HAFF 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]

Tuesday, October 16, 2001

• 1107

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we'll begin. We're lacking the representatives of one party, but I think we should proceed.

As you see, our guests are the second item on our agenda. I'd be grateful if they would be patient while we proceed with some housekeeping business.

Take a look at the report of the steering committee, which you have before you. While you're reading it, if I could, for both members of the steering committee and those who were not there I'll walk through the individual items.

As you know, we're starting roughly a month late, I suppose, so we're behind on many things. This is no one's fault, it's simply been the way that the House of Commons has begun.

The steering committee met, and this is our attempt to summarize the committee's thoughts. The first item is the question of the possibility of making private members' business items votable. The House of Commons passed a motion, I believe it was in June, saying that the committee should look into the matter of private members' business and come up with a practicable way—or words to that effect—of making all items votable.

We have been working on notes about this for members and so on, and there's a deadline of the end of this month for the order from the House of Commons. So you should know that.

There's also the fact that we had received from the Chief Electoral Officer the draft referendum regulations. As you know, this committee has relatively limited legislation for which it's responsible, but we are responsible for the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act. As I understand it, these referendum regulations flow from changes to the Canada Elections Act.

The Chief Electoral Officer has had about 18 months to do that, as we all know. He is required to give us seven days' time, I believe it is, to review his work. We received this stuff early on, when the committee was not properly established. We wrote to him, asking for an extension of that. On the other hand, also roughly by the end of this month, he's going to proceed with those draft regulations.

Now, my understanding is that these are fairly technical things, but I would be concerned if the committee itself did not consider them. That would be my comment. I am a great admirer of Elections Canada, but I do think this committee is responsible for that stuff. So at some point, and quite soon, unless we get a further extension from the Chief Electoral Officer, the committee should consider those.

• 1110

I've talked to him about this, by the way. He would also like to discuss the redistribution of ridings, which occurs following every ten-year census. That's significant. I would mention that, but it's not the specific item that's there.

With regard to the draft practice guidelines for legislative counsels, the suggestion of the steering committee—those who were here can confirm this—is that we come up with a draft report, look at it, and send it with a letter to the Board of Internal Economy. Right? Again, if some of you were on the committee previously, doubtless you know more about that than I do. It's a fairly routine thing, but it was something the steering committee discussed.

Next, that the Speaker of the House of Commons be invited to appear before the committee. You can see, with respect to the performance report, we have moved on that.

Next, that the staff prepare a short report on the implementation of the new regime for televising committees. Again, there's a deadline here, with regard to the experiment with these new procedures, of the end of the year. The staff are in fact collecting information on what has happened so far—whether in fact this has been successful, whether the media have liked the new arrangements, whether the committees have like the new arrangements—but there's been very limited time to determine whether it's successful. The suggestion is that we get whatever information is available and look at it, but the most likely outcome is that we extend the experiment for, say, six more months. Then we have some information on whether the new regime is really working or not, and look at it again. So that's what that says.

Item six, on Standing Order 56.1, which has to do with overriding the need for unanimous consent, the suggestion by the steering committee was that a note be produced that we can look at and that we consider it later.

On the matter of electronic voting, there was a deadline there for the Clerk of the House. The deadline has passed, but I understand the report is imminent, or coming around very soon. Again, these have not been normal times, so I think the steering committee would agree that we should simply wait on that report with respect to electronic voting before we consider it again.

Colleagues, those are the items the steering committee considered. Yesterday a privilege matter referred to the House of Commons had to do with the leak of information to the National Post on the new terrorist bill. My understanding—and the Speaker is here, but we should imagine that he is not—is that if we do get such a referral from the House of Commons, we should act on it promptly and vigorously. So that adds to these matters that we have here.

Cheryl Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, could we make plans to have the minister in next Thursday to speak to this?

The Chair: When we come to that, okay? Your colleague, who was here the last time, said we should move immediately on the issue of private members' items becoming votable. Perhaps I could just say now what I thought in response to what he said.

The suggestion I had in mind—and we're going to come back to exactly what you said—was that this Thursday we should deal with the report of our Sub-committee on Private Members' Business and begin consideration of the motion of the House on making all private members' items votable.

The following Tuesday we would have the Clerk of the House here also on votable items. This was the suggestion. The following Thursday we would have Mr. Kingsley here for the reasons I described. The following Tuesday we would return to private members' business, the matter of votable items. That was in response to last time.

• 1115

So if you've heard what I just said, I think we should bump those items, on Thursday deal with the question of privilege, and call both the minister and Mr. Reynolds, the person who had raised it in the House. Cheryl has made this point, and I agree with her, personally.

Carolyn.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): On this whole concept of making every bill votable, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, until that is decided you're going to come to a dead halt in the House. We met on October 3 to pick votable items. They're not here today, because you suggested we're going to be looking at making everything votable. I think there's an urgency to that and I think you should go ahead with your plans to do that on Thursday.

If something's leaked to the press, it's leaked, and you can't pull it back. So that is not an urgent matter. It can wait. This is an urgent matter. You have a few people who were tied up on October 3, all day, doing this for you, and there needs to be a decision made.

The Chair: Cheryl Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Yes, and just as the events of September 11 intercepted other regular business, so too could this be an actual breach of the Official Secrets Act. The minister appearing is paramount to the Chief Electoral Officer—recognizing that the issue at hand is also important.

The Chair: Does anyone else have a comment on this very specific point? I've given you an idea of how I suggest, in terms of our schedule, we could deal with the items in the report.

Since there are no other comments, I would like to suggest that we proceed with the question of privilege this Thursday and then return to private members' business, but this Thursday deal with the subcommittee report itself.

I don't particularly want to take a vote on that. Are you people agreeable? In general terms, not cast in stone, are you agreeable to the pattern I've suggested here in dealing with the votable items, Mr. Kingsley, and these other things? Are you generally agreeable to that?

Again, we'll adjust from time to time.

Carolyn.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: In other words, we are going to deal with the report of the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business on Thursday, so that business will go on.

The Chair: Yes, absolutely.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Then I have no objections.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.

Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I have a question on the report from the steering committee that the steering committee consider the responsibility of this committee to undertake the review of the Standing Orders. Are you basically proposing that wait until the new year?

The Chair: Marlene, I'd have to say to you we didn't, but we'd be glad to discuss it again. I honestly think there's a backlog of things here, each of them with its own, in some cases, quasi-legal deadline that we somehow have to deal with. And as I said at the outset, we are three or four weeks late.

But the point is well taken on the review of the Standing Orders. I have that noted.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Maybe it isn't until the new year; just as long as we don't forget it until too late in our mandate to do anything about it.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.

Paul Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, if we have this backlog, I'd be more than prepared to have an extra meeting, if necessary, to help catch up.

The Chair: I had thought about such a thing, but I had thought the idea of doing that this particular week, given the late hours and so on, was.... But we may well have to do that.

Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: We have another problem. Bill S-7 is a Senate bill, and it's been the practice of the subcommittee to have Senate bills come here for a decision on whether or not they're votable. Bill S-7 comes up for debate in the House on Friday.

The Chair: Yes. I thought we could deal with that as part of the subcommittee report on Thursday.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Okay, but understand the urgency. It's going to have to be filed in the House on Thursday so they can debate it on Friday.

The Chair: I do understand that.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: All right.

The Chair: Thank you.

Would someone care to move the steering committee report?

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I so move.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Colleagues, let's proceed to the second item.

I would like to welcome to our committee the Speaker, the Clerk, and all their colleagues.

[Translation]

It is a great honour for the committee, Mr. Speaker.

[English]

I know you're not accustomed to these things, but in this committee we address all our remarks through the chair,

[Translation]

and here, I am the chair.

• 1120

[English]

It is a privilege for us, Mr. Speaker, to have you here. We'd be grateful if you would introduce item B on our agenda, which is consideration of the performance report of the administration of the House of Commons, 2000-01.

Mr. Peter Milliken (Speaker of the House of Commons): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before I go into the remarks I had prepared for this occasion, perhaps I could mention one other item that I didn't hear you mention in your list of agenda items, and that's a letter I believe I sent you from the Board of Internal Economy concerning the publication of householders during the first two weeks of an election campaign and the views of the Chief Elector Officer on that. I know he's coming, and you mentioned other matters that he was coming for, but that's another one that the board would be very interested to hear the committee's views on. Perhaps some resolution of the issue could be had with the Chief Electoral Officer as a result of the meeting with you and this committee.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have yet to receive the letter, but we do look forward to it.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: I can't blame Canada Post in this case. We'll check into that. I'll make a discreet inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you and all the members of the committee for coming here today to discuss the 2000-01 performance report. This morning we'll focus on the performance of the House administration for the last year, keeping in mind the objectives and priorities established in the report on plans and priorities of 2000-01.

[Translation]

The Performance Report summarizes the activities carried out by the administration in providing support to the members in the House, in committee, in their ridings and in caucus from April 2000 to March 2001.

In addition to the myriad daily tasks performed by the administration, the year was rich in special projects. With the permission of the Chair, I will start by mentioning some of the numerous accomplishments of the House administration this year.

[English]

This year's highlights include many initiatives that are focused on the continual improvement of services provided to members. Of course, during an election year, many resources and many employees are committed to the smooth transition from one Parliament to another. I'm happy to say that through the implementation of the Election Preparedness 2000 project, the transition from pre-election to post-election was seamless. House staff provided new members with a warm welcome and with the tools and knowledge they needed to do their jobs. The House administration also ensured that the needs of existing and departing members were met during this transition period.

[Translation]

The House of Commons is anxious to provide members with quality procedural advice. I am therefore pleased to announce that with regard to planning for new staff and to ensure that we maintain the same high level of procedural advice that we are accustomed to, the House has hired 14 new procedural clerks.

[English]

The House remains vigilant in harnessing the possibilities of information technology to improve services. The integrated resource management system, or IRMS, has been refined, improved, and tested to provide members with fast and easy access to financial and human resource information. We're looking forward to a full launch of the IRMS project in members' offices by the winter of 2001-02.

Another important technological advancement is the implementation of Desktop 2000. After significant planning, research, and testing, the House has become one of the first organizations in Canada to make the move to Desktop 2000.

Another useful tool made accessible to members during the year is Intratel, the web-based telephone directory. Members can now access all contact information for members of Parliament and Senators as well as for administrative staff of the three institutions.

Security is of the utmost concern not only to members but to all employees of the House. In the wake of the recent tragic events in the United States, we have all become increasingly aware of the importance of security. Measures have been implemented that significantly enhance security around and within the parliamentary precinct, and further measures will be taken as required.

[Translation]

PRISM is another project which has profoundly changed and improved our way of working. This multi-year initiative is designed to renew the technology infrastructure, operational business environment and service delivery framework supporting the publishing and record-keeping activities related to the Chamber and committees.

PRISM will replace nine stand-alone systems with a single integrated application, providing easy access to the necessary documents and records. For example, using the latest technology, PRISM will make the production of Hansard more efficient and will ensure that members receive a high quality bilingual Hansard every morning.

• 1125

[English]

Long-term architectural planning is a huge undertaking here due to the historical significance of all the buildings in the precinct. This year we've witnessed the successful completion of the extensive renovation to the Justice Building; 73 members have now moved in and are fully operational in this building.

The Justice Building was a large-scale, long-term project, and is a testament to the dedication of the House to preserve the architectural integrity of our Parliament buildings. Those who work there are in agreement, I'm sure, when I say the Justice Building is equipped with top-of-the-line communication and technological infrastructure.

[Translation]

These are just a few of the goals reached by the House during the year, but the report gives much more detail on the many projects that have made members' work much easier. Every one of these initiatives aims to improve the services provided to members.

[English]

We must take a moment to acknowledge the work of the House of Commons staff in making our lives easier. The House administration remains the solid foundation supporting the functioning of Parliament. I'd like to take this opportunity to extend my personal thanks as well as the appreciation of the Board of Internal Economy and all members to all the members of the House administration for their unfaltering support through the year 2000-01. I look forward to another year of innovation here at the House.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it.

I have a list, starting with Jay Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today.

My first few questions will deal with the security issue. As you mentioned, obviously it's of prime importance to everyone who works on the Hill and guests and the general public who come to the Hill right now.

I certainly applaud—and I've mentioned this to a number of security people—the increased numbers of RCMP that we see on the Hill. I've had the opportunity to talk to them in the last couple of days and I certainly appreciate the efforts they're putting in to keep Parliament Hill safe.

But I do have two questions on it. One deals with yesterday's incident. I've had a number of concerns, as I'm sure other whips have had, and probably a lot of the MPs themselves from their staff and other staff on the Hill, with regard to the opening of mail. Have any changes been initiated on the Hill in the last 24 hours on how mail is handled, on the procedure for that? Are there any memos, in the sense of awareness, going out to staff who work either directly for the House of Commons or for individual members of Parliament? Should they be wearing latex gloves and a respirator, or something like that? What precautions are being taken, if any?

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Mr. Hill, I'd be reluctant to describe in detail the security arrangements in place. As you can appreciate, I think going through all of that could undermine the effectiveness of the security precautions if those who seek to breach them were fully aware of what they were. They would then plan their activities in such a way as to cause them to fail. So I'm not keen to go through that, if you don't mind.

What I will say, however, is that this morning a memorandum was sent out by the Sergeant-at-Arms to all staff and all MPs and all employees of the House concerning the opening of mail. It provides some details on procedures for handling suspicious packages. Mail that is brought to this building has been scanned before it comes here. Obviously, we take steps to try to ensure the safety of our employees and of the employees of the House and of ourselves in making those arrangements.

So I believe the memorandum that was sent out this morning will help deal with that issue. It was in the course of preparation before the events of yesterday, in any event, and by dint of timing it came out today. It was sent out a little faster than it might otherwise have been, perhaps, but it was in fact prepared and ready to go. It is in members' hands now and we hope that will be helpful.

• 1130

Mr. Jay Hill: We all recognize the need for a certain amount of secrecy, but at the same time, I'm sure you appreciate the fact that a lot of employees, given the events of yesterday, are deeply concerned about this. They need some reassurance that procedures are being put into place to keep them safe, or as safe as possible, during these troubled times.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Perhaps I can just add that we've now discovered that in fact there was no problem yesterday with the package. The employee who had the rash had a rash anyway; it was not something that was a result of opening any mail. There was nothing in any package. The whole exercise got, in effect, out of control. So there was no—

Mr. Jay Hill: Incident.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: —package that caused a problem yesterday.

Mr. Jay Hill: I appreciate that update. I'm sure that will help to alleviate some fears as well.

Do I still have some time left?

The Chair: About 30 seconds.

Mr. Jay Hill: Just a quick question, then.

Again on the issue of security, as some people have drawn it to my attention, with the increased security in terms of checking vehicles that have access to the Hill itself and the increased security for vehicular traffic, I wonder if there's any consideration being given to individuals. Obviously the little green buses have free access up and down the Hill, and people getting on and off them are not being screened until such time as they arrive at Centre Block. Or that's my understanding. Again, some concerns are being expressed about that.

I'm sure the appropriate authorities are looking at all these potential loopholes, if you will.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: They are indeed. I understand that only House employees, members, and members' staff may get on the green buses. As well, plainclothes officers are patrolling those green buses.

Members of the public, of course, are free to walk on the Hill and come up to the building, but there is increased surveillance, as you've noted, outside. That's intended to deal with risks involved with that. We hope it's adequate, of course. Members of the public are now screened as they enter each of the buildings on the precinct. That is a recent innovation.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you.

The Chair: Cheryl Gallant.

Just so you know, then it's Joe Jordan, Yvon Godin, Michel Guimond, and Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, the prompt initiative taken yesterday to avert any further fears was greatly appreciated.

One page 8, reference is made to the integrated resource management system and a full launch planned for the winter of 2001-02. Is this still on track? If it is, when can MPs expect to see it on their office computers?

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Luc Desroches is perhaps a little more familiar with this and the progress on this file. Perhaps he can answer your question, Ms. Gallant, if that's satisfactory—through you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Desroches.

Mr. Luc Desroches (Director General, Corporate Services, House of Commons): We are actually ready to roll out two initiatives. The first one, which has been piloted in, I believe, 19 members' offices, is the whole question of electronic access to forms and sending information to the administration.

The second one is the access to all your financial information. The information you get in your monthly reports you will now be able to access online. We are ready to roll that out. I'm actually just waiting to make a presentation internally. We're going to discuss a strategy as to whether we're going to go with a pilot project or roll it out to the 301 members. But it is ready to roll today.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Great.

You made mention of the PRISM program in your presentation. Would you please provide an update on the status of the PRISM project?

Mr. Louis Bard (Chief Information Officer, House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, the program was launched in June of 2000. With the return of the House, the first major job was the replacement of the legacy system producing the daily Hansard. We launched it this session, in September. All the debates you've received since September have been produced in the new environment. Things are progressing on schedule, on target, and within budget.

• 1135

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Okay.

On page 8 we're talking about the parliamentary publications renewal. Is this review complete? If so, have its findings actually been implemented?

Mr. Louis Bard: That is correct. I mean, in parallel with the PRISM project, we had to reassess completely the approach of this particular directorate in order to align it with the new environment. As we progressed with the implementation of PRISM in September, as I mentioned, we've also progressed with the realignment of the publications directorate.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Okay.

Now I have a question on the Office of the Law Clerk and the Parliamentary Counsel, if you can refer to page 16. You refer to an increase of eight staff counsel. Has this increase addressed the concerns of the backbench MPs related to the drafting of the private members' bills and the motions?

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: The answer, I believe, is yes. There doesn't appear to be a backlog at the moment, from what I'm informed. In fact, I'm shocked to find that there are 50 bills sitting on the Notice Paper that were drafted but haven't been introduced. You know, we've gone to the expense of doing all this work, and now the members don't appear to be interested in moving the bills forward.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Okay.

Under “Reviewing and Reporting on Performance”, there have been several management reviews conducted in the past year in reference to risk assessments. Is there any evidence of a risk to health for occupants of the Wellington Building, and if so, what is being done to limit that risk?

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: The Clerk, I think, will deal with this question.

Mr. William Corbett (Clerk of the House of Commons): Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Chairman.

Indeed, last fall, I believe in November, we took the decision, based on the number of reports coming out of the Wellington Building, to engage the services of an outside firm. A series of parameters and criteria were laid down. Both the management of the House of Commons administration and the representatives of our unionized employees agreed on the set of parameters and agreed on the choice of the outside third-party expert to make an assessment of the condition of the Wellington Building and its continued habitability by staff.

The answer back was this: Managed in the way the building was managed, there was no significant threat of any kind, or risk, to the health and safety of any of our employees. That report was tabled with our joint occupational health and safety committee, which is composed of members of the unionized staff, unrepresented staff, and management of the House.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you.

The Chair: Joe Jordan, followed by Yvon Godin.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I have three quick questions. The first picks up on Mr. Hill's theme.

I think the events of yesterday demonstrate the need to have some channel of communication to people. In this building we certainly have a fire alarm, which is suitable for most threats, if you wanted to evacuate the building. I haven't seen the document that went out to staff, but is there some thought given to some type of communication channel? For instance, if there's an issue maybe members and staff could go to a website, and you can put stuff there.

So is there some way of getting information? It's important to know what the facts are, but I think it's also important to know what isn't true. When the rumour mill takes off, if people had somewhere to go for what they knew to be accurate information, then I think it would be quite helpful.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: That's a good question. The memo sent out today does say that members can call House of Commons Security Services. The number is provided: 992-7000. It's not just for suspicious packages.

Mr. Joe Jordan: For anything at all.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: It's designed to deal with security problems that members or their staff face.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Good.

Second, I understand from my staff that the members entrance now is restricted solely to members. Is that simply to avoid confusion at that door? Because they have their ID, and they go around to the other, get in, and then come around.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Yes, members' staffs are entitled to come in that door if they're accompanied by the MP. So if you bring your staff with you, and they have their identification with them, they're admitted at that door. If they have no identification, they're not admitted.

• 1140

Mr. Joe Jordan: Or if they don't have their member with them....

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: They go through the main door.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Good.

Finally, part of the costs of this increased security is going to be borne by the RCMP, clearly, but certainly it's going to impact the House budget. Are you confident that you have the funds you need to put in place the procedures that are required?

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Yes, the board approved additional funding for security on the Hill at one of its recent meetings. I suspect there may be some supplemental estimates coming forward on that, but we have every confidence, yes, that we're able to meet the situation we're facing.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Yvon Godin has the floor. He will be followed by Mr. Michel Guimond.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon Mr. Speaker.

I would like to know first of all what has been done to better inform people. It is important, in a situation such as the one we are presently experiencing, that the employees of Parliament Hill and the unions that represent them be well informed. They are certainly very interested in knowing where we are at. I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to communicate with the people responsible so that they can speak to their members. Otherwise, they will undertake their own initiatives and it will be chaos.

I remember how it was when I worked for a union. The unions' automatic reaction is to say that they know what to do if they have not been told anything. The time has come to truly involve the unions, organizations and associations. I would like to hear your opinion on this, to know if there have been any discussions or not and what you intend to do in the future.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that the Clerk of the House, who sometimes has discussions with the unions, can answer that question in detail.

Mr. William Corbett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Chairman. There is a Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committee. When it is a matter of occupational health and safety, we are talking about accidents at work, and that is what we normally deal with. Yesterday's situation was something else entirely. The matter concerned security issues for Parliament Hill in particular. I believe we should inform all our employees, unionized or not. We intend to do so when a debriefing session on yesterday's events is over. One of the difficulties we faced yesterday was that the information did not quite jive with the facts. I would like to tell our employees, when we have the precise information, what really happened yesterday, and tell them what measures were taken to deal with the situation.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't quite agree with you, because for a while people were wondering what was going on. I don't think there's a problem meeting with people to update them and to let them know that more information is pending. We have to keep them informed on an ongoing basis, otherwise people will feel lost and confused.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Despite the communication means we have at our disposal today, it is impossible to reach everyone immediately. Yesterday, there were many employees who were trying to solve problems and it wasn't always easy to figure out who was doing what. Of course, the sergeant-at-arms always tries to keep me informed, but naturally there is a lag between the moment he learns of something and the moment he informs me of it. It's hard to reach everyone. But now, 24 hours later, we know much more about the situation and I feel the information quickly reached everyone on the Hill.

• 1145

Mr. Yvon Godin: Let me give you an example. In the United States, as soon as it happened, a memo was sent out warning people not to open the mail until it was safe to do so. They didn't wait for something to happen. Action was taken immediately.

I think there is something else which is important. When dealing with security matters, I agree that we must be careful before we make certain decisions. However, nothing prevents us from finding a way of opening parcels and letters. It's not enough to reach people by e-mail, but you also have to meet with employees and tell them what to do. We should get experts to talk with our employees.

Then there is also the matter of riding offices. People working in riding offices are becoming increasingly worried. They haven't really been told what to do, but they are nevertheless under the same type of pressure. The riding offices are located across the country and may be targeted. I would like to know what measures have been taken in that regard.

If possible, I would like to ask other important questions later on, but I would like the issue of riding offices to be addressed, because those employees want to know what safety precautions they should take. I want to know what's being done to reach those employees.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Mr. Chairman, people should read the document which was given to every employee and member of the House. I hope that the ideas contained in that document can also help riding offices deal with suspect packages or envelopes or envelopes containing unknown substances. In my view, the suggestions contained in the document are relevant for both the Hill office and riding office of each member.

The Chair: Mr. Guimond, followed by Carolyn Parrish.

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

Mr. Speaker of the House, Mr. Clerk, Mr. Sergeant-at-Arms, it's always a pleasure to welcome you to our committee to respond to our questions, since this is one of the rare opportunities we may ask questions of the Speaker of the House and receive answers. During Question Period, the Speaker indicates who should answer a question, but in committee, he answers to us. Therefore, we will take advantage of the situation.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: It's also a pleasure for me to do so.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I share the concerns of Mr. Hill and Mr. Jordan regarding security. I don't think I need to elaborate. In any case, the efficiency of any security measure is directly proportional to its degree of invisibility. If the public knows what measures are in place, it is easy to circumvent them. So, I trust you on that. I would like to hope things will work out in the future.

I have another concern, Speaker Milliken. You'll see that my thoughts flow logically. When you came before the committee in April or May, I believe it was May—I asked you a question about Spanish language courses for members of Parliament. I had told you that Quebec City had hosted the Summit of the Americas and that the joint interparliamentary committee had authorized the creation of a new official parliamentary association, namely the “Interparliamentary Forum of the Americas”. I had talked about NAFTA and our relationship with Mexico and Latin America. In short, I did not have to present many arguments to convince you of the merit of my proposal.

We currently have ministers who are studying Spanish. They don't do so on a full-time basis because they are too busy with their government work, but I had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Pettigrew and Mr. Kilgour. Mr. Milliken, I would ask you to hear me out once more so I can win this battle. At the time, you suggested I address my request to the Board of Internal Economy, which is what we did. The board replied that members of Parliament could use their riding budget to hire someone to teach them; in other words, to pay them out of that budget.

• 1150

But my question had more to do with the official languages school we have here and which offers language classes in either official language. I realize that Spanish is not one of Canada's official languages, but the issue has taken on new meaning in light of our new relationship with the Americas.

I feel it makes sense to reopen the case for providing Spanish lessons to members of Parliament, and perhaps even to their employees, and that these not be paid out of the riding office budgets, which are already squeezed by other demands.

Therefore, Speaker Milliken, I would like to know whether there is another way for us to plead our case and whether the Board of Internal Economy is the only authority we can turn to.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Guimond has laid out his case very well. The Board of Internal Economy has studied this matter. However, I must say that it happened before Mr. Brien was appointed to the Board. Perhaps he can get the Board to reverse its position by pleading such an eloquent case, but I don't know if you would succeed.

As it now stands, it is the Board's decision. I have been its chair up until now, but I do not have the power to reverse its decision. Under that decision, you may pay for Spanish lessons out of your member's budget. For now, the House is not providing Spanish lessons. That was the Board's decision.

I must say that when I was in Mexico last week, the fact that I don't know Spanish was a real handicap. I don't speak Spanish. I know a bit of Latin, but that's not the same thing. I had a hard time, which is reflected in the situation you so aptly described.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Secondly, and again you will see that my thoughts flow logically, I would like to bring up the issue of asbestos, which I had spoken to in the House of Commons, again. I had already brought this matter to your attention, as it was contained on page 33 of the French version of the Performance Report.

I said—and let me repeat that Quebec is the world's biggest producer of chrysotile asbestos—that the asbestos being currently produced is being used safely in the construction and manufacturing of automobile parts. It won't be long before asbestos composites are used in road construction; this has already been tried on certain highways in Quebec. And don't forget that the asbestos we used comes from another generation of asbestos, that of the 1950s in particular.

So, for the benefit of the committee, I would like to receive a copy of the study about the Wellington Building which was done by an independent organization. Would that be possible? When you say, on page 32: “Communication with staff was provided at regular intervals...”, are you referring to employees working in the Wellington Building or only to personnel which has received special training, such as maintenance or security personnel? Or are you referring to anyone working in the Wellington Building?

We receive scary memos which say that the Wellington building will be stripped of asbestos—

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Mr. Chairman, we can provide the committee with a copy of that report.

The Chair: Yes, that might be very interesting.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: It would not cause any administrative hassles.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Carolyn Parrish, followed by Pierre Brien and Marlene Catterall.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I have nothing but accolades today, actually, and one little question.

You referred in your report to the Justice Building move. I am one of the denizens of the Justice Building. They have placed me on the eighth floor and it's a piece of heaven. It's very, very nice. The move was extremely efficient. The security in that building is fabulous. The furniture is wonderful. When you have guests there, it doesn't feel as though they've come to a garage sale, unlike at my old digs.

• 1155

An hon. member: I resemble that remark.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Well, I'm sorry; you should have moved. I grabbed the opportunity when it was offered to me. And it's probably good for my waistline, because it's a little bit farther to walk.

On a more serious note, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly took place over Thanksgiving weekend. A lot of the security was done off-site at the Westin. A lot of it was Senate security, obviously RCMP, Ottawa Police, and House of Commons security. People were giving up a weekend. They were courteous. They were pleasant. They were helpful.

What's really important is that all the delegations came. They were full delegations because they had absolute confidence in Canada. We had that from many sources. They said, no, we had no idea of cancelling because we knew you guys would do a good job. One cancellation that did occur had nothing to do with the tragedy on September 11.

So I just want to thank you very much. It was smoothly run. It was fabulous. It was one of the best events we've had in any country. Given the circumstances, the staff should be praised to the skies—anything short of a raise.

The last comment I wanted to make was with regard to costs, which was already brought up by one of my colleagues. I would hope this committee realizes, when we do get the supplementary estimates, that there will be no questions asked. You guys are under an amazing strain. Everybody wants other parts of your budget not touched, and you cannot do this type of security without a strain on your budget. I'm just hoping that we all will support it when it comes forward.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Carolyn.

It's Pierre Brien, then Marlene Catterall, then a short second round.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): I have a brief question on financial costs.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I realize you very ably put the pressure on me to move the issue of Spanish courses forward, but we will have the opportunity to discuss this at the Board.

Since the beginning of the session, after only three weeks, sitting hours have already been extended several times. Does this affect costs, and if so, will you have to ask for additional resources?

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: If it goes on for the next several months, we may have to make such a request. Costs obviously go up when we sit at night. I don't have any details for you at the moment, but Mr. Corbett may have something to add, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. William Corbett: Thank you, Co-Chairs.

Under most of our collective agreements, we can manage overtime and compensate employees by giving them time off when the House is not sitting, when it is not busy. Up until now, the additional costs generated by extended hours have not really affected House personnel costs. But if we keep it up, if we kept on sitting two or three times a week until 2 a.m., certain services may generate additional costs.

Mr. Pierre Brien: As for computers, last year I was consulted by people who were in charge of assessing the needs of members and so on. Are computer services in committee rooms, for instance, or even within the House, part of the building renovation master plan, or will something be developed in the short term to improve services to members, including services in committee rooms or in the House?

Mr. William Corbett: Mr. Chairman, consultations have been held on long-term planning, especially as regards the building where parliamentary committees will be held. It was approved and will be built at the corner of Bank and Wellington.

• 1200

Mr. Pierre Brien: But in the meantime, will there be any changes made to existing meeting rooms?

Mr. William Corbett: We study the situation on a regular basis, but up til now we have not planned on renovating existing meeting rooms or making them bigger.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I think I already mentioned the last point I want to raise, but I'll raise it again in case I didn't. Safety precautions have increased and that's good. But there were some problems yesterday, because nobody spoke French.

I know that this did not happen in the parliamentary precinct. Rather, it was in the access zones, including at the bottom of the hill in front of the West Block. There was no RCMP officer who could speak French. That happened yesterday. I don't know what the situation is today, but I received complaints to that effect yesterday.

The Chair: Mr. Cloutier.

Mr. Gus Cloutier (Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons): That is a very good point. I will get in touch with the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Now it's Cheryl Gallant, Jay Hill, and Yvon Godin for the second round.

Oh, excuse me; Marlene, I do apologize.

What I just said follows Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm interested that the House is undertaking an environmental management system review. Greening the House has been in place for something like ll years now. This is a performance report, so I think we're all looking for what are the results we're achieving by our various initiatives.

In those ll years, virtually all we've seen, I think, have been reports on recycling, which is a very impressive accomplishment. There were a couple of slippages this year, which I'm sure the House is looking at and trying to make some recoup on. But I'm wondering what we might expect in the next year in terms of other indicators—for example, use of energy, use of water, use of chemical products, and just a range of environmental indicators other than recycling.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Well, my bet is that much of it is going to await reconstruction of parts of the buildings. I'm sure that in the course of the reconstruction we'll be looking for savings in all of those areas.

The difficulty we face in making major changes—in water use, for example, in this building—is aged equipment, both in the pipes themselves, I suspect, and the taps and so on. If the building is going to be redone, as it were, within ten years, as we're hoping, it hardly seems worthwhile to spend a lot of money upgrading individual pieces of that infrastructure.

I'm sure that in working on those issues, Mr. Chairman, the House administration is cognizant of the fact that this building, the West Block, and then of course the new committee building will all be done over a period of years; we hope about ten, but these have been optimistic forecasts in the past. If that happens, we expect to achieve some considerable saving, I'm sure.

We hope the library will be under way quite soon. It hasn't happened yet, but sooner or later that will happen. We hope, again, that will result in some savings.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Then can I ask what results we do expect out of the environmental management system review? What do we expect it to accomplish for us in improving our environmental performance?

Mr. William Corbett: Through you, Mr. Chairman, in essence, following up on the whole pattern created by Greening the Hill, where we addressed some specific issues both within the House and with pressure on the National Capital Commission, who were maintaining the grounds as well, in terms of recycling and the non-use of paper and plastic, etc., to take this to another level we decided to conduct our management of the House Commons administration by a series of principles laid down by the International Standards Organization. They are called ISO 14001.

• 1205

This is a whole set of criteria that go right to the core of how you manage the institution, where every management decision you take contains a component that is the environment and that is taken into the decision-making process rather than managing and doing a little recycling on the side.

In essence, what we are trying to do is bring ourselves up in our decision-making process to a level where we could meet the ISO 14001 standard set down by the International Standards Organization.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I would hope that by next year's performance report we might actually have some good indicators of exactly what progress has been made.

For instance, I would appreciate knowing, when we see how much we have diverted from landfill.... That's a very important accomplishment in itself, but that also brings with it a cost saving in dumpage fees that we don't pay. So I wonder if we might have that reported as well. It's not only a nice thing to do, but it's also saving us money.

Just as a final point, one of the ideas behind Greening the Hill was leadership by example. I'm wondering what we are doing to inform the nearly million Canadians who visit the Hill about our efforts in terms of the environment. That's one excellent public education tool we have in order to let people know that their country's parliament is also taking it seriously.

Mr. William Corbett: A component of our website, the House website, is devoted to Greening the Hill. It is accessible, and the public can be kept up to date on what we're doing.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But there's nothing specifically for visitors to the Hill who might be interested?

Mr. William Corbett: No. We had brochures a number of years ago, but I don't think we have them now.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Perhaps you might have a look at that again.

Mr. William Corbett: We will.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you.

The Chair: Cheryl, then Jay, then Yvon.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Reference had been made to the delay in the renovations to the library. Would you please explain the delay in the project and what's behind that delay?

The Chair: General Cloutier.

MGen Gus Cloutier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Originally the renovations to the library were scheduled to start in September, and then December. They went to tender. The tenders were opened and the costs were about 45% over the expected costs. Now they're back to looking at requirements, and then I would suspect a resubmission, which will bring about a delay of three to four months.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Does that mean you'll be expanding the projected budget or that you'll be cutting the project?

MGen Gus Cloutier: I don't know yet. I'm not privy to the request for proposals. The House itself is not involved in this project. It will be rather interesting to see what approach the chief librarian will take in reviewing his requirements, because obviously his requirements must have been analysed and studied, and now they're being costed.

I don't know why the tenders came in so high. At the moment, I'm sure it's being reviewed by the public works department.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Jay.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just in case there was any confusion from my earlier comments, I want to reiterate that I'm certainly supportive—I think all members I've talked to, and all staff members, are supportive—of the increased vigilance that's taking place on the Hill. I didn't want any comments I made to be construed otherwise. During these times we're facing I know it's difficult to obtain that balance between the access that the general public has grown so accustomed to, and value so much, and the security.

I just want to ask a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. Despite what Mrs. Parrish says about the rest of the MPs having to put up with garage sale furnishings, some of the comments I've heard.... But I'll preface my remarks and question by saying that I've not yet had the opportunity to visit over at the Justice Building and see the furnishings and the layout of those offices. From what I understand, they're beautiful, but I have had some comments about the furnishings perhaps being excessively opulent—I guess the opposite view that Ms. Parrish just expressed.

• 1210

So I just wonder about the costing of that, and if you can give me some idea there. Did the renovations to that building come in on budget? Was the budget inflated at all during the process?

As Ms. Gallant just indicated with the library, I know the Justice Building renovations were delayed for a period of time. My understanding is that they were overbudget at one point. How was it arrived at to spend that amount of money? Is there a standard that's being imposed? If so, how much longer will the remainder of us have to put up with garage sale furnishings before all the rest of us are brought up to the same standard that we now have at the Justice Building?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

MGen Gus Cloutier: On the last question, yes, there is a standard that's been established, and it will be implemented throughout the Hill. I guess the next building will be the committee building and then the West Block, in that sequence.

As to the funding, yes, the public works department has assured me that they've come in on target. They're not overbudget on that one. In fact, I think they came in under it with the Justice Building. As you know, we had problems at one stage with the building's sound system. It required us to bring down and redo about 47 walls, to make sure they were secure. Sound security was imposed there. So there was extra cost involved there, but they managed to include it in the overall cost of the building. As of now, I've been given the understanding that they are on budget.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.

The Chair: Yvon Godin, then Carolyn Parrish, and then I'm going to cut if off. We have two or three minutes of business after our guests have left.

Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I could never overstate what fine offices we have for members of Parliament in the Justice Building. Hopefully, everyone will eventually have offices like these, because the employees who work there are really satisfied.

However, there is still one problem: the light outside this building. There is not enough light. I have told you about this personally, and there has not been any change. When people leave the building late in the evening on the Kent Street side, that area is really quite dark. You were supposed to check into that and give us—

Mr. Gus Cloutier: I drew that to the attention of Public Works, Mr. Chairman, and I will continue to mention it. There are also problems on the northwest side of the building.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Exactly.

The other point I would like to come back to quickly, and which I consider important, has to do with riding offices. Employees who work in the Justice Building have what is known as an emergency button. I do not think other offices have them, even those located here in the Parliament buildings. We always hear about security in Parliament, and we spend a great deal of money on this, which is valid, but is there any intention of installing a button of this type for employees who work in riding offices? There is a demand there as well.

Mr. Gus Cloutier: At the moment, we have no plans to do that. Our recommendation is that when there is a problem in a member's office, the employee should simply call the municipal or provincial police immediately. They will deal with your needs.

Mr. Yvon Godin: If you have someone in your office harassing you, it is rather difficult to call the police. That is why the emergency button is such a good idea. The person presses the button and waits, hoping that the person opposite does not have—

Mr. Gus Cloutier: We could arrange something, see what could be done.

Mr. Michel Thivierge (Director, Security Services, House of Commons): Here, we are much better equipped, because we are within our own jurisdiction. However, in the regions, the local police forces have—

Mr. Yvon Godin: What I would like to have is an easy way to get in touch with the police. If an employee pushes the button, an alarm is sounded automatically at the police station, and someone comes.

Mr. Michel Thivierge: The technology to do this exists. It is not very complicated.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I am wondering if you could check whether this is feasible.

Mr. Gus Cloutier: It could paid for out of your budget.

Mr. Yvon Godin: We know that. Everything could be paid for out of our budget, but we do have a limited budget. If I did not want to raise this issue with you, I would not have done so.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Then you must discuss it with your colleague, Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Don't worry, I will do that.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Perhaps you could persuade the Board of Internal Economy to increase your budget.

• 1215

[English]

The Chair: Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chair, I'd just like to correct a false impression; lest I created an impression of opulence and Arabian Nights over in the Justice Building, the furniture is in fact pretty solid. What makes it so attractive is that the woodwork and trim in the building and the office furniture are all stained the same colour. It's not particularly lavish furniture; it's just extremely well built. You can't move a desk over there without a lot of help. There's less individual style expressed, so there's a consistency there.

So it's not by any means lavish, and I don't want to leave that impression at all. It's tasteful.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Mr. Chairman, I can only recommend that you all go on a tour, as I did recently. I visited Monsieur Bergeron in his office and Madam Whelan in hers, and I found both them and their staff members quite pleased with what they have.

An hon. member: Favourites, favourites.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: No, no, it was just a question of who I found at home.

The Chair: Colleagues, on your behalf I'd like to thank the Speaker, General Cloutier, Mr. Corbett, and all their colleagues for being with us today. This was a very useful session.

We thank you, by the way, Mr. Speaker, for responding so promptly to our invitation.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to coming back at your convenience.

The Chair: Good. Thank you.

Colleagues, very briefly, on Thursday we meet to consider the question of privilege. The thought at the moment is that we will invite the minister and John Reynolds, who raised it in the House of Commons.

We will then proceed next week to at least two meetings on votable private members' items. We will see what the Chief Electoral Officer says in terms of moving him backwards. That's what we're going to do.

If there is any complication with respect to Thursday—the minister's time, say, or John Reynold's time—we will revert to the original plan, which is to deal with private members' items becoming votable.

Also on Thursday we will deal with the report of our own subcommittee on private members, including Bill S-7. You have already received the notes our researcher prepared on the votable items matter.

Before we leave, I've been asked if Jamie could give us some very short indication of the powers the committee has in cases like this.

Joe Jordan, did you want to say something first?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes, because I was the one who made the request. I thought maybe a briefing note would work. This is the second issue we've dealt with. In the first instance it was a very clear breach. Everyone involved admitted it, and I think we rectified it.

In the interests of time, certainly Mr. Reynolds is a member of the committee. We extend an invitation to him as a courtesy, but the breach is clear. I don't think we need to spend a lot of time on that.

Maybe when we invite the minister we should specify what we're.... You know, she'll know why she's coming, but if she says she has no idea how this happened, then we're into, as Ms. Gallant says, perhaps a pseudo-criminal type of thing.

So I think we need a briefing note on what the powers and resources of the committee are, because I think very quickly we're going to be into that discussion. Could the clerk prepare that?

The Chair: Jamie, do you want to comment on that?

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): I think the appropriate thing would be to prepare a briefing note, hopefully for Thursday, on that matter.

The Chair: Okay.

Just so you know, colleagues, the chair in general—before I was elected—did receive a letter from Don Boudria saying that he had updated the Guide to Making Federal Acts and Regulations, a document that covers the release of such legislation. There have actually been changes to it. Despite that, this breach has occurred. So that's another wrinkle in this thing.

You also should know that the Fourteenth Report of this committee....

Again, Jamie, do you want to describe that?

Mr. James Robertson: The Fourteenth Report dealt with the question raised by Mr. Toews regarding the premature release of information on Bill C-15. The clerk will circulate copies of that to all members' offices, just for your records, as well as the letter from Mr. Boudria.

Basically, that letter held that there was a breach of the privileges of Parliament but that in the circumstances, in light of the minister's apology, the committee was not proposing any sanctions at that time.

• 1220

The Chair: So you're going to receive a short note, you're going to receive a copy of the most relevant of our recent reports, and you're going to receive a copy of this correspondence between Don Boudria and the committee on this matter.

We resume Thursday, as indicated, at 11 o'clock.

The meeting is adjourned.