

    The administration normally carries out its activities within a standard framework, with six priorities that were established some years ago by the Board of Internal Economy. This year, however, a unique priority entitled “Towards The 38th Parliament” has been added to the report to reflect the impact of a possible new Parliament on the administration's work and the related services it offers to members. While the priorities are varied, they all involve one common goal, and that is improved support to members in their duties in their constituencies, committees, the chamber, and in caucus.

[Translation]

    The priorities are as follows: Towards the 38^th Parliament; improving information resources for members; moving ahead with renovations; providing appropriate security; investing in people; improving communication; reviewing and reporting on performance.

    We all know that an election will be called sometime in the next few months, but the exact timing is a matter of much speculation. Although we don't know when Canadians will be going to the polls, you will be happy to know that the House Administration is prepared to handle any scenario.

Á  (1120)  

[English]

    I'd like to begin by outlining a few of the many initiatives that are underway in preparation for a transition to a new Parliament.

    The administration has taken steps to ensure that new, re-elected, and departing members have the support they require before, during, and after the next general election. One of the important features of this initiative is the fact that the House administration will offer members and their staff a variety of options for obtaining information, including an information centre, a telephone hotline, a website, information sessions and information kits.

    After an election is called, the administration must seamlessly transfer its focus from providing a standard service that supports members in their lines of business, to preparing for the specialized services needed by new or re-elected members and those not returning to Parliament. The services to be offered to new, returning, and departing members touch on every subject, from the administration of an MP's office, both here and in a constituency, to pay and benefits, and parliamentary procedure.

[Translation]

    As our roles as members evolve so too must the technology on which we rely. The House Administration is committed to harnessing the potential of new technologies as well as finding new ways to manage information. I would like to present a sampling of the many information technology improvements that will be rolled out during the next fiscal year. First of all, the House Administration will develop several websites that will allow access to more and enhanced information on committees, international and interparliamentary affairs, parliamentary business, legislative and legal information, parliamentary procedure, and will provide online information technology support.

[English]

    Another improvement to information resources is the introduction of the online version of the Members' Allowances and Services Manual. Material in the manual will also be simplified and restructured to allow for easier reference. As we all know, this manual is an important source of information for members and House officers on the services offered by the administration. The web version will be introduced in 2004 to facilitate the searching and updating of the latest information.

    The administration will capture and store televised chamber and committee proceedings in digital format through its digital assets management program. This project will allow members to view proceedings quickly from their computers and allow for data to be stored more securely and efficiently. In 2004-2005, the House will develop and test a prototype system specifically for chamber debates.

[Translation]

    Moving now from information technology to the actual physical infrastructure of the Precinct, I would like to talk a bit about the renovation and building projects that are under way.

    The House of Commons is faced with the daunting challenge of restoring and maintaining the architectural integrity of the historic buildings that are symbolic representations of our democratic institutions. This is no easy task. The House Administration remains committed to meeting the day-to-day requirements of members while protecting the heritage nature of the Parliamentary Precinct.

[English]

    In 2004-2005, the administration will reach the halfway point in the first of five phases of the long-term vision and plan for the parliamentary precinct. Implementation of first-phase priorities will continue, subject to the government's current program review. We are all anxiously awaiting these decisions, especially with respect to the Bank Street building. Ongoing work also includes design preparations for the return to active service of the Library of Parliament, and planning for the renovation of the Wellington and La Promenade Buildings.

    Beyond building renovations, the technology infrastructure in the chamber is also being upgraded to meet new demands and improve service to members. New technology recently introduced includes a wireless simultaneous interpretation system for special events; a data network with electrical power to members' desks; the replacement of television cameras; and the extension of services to accommodate seating for additional members.

    The second phase, which is planned for this summer, will include replacement of the sound system and installation of infrastructure to make possible future services, such as perhaps electronic voting.

Á  (1125)  

[Translation]

    One of the House of Commons Administration's most important roles is to provide a safe and secure workplace. Security is on all our minds in the difficult times on the international front. It is a top priority for the House of Commons since we are all committed to ensuring the safety and comfort of parliamentarians, employees and visitors alike.

[English]

    Like other organizations, the administration is in continual development and improvement of an overall emergency management plan to protect the parliamentary precinct. In 2004-2005, the administration will build on previous enhancements to the House security program by strengthening the security service's human resources capacity through on-the-job coaching and security simulation activities, implementing new software for sharing security information, and managing the deployment of employees who provide security services 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

    All organizations must look past their projects and programs and turn to their most valuable assets, their employees. The House is committed to investing in the people who sustain this institution. Due to changing demographics, the House of Commons must work to ensure that it maintains its level of qualified staff and that existing knowledge is transferred to new recruits. This is especially important because of the specialized knowledge that is required to support members in their duties.

[Translation]

    Various programs and activities are under way to attract and retain staff, enhance employee competencies and better manage performance. The House is developing a number of human resources policies and initiatives to support these goals. For example, the House will continue to develop and use a competency approach in specific human resources activities, such as recruitment, training, retention, leadership development and succession planning.

[English]

    As members, we all know the value of good communication. This year the House administration will introduce mobile services that will allow members to use pocket devices to read and respond to e-mail, manage their appointment schedules, and make telephone calls within a secure environment. The administration will also implement new e-mail management initiatives, and of course strategies, to help members manage the large volume of messages they receive.

[Translation]

    The Report on Plans and Priorities outlines the key initiatives plan for this year. However, as we all know, no amount of planning can fully anticipate what may be required at the House of Commons.

    This is the nature of any parliamentary institution and is even more pertinent as we gear up for an election. The House Administration is ready and equipped to meet these challenges. While the report outlines major new initiatives and projects, what makes all the difference to members is the service that we count on each and every day.

[English]

    I would like finally, Mr. Chairman, to extend my appreciation to all employees of the House administration who contribute so much to the success that all honourable members appreciate.

    I thank you very much for the opportunity to appear and to answer your questions.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

    Mr. Corbett, do you have anything to add at this point?

    Mr. William Corbett (Clerk of the House of Commons): No, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add. The Speaker and I would be happy to answer your questions.

    The Chair: Colleagues, I have a list. I have Chuck Strahl, the chair, Benoît Sauvageau, and then Bev Desjarlais.

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

    Thank you again, Mr. Speaker, for coming, although I must say that, surrounded as you are with the very competent people you have there, I wonder who is running the store right now. What is happening outside this room? Anyway, it's great to have you all here, and thank you.

    I have three questions. First, in light of the Auditor General's report on security measures generally, and subject to some of our concerns about ongoing appropriate security, which you mention on page 17 of the document, she didn't review, I'm sure, the Parliament of Canada, but one of the things the Auditor General pointed out was the need to coordinate better between CSISand the RCMP and other agencies, and she mentioned that the lack of communication is a real problem with security. You don't mention that anywhere on page 17 in the document. It seems the lack of communication between the Senate and the House side could lead to security problems here on the Hill. Is that a concern to you?

Á  (1130)  

    Hon. Peter Milliken: We have been working, of course, to ameliorate that situation, Mr. Strahl. I know you know I had an appearance before this committee on this very subject in camera a few weeks ago.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't talk about in camera meetings, Mr. Speaker.

    Hon. Peter Milliken: Neither do I, except that I was here. That part is not secret: I walked through that door; it wasn't a secret entry. I had a wonderful time explaining my views on this subject to the members of the committee.

    Yes, I have certain concerns about that. I believe greater cooperation between the two security forces is extremely important, and we're working to achieve it. I thank your committee for the report on this subject that has been drafted. I'm not sure it has yet been tabled, but I know you have worked on something, which I have seen.

    The Chair: Mr. Speaker, we hope to table it the week we come back. We're waiting on the Senate, which wishes to table its report at exactly the same time as ours.

    I might say, Mr. Speaker, if by the week we come back--and Chuck, you will be interested in this.... I will be coming back to the committee and asking for permission to table it.

    Chuck.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I encourage all concerned to push ahead with that. I just wanted to give you a chance, Mr. Speaker, to put this on a public record, because of course there are never any leaks out of one of those committee meetings; it is not allowed.

    Turning to the second question I had, you talked quite a bit about hiring well and searching out the right personnel. In fact, on page 33 you have an employment equity checkmark for the institution for “A workforce that reflects the diversity of Canadian society”. I hear quite a few complaints from out west that they feel that of people who get hired here on the Hill there isn't a significant portion of people from say British Columbia hired to work on the Hill. You tend to hire people who live right here in the Ottawa-Hull region. It concerns them, because they think part of the diversity is not just male-female diversity, for example; they also don't want to be excluded or find out too late about job opportunities here on the Hill.

    Do you have a plan to try to reach out? Let's say there's an election coming up, and I go back home and say “Rest assured; let me tell you what percentage of people who work on the Hill came from British Columbia.” What would I be able to tell them?

    Hon. Peter Milliken: I don't have those figures in my pocket, Mr. Strahl. I am unaware that we have them, or if they're even kept. But I can tell you that on senior positions, and particularly senior procedural positions, we normally run national competitions that would encourage applications from all across the country. Someone might be hired who is from British Columbia, Newfoundland, or anywhere.

    If you look at our clerks and table officers, for example, I think you'll find they do come from different places. They're not all from the Ottawa region. You'll find many of our former clerks working in provincial legislatures in other provinces. They've come here, learned something, and gone somewhere else. So there's a fair bit of movement among that group. For senior administrative roles, we do advertise that way.

    On other matters, I agree that most hiring is done on a fairly local basis. I'm not sure how many have been hired even from Kingston, if I could draw that into your circle around hirings in the area. But you know, of course, that on the page program, for example, we make every effort to get people from every region of the country involved in the program.

    For other staffing requirements here on the Hill, I suspect that most of the hirings would be done on a local basis. I don't think people would want to move just to work in this location if they weren't already here--unless the job was particularly challenging. As I say, we do offer many of those jobs on a national basis.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I just raised that because there has been some concern about the hiring of federal civil servants. In order to apply for certain jobs you have to live within a certain postal code. Some people have argued--and I'm one of them--that if someone is prepared to relocate at their own expense to get a job as a clerk in an administrative role and it pays $40,000, that person may be prepared to move because he or she hasn't been able to get a job in Churchill. I just hope we don't have any restrictive hiring requirements like that.

Á  (1135)  

    Hon. Peter Milliken: You're talking about the public service. I've heard these questions in the House too, so I've gained some familiarity with them and the answers.

    We don't have any postal code restrictions on any of the solicitations we make for employees. Anyone is free to apply from any place to do any of the jobs that are advertised. I don't claim that we advertise them extensively outside this area, but I do say that anyone can apply. We have no restrictions. We don't say you must live in this postal code in order to be eligible to apply. That is not the case.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Are those jobs posted on the Internet?

    Hon. Peter Milliken: All the IT ones and many of the administrative ones are.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. I encourage you to continue to do that. If someone does click on to a job opportunity they may move. In fact they may be thinking, I'd love to live in the capital region for a few years, if only I had a job opportunity. I think that's good, and I encourage you to broaden it so that jobs, wherever they're posted, are also posted on the Internet. Everybody can get to the Internet.

    My final question is on the committee expenses in the business lines here. The committee expense estimates are basically unchanged from last year. They're $19,300,000, and last year they were $18,700,00. You've probably also heard complaints from many committees that they don't have enough resources to do their jobs. They have argued that the travel budget for committees, for example, is less now than it was 15 years ago, in real dollars, and all standing committees in the House of Commons get less money to travel than the parliamentary associations--or about the same amount.

    They think if it is an effort to involve more MPs to do more work, perhaps they need to have a little more money for committee work, because that's what most of us spend our time doing.

    Do these budget numbers come from an agreement among the parties, or from the BOIE? How did that number come about? I know members generally say that committees need to be enhanced. In fact, I've even heard the Prime Minister musing about that.

    Hon. Peter Milliken: Mr. Strahl, I hear all the same sorts of things you hear, and I share your concerns over the complaints about lack of funding for committees.

    There is a liaison committee, as you know, consisting of the chairs of all the standing committees, which meets from time to time and expresses its view—and indeed sends requests to the Board of Internal Economy for more money. I'm sure your distinguished chairman sits on the liaison committee and is privy to these discussions and the complaints his colleagues must be making for budgets. I know this committee has no trouble getting money, but some of the others do, and—

    The Chair: We once travelled to the corner of Bank and Wellington.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Hon. Peter Milliken: I remember that. I remember hearing you were going on a trip.

    But I wanted to say that—

    The Chair: Mr. Speaker, I think we should wrap this up, because Chuck has had something over his time. I'm enjoying it, and I know you are.

    Hon. Peter Milliken: The requests have gone to the Board of Internal Economy. There is in fact a request to the board to consider the matter. It's on the agenda but hasn't been reached yet. My suspicion is the board is thinking of giving more money, and I would encourage the honourable member to raise the matter with his representatives on the board, Mr. Johnston and Mr. Reynolds, because I think if they expressed enthusiasm for increased expenditure, there might be more enthusiasm from other members for the same thing.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Chuck.

    I'd like to say to Bev, if you're wondering what's going on, we normally rotate: we have five or six minutes for an exchange, just so you know. At the moment, the order I'm going in is Judi Longfield, then Benoît Sauvageau, then Bev Desjarlais, then Marcel Proulx.

    Judi Longfield is the chair of the liaison committee, Mr. Speaker.

Á  (1140)  

    Hon. Peter Milliken: Yes, I know.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I'm going to make certain I get copies of your response here and add it to the submission the liaison committee is making in looking for additional funds. We're actually working on that very thing. I suspect you knew that as well.

    One of the things I am concerned about—and I'm delighted to see we're looking at replacing computer systems, and software systems particularly, here on the Hill—is that many members find our jobs as members of Parliament take place both here on the Hill and in the constituency. It's always been very difficult when looking at a member's operating budget to ensure at any time that one's computer system software and hardware are of the highest quality.

    I frequently have better equipment here on the Hill than I have in the constituency. I frequently have a couple of terminals that are empty here on the Hill and have two people sitting at the same desk in the constituency. It's a concern of mine that we need to address this. I don't think it should come out of the member's operating budget. Or at least a portion.... There has to be some way to upgrade existing equipment without having to lay off staff or work in the dark, because my budgets are at a very minimal level.

    The other thing is the transfer of information between the Hill and the constituency. I know that's something the various caucuses are working on, but I also think it should be one of the things the centre devotes a great deal of time to. I appreciate the security concern and need for firewalls and such matters, but it is often very frustrating. I wondered if you had any thoughts or views on this.

    Hon. Peter Milliken: Different members have different problems with their budgets. The diversity and range of expenditures is dramatic. Many members have excellent equipment and relatively few staff; other members have many staff and poorer equipment. The diversity is significant, and the board in making its decisions tries to ensure that it's fair and gives members maximum flexibility.

    As you know, for example, we have no limit on the number of staff members can hire. We have very few limits on the kinds of expenditure they are allowed to incur. That's been the aim of the board. You'll have noticed, in a memo I think you probably received yesterday, that there is a 3% increase in your member's operating budget for the current fiscal year starting today—and that's not an April fool's joke. It will, I think, assist you and allow, I hope, for some additional purchase of equipment to work out problems in the constituency office.

    We do provide equipment here, and there are relatively frequent upgrades of it. We continue to do this because we don't want to fall behind. But there are some members who complain, with what we're doing, that they have better equipment in their constituency than we are offering them here. It's interesting to hear the different points of view, if you don't mind my saying so.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Through you, Mr. Chair, to the Speaker, when we're looking at that flexibility, there might be a way to indicate that any member is eligible for five computer software upgrades, whether they choose to do it on the Hill or in their constituency office. Right now you can't choose. It's still equipment that's owned and operated by the House. It's an asset. Whether it's in one location or the other could be at the discretion of the individual member.

    Hon. Peter Milliken: That's a suggestion we'd happily take under advisement. If we're upgrading software here, it might be sensible to have the matching software in the constituency office.

    We have made some arrangements for the transfer of material from one office to the other. Significant improvements have been made in the last two or three years. That hasn't made it completely integrated, but the flow of information is much greater than it was before.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: I appreciate your efforts in that area.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Next is Benoît Sauvageau, followed by Bev Desjarlais.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to thank you for the Report on Plans and Priorities that you were kind enough to bring along for us.

    First, there is no mention of a review of the House of Commons voting system. Does that mean that it has been set aside for the next few years? There was talk of instituting electronic voting, or remote voting. If it is not covered in your report, does that mean that the idea has been dropped?

    Second, I'd like to thank you for making Internet access available to members in our offices, after the renovations in the House, as it is quite useful to us.

    I was told—I don't know if it is true and I would like you to confirm this—that a study was under way to compare the budgets of some municipalities, for city councils, and some legislative assemblies, for MLAs, and our budgets at the House of Commons, with the intention of increasing rather than reducing them. I would like to know if such a study is indeed under way, or if we will continue to have increases of 2 or 3 per cent per year. In some large municipalities, city councillors have a budget that is higher than that of federal members of Parliament. I think that's also true of some legislative assemblies. I would like to know if you have anything to tell us about that.

    Fourth, not too long ago, this committee welcomed Parliament's Poet Laureate. I raise this because you sent me a letter saying that you were looking for someone to replace him. I would remind you that he strongly suggested we choose a unilingual francophone for this position because he himself was a unilingual anglophone. That is a recommendation made by our Poet Laureate. We could pull the blues for that committee meeting in order to confirm it. I wanted to make sure that you were aware of this so as to assist you in your search for candidates.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Á  (1145)  

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Speaker, I think Benoît is referring to another committee. I don't recall having a poet here. I think it was the Library of Parliament committee.

    Mr. Speaker.

[Translation]

    Hon. Peter Milliken: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    With respect to the poet, I would simply say that we have received applications. I believe that the act stipulates that the position must alternate between an anglophone poet and a francophone. I'm not sure if the person must be unilingual, but the first language of the next poet will have to be French. He may speak two or three languages, but the main language spoken must be the other official one. The decision will be up to the group making a recommendation to the Speakers of both Houses.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Speaker, without taking away from the time of this exchange, as we don't know anything about it, how is the poet laureate appointed?

    Hon. Peter Milliken: It's done by the two speakers, is my recollection, and the last time it happened, the parliamentary librarian headed a selection committee that made recommendations to the two speakers with a short list. Then I think we chose from the list. That's my recollection.

    The Chair: Mr. Speaker, could this committee make a recommendation?

    Hon. Peter Milliken: The selection committee is built right into the legislation, I am told.

    The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

    Hon. Peter Milliken: Your first question dealt with voting. There was nothing included in the Report on Plans and Priorities because we have yet to receive an order on this from the House. We know that the committee has discussed the possibilities of changing the way that the vote is taken. We have decided to prepare the House for that eventuality. It is simply a matter of doing the upgrades during the normal course of renovations in order to avoid any problems later on, if such a decision is made.

    The upgrades should be complete by the end of this year, so that the voting method can be changed. But even if we were to decide to proceed in that fashion, we could still continue to vote as we do now.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine. Is the comparative study that I spoke of simply another Hill rumour?

    Hon. Peter Milliken: I don't remember why the Board of Internal Economy decided on a 3 per cent increase, but it wasn't because we examined what others were doing. We were simply following the lead of other federal government departments. I believe that salaries in the Public Service rose by about 3 per cent, hence the decision to give our members a similar increase.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, let's see how that works. If my employees are given a 3 per cent increase, and you increase my operating budget by 3 per cent and I must spend the full amount of this increase to pay my employees, I will have nothing left for my office or to upgrade my electronic equipment.

    Hon. Peter Milliken: Oh, no. That would be the case if salaries represented 100 per cent of your budget, but it includes other expenditures besides salaries.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You're right. Thank you very much. My math skills are a little rusty.

[English]

    The Chair: Bev Desjarlais.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and see the inner workings of this committee.

    I just want to acknowledge the support the different departments have given to our offices over the years. I have a bit of a response to Ms. Longfield's comments about not having the dollars available or the flexibility. I think it's a fair comment, but I want to acknowledge that because of the size of my riding and the increased amount of money I get in my budget, I've been able to do very well in the areas of improving equipment as well as having proper staffing; I have to staff three offices.

    However, it probably would have been more cost-effective for us to be able to utilize the computer systems that were allocated to the Ottawa offices instead of having to purchase new ones in the riding, as I have three people in the riding and one and a half people in the Ottawa offices. There's no question it would be a far better way of utilizing the dollars.

    I also want to acknowledge that although I can get rents at a very reasonable price in my riding, I think there is a real need in other areas throughout the country. I know a number of my colleagues feel the pinch where they cannot afford the rents to have offices in their areas or they really have to struggle in other areas. I am sympathetic to their needs, while acknowledging that the flexibility I have is very good.

    I also want to make a point of highlighting the recognition the department has given in different things that have become necessary in my riding but didn't appear to be the norm, such as emergency clothing that was needed when we had to travel. The board has been very open to providing heavy-duty sleeping bags, parkas, and snow gear for my staff when we travel on winter roads, recognizing there is an additional cost, as well as providing life jackets when we have to travel over a waterway to get to a community. All that was recognized, and that's much appreciated.

    There are simple things such as having the water fall into the utility budget and not into miscellaneous when we have to go out and buy water for our constituency offices in the riding because you don't necessarily have a drinking water source. They're simple, little things, but things that have made it much easier for us to be able to do our job in the riding, and I want to make the point of acknowledging that.

    I have a curious question, and I don't know if this is the right place for it. I know I brought it to the attention of my colleague who will be on the Board of Internal Economy. It's a curious question related to the furniture in the Justice Building, where there appears to be a bit of a problem with the upholstery fabric. To me it's a very costly problem.

    I'm thinking it would fall under the cost of our Parliament. I know those offices are very new and our furniture is all very new, but I'm also aware that some thirty or forty chairs have already had to be redone. If they're continually being redone with the same material, I'm curious as to what the cost is and whether this is something that hasn't been addressed.

    I know I did do a letter to have one of my colleagues follow up on this. I don't know if that's happened. It may not seem like a big problem, but like I said, there have been thirty-some in a short period of time and I have a few more. I'm curious about it as to what type of process is in place when different items are supplied.

Á  (1155)  

    Hon. Peter Milliken: So am I.

    The Chair: As a “chair-man”, I'm very interested in your answer.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Hon. Peter Milliken: Well, we'll look into the matter. I assure the honourable member and you, Mr. Chairman, that we'll look into this matter. We wouldn't want chairs falling apart or fabric falling off or whatever, because it would be very expensive. We'll look into this right away. It's the first any of us here have heard of it, I'm told.

    I thank the member, and I reiterate that all of you have representatives on the board. There are eight other members of the board besides me; I'm only the chairman. We work by consensus in the Board of Internal Economy, and there's quite a lot of cooperation. If you make your complaints on any matter relating to budgets or rules with respect to budgets or services known to your representatives on the board, they're free to raise them, because I'm a very generous chair.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    It's Marcel Proulx, then Chuck Strahl, and Carolyn Parrish.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, good morning to you and your team, and thank you for being here with us today.

    I have a few comments to make and some questions for you. I have about an hour's worth, but it's all right.

    I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on the quality of people you have working for you and for the House, not only at the House of Commons itself, but throughout the House administration. I would point out to you that many of those people live in my riding, but that is not why they are competent. I think that you have excellent training programs in place, and service is always very good, very competent, very courteous and very prompt.

    I have had only one unpleasant experience. It happened two years ago at the Justice building, but the problem was corrected. You are probably familiar with the layout of the Justice building. When you leave the elevator on the first floor, it is quite difficult to get to the door where the buses stop. Last year, through our whip, we asked for a button to be installed near the elevators so that bus drivers, who cannot see through the door, know that we are coming when an outside light is on. The idea was accepted and there are no problems now. The only thing is that the button that was installed was right beside the door leading out to the bus instead of near the elevator, but someone understood the problem and another button was installed closer to the elevator. Things are better now. Otherwise, everything is going well.

    The bus system, which is also under your authority, also has very nice, very courteous and very competent employees. They are good drivers and no one gets lost, but some problems do arise, especially in the case of members with offices in the Justice building. The service may not be quite so good at times because we are further away. We get the impression that the drivers tend to be afraid of getting lost, since they stick together in a group. Two or three buses go...

  (1200)  

    Mr. William Corbett: They should not do that, but they do.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: They do it. With your infinite wisdom, Mr. Speaker, you are able to resolve problems in the House. I have no doubt that will also be able to address the transportation problems that occasionally arise for those of us at the Justice building.

    There is a problem on the Hill, especially at the Centre Block, which worries me. Responsibility for security is shared between the House of Commons and the Senate. There do not seem to be common rules or procedures in place. The common denominator is that both groups share the same building, but the rules in the east section of the building seem to be different from those in the west section. I imagine you're going to tell us that you're planning to modernize the security services, especially in light of this week's incidents.

    Hon. Peter Milliken: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Proulx about the security problems, especially in this building where both Houses have security services. As he said, the demands of each are different. I have often raised this issue, and I discussed it with this committee a few months ago and with the Senate a few years back.

    I would encourage members to urge their colleagues in the Senate to engage in these discussions. If we can encourage discussions between the two Chambers in order to improve the situation, I am sure that we can find a way to move forward. I feel that it is difficult to get senators to take this matter seriously. It is a problem for us and also for the security of the building in general.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.

    On page 22 of the English version of the Report on Plans and Priorities, there's talk of implementing mobile services. By that, you must surely mean Palm Pilots, BlackBerries and all of that. I find that this modernization has taken a bit too long, but better late than never.

    Mr. Speaker, your experts are here with you. Are we also talking about Wi-Fi Internet technology, which is very fashionable these days? That's the technology that enables you, when you're inside a building, to have wireless Internet access. It's all the rage in private companies and airports. Are we in line for that or are there network security concerns?

    Hon. Peter Milliken: Mr. Chairman, we are currently making efforts to work out a new plan for Parliament Hill with three of the main companies that provide computer service, including Bell and TELUS. We'd like to have towers here, on Parliament Hill, to transmit all kinds of things from here. Yes, efforts have begun, and we can get on with implementing the plan.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: I'm not just talking about cell phones. I'm talking about information technologies.

    Hon. Peter Milliken: Precisely.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: It's Chuck Strahl, Carolyn Parrish, Benoît Sauvageau, the chair, and then Bev Desjarlais, if she wishes.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

    On the overall budget numbers, you mentioned that the budgets for our constituencies have gone up 3% as of April 1. The main estimates that you have here, is that for the same number of ridings? Are we projecting more ridings in this budget, or is this for the current number?

    Hon. Peter Milliken: We projected on 301, Mr. Strahl, and there will be likely a supplementary estimate if the election is held early in the year, because then we'd have to spend more.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm wondering why the 2003-2004 estimates are $210 million in total, and now it's $229 million. It seems to me that's more than a 3% increase on the constituency part of the expenses. It was $210 million, and now it's $229 million. That's $18 million more. Isn't that more than...? Help me with my math. It's 10%, not 3%.

  (1205)  

    Hon. Peter Milliken: The $210 million figure includes more than members' operating budgets. I think, Mr. Strahl, that's the problem.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): It's the new seats.

    Hon. Peter Milliken: No, but it includes more than just MOBs. It includes other House figures that are going up by more than the 3%. The MOBs went up 3%, but there are other House figures that went up by more.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: If I may, just going over mine, my geographical supplement will also go up, the travel allowance for us also goes up, and there are other factors in there. I don't know if it would account for the 10%, but there's no question, it's not just the 3% on our--

    The Chair: You're right, it's the one area that is--

    Hon. Peter Milliken: The clerk could give you a little explanation of that, if you'd like, Mr. Strahl.

    Mr. William Corbett: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Strahl is counting on the breakdown that we make in the budget based on what are called “the four lines of business” that the board established a number of years ago.

    The line of business constituency, which is listed as “constituency line of business”, contains more than simply the MOBs. It is to the constituency that we assign part of salary increases, benefit plans for members' staff. There is information technology, the connection between the House of Commons here on the Hill, the virtual network that we've created. There are increased costs that go into that, which are ascribed to the constituency line of business.

    So it isn't just the MOB increased by 3%. It's other items that are in that line of business that are also increased.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Everything else, of course, is almost a hold-the-line budget on this one sheet that I have here. It's probably a 3% or 4% increase in the institution, which is inflation, more or less. They hold the line on the caucus expenses--they're the same; the committee's the same; the chamber's the same; and then for constituencies, it's 10%. I understand the MOB is 3%, but something else, then, is really going up to make for a 9% increase.

    The Chair: Bev Desjarlais, on this point.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'm curious now, would it also include increased cost of items that are covered under our House of Commons budget, such as printing and stationery? Have there been new contracts arranged with higher prices?

    The Chair: Mr. Corbett.

    Mr. William Corbett: I'm going to try again to clarify this.

    Indeed, Mr. Strahl, what we assign to the constituency line of business are the salaries and pension benefits of members. There has been a fairly major increase. The actuarial adjustment this year for members of Parliament retiring compensation...in other words, the amount chargeable to the House to cover the members' pension was an amount of $9,373,000. There was computer system replacement for members at $3,700,000. So there's a fairly large chunk of....

    The Chair: The point is, what is different about this year's compared to the previous one? Your answer is, for example, this retirement thing, or whatever it is, is much larger this particular year.

    Mr. William Corbett: There is an increase in pension costs this year.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just so I'm clear on that, is this a projected increase because a bunch of MPs are likely going to be retiring? Are we estimating...?

    Mr. William Corbett: It's an actuarial adjustment, Mr. Strahl, based on a prediction of the amounts necessary to sustain the pension plan.

    The Chair: The answer to the question is yes.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't know that it's actually clear. Of course, our salaries were grossed up since the last election and stuff, so is it that the actuarial increase is causing this among current members? I'm just interested.... The number has gone up so much. Is this because we think there are 35 more people who are going to retire this year at an increased...? I don't know, I just wondered why the bump.

  (1210)  

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Re-elect us. Save money.

    The Chair: Mr. Speaker.

    Hon. Peter Milliken: This is an actuarial change, Mr. Strahl, not because it was expected people would be retiring this year because of an election or forced into retirement because of an election. It is based on the number of people eligible for increased pensions because of the length of service that has developed among members and the expected shortfalls in the fund if, as, and when those members retire.

    You have to increase the fund because of the anticipated higher payouts because of length of service, higher salaries, and all those things you mentioned. That's what this is for.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have one more short one. I think that explains it. Thank you for that.

    There's another question that's been somewhat controversial and has been in the media lately. Here the other day in the House we passed something...I don't even know what it was, but basically it allowed members of Parliament who had not yet reached retirement age to leave the House of Commons and pay into the health and benefit plan in order to cover off. It was particularly geared to one member of Parliament who isn't going to or cannot run again. I'm interested to know if that's going to cost our budget a bunch, or is it just going to be an expectation on those members who buy into the plan to top it up out of their own pockets? How much money is involved to fulfill that particular statutory requirement?

    Hon. Peter Milliken: Yes, there is an employer contribution as well, Mr. Strahl, that will have to be picked up by the House. There is an employer component to it.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Do we know how much?

    Hon. Peter Milliken: We don't know how many members are going to do this. Obviously, we won't know until somebody either resigns or is knocked out in an election, by whichever method, and is under 50.

    We have to plan all of that out.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: So it's not in these estimates? It will probably be a supplementary, if necessary?

    Hon. Peter Milliken: Right. It couldn't be anticipated when—

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: No.

    Okay, thank you.

    The Chair: Marcel Proulx, then the chair, and then I'll wind up, colleagues.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: Marcel, I'm terribly sorry. I have Carolyn Parrish first, as she's been waiting.

    So it's Carolyn, then Marcel.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Sorry.

    I wanted to support, through you, Mr. Chairman, what Judi's saying. I was refraining from saying whoop-de-doo at the 3% increase in our budgets. We got a 20% increase in our travel status, which just gives lots more money to the guys who are charging rent for us, because the per diems are set by government standards. So that's not going change.

    We've gone up from $16,000 to $20,000 in our travel budgets. Yes, we have.

    Hon. Peter Milliken: In the housing.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes. And all that really does, I assume, is to recognize increased rents around Ottawa, which I don't think are 20%. But for the staff we have, we're giving them 3% raises.

    I've had an annus horribilis. I've had a lot of phone calls and a lot of correspondence to my office for the entire last year, so my staff has been really, really busy. I've also held my breath waiting to get a new computer, because I have one that is dying. Yet now we get the edict saying “It's an election year, therefore you can't overspend on a month-to-month basis”. So rats, I don't get a new computer.

    I just think that the 3% is not enough, and I think that the 20% in the travel status budget is probably too much. I'd love to hear that you'll shift one to the other.

    Hon. Peter Milliken: You should speak with your representatives on the board. As you know, there are two ministers on the board who usually have some say in respect of financial matters, since they're obviously concerned from the government's point of view as to what money is being spent. Their views are shared with the other members of the board, and we work on a consensus basis.

    So if you disagree with the way the board has come to these decisions, I think it's imperative that members of the committee express their views to the representatives they have. I'm sure you know who those people are.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'll find them.

    I have a second question, through you, Mr. Chair. If one were to make a purchase like a new computer—because the old one is really in bad shape—is that counted as the 10% in one month, or is that extrapolated over a year's worth of use?

  (1215)  

    Hon. Peter Milliken: It would be counted in the one month.

    But what you could always do, of course, is to lease one.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: That's a more expensive way of doing it, is it not?

    Hon. Peter Milliken: Yes, but you could always buy out later, after the election.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: All right, thank you.

    I'm going to talk to you more often.

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Marcel Proulx.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.

    I just want to come back to CPAC.

[Translation]

    This issue was discussed a while ago. There's a problem. Mr. Godin has raised it on a number of occasions, as has Mr. Guimond. It's about the system that cable companies use to switch from one language to the other. I don't know if you know this electronic system called SAP, which is found on television sets and with which one can switch from the French channel to the English channel without changing the picture.

    In a riding like mine, which is in Quebec, broadcasting is in French. When you speak English, Mr. Speaker, people hear the translation. An anglophone living in my riding inevitably receives the French version and can switch to the floor soundtrack by activating the SAP electronic function.

    The companies have told us that a tiny percentage of television sets in Canada have not yet been equipped with this electronic system. My comment was that all of those television sets must be in my riding, because I get a lot of calls from people whose television sets aren't equipped for this service. A judgment subsequently came out, stipulating that the debates of the House of Commons had to be broadcast in English and in French.

    I'm wondering how expensive it could be for the House to simultaneously broadcast in both official languages, so that the anglophone in my riding can listen in English to someone speaking English on the floor of the House and can listen to the English translation of someone speaking French, and vice versa.

    Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a situation that you have already looked at. What was your conclusion? What can we expect?

    Hon. Peter Milliken: The House is already televised in both languages, and on three channels in fact. There are three channels available to all cable carriers across Canada, one for English, one for French and the other for the floor. It's up to the cable carrier to decide if it wants to have the French channel, the English channel or all three channels. All three are available.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: The House has done its bit by offering all three options.

    Hon. Peter Milliken: Precisely.

    It's your cable carrier that decided to take just the French channel. There is a way to change that. You can get the audio channel for the other language.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: That's what I'm talking about, SAP.

    Hon. Peter Milliken: That's different. On cable, there could be a channel with the audio in one language, but you could change the language on the same channel. The House provides three channels: English, French and floor. Your cable carrier can decide to provide all three channels because they are available. That decision is left to the individual cable carrier.

    On satellite, all three channels are available.

  (1220)  

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: May I ask one quick little question, Mr. Chairman?

    The Chair: Yes, certainly.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Many House services for members have been computerized, and I congratulate you on that. It's particularly useful, quick, and so forth. My colleague told you earlier that it may not be so easy when we're in our riding offices, depending on the equipment we have. I, for one, have licked the problem: I hop in my car and go to my Hill office to check my screen, and then I go back to my riding. It's faster that way.

    I think that we're still missing some report forms. Perhaps it's just ignorance on my part, or perhaps the system just doesn't readily show me where to find them, but did you have a timeline in mind for making sure that all of the reports that we need to fill out or have access to are available electronically?

    They are all currently available, you say?

    An hon. member: Yes.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Fine.

    I was mostly talking about administrative forms. It's all there. You just have to find it.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you, Marcel.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could return to the security matter. I know you know that we're very interested in this. I explained earlier about the draft report, which you've seen, and which we hope to table the week we come back.

    In our report, there is a very general recommendation about moving toward a unified command for the security. I wonder if you or the clerk could talk to us a little bit about the anticipated costs. We've been briefed on it, and we know, for example, in the RCMP's national risk analysis, or whatever its official name is, the Hill constantly appears as the major target in the country. I think we were all quite surprised by how significant it was. Even in times of great stress in various regions and things like this, the Hill and the Peace Tower remain very prominent in that risk analysis.

    I don't want you to discuss specific plans or things of that type, but I do wonder if you could give us some sense of how much your budget has gone up since 9/11, in very broad terms, because of security, because of the enormous changes that have occurred around here and that this committee has expressed concern about. And perhaps you could also give us the types of costs you are anticipating in the year ahead.

    Hon. Peter Milliken: Mr. Chairman, I'll ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to give you some information in response to this question, if that's okay with you.

    Major-General G. Cloutier (Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, at the time of 9/11 our security budget obviously went up markedly because of the acquisition of extra systems and capital equipment. Since that time, as far as personnel costs or anything like that are concerned, the only increase in our budget was due to the occupancy of the Justice Building. That's where it stands at the moment.

    The Chair: Again, I don't want you to discuss very specific things, but can we assume that there's ongoing activity to tighten and enhance the security? I realize that you had to put systems in place very quickly and that you've been refining them and so on.

    Hon. Peter Milliken: A lot of the costs, Mr. Chairman, are borne by the RCMP, not by the House of Commons, because they're providing the perimeter security for the Hill, as you know. They've obviously increased their costs. The House of Commons always provided the interior security. We still do that.

    There have been changes. As the Sergeant-at-Arms said, we've purchased equipment, such as scanning devices, which people go through to get into the buildings, and additional cameras. All kinds of things like that have been done. The changes in staff haven't been terribly significant for us because we're providing the same security in the buildings that we were before, maybe at a slightly higher level. Many doors that used to be open are no longer open. You have to go in certain entrances now and not just any old place. The east door of the West Block, for example, is locked. When I was first elected, you could go in that way. You can't any more. So there have been changes of that sort that have affected the way the place operates.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Mr. Cloutier.

    MGen G. Cloutier: Mr. Chairman, there are some software programs that we have purchased or are planning to purchase to keep in line with the technology of the RCMP and other agencies we work with.

    The Chair: And that's anticipated here.

    General Cloutier, thank you very much.

    Colleagues, shall vote 5 under PARLIAMENT carry?

PARLIAMENT

House of Commons

ç	Vote 5--Program expenditures...........$212,498,000

(Vote 5 agreed to)

    The Chair: Shall the chair report vote 5 under PARLIAMENT?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: I want to thank the Speaker and the Clerk of the House and their colleagues for being here today and for the work they do for the House of Commons throughout the year. Thank you very much.

    The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.